<!DOCTYPE metadata SYSTEM "http://fgdc.gov/metadata/fgdc-std-001-1998.dtd">
<!--DOCTYPE metadata SYSTEM "fgdc-std-001-1998.dtd"--><metadata>	
	<idinfo>
		<citation>
			<citeinfo>
				<origin>Quantum Spatial, Inc.</origin>
				<pubdate>20170126</pubdate>
				<title>Mississippi 2016 QL2 LiDAR - Southern AOI - Mississippi State Plane East</title>
				<geoform>Lidar point cloud</geoform>
			</citeinfo>
		</citation>
		<descript>
			<abstract>Product: This lidar data set includes unclassified swath LAS 1.4 files, classified LAS 1.4 files, breaklines, digital elevation models (DEMs), intensity imagery, and contours.
				Geographic Extent: Four whole and partial counties in south central Mississippi, covering approximately 1,507 square miles of the 3,825 total square mile project area.
				Dataset Description: The Mississippi 2016 Aerial LiDAR Mapping project called for the planning, acquisition, processing and derivative products of LIDAR data to be collected at an aggregate nominal pulse spacing (NPS) of 0.7 meters. Project specifications are based on the U.S. Geological Survey National Geospatial Program Base LIDAR Specification, Version 1.2. The data was developed based on a horizontal projection/datum of NAD83 (2011) State Plane Mississippi East Zone, US survey feet and vertical datum of NAVD1988 (Geoid 12B), US survey feet. LiDAR data was delivered in RAW flight line swath format, processed to create Classified LAS 1.4 Files formatted to 1,791 individual 5,000-foot x 5,000-foot tiles. Corresponding 2.5-foot intensity images in GeoTIFF format and 2.5-foot bare-earth DEM files in ERDAS .IMG format were created with the same tile schema. Tiles names follow the US National Grid naming schema. Hydro-flattened breaklines were produced in Esri file geodatabase format. Continuous contours with a 1-foot interval were produced in Esri file geodatabase format. 
				Ground Conditions: Lidar was collected in winter of 2016, while no snow was on the ground and rivers were at or below normal levels. In order to post process the lidar data to meet task order specifications and meet ASPRS vertical accuracy guidelines, Quantum Spatial, Inc. established a total of 38 ground control points that were used to calibrate the lidar to known ground locations established throughout the Mississippi project area. An additional 96 independent accuracy checkpoints, 43 in Bare Earth and Urban landcovers (43 NVA points), 35 in Forested, Shrubs, and Tall Weeds categories (35 VVA points), were used to assess the vertical accuracy of the data. These checkpoints were not used to calibrate or post process the data. One point was removed from the NVA calculations due to drastic change in the area.</abstract>
			<purpose>To acquire detailed surface elevation data for use in conservation planning, design, research, floodplain mapping, dam safety assessments and elevation modeling, etc. Classified LAS files are used to show the manually reviewed bare earth surface. This allows the user to create intensity images, breaklines and raster DEMs. The purpose of these lidar data was to produce high accuracy 3D hydro-flattened digital elevation models (DEMs) with a 2.5 foot cell size. These raw lidar point cloud data were used to create classified lidar LAS files, intensity images, 3D breaklines, hydro-flattened DEMs, and contours as necessary.</purpose>
			<lidar>
				<ldrinfo>
					<ldrspec>USGS-NGP Base Specification v1.2</ldrspec>
					<ldrsens>Leica ALS 70</ldrsens>
					<ldrmaxnr>4</ldrmaxnr>
					<ldrnps>0.68</ldrnps>
					<ldrdens>2.14</ldrdens>
					<ldranps>0.68</ldranps>
					<ldradens>2.14</ldradens>
					<ldrfltht>2000</ldrfltht>
					<ldrfltsp>170</ldrfltsp>
					<ldrscana>40.0</ldrscana>
					<ldrscanr>53.4</ldrscanr>
					<ldrpulsr>273.0</ldrpulsr>
					<ldrpulsd>4</ldrpulsd>
					<ldrpulsw>0.26</ldrpulsw>
					<ldrwavel>1064</ldrwavel>
					<ldrmpia>1</ldrmpia>
					<ldrbmdiv>0.45</ldrbmdiv>
					<ldrswatw>1455.88</ldrswatw>
					<ldrswato>11.27</ldrswato>
					<ldrgeoid>g2012bu0.bin</ldrgeoid>
				</ldrinfo>
				<ldrinfo_80>
					<ldrspec>USGS-NGP Base Specification v1.2</ldrspec>
					<ldrsens>Leica ALS 80</ldrsens>
					<ldrmaxnr>4</ldrmaxnr>
					<ldrnps>0.69</ldrnps>
					<ldrdens>2.13</ldrdens>
					<ldranps>0.69</ldranps>
					<ldradens>2.14</ldradens>
					<ldrfltht>2000</ldrfltht>
					<ldrfltsp>170</ldrfltsp>
