Upload
vocong
View
224
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Table of Contents
1. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Approach ............................................................................................................................................... 3
3. Results ................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1. Region I (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) ................................................................................................. 5
3.2. Region II (NJ, NY, PR, VI) ................................................................................................................ 8
3.3. Region III (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) ........................................................................................... 10
3.4. Region IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) .................................................................................. 12
3.5. Region V (IL, IN, OH, MI, MN, WI) ............................................................................................... 14
3.6. Region VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) ................................................................................................... 16
3.7. Region VII (IA, KS, MO, NE) ......................................................................................................... 18
3.8. Region VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) ......................................................................................... 20
3.9. Region IX (AZ, CA, NV, HI, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands) ................................... 22
3.10. Region X (AK, ID, OR, WA) ........................................................................................................... 24
4. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix A – Data Dictionary ..................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix B – Points of Contact................................................................................................................... 31
Document Tracking
Date Author/Team
5/25/10 E. Danielson/BakerAECOM
5/25/10 Review – Jeff Burm, BakerAECOM
5/26/10 Review – Josh Price, STARR
5/27/10 Review – Sue Hoegberg, RAMPP
5/27/10 Final Edits – Jeff Burm, BakerAECOM
1. Overview
Elevation data is one of the foundational elements of Risk MAP, which will help FEMA create a current
and accurate picture of flood risk in communities. High-quality elevation data is essential for developing
reliable base flood elevations, delineating flood hazard areas, and assessing risk. Digital elevation data is
also important in developing actionable mitigation plans and communicating community flood risks to
local officials and the public. As a crucial element of Risk MAP, the data will be used to develop valuable
products that address gaps in existing flood hazard data. Knowledge and availability of existing high
quality elevation data can provide FEMA with significant cost savings when creating new Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs). If FEMA can leverage existing elevation data, they will not have to pay
for the acquisition of new elevation data and can use their resources elsewhere.
FEMA tasked the Risk MAP Production and Technical Services (PTS) contractors to develop a Geospatial
Data Inventory (GDI) of available high-quality elevation data across the Nation. This effort created a
baseline of available data to be used for identifying areas of the Nation for which there is no high-quality
topography readily available. The baseline is not intended to be updated continuously. When the GDI
baseline is applied to areas of high risk, as identified by the Risk MAP program, FEMA is able to identify
areas of high flood risk that lack quality elevation data and thus should be the focus of future data
collection efforts.
Each of the Regional Support Centers (RSCs) assessed the elevation data available within the region. The
following primary sources of elevation data were targeted:
1. Elevation data that were acquired and used for mapping projects under FEMA’s Map Modernization
(Map Mod) program.
2. High-quality elevation data developed by Federal, state, local, or tribal agencies.
3. Data acquisition projects in progress or planned for the near future by Federal or state agencies.
The information collected for each region was documented in a geodatabase providing an approximate
outline of the data’s spatial extent and key attributes regarding data quality. The data dictionary for the
GDI Geodatabase can be found in Appendix A of this report.
2. Approach
The approach to identify available high quality elevation data was to first investigate the data produced
during the FEMA Map MOD program. The RSC’s then coordinated with Federal, state, and local
authorities directly to identify any datasets that currently exist and that are planned in the near future.
It was also important to identify ownership and quality of the data to determine that it meets FEMA’s
standard for developing DFIRMs. Once the data was identified, geospatial footprints were developed to
show the extent of the elevation data and compiled regionally. Each Region’s database has been rolled
up to a national dataset.
FEMA FY10 Elevation
Priorities:
Highest flood risk locations
Identified flood data update needs
Lack of recent and accurate elevation data
The following sources for Map Mod data were leveraged:
Information received from RMCs
Previously published Geospatial Data Coordination Reports
MIP Metadata files
NDEP data worksheets
MIP Terrain folders (Topographic TSDNs and SHP files of spatial extents)
Available FIS Text documents
Other available TSDNs
CTPs and Study Managers
Information about other available elevation data or data development projects that are in progress or
planned came from the following sources:
USGS’s CLICK Website (http://LiDAR.cr.usgs.gov/)
Data provided by NOAA from the Topographic Bathymetric Inventory
(http://www.csc.noaa.gov/topobathy/viewer/index.html)
FEMA Regional engineers
State GIS coordinators
USGS State Liaisons
Several LiDAR vendors were contacted and asked for information about their recent or planned projects.
