Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction II (STARR II) 20180331 Version 2.3.3.5 FEMA-DCS-Terrain Washington, DC Federal Emergency Management Agency Metadata_File_Name: 260051_Terrain_metadata.xml http://hazards.fema.gov Federal Emergency Management Agency Unknown Terrain data, as defined in FEMA's Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping, describe the digital topographic data that were used to create the elevation data representing the terrain environment of a watershed and/or floodplain. Terrain data requirements allow for flexibility in the types of information used to produce final terrain deliverables. Submission of the terrain data sources allows FEMA to account for the origins of the flood study elevation data. (Source: FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping) Terrain data are used to represent the topography of a watershed and/or floodplain environment and to extract useful information for hydraulic and hydrologic models. (Source: FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping.) 20180331 MIP Submission Date In work Unknown -85.304583 -84.704682 42.426905 42.063426 ISO 19115 Topic Category elevation FEMA NFIP Topic Category Land Surface Relief Topography Digital Terrain Model Elevation Data Slope LIDAR Breaklines Contours DEM Bare Earth DTM Hydro flattened LiDAR Photogrammetry LiDARgrammetry Digital Elevation Model None REGION 5 STATE MI COUNTY CALHOUN COUNTY-FIPS 26025 COMMUNITY CALHOUN COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS FEMA-CID 26025C COMMUNITY CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF BEDFORD FEMA-CID 260052 COMMUNITY CITY OF ALBION FEMA-CID 260050 COMMUNITY CITY OF MARSHALL FEMA-CID 260053 COMMUNITY CITY OF SPRINGFIELD FEMA-CID 260054 COMMUNITY MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHEWISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIAN FEMA-CID 261532 COMMUNITY NOTTAWASEPPI HURAN BAND OF THE POTTAWATOMI TRIBE FEMA-CID 261529 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF ALBION FEMA-CID 260639 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF ATHENS FEMA-CID 2610563 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF BURLINGTON FEMA-CID 260651 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF CLARENCE FEMA-CID 260560 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF CLARENDON FEMA-CID 261057 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF CONVIS FEMA-CID 260562 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF ECKFORD FEMA-CID 260653 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF EMMETT FEMA-CID 260561 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF FREDONIA FEMA-CID 260562 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF HOMER FEMA-CID 260564 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF LEE FEMA-CID 260668 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF LEROY FEMA-CID 260655 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF MARENGO FEMA-CID 260563 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF MARSHALL FEMA-CID 260642 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF NEWTON FEMA-CID 260647 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF PENNFIELD FEMA-CID 260564 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF SHERIDAN FEMA-CID 260649 COMMUNITY TOWNSHIP OF TEKONSHA FEMA-CID 260709 COMMUNITY VILLAGE OF ATHENS FEMA-CID 260558 COMMUNITY VILLAGE OF BURLINGTON FEMA-CID 260559 COMMUNITY VILLAGE OF HOMER FEMA-CID 260331 COMMUNITY VILLAGE OF TEKONSHA FEMA-CID 260565 COMMUNITY CITY OF BATTLE CREEK FEMA-CID 260051 HYDROLOGIC UNIT 04050001 HYDROLOGIC UNIT 04050003 HYDROLOGIC UNIT 04050004 None Acknowledgment of FEMA would be appreciated in products derived from these data. This digital data is produced for the purposes of updating/creating a FIRM database. Diane Rogers Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction II(STARR II) Senior Project Manager mailing and physical

6110 Frost Place

Laurel Maryland 20707 USA (301)982-2800 diane.rogers@stantec.com 8:00AM to 5:00PM EST Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction II(STARR II) Original data development environment may vary. Finishing of the data is done using Esri ArcGIS Desktop version 10.4.1 All ASPRS LAS Files are version 1.4 point data format 6 with the following classifications: Class 1 = Processed but Unclassified Class 2 = Bare Earth Class 7 = Low Noise Class 9 = Water Class 10 = Ignored Ground (Near a Breakline) Class 17 = Bridge Decks Class 18 = High Noise withheld and overage flags are used correctly The LAS header information was verified for ASPRS LAS version 1.4 requirements and contain the following: Adjusted GPS Time Multiple Discreet Returns with Point Families Intensity Values (16-bit) Coordinate Reference System in Well Known Text format The LiDAR Swath Data Meets the USGS Quality Level 2 requirements for Aggregated Nominal Point Spacing and Density QL2 Requirements: ANPS: 0.71 meters ANPD: 2 pulses per square meter LiDAR Collection Results: ANPS: 0.59 meters ANPD: 2.93 pulses per square meter Checks were performed to ensure the data files can be opened, are georeferenced properly, and cover the geographic area completely. Additionally, field survey checkpoints are obtained to evaluate the accuracy of LiDAR products. A minimum of 100 checkpoints are tested in a project area. At least 20 for 5 different land vegetation categories (forest, built-up, scrub, weeds/crop, and bare-earth/low grass) are tested with forested areas requiring a minimum of 40 checkpoints. A statistical analysis between the difference in elevations of the field survey checkpoints and LiDAR-derived, bare earth elevations at the same locations provides a quality assessment of the LiDAR data. The bare earth