State of Michigan (SOM) 2015 1.0 raster digital data Michigan State of Michigan http://www.michigan.gov This metadata record describes all LiDAR derived products for the 2015 Michigan LiDAR project covering approximately 842 square miles, in which its extents cover Allegan County. FEMA Specification QL2 meeting 18.13cm FVA Leica ALS70 4 0.65 1.67 2.2 0.71 2250 135 32 64 167 10 3 1064 1 0.3 1222 30 NAD_1983_2011_State_Plane_Michigan_South_2113_Ft_Intl NGS Geoid12a 1.0 0.161 0.131 0.192 Urban 0.159 LowVeg 0.215 MedVeg 0.192 HighVeg 0.196 1.2 1 Withheld (ignore) points were identified in these files using class 10. Swath "overage" points were identified in these files by classifying to class 11. 10 1 Unclassified 2 Bare-earth 7 All noise 9 Water 10 Ignored Ground (Breakline Proximity) 11 Withheld (overlap) To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments, and hydrologic modeling. LAS and bare earth DEM data products are suitable for 1 foot contour generation. USGS LiDAR Base Specification 1.0, QL2. 18.13 cm FVA. Project Projection, Datums and Units. Projection - State Plane Michigan South. Horizontal datum - North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83 (2011)). Vertical datum - North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88) using the latest geoid (Geoid12a) for converting ellipsoidal heights to orthometric heights. Units - intl feet en 2014121020141223 ground condition Complete Unknown -86.272384 -85.543668 42.765409 42.417596 770000 805000 4220000 4141400 MI LiDAR mapping point cloud Ground points Unclassified points Water points Overlap points ALS70 Intensity return LAS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Digital Surface Model (DSM) IMG Grid Bare Earth First Return Contour MI Michigan Allegan United States none 2015 This data may be used by the requested party for stated purposes and should not be re-distributed. This data is for planning purposes only and should not be used for legal or cadastral purposes. Any conclusions drawn from analysis of this information are not the responsibility of Sanborn Map Company. Users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this dataset was collected and some parts of this dataset may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use these data for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. Contact: State of Michigan Everett Root State of Michigan Manager, Geodata Services Section mailing address

111 S. Capitol Ave

Lansing MI 48933 U.S.A.