A small amount of information was provided by Fugro/Earth Data, Inc.
Contacts were initiated with each of the USGS State Liaisons and others in each state to obtain
information about their available data holdings and planned projects. Coordination with each of the
USGS liaisons and state contacts will be held to present the results of this inventory with intent to share
this project’s results with other Federal and State agencies as well as gaining any additional information
they may have that was not previously recorded. Any additional data holdings will be added to the
Geospatial Data Inventories before they are finalized.
Specific points of contact for each Region are listed in Appendix B.
3. Results
This section provides a summary of the information obtained for each state, organized by FEMA Region.
A graphic that depicts the findings is also provided for each Region. Please note that there are
cartographic differences between regions on the maps below, but the geodatabase was developed in a
standard way using the data dictionary in Appendix A. In addition some of the footprints in the inventory
are not visible at the current scale of the maps, but are captured in the inventory.
3.1. Region I (CT, MA, ME, NH, RI, VT) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Connecticut – Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) covering the entire coastline and the
Connecticut River supports 2 foot (ft) contour intervals and was acquired during Map
Mod. The Hartford Metropolitan District Commission owns photogrammetric data with
a vertical accuracy of 0.67ft. An American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
funded project with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) will collect topography
covering Fairfield County and portions of New London County and will be completed in
2011. The scale of this project impacts all the other states in New England except
Vermont. The entire state of Connecticut is covered by the University of Connecticut
Center for Land Use Education and Research (CLEAR) LiDAR collection from 2000, but
the vertical accuracy of this data is unclear and the metadata is lacking.
Maine – LiDAR exists for the coastlines of Cumberland and York (National Map Accuracy
Standard (NMAS) of 1.0), Androscoggin County (0.327 ft vertical accuracy), and the
Augusta-Manchester area (0.067m vertical accuracy). There is a LiDAR dataset available
in the USGS Center for LiDAR Information Coordination and Knowledge database (CLICK)
that covers portions of western Maine, but its accuracy is unknown at this time due to a
lack of metadata in the CLICK holding. LiDAR covering the rest of the Maine coastline
will be collected by the USGS in the 2010/2011 ARRA funded LiDAR collection project.
Massachusetts – Several coastal counties in Massachusetts are covered by high quality
LiDAR data which supports 2 ft contour intervals. These data are available from Map
Mod projects and the Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental
Information (MassGIS) collections. The majority of the remainder of the coastal areas
will be collected by the USGS in the upcoming ARRA funded LiDAR collection. There are
also several riverine collections that support 2 ft contours on the Connecticut River,
Blackstone River, and Shawsheen River.
New Hampshire – LiDAR covering the New Hampshire coastline and some inland
portions of Rockingham and Strafford Counties will be collected by the USGS in the
2010/2011 ARRA funded LiDAR collection project. There are several small LiDAR
datasets in Rockingham and Strafford Counties that are from 2007 to 2009 but these will
be superseded by the new USGS data and become obsolete.
Rhode Island – There are many small LiDAR datasets from various sources in Rhode
Island, but LiDAR covering the entire state will be collected by the USGS in the
2010/2011 ARRA funded LiDAR collection project.
Vermont – There are LiDAR data available for all of Essex County (0.15 m vertical
accuracy) and a large portion of Franklin County (supports 2 ft contours). There is a
LiDAR dataset that covers much of Chittenden County, but it has not been subjected to
quality control, and its vertical accuracy has not been validated. There are several
riverine corridors with LiDAR data including the Browns and Winooski Rivers and Otter
and East Creeks (NMAS 1.0). A further data collection is planned in Franklin and Orleans
Counties.
As there are many overlapping datasets in Region I, the newest (including in-work or proposed)
and/or highest quality are displayed for any given area in Figure 1.