surface data is an estimation of the bare earth surface and does not include vegetative and built features. Likewise, it contains estimates of water edges at the time of data collection, and may not reflect current conditions. The bare earth surface will contain voids where insufficient energy was reflected from the surface to generate a valid return from the terrain. Voids in the bare earth surface tend to occur in heavily vegetated areas, water bodies, and beneath buildings, motor vehicles, bridges etc. Fresh or wet asphalt, wet sand and certain types of vegetation can also cause voids or anomalous elevations. The data may have been further processed to remove points found to be within delineated water bodies. Low confidence areas are delineated and provided in a separate dataset. The LiDAR data horizontal accuracy is in compliance with the National Standard for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA) RMSE estimation of elevation data in support of 2ft. contour mapping products as it is referenced in the FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping. The vertical accuracy is reported in meters AccuracyZ at the 95th percentile for vegetated vertical accuracy. Source LiDAR meets NSSDA, ASPRS, USGS, and FEMA vertical accuracy requiremments. 0.112 USGS Quality Level 2 Vertical Accuracy Requirements as published in the LiDAR Base Specifications version 1.2 Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy Swath Data: NVA RMSEz: 10.0 cm NVA at 95% Confidence Level: 19.6 cm Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy Bare Earth Surface: NVA RMSEz: 10.0 cm NVA at 95% Confidence Level: 19.6 cm Vegetated Vertical Accuracy Bare Earth Surface: VVA at 95th Percentile: 29.4 cm ASPRS Report: This data set was tested to meet ASPRS Positional Accuracy Standards for Digital Geospatial Data (2014) for a 10cm (cm) RMSEz Vertical Accuracy Class. Actual NVA Swath accuracy was found to be RMSEz = 5.1 cm, equating to +/- 10.0 cm at 95% confidence level. Actual VVA accuracy was found to be +/- 11.2 cm at the 95th percentile. Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Point Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition SURVEY1 Field Survey Ground Control Point Data Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Point Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition SURVEY2 Non-vegetated Vertical Accuracy LiDAR Checkpoints Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Point Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition SURVEY3 Vegetated Vertical Accuracy LiDAR Checkpoints Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Non-classified LAS version 1.4 Files Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO1 Non-classified LiDAR Swaths Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO2 Non-classified LiDAR Swath Index Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Classified LAS version 1.4 Files Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO3 Classified LiDAR Point Cloud Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO4 Classified LiDAR Point Cloud Tile Index Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector PolylineZ Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO5 3D Breaklines Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 ERDAS Imagine Raster Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO6 Hydro-Flattened Digital Elevation Models Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO7 Hydro-Flattened DEM Tile Index Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO8 LiDAR Collection Interagency Inventory Information Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO9 LiDAR Low Confidence Areas Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) 20180331 Vector Polygon Data Raleigh, NC Strategic Alliance for Risk Reduction (STARR II) External hard drive 20180331 ground condition TOPO10 LiDAR Collection Submittal Information Terrain data used for flood risk analysis go through LiDAR preliminary processing and the unclassified point cloud data are tested as specified in the USGS National Geospatial Program Base LiDAR Specification Version 1.0. Where the Mapping Activity Statement (MAS) requires bare earth post-processing of the floodplain area of interest (AOI), the elevation data are tested and comply with both the Fundamental Vertical Accuracy (FVA) and Consolidated Vertical Accuracy (CVA) requirements. Where no bare earth post-processing is specified, only the FVA requirements apply for LiDAR preliminary processing. 20180331 The base stations determine where LiDAR can be collected with the highest confidence of accuracy as determined by reading the same satellites in the aircraft and on the ground. Base stations typilcally are set at airports and provide coverage within 20 to 25 miles of the base if possible in order to cover in its entirety. Due to the timing constraints of weather and leaf off conditions requirement, and the high quality of the CORS network, the MIBC station located in Battle Creek and the MICW station located in Coldwater were used for this project. Both stations collect a 1 second sampling rate and are maintained by the Michigan Department of Transportation. The purpose of boresighting is to determine the offset values for the IMU used in the LiDAR sensor. To determine the boresight offset values, the LiDAR sensor has to be flown in a certain configuration over a well-controlled site. The boresighting is done both prior to the flight of the project area and after. This insures that the quality of the LiDAR was maintained throughout the process. 