					<ldrscana>40.0</ldrscana>
					<ldrscanr>39.0</ldrscanr>
					<ldrpulsr>271.0</ldrpulsr>
					<ldrpulsd>4</ldrpulsd>
					<ldrpulsw>0.45</ldrpulsw>
					<ldrwavel>1064</ldrwavel>
					<ldrmpia>1</ldrmpia>
					<ldrbmdiv>0.22</ldrbmdiv>
					<ldrswatw>1455.88</ldrswatw>
					<ldrswato>17.85</ldrswato>
					<ldrgeoid>g2012bu0.bin</ldrgeoid>
				</ldrinfo_80>
				<ldraccur>
					<ldrchacc>0.196</ldrchacc>
					<rawnva>0.090</rawnva>
					<rawnvan>42</rawnvan>
				</ldraccur>
				<lasinfo>
					<lasver>1.4</lasver>
					<lasprf>6</lasprf>
					<laswheld>Withheld (ignore) points were identified in these files using the standard LAS Withheld bit</laswheld>
					<lasolap>Swath "overage" points were identified in these files using the standard LAS overlap bit</lasolap>
					<lasintr>16</lasintr>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>1</clascode>
						<clasitem>Processed, but Unclassified</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>2</clascode>
						<clasitem>Bare-Earth Ground</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>7</clascode>
						<clasitem>Low noise</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>9</clascode>
						<clasitem>Water</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>10</clascode>
						<clasitem>Ignored Ground</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>17</clascode>
						<clasitem>Bridge Decks</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
					<lasclass>
						<clascode>18</clascode>
						<clasitem>High noise</clasitem>
					</lasclass>
				</lasinfo>
			</lidar>
			<supplinf>USGS Contract No.: G16PC00016 CONTRACTOR: Quantum Spatial, Inc. SUBCONTRACTOR: Woolpert. Lidar data were acquired by Quantum Spatial, Inc. and Woolpert. All follow-on processing was completed by the prime contractor.
				Tile MS845675 contains data flown on both 1/19/2016 (flightline 130) and  1/27/2016 (flightline 137).  The hydro-flattened double line drain flows monotonically, based on the corresponding data used to collect the breakline from each date.  A step was introduced in the location between flightlines because of a 5 foot rise in the water elevation between these 2 lifts.</supplinf>
		</descript>
		<timeperd>
			<timeinfo>
				<rngdates>
					<begdate>20160119</begdate>
					<enddate>20160204</enddate>
				</rngdates>
			</timeinfo>
			<current>ground condition</current>
		</timeperd>
		<status>
			<progress>Complete</progress>
			<update>None planned</update>
		</status>
		<spdom>
			<bounding>
				<westbc>-89.6645579701677</westbc> 
				<eastbc>-88.6871709429993</eastbc> 
				<northbc>31.4380733391558</northbc>
				<southbc>30.9012662914909</southbc>
			</bounding>
		</spdom>
		<keywords>
			<theme>
				<themekt>None</themekt>
				<themekey>Model</themekey>
				<themekey>Breaklines</themekey>
				<themekey>LAS Point Cloud</themekey>
				<themekey>Intensity Image</themekey>
				<themekey>Raster</themekey>
				<themekey>DEM</themekey>
				<themekey>Contours</themekey>
				<themekey>Remote Sensing</themekey>
				<themekey>Elevation Data</themekey>
				<themekey>Lidar</themekey>
				<themekey>Hydrology</themekey>
			</theme>
			<place>
				<placekt>None</placekt>
				<placekey>Mississippi</placekey>
				<placekey>Forrest County</placekey>
				<placekey>Greene County</placekey>
				<placekey>Lamar County</placekey>
				<placekey>Perry County</placekey>
			</place>
		</keywords>
		<accconst>No restrictions apply to this data.</accconst>
		<useconst>None. However, users should be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this dataset was collected and that some parts of these data may no longer represent actual surface conditions. Users should not use these data for critical applications without a full awareness of its limitations. Acknowledgement of the U.S. Geological Survey would be appreciated for products derived from these data.</useconst>
	</idinfo>
	<dataqual>
		<logic>Data covers the entire area specified for this project.</logic>
		<complete>These raw LAS and LAS data files include all data points collected. No points have been removed or excluded. The raw point cloud is of good quality and data passes Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy specifications. Datasets contain complete coverage of tiles. A visual qualitative assessment was performed to ensure data completeness. There are no void areas or missing data. All files are inspected to ensure that they conform to the specified file naming conventions, all files load in their correct geographic position, all files conform to the project specifications for file standard and content.</complete>