3.2. Region II (NJ, NY, PR, VI) The RSC was able to inventory elevation datasets in New York and New Jersey, but found it
somewhat difficult to gather data for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. A summary of the
findings for each state within the Region is provided below.
New Jersey - All counties are covered by LiDAR data with a vertical accuracy of 13-18.5
cm which supports 1-2 foot contours. Most of this data is available on the USGS
National Elevation Dataset (NED) or CLICK websites.
New York – Much of the elevation data available in New York has a vertical accuracy
ranging from 13- 18.5 cm which supports 1-2 ft contours. Most of the high accuracy
data exists in counties whose LiDAR has been collected within the last three years, in
addition to those that are part of FEMA’s HMTAP (Hazard, Mitigation and Technical
Assistance Program) as a result of the 2006 flood that occurred in the Mohawk,
Delaware, and Susquehanna Watersheds. The remainder of the counties with available
elevation data support 4-5 foot contours. The New York City metro area lacks high
accuracy elevation data, as do rural areas and non-Map MOD counties.
Puerto Rico - While there is elevation data for all of Puerto Rico from a number of
sources, most of these data have known geoid and vertical datum problems that
prevent a definitive assessment of the vertical accuracy of the data. A new geoid for
Puerto Rico is anticipated in the next few months, which should make it possible to
assess the available data and determine its accuracy.
Virgin Islands - Information is still outstanding.
3.3. Region III (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Delaware – Statewide data that was compiled to meet 15-centimeter vertical accuracy
at the 95% confidence level is available.
District of Columbia – City-wide data were compiled using 4 foot contours.
Maryland – Most of the state is covered by LiDAR data completed by Maryland
Department of the Environment with a vertical accuracy of 14.3 cm RMSE at the 95%
confidence level. Projects not using this data were completed using 2 to 5 foot contour
lines.
Pennsylvania – Statewide LiDAR data with a vertical accuracy of 18.5 cm RMSE is either
complete or funded and in progress.
Virginia – Most projects in rural areas occurring through Map MOD were completed
using USGS data or completed through digital lift up. Countywide Digital Terrain Models
(DTMs) were developed for the Terrain Virginia Base Mapping Program (VBMP) in 2002.
These DTMs were developed to support the creation of 6-inch or 1-foot orthoimages at
scales of 1"=200' (1:2,400) or 1"=100' (1:1,200). Additionally, USGS elevation collection
projects are in progress for a number of counties in Virginia.
West Virginia - Most projects occurring through Map MOD were completed using
existing USGS data or completed through digital lift up. Some small Zone A studies and
a few detailed studies were completed with 4 to 5 foot contours. New LiDAR data that
will meet 1-foot accuracy requirements are currently in production for almost half of the
state by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.
3.4. Region IV (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Alabama – High accuracy elevation data is available for the coastline due to post-Katrina
LiDAR coverage. Most of the remaining areas mapped during Map MOD were
completed using USGS data and is available on the USGS NED website.
Florida – A mosaic of statewide Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM)
LiDAR sources with vertical accuracy of 2-ft NMAS contours (0.6-ft/18.5-cm NSSDA
RMSEz) for all land covers and 1-ft NMAS contours (0.3-ft NSSDA RMSEz) for bare earth ,
has being acquired (flown) since 2002 on an ongoing basis. It is available statewide with
the exception of inland areas near south-central Georgia/Florida border counties.
Georgia – High accuracy elevation data (LiDAR or photogrammetrically collected
topography) is available for much of the northern Georgia-Atlanta metro, Macon,
Albany and the coastal regions. In rural areas, USGS sources (30-meter DEMs) were
utilized for Map MOD products. Most of this data is available on the USGS NED website.
There are on-going efforts to acquire high accuracy elevation data for counties from
Middle Georgia (Macon) to Northeast Georgia (Athens). The Georgia Mountains region
has recently-acquired LiDAR data, or is currently being processed.