20161123 The aerial survey teams were deployed at the first opportunity based on availability of acceptable weather conditions. Due to snow cover and lake effect precipitation, the flight was delayed until March. ALTM-Nav Planner software was utilized to conduct the final flight planning. The sensor used was an Optech Gemini, which is owned and operated by GRW Aerial Surveys, Inc. Due to weather conditions at the collection site or acquisition logistics, 14 total lifts were completed for collection. There were 90 project flight lines, and 6 cross flights collected of which 2 (lines 68 and 77) were used for calibrating. There was also 1 line (line 76) not used in production due to excessive cloud coverage that was successfully collected for coverage in an adjacent lift. The LiDAR acquisition started on March 22, 2017 and ended on April 24, 2017. Altitude: 5500 feet Aircraft Ground Speed: 125 knots Pulse Rate: 70.0 kHz Scan Rate: 43.6 Hz Full Field of View: 16 degrees Multi-Pulse: Yes Full Swath Width: 2630 feet Swath Overlap: 50% Average Point Density: 2.0 pts/m^2 20170101 The Continental team utilized PosPac v7.1 software to process the sbet and precision files. Optech Lidar Mapping Suite v2.4.1.14540 was used for LAS creation. TerraMatch was then used to refine the calibration of the LiDAR dataset. The trajectory files and point cloud swaths are imported into GeoCue to perform project setup. This project set up phase sets the project parameters, tiling scheme, and is the platform for initial macro runs. After import, checkpoints are run against the point cloud to verify the accuracy of the data prior to classification. The detailed description of this process is below in 4.0 Accuracy Assessment. After verifying the accuracy, the processing continues. Multiple macros are run through TerraScan to flag overlap, and to classify the ground. Due to differing terrain, this step may take multiple iterations. Once the analyst has verified the results with the ground macro, the ground classification QC begins. During the QC phase, analysts are reclassifying the point cloud in areas where the macro was not able to, or were mis-classified. Multiple macros are run on the dataset after the ground classification is complete including water macros. The water macros utilize the hydro breaklines that were manually digitized. These digitized breaklines were classified as ponds and rivers. After the hydro features were digitized, the ponds were flattened. This process calculated the lowest elevation of the feature, and used that elevation to populate the remaining vertices. This process verifies that all ponds are flat. The river polygons that were digitized were ran against a monotonicity tool. This tool utilized the elevation of a centerline that had the correct elevation and pushed that elevation to the river polygon. This process not only maintains the monotonicity of the river, but also ensures that the river is flat from bank to bank. Then rigorous quality steps are performed each classification level. The bare earth lidar points that were within 3 feet of the water were classified to class 10. After the analysts have completed the QC process in TerraScan, raster files were produced into 32-bit floating GeoTiffs and Erdas Imagine IMG files using LP360. These files were created using only the ground class. The DEMS are ran against proprietary tools to identify any remaining potential blunders. 20170101 The calibrated and controlled lidar files were processed using automatic point classification routines in proprietary software. These routines operate against the entire collection (all swaths, all lifts), eliminating character differences between files. The trajectory files and point cloud swaths were imported into GeoCue to perform project setup. This project set up phase set the project parameters, tiling scheme (5000 X 5000), and was the platform for initial macro runs. After import, checkpoints were run against the point cloud to verify the accuracy of the data prior to classification. After verifying the NVA accuracy, the processing continued. Multiple macros were run through TerraScan to classify low points, high points, ground, below surface etc. Geometrically unusable points below ground and above ground were classified to Withheld Low Noise (W7) and Withheld High Noise (W18). Points below ground surface that were identified as low points were classified to class 7. A bare earth ground surface was derived from the unclassed points and put to class 2 using a suitable macro function for the project's terrain type. Points above the treeline that were not identified as a feature were classified to class 18. Ground points inside of water features were classifed to class 9 to represent water and ground points outside of hydro features but within 3 feet of hydro breaklines were classified to class 10. All remaining points were classified to class 1. Final lidar LAS delivery classes for the fully classed LAS tiles consistent with ASPRS LAS classes to be compliant with USGS LiDAR Guidelines and Base Specifications v13 consist of: Class 1 - Unclassified; Class 2 - Ground; Class 7 ? Low Noise; Class 9 - Water; Class 10 - Ignored Ground (including 3-foot buffer around water breaklines); Class 17 - Bridge; and Class 18 - High Noise. Once the analyst was comfortable with the ground macro results, the ground classification QC began using TerraScan. During the QC phase, analysts reclassified the point cloud in areas where the macro was not able to, or created misclassifications. The same rigorous quality steps were performed on each classification. Data were then distributed as virtual tiles to experienced lidar analysts for localized automatic classification, manual editing, and peer-based QC checks. Supervisory QC monitoring of work in progress and completed editing ensured consistency of classification character and adherence to project requirements across the entire project. Upon completion of point