		<posacc>
			<vertacc>
				<vertaccr>The project specifications require that only Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (NVA) be computed for raw lidar point cloud swath files. The required accuracy (ACCz) is: 19.6 cm at a 95% confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, i.e., based on RMSE of 10 cm in the "bare earth" and "urban" land cover classes. The NVA was tested with 42 of 43 checkpoints located in bare earth and urban (non-vegetated) areas. One point was removed from the NVA calculations due to drastic change in the area. These check points were not used in the calibration or post processing of the lidar point cloud data. The checkpoints were distributed throughout the project area and were surveyed using GPS techniques. See survey report for additional survey methodologies. Elevations from the unclassified lidar surface were measured for the x,y location of each check point. Elevations interpolated from the lidar surface were then compared to the elevation values of the surveyed control points. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 19.6 cm or better Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy at 95% 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.
					The project specifications require the accuracy (ACCz) of the derived DEM be calculated and reported in two ways: 1. The required NVA is: 19.6 cm at a 95% confidence level, derived according to NSSDA, i.e., based on RMSE of 10 cm in the "bare earth" and "urban" land cover classes. This is a required accuracy. The NVA was tested with 42 of 43 checkpoints located in bare earth and urban (non-vegetated) areas. One point was removed from the NVA calculations due to drastic change in the area. 2. Vegetated Vertical Accuracy (VVA): VVA shall be reported for "forested", "shrubs", and "tall weeds" land cover classes. The target VVA is: 29.4 cm at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for Lidar Data, i.e., based on the 95th percentile error in all vegetated land cover classes combined. This is a target accuracy. The VVA was tested with 35 checkpoints located in forested, shrubs, and tall weeds (vegetated) areas. The checkpoints were distributed throughout the project area and were surveyed using GPS techniques. See survey report for additional survey methodologies. AccuracyZ has been tested to meet 19.6 cm or better Non-Vegetated Vertical Accuracy at 95% 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.</vertaccr>
				<qvertpa>
					<vertaccv>0.090</vertaccv>
					<vertacce>Tested 0.090 meters (0.296 feet) NVA at a 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The NVA of the raw lidar point cloud swath files was calculated against TINs derived from the final calibrated and controlled swath data using 42 of the 43 collected independent checkpoints located in Bare Earth and Urban land cover classes. One point was removed from the NVA calculations due to drastic change in the area.</vertacce>
				</qvertpa>
				<qvertpa>
					<vertaccv>0.091</vertaccv>
					<vertacce>Tested 0.091 meters (0.298 feet) NVA at a 95% confidence level using RMSE(z) x 1.9600 as defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA). The NVA of the DEM was calculated using 42 of the 43 collected independent checkpoints located in the Bare Earth and Urban land cover categories. One point was removed from the NVA calculations due to drastic change in the area.</vertacce>
				</qvertpa>
				<qvertpa>
					<vertaccv>0.140</vertaccv>
					<vertacce>Tested 0.140 meters (0.458 feet) VVA was calculated using 35 checkpoints located in the Forested, Shrubs, and Tall Weeds land cover categories at the 95th percentile, derived according to ASPRS Guidelines, Vertical Accuracy Reporting for Lidar Data. Tested against the DEM.</vertacce>
				</qvertpa>
			</vertacc>
		</posacc>