10th Floor Romney

517-335-7180 roote@michigan.gov 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Microsoft Windows 7; ESRI ArcCatalog 9.3.1.1850 unknownUnclassifiedunknownDEM, LAS, GDB, TIF Allegan County (Area 5): The LiDAR surface was evaluated using a collection of 31 GPS surveyed checkpoints for the FVA report. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding a better result than was required for the project. Allegan County FVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz 0.079 Minimum dz -0.409 Maximum dz 0.728 Average magnitude 0.204 Root mean square 0.270 Std deviation 0.263 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The FVA, SVA, and CVA reports are generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. The DEM surface was evaluated using a collection of 38 GPS surveyed checkpoints for the FVA report. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County FVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz -0.015 Minimum dz -0.443 Maximum dz 0.564 Average magnitude 0.165 Root mean square 0.219 Std deviation 0.221 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The SVA report is generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. This report includes the SVA classes of Urban. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 36 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County SVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz -0.026 Minimum dz -0.682 Maximum dz 0.654 Average magnitude 0.203 Root mean square 0.264 Std deviation 0.266 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The SVA report is generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. This report includes the SVA classes of Low Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 17 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County SVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz 0.159 Minimum dz -0.385 Maximum dz 0.926 Average magnitude 0.278 Root mean square 0.354 Std deviation 0.326 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The SVA report is generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. This report includes the SVA classes of Medium Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 27 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County SVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz 0.165 Minimum dz -0.633 Maximum dz 0.674 Average magnitude 0.321 Root mean square 0.381 Std deviation 0.350 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The SVA report is generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. This report includes the SVA classes of High Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 37 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County SVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz 0.068 Minimum dz -0.479 Maximum dz 0.825 Average magnitude 0.246 Root mean square 0.323 Std deviation 0.320 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attribute accuracy is tested after the LiDAR processing stage. After classification of the LiDAR data, DEMs are created using the bare earth points. The CVA report is generated from the comparison of the DEM and the ground control collected within the project area. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 155 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to all checkpoint classes yielding much better result than was required for the project. Allegan County CVA Control Accuracy Report (feet) --------- Report Disclaimer --------- This report does not guarantee accuracy. The report only reflects one statistical representation of the control points, LIDAR data and surface used. This report does not replace a through quality control process. --------- Report Summary --------- Average dz 0.053 Minimum dz -0.682 Maximum dz 0.926 Average magnitude 0.233 Root mean square 0.303 Std deviation 0.299 LiDAR data is collected within the project area and processed. After all of the deliverables were created, the dataset was verified against control. Control was collected in 5 areas. Area 5 includes Allegan, Berrien, and Van Buren. Accuracy results are reported for Area 5. LiDAR data is collected for the project area. Post processing of the simultaneously acquired GPS/INS is performed and applied to the laser returns to output a point cloud in the specified project coordinate system and datums. The point cloud data is then subjected to automated classification routines to assign all points in the point cloud to ground, water, overlap and unclassified point classes. Anomalous laser returns that occur infrequently are removed entirely from the data set. Once clean bare earth points are established, all products are created.. The products are then compared to the survey checkpoints. These accuracies must pass the Fundamental Vertical Accuracy, Supplemental Vertical Accuracy, and Consolidated Vertical Accuracy specifications. Horizontal positional accuracy for Allegan LiDAR is dependent upon the quality of the GPS/INS solution, sensor calibration and ground conditions at the time of data capture. The standard system results for horizontal accuracy meet or exceed the project specified 1.0 meter RMSE. 1.0 Allegan County, this value is computed by comparing ground control to a DEM derived from the classified LiDAR data and represents the RMSE of residuals on controls within the project area. For the DEM data derived from the classified point cloud, the FVA, SVA, and CVA were computed. The vertical accuracy was tested with independent survey check points located in various terrain types within Allegan County. These check points were not used in the calibration or post processing of the lidar point cloud data. The survey check points were distributed throughout the block area. Specifications for this project require that the FVA be 9.25 cm (18.13 cm or better @ 95 percent confidence level). 0.067m RMSE, or 0.131m FVA @ 95 percent Confidence Interval The FVA was tested using 38 independent survey check points located in flat terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 38 independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.067 m. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 9.25 cm Fundamental Vertical Accuracy at 95 Percent confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines. 0.092m RMSE, or 0.192m CVA @ 95th Percentile using all FVA and SVA class checkpoints (CVA)The CVA was tested using 155 independent survey check points located in various terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 155 independent check points contained all FVA and SVA class points and were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.092m, or 0.192m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.080m RMSE, or 0.159m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA for the Urban class was tested using 36 independent survey check points located in urban terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 36 independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.080m, or 0.159m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.108m RMSE, or 0.215m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA for the Low Veg class was tested using 17 independent survey check points located in low vegetation terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 17 independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.108m, or 0.215m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.116m RMSE, or 0.192m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA for the Medium Veg class was tested using 27 independent survey check points located in medium vegetation terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 27 independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.116m, or 0.192m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.098m RMSE, or 0.196m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA for the High Veg class was tested using 37 independent survey check points located in high vegetation terrain types within Area 5. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 37 independent check points were surveyed using static GPS base stations collecting point location for 20 minute intervals. Elevations were measured for the x,y,z location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the DEM surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control. The RMSE was computed to be 0.098m, or 0.196m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines. Sanborn Map Company Inc. Unpublished Material 1.0 Remote sensing image None None disc 2015 ground condition LIDAR and GPS_RAW Aerial LiDAR and GPS/IMU data are recorded for the defined project area at an altitude, flight speed, scanner swath width and scanner pulse frequency to achieve the design goals of the project. Sanborn Map Company Inc. 2010 1.0 tabular digital data None None disc 2015 Ground condition CONT Targeted ground control is used to create a digital control file and control report as well as QC check of LiDAR accuracy. Predefined points (NGS when available) within the project area are targeted. Sanborn Map Company Inc. Unpublished material 1.0 Tabular digital data 1200 disk 2015 Ground condition GPS Post processed GPS/INS is applied to the lidar point data to georeference each point in the project coordinate system Sanborn Map Company Inc. Unpublished material 1.0 Point digital data 1200 Disk 2015 ground condition LAS The post processed lidar data has been projected and oriented in the specified coordinate system as an un-classified point cloud. Sanborn Map Company Inc. Unpublished material 1.0 Point digital data 1200 disk 2015 ground condition LAS The classified lidar point cloud is used to derive various data products such as, but not limited to, bare earth gridded DEM, triangulated irregular networks (TIN), contours, digital surface models (DSM). The output format is fully compliant LAS v1.2 or v1.3, Point Record Format 1 State of Michigan Unpublished Material 1.0 raster digital data 1200 disk 2015 ground condition TLDEF The tile definition defines discreet non-overlapping rectangular areas used as cut lines to break up the large classified lidar dataset into smaller, more manageable data tiles. Each tile is 2500ft by 2500ft in dimension. At selected locations throughout the site, accurate GPS coordinates and elevations are surveyed and the points are marked with targets. None 2015 CONT New LiDAR data is captured for the project area using a Leica ALS80 w/MPiA LiDAR instrument an integrated IPAS20 GPS/INS system mounted within a Aero Commander twin engine airplane. None 2015 LIDAR, GPS_RAW The airborne GPS data is post-processed in Intertial Explorer software and LEICA CloudPro software to determine the LiDAR sensor's angle and orientation in the terrain (project) coordinate system and datums during the survey. GPS_RAW 2015 GPS_SOL The post processed GPS/INS solution is applied to the raw lidar data to orient and project the data points into the project area reference system as an unclassified point cloud. LIDAR, GPS_SOL 2015 LAS The georeferenced lidar data is then classified and edited in Terrasolid Terrascan software. Data is classified to produce: Class 1: unclassified, Class 2: ground, Class 7: low point, Class 9: water, Class 10: ignored ground, Class 11: withheld. CONT, GPS_SOL, LIDAR 2015 LAS The bare earth points of the processed lidar data are then output to a DEM tile format. The DEM is compared to the ground control and elevation differences between the surface and surveyed elevation are recorded in tabular form. Vertical accuracy statistics are then developed to produce vertical RMSE and overall accuracy estimates and reports. CONT, LIDAR 2015 None Point North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137.000000 298.257222101004 GCS_North_American_1983NAD_1983_2011_State_Plane_MIchigan_South_FIPS_2113Lambert Conformal Conic42.143.6666666666667-84.366666666666741.513123359.58005250coordinate pair0.010.01international feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988(GEOID12a) 0.1 feet Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates Everett Root State of Michigan Manager, Geodata Services Section mailing address