Kentucky – High accuracy elevation data (LiDAR) is available for approximately several
counties, most of which was collected in spring 2010 through state funded efforts. A
handful of the counties have acquired LiDAR through local/combined efforts. USGS
sources were implemented during Map MOD for the majority of the counties.
Mississippi – High accuracy elevation data, in the form of LiDAR, is available for the
coastline due to post-Katrina coverage. Most of the remaining areas mapped through
Map MOD were completed using USGS data. Most of this data is available on the USGS
NED website. The Yazoo/Delta coverage data was made available through the states
study contractor.
North Carolina – High accuracy elevation data (LiDAR) is available statewide with
vertical accuracy of 18.5cm, supporting 2-ft contours state-wide.
South Carolina – High accuracy elevation data (LiDAR) is available for most counties.
Collection began during Map MOD – the South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources (SCDNR) and local efforts have contributed to the LiDAR coverage available.
A number of counties require processing for elevation data already flown. They are
waiting on additional funding to process the LiDAR in Saluda, Sumter, Kershaw counties.
Tennessee – High accuracy elevation data (LiDAR) is available for Anderson, Davidson,
Hamilton, and Knox counties. All other counties have high accuracy DTM supporting 10-
ft contours, and 2-ft contours in some areas. Currently, Williamson County data is being
processed.
Figure 4 - Region IV Topographic Inventory
3.5. Region V (IL, IN, OH, MI, MN, WI)
This section provides a summary of the information obtained for each state. A graphic that
depicts the findings is also provided for Region V.
Illinois – Most of the high resolution data available in Illinois exists in the northern
counties of the state. The University of Illinois maintains a geospatial data clearinghouse
where most of the high resolution data in the state is available. The available data meets
FEMA specifications to produce 2 ft contours. The Illinois Department of Transportation
is planning LiDAR acquisition for almost a quarter of the state over the next two years.
Indiana – In 2005, Indiana coordinated a statewide orthophotography project. In
addition to orthophotography, the project delivered DEMs capable of producing 10 ft
contours and may be able to support 2-5 ft contours if additional data processing is
undertaken. There are a few data processing issues for the contours produced from the
statewide orthophotography and it is recommended to discuss the data with Indiana
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) before leveraging the data. Other high
resolution data is scattered among the state and was utilized during Map Mod.
Michigan –Michigan is lacking high resolution elevation data but there are some smaller
LiDAR datasets available from Map Mod projects. Several LiDAR projects are in-process
along the east and southeast sections of the State. These projects should meet FEMA
specifications for 2 ft contour equivalency.
Minnesota – The state maintains a digital elevation committee that is focused on
statewide LiDAR data collection. LiDAR projects are concluding in the northwestern
part of the state. LiDAR data is currently available in the southeastern portion of the
state, yet the data along the Mississippi River is proprietary. The remainder of the State
is planned for LiDAR acquisition projects through 2012. These projects should meet
FEMA specifications for 2 ft contour equivalency. The public domain LIDAR projects are
available on the Minnesota Geographic Data Clearinghouse website.
Ohio – Statewide high resolution elevation data was gathered as part of the Ohio
Statewide Imagery Program. The statewide data is capable of producing 5 ft contours
but could support 2-5 ft contours with additional processing. Many counties have
chosen to purchase contour data through Ohio Statewide Imagery Program (OSIP).
There are other LiDAR projects throughout the State that were leveraged during Map
Mod.
Wisconsin – As a result of severe floods in 2008, a grant to produce LiDAR data in the
south half of Wisconsin was secured for counties without existing data. Projects are
planned through 2010 and should produce 2 ft contour equivalency. Other high
resolution elevation data is available in parts of the state and is mostly compiled from
photogrammetric data capable of producing 4 ft contours.
Figure 5 - Region V Topographic Inventory
3.6. Region VI (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Arkansas – With the exception of a few urban areas, high quality elevation data is
lacking.
Louisiana – Statewide LiDAR data with a vertical accuracy of .61ft or 18.5cm, flown
between 2004 and 2006 is available.
Oklahoma – New topographic data is currently being collected for the Greater
Oklahoma City Area, the Panola Gap and the Washita Watershed.