		<lineage>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>Raw Data and Boresight Processing: The boresight for each lift was done individually as the solution may change slightly from lift to lift. The following steps describe the Raw Data Processing and Boresight process: 1) Technicians processed the raw data to LAS format flight lines using the final GPS/IMU solution. This LAS data set was used as source data for boresight. 2) Technicians first used Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary and commercial software to calculate initial boresight adjustment angles based on sample areas selected in the lift. These areas cover calibration flight lines collected in the lift, cross tie and production flight lines. These areas are well distributed in the lift coverage and cover multiple terrain types that are necessary for boresight angle calculation. The technician then analyzed the results and made any necessary additional adjustment until it is acceptable for the selected areas. 3) Once the boresight angle calculation was completed for the selected areas, the adjusted settings were applied to all of the flight lines of the lift and checked for consistency. The technicians utilized commercial and proprietary software packages to analyze how well flight line overlaps match for the entire lift and adjusted as necessary until the results met the project specifications. 4) Once all lifts were completed with individual boresight adjustment, the technicians checked and corrected the vertical misalignment of all flight lines and also the matching between data and ground truth. The relative accuracy was less than or equal to 7 cm RMSEz within individual swaths and less than or equal to 10 cm RMSEz or within swath overlap (between adjacent swaths). 5) The technicians ran a final vertical accuracy check of the boresighted flight lines against the surveyed check points after the z correction to ensure the requirement of NVA = 19.6 cm 95% Confidence Level (Required Accuracy) was met.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>LAS Point Classification: The point classification is performed as described below. The bare earth surface is then manually reviewed to ensure correct classification on the Class 2 (Ground) points. After the bare-earth surface is finalized, it is then used to generate all hydro-breaklines through heads-up digitization. All ground (ASPRS Class 2) lidar data inside of the Lake Pond and Double Line Drain hydro-flattened breaklines were then classified to Water (ASPRS Class 9) using TerraScan macro functionality. A buffer of 3 feet was also used around each hydro-flattened feature to classify these ground (ASPRS Class 2) points to Ignored ground (ASPRS Class 10). All Lake Pond Island and Double Line Drain Island features were checked to ensure that the ground (ASPRS Class 2) points were reclassified to the correct classification after the automated classification was completed. All overlap data was processed through automated functionality provided by TerraScan to classify the overlapping flight line data to approved classes by USGS. The overlap data was classified using standard LAS overlap bit. These classes were created through automated processes only and were not verified for classification accuracy. Due to software limitations within TerraScan, these classes were used to trip the withheld bit within various software packages. These processes were reviewed and accepted by USGS through numerous conference calls and pilot study areas. All data was manually reviewed and any remaining artifacts removed using functionality provided by TerraScan and TerraModeler. Global Mapper us used as a final check of the bare earth dataset. GeoCue was then used to create the deliverable industry-standard LAS files for both the All Point Cloud Data and the Bare Earth. Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software was used to perform final statistical analysis of the classes in the LAS files, on a per tile level to verify final classification metrics and full LAS header information.