111 S. Capitol Ave

Lansing MI 48933 U.S.A.

10th Floor Romney

517-335-7180 roote@michigan.gov 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Michigan 2015 LiDAR project The State of Michigan Geographic Information Systems digital data have been tested and their documentation carefully reviewed. However, the State of Michigan and its representatives make no warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, with respect to the digital data and their documentation, their quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose. The digital data are distributed on "as is" basis, and the user assumes all risk to their quality, the results obtained from their use, and the performance of the data. In no event will the State of Michigan or its representatives be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages resulting from and defect in the State of Michigan or in their documentation. This disclaimer of warranty is exclusive and in lieu of all others, oral or written, express or implied. No agent or employee is authorized to make any modification, extension, or addition to this warranty. LAS 1.220002000 http://www.michigan.gov unknown 5 - 1/2 inch hard driveLAS unknown State of Michigan unknown 2015 2015 Kris Andersen Sanborn Map Co Project Manager mailing address

1935 Jamboree Dr

Colorado Springs CO 80920 U.S.A. 719.264.5490 kandersen@sanborn.com 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM FGDC CSDGM FGDC-STD-001-1998 2012033008500700TRUE2016030115021200{8DE3DE1B-30AB-48D1-9B5B-D8574399589A}Local Area NetworkFEMA Specification Version QL2 meeting 9.25cm FVABare Earth DEM Classified LAS Raw point cloud LAS Breakline GDB Intensity ImagesBare Earth DEM: Classes- 2 - Bare-Earth Ground Classified LAS: Classes: 1 - Unclassified (Processed) 2 - Bare-Earth Ground 7 - Noise (Low or High Points) 9 - Water 10 - Ignored Ground 11 - Withheld Raw Point Cloud LAS: Classes- 0 - not processed Breaklines: Geodatabase Intensity Images: TIF format20160301