New Mexico – LiDAR data has been and continues to be collected for the Rio Grande
River throughout the higher population areas in New Mexico.
Texas – The Texas Water Development Board has been collecting and is still in the
process of collecting LIDAR data throughout the State of Texas. Locations for LIDAR
collection include the higher population areas of Houston, Austin, and the Dallas
Metroplex (currently in process), as well as the coastal areas.
3.7. Region VII (IA, KS, MO, NE) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Iowa – The state has funded an initiative to collect and process statewide LiDAR data
with a vertical accuracy of .61 ft or 18.5 cm. Flights were conducted between the spring
of 2009 and the spring of 2010. Approximately 85% of the state LiDAR data is either
available for use or in-process as of the date of this report.
Kansas – Locations for LiDAR collection include the Kansas River corridor and
surrounding counties. Some southern county efforts are also underway to provide LiDAR
data. The USACE is funding a study for LiDAR data collection in the area around seven
named lakes.
Missouri – Multiple agencies including the USDA, NRCS, USACE, STLWSD, and USGS have
funded LiDAR data collection along the Mississippi and Missouri River corridors. A
handful of cooperatively funded county studies have also been provided or are in-
process.
Nebraska – LiDAR data was collected for many south central Nebraska counties as well
as the Platte River corridor; the City of Scotts Bluff; and the Douglas and Lancaster
County areas. The Nebraska Department of Natural Resources (NDNR) also provided
information on a LiDAR study conducted in four northern Kansas counties.
3.8. Region VIII (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Colorado – Topographic data has been collected for a majority of the Denver Metro
area, but high quality elevation data is lacking for most of the State. A handful of
communities and specific reaches outside of the Metro area also have pockets of
topographic data.
Montana – Topographic data has been collected across the State for particular
communities or reaches, but overall high quality elevation data is lacking for a majority
of the State.
North Dakota – High quality topographic data has been collected for a vast majority of
the Red River basin. Outside of that region, a handful of communities or reaches are the
only other areas where topographic data is available for the rest of the State.
South Dakota - Topographic data has been collected across the State for particular
communities or reaches, but overall high quality elevation data is lacking for a majority
of the State.
Wyoming – With the exception of a few particular reaches where topographic data has
been collected, high quality elevation data is lacking for most all of the State.
Utah - Topographic data has been collected for a good portion of the Salt Lake Metro
area, but high quality elevation data is lacking for most of the State. A handful of
communities and specific reaches outside of the Metro area also have pockets of
topographic data.
3.9. Region IX (AZ, CA, NV, HI, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below.
Arizona – Countywide high-quality topographic data is available for the counties of
Santa Cruz (LiDAR) and Maricopa (photogrammetric). Pima County has also been
actively pursuing development of LiDAR data for areas with high population and
identified flood risk. LiDAR coverage for the rest of the state remains spotty.
California – Countywide LiDAR data is available for at least 5 of the 9 Bay Area counties
in Northern California. USACE and CA DWR have contributed to several LiDAR collection
projects for the Central Valley, while FEMA has funded LiDAR development in the
coastal portion of the Bay Area. In Southern California, countywide high-quality
topographic data is less prevalent, although the majority of LA County and Ventura
County have good LiDAR coverage.
Nevada – State has LiDAR coverage for part of the Carson River Watershed and the
populated areas of Clark County. Countywide high-quality topographic data has not
been discovered through this inventory effort.
Hawaii – Of the 4 Hawaiian Islands, Oahu and Maui have good countywide LiDAR
coverage. Some shorelines of Kauai is also known to have LiDAR projects completed as
part of FEMA coastal studies, but exact data extent has not been determined through
this inventory effort.
American Samoa – American Samoa has countywide topographic data that supports 5-ft
contours, although the data was from the 1970s.
Northern Mariana Islands – Northern Mariana Islands has 4-ft contour coverage for 3 of
its islands funded by USACE in 2000.
3.10. Region X (AK, ID, OR, WA) The RSC was able to obtain information about the data holdings within each state in the Region.
