State of Michigan (SOM) 2015 1.0 raster digital data Michigan State of Michigan http://www.michigan.gov This metadata record describes the hydro-flattened bare earth digital elevation model (DEM) derived from the classified LiDAR data for the 2015 Michigan LiDAR project covering approximately 936 square miles, in which its extents cover Alger County. FEMA Specification QL2 meeting 18.13cm FVA Leica ALS80 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_North_FIPS_2111_Ft_Intl NGS Geoid12a 1.0 0.106 0.108 0.209 LowVeg 0.122 MedVeg 0.301 HighVeg 0.162 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 North. 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 2015052020150530 ground condition Complete Unknown -87.115488 -85.861373 46.685294 46.152017 770000 805000 4220000 4141400 MI LiDAR mapping point cloud Ground points Unclassified points Water points Overlap points ALS80 Intensity return LAS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Digital Terrain Model (DTM) Digital Surface Model (DSM) IMG Grid Bare Earth First Return Contour MI Michigan Alger 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be aware that temporal changes may have occurred since this dataset was collected and some parts of this dataset may no longer represent actual surface conditions.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 unknownUnclassifiedunknownBare Earth DEM Alger County (Area 2): The LiDAR surface was evaluated using a collection of 22 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. Alger 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 0.030 Minimum dz -0.503 Maximum dz 0.238 Average magnitude 0.139 Root mean square 0.177 Std deviation 0.179 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 22 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. Alger 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 0.039 Minimum dz -0.503 Maximum dz 0.238 Average magnitude 0.148 Root mean square 0.182 Std deviation 0.182 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 class of Low Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 18 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Alger 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 0.173 Minimum dz -0.345 Maximum dz 0.435 Average magnitude 0.220 Root mean square 0.252 Std deviation 0.188 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 class of Medium Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 21 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Alger 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 0.293 Minimum dz -0.345 Maximum dz 1.034 Average magnitude 0.332 Root mean square 0.401 Std deviation 0.279 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 class of High Veg. The DEM was evaluated using a collection of 19 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to this checkpoint class yielding much better result than was required for the project. Alger 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 0.256 Minimum dz -0.090 Maximum dz 0.549 Average magnitude 0.268 Root mean square 0.312 Std deviation 0.184 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 80 GPS surveyed checkpoints. The DEM was compared to all checkpoint classes yielding much better result than was required for the project. Alger 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 0.235 Minimum dz -0.503 Maximum dz 1.034 Average magnitude 0.280 Root mean square 0.352 Std deviation 0.263 LiDAR data is collected within the project area and processed. After the DEMs were created, the dataset was verified against control. Control was collected in 5 areas. Area 2 includes Alger and Delta. Accuracy results are reported for Area 2. 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, DEMs are created using bare earth points and hydro features. The DEM surface is 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 Alger 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 Alger 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 Alger 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). 0.055m RMSE, or 0.108m FVA @ 95 percent confidence level in open terrain using RMSEz x 1.9600 The FVA was tested using 22 independent survey check points located in flat terrain types within Area 2. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 22 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 0.055 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. 0.107m RMSE, or 0.209m CVA @ 95th Percentile using all FVA and SVA class checkpoints (CVA)The CVA was tested using 80 independent survey check points located in various terrain types within Area 2. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 80 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 0.107m, or 0.209m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.077m RMSE, or 0.122m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA was tested using 18 independent survey check points located in low vegetation terrain types within Area 2. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 18 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 0.077m, or 0.122m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.122m RMSE, or 0.301m SVA @ 95th PercentileThe SVA was tested using 21 independent survey check points located in medium vegetation terrain types within Area 2. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 21 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 0.122m, or 0.301m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.The SVA was tested using 19 independent survey check points located in high vegetation terrain types within Area 2. The survey checkpoints were distributed throughout the block area. The 19 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 0.095m, or 0.162m @ 95th Percentile defined by the National Standards for Spatial Data Accuracy (NSSDA); assessed and reported using National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)/ASRPS Guidelines.0.095m RMSE, or 0.162m SVA @ 95th Percentile 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_North_FIPS_2113Lambert Conformal Conic45.483333333333347.0833333333333-8744.783333333333326246719.1601050coordinate pair22international 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 2012033008500700TRUE2016030210565600{8DE3DE1B-30AB-48D1-9B5B-D8574399589A}Local Area NetworkFEMA Specification Version QL2 meeting 9.25cm FVABare Earth - DEMBare Earth only Classes: 2 - Bare-Earth Ground20160302