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>Hydro-Flattened Breakline Processing: Class 2 (ground) lidar points was used to create a bare earth surface model. The surface model was then used to heads-up digitize 2D breaklines of inland streams and rivers with a 100-foot nominal width and inland ponds and lakes of 2 acres or greater surface area. Elevation values were assigned to all Inland Ponds and Lakes, Inland Pond and Lake Islands, Inland Stream and River Islands, using TerraModeler functionality. Elevation values were assigned to all inland streams and rivers using Quantum Spatial, Inc. proprietary software. All Ground (ASPRS Class 2) lidar data inside of the collected inland breaklines were then classified to Water (ASPRS Class 9) using TerraScan macro functionality. A buffer of 3 feet was also used around each hydro-flattened feature. These points were moved from ground (ASPRS Class 2) to Ignored Ground (ASPRS Class 10). The breakline files were then translated to Esri file geodatabase format using Esri conversion tools. Breaklines are reviewed against lidar intensity imagery to verify completeness of capture. All breaklines are then compared to TINs (triangular irregular networks) created from ground only points prior to water classification. The horizontal placement of breaklines is compared to terrain features and the breakline elevations are compared to lidar elevations to ensure all breaklines match the lidar within acceptable tolerances. Some deviation is expected between breakline and lidar elevations due to monotonicity, connectivity, and flattening rules that are enforced on the breaklines. Once completeness, horizontal placement, and vertical variance is reviewed, all breaklines are reviewed for topological consistency and data integrity using a combination of Esri Data Reviewer tools and proprietary tools.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>Hydro Flattened Raster DEM Process: Class 2 (Ground) lidar points in conjunction with the hydro breaklines were used to create a 2.5 foot hydro-flattened raster DEM. Using automated scripting routines within ArcMap, an ERDAS Imagine .IMG file was created for each tile. Each surface is reviewed using Global Mapper to check for any surface anomalies or incorrect elevations found within the surface.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>Intensity Image Generation Process: GeoCue software was used to create the deliverable Intensity Images. All overlap classes were ignored during this process. This helps to ensure a more aesthetically pleasing image. The GeoCue software was then used to verify full project coverage as well. TIF/TWF files were then provided as the deliverable for this dataset requirement.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
			<procstep>
				<procdesc>Contour Creation: Using automated scripting routines within ArcMap, a terrain surface was created using the ground (ASPRS Class 2) LiDAR data as well as the hydro-flattened breaklines. This surface was then used to generate the final 1-foot contour dataset in Esri file geodatabase format.</procdesc>
				<procdate>2016</procdate>
			</procstep>
		</lineage>
	</dataqual>
	<spdoinfo>
		<direct>Point</direct>
	</spdoinfo>
	<spref>
		<horizsys>
			<planar>
				<gridsys>
					<gridsysn>State Plane Coordinate System 1983</gridsysn>
					<spcs>
						<spcszone>2301</spcszone>
						<transmer>
							<sfctrmer>0.99995</sfctrmer>
							<longcm>-88.83333333333333</longcm>
							<latprjo>29.5</latprjo>
							<feast>984250.0</feast>
							<fnorth>0.0</fnorth>
						</transmer>
					</spcs>
				</gridsys>
				<planci>
					<plance>coordinate pair</plance>
					<coordrep>
						<absres>0.01</absres>
						<ordres>0.01</ordres>
					</coordrep>
					<plandu>survey feet</plandu>
				</planci>
			</planar>
			<geodetic>
				<horizdn>North American Datum of 1983 (2011)</horizdn>
				<ellips>Geodetic Reference System 80</ellips>
				<semiaxis>6378137.0</semiaxis>
				<denflat>298.257222101</denflat>
			</geodetic>
		</horizsys>
		<vertdef>
			<altsys>
				<altdatum>North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (GEOID12B)</altdatum>
				<altres>0.01</altres>
				<altunits>feet</altunits>
				<altenc>Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates</altenc>
			</altsys>
		</vertdef>
	</spref>
	<metainfo>
		<metd>20170126</metd>
		<metc>
			<cntinfo>
				<cntorgp>
					<cntorg>Quantum Spatial</cntorg>
				</cntorgp>
				<cntaddr>
					<addrtype>mailing and physical</addrtype>
					<address>523 Wellington Way</address>
					<city>Lexington</city>
					<state>KY</state>
					<postal>40503</postal>
					<country>USA</country>
				</cntaddr>
				<cntvoice>859-277-8700</cntvoice>
			</cntinfo>
		</metc>
		<metstdn>FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata</metstdn>
		<metstdv>FGDC-STD-001-1998</metstdv>
	</metainfo>
</metadata>