classification, an automated process was executed to turn any points to class 1 in the Fully Classified LAS files and to delete all points that fell outside of the provided project buffered boundary. Breaklines were digitized at water elevation for any bodies of water over the entire project area including streams greater than 100ft in nominal width, water bodies greater than 2.0 acres in area, and islands greater than 1.0 acre. A macro was then run to classify points that lay at nominal water elevation to class 9 from 2 that fell within bodies of water. Concurrently a 3-foot buffer zone around water polygons was derived from the ground class and put to class 10 as Ignored Ground. Water bodies and streams with flow were hydro-enforced using the Hydro shapefile to identify Ponds, Islands, and Double Line Drains to demonstrate the removal of unnatural surface artifacts in both ponds and streams and to show downward flow for streams. A DEM data set was generated for the Bare Earth LAS set as 32-bit Erdas Imagine .IMG files at a resolution of 2.0 ft (feet) supported by the Hydro Breaklines. 20170101 Continental utilized various software packages and techniques to verify the accuracy of the data. Utilizing QCoherent?s LP360, Continental ran a survey to las check, followed by seamline analysis (swath to swath analysis) to verify the absolute and relative accuracy of the dataset. The survey to las check calculates the deviation between the survey point elevation and the point cloud elevation and exports an RMSE report. This check was ran by Continental, utilizing the provided control. This check was also ran by Compass Data Inc. utilizing the NVA points. The second check, calculates the deviation between the seamlines of the point cloud swaths. This check is performed in QCoherent?s GeoCue after classifying the initial ground. The output of the seamline analysis is represented visually on an intensity image. These images were delivered with the project deliverables. The third and final check, the Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (VVA) testing occurred after the ground classification has been completed. The VVA testing was performed by Compass Data, Inc. The field survey and aerial survey teams were deployed at the first opportunity based on availability of acceptable weather conditions and base personnel (for coordination). The area of interest contains subareas of dense vegetation which present fewer bare ground returns, higher variability, and potentially less accuracy than typical vegetated areas. Per the table below the survey accuracy results meet industry standards for both NVA and VVA based on the ground survey control points collected in December. Once all of the deliverables have been produced and verified, the data was moved to the Quality office for final review. The Quality Office verifies that the correct procedures were followed, tests the data, and verifies that all of the deliverables in the SOW are finished. 20170101 State Plane Coordinate System 1983 2113 42.100000 43.666667 -84.366667 41.500000 13123333.333333 0.000000 coordinate pair 0.500000 0.500000 international feet North American Datum of 1983 Geodetic Reference System 80 6378137.00 298.257224 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 0.01 feet Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates S_Submittal_Info A spatial data set consisting of polygons depicting the extents of the studied area. FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) Bare Earth DEM An elevation model where bare-earth elevation values have regularly spaced intervals in latitude and longitude (x and y). FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) Breakline A linear feature demarking a change in the smoothness or continuity of a surface such as abrupt elevation changes or a stream line. FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) Classified Point Cloud Data The final processing and classification of LiDAR data to the required ASPRS LAS classes, per project specifications. This includes testing for Consolidated Vertical Accuracy (CVA) FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) Raw Point Cloud Data A collection of range measurements and sensor orientation parameters that is the first data product of a LiDAR instrument. The raw point cloud typically includes first, last, and intermediate returns for each laser pulse. FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) Tiling Index A spatial dataset that describes the tiling system used for multiple files of the same type. FEMA Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping (available on the FEMA Risk MAP Knowledge Sharing Site) The Terrain data package is made up of several data themes containing primarily spatial information. These data supplement the elevation datasets by providing additional information to aid flood risk evaluation and flood hazard area delineations. FEMA's Guidelines and Standards for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping contains a detailed description of the data themes and references to other relevant information. FEMA, Mapping Information Platform mailing address

500 C Street, S.W.

Washington District of Columbia 20472 USA 1-877-336-2627 miphelp@riskmapcds.com No warranty expressed or implied is made by FEMA regarding the utility of the data on any other system nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. FEMA-DCS-Terrain http://hazards.fema.gov Contact Distributor 20180331 MIPHelp Federal Emergency Management Agency mailing

500 C Street, S.W.

Washington District of Columbia 20472 USA 1-877-336-2627 miphelp@riskmapcds.com FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 http://hazards.fema.gov http://www.epsg.org FEMA NFIP Metadata Content and Format Standard