A summary of the findings is provided below:
Alaska – A majority of existing elevation data is located within the Kenai Peninsula
Borough including several LiDAR datasets for the City of Seward flown in 2006 and 2009
(15 cm RMSE vertical accuracy) as well as several USGS-provided datasets covering a
majority of the peninsula. Age and vertical accuracy information for this data is
currently unknown. Additional LiDAR data is available for the North Slope and Yukon-
Koyukuk Boroughs in northern Alaska. Vertical accuracy (where known) for most
elevation data in Alaska ranges from 5-30 cm RMSE and would support 0.5-4 foot
contours. Existing datasets were created in 2007 or more recently. Major source
contributors included USGS’s CLICK website, OpenTopography.com, state and local
contacts. Very little high-resolution topographic data exists for Alaska. Several
important LiDAR projects are planned for 2011 in areas within Mat-Su Borough as well
as coastal areas within the Municipality of Anchorage.
Idaho – New LiDAR data is publicly available from the Idaho LiDAR Consortium. The
University of Idaho and Idaho State University have received funding from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) to process and compile LiDAR data within Idaho. Sources for
data provided by the consortium include the USDA ARS, USGS, BOR, Coeur d’Alene
Tribe, state and local jurisdictions. Most of the compiled datasets are available for
download from the USGS CLICK website. Datasets include areas west of Boise through a
joint collection effort from the Bureau of Reclamation and National Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS). The Coeur d’Alene Tribe has also collected high-res
resolution LiDAR for the reservation and some outlying areas. The USGS CLICK website
was an important source of elevation data. In 2008, USGS hired Aero-Metric to collect
112 square miles of LiDAR data along the Coeur d’Alene River and several of its
tributaries in support of the NFIP. Several other riverine corridors containing LiDAR data
exist throughout the State. High-resolution topographic data currently is sparse in Idaho
and metadata availability is limited, therefore the vertical accuracy is unclear. Most of
the data was collected between 2002 and 2008.
Oregon – Oregon’s Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) is the
primary data repository for LiDAR. All data collected by DOGAMI was collected within
the last 5 years; has equal to or less than 7 cm vertical accuracy; and supports 1 foot
contours. Available LiDAR data from DOGAMI includes: Lower Columbia River; Portland
Metro area; Willamette and Deschutes River systems; and the coastline. Numerous
riverine corridors throughout the state have LiDAR data with varying sources including:
DOGAMI, USFS, BLM, BOR, NPS, NOAA, USFW, USGS, and local tribes. Little metadata
was available for topographic datasets at the time of inventory so information regarding
vertical accuracy and specific time of collection remains limited. Most of this data was
collected between 2000 and 2009.
Washington – The Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium (PSLC) serves as the primary data
repository for all LiDAR data within the state. The vertical accuracy of this data is 15-30
cm and supports 2-4 foot contour equivalency. Other data sources included the
Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study showing bathymetry and monitoring sites
with beach profiles. Additional data exists for south I-5 corridor, southwest Washington
coast, and along the Lower Columbia River (7cm RMSE vertical accuracy, supports 1 foot
contours). Data is available in the Greater Puget Sound Region, coastal shorelines, I-5
corridor, Lower Columbia River, and along portions of the Chehalis River system in
southwestern Washington and the Columbia and Yakima River systems in eastern
Washington.
The USACE Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Project will provide high resolution elevation data with
a vertical accuracy of <13cm for the Columbia and Snake River systems through Washington and
Oregon. Portions of the Pend Oreille River in Washington and the Kootenai River in Idaho are also
included in this project. The project has an expected completion date of August 1, 2010. The data is
expected to be hosted on the USGS National Map and Seamless server.
4. Conclusions
The methodology used to inventory the available high-quality elevation data was reasonably
effective for creating a baseline of existing data and planned data collection from Federal and State
sources. The resulting data from this project should be reviewed and used with some caution. The
results are not meant to be comprehensive of every high quality topographic dataset that exists
across the Nation. Rather the effort was to provide a reasonable baseline of high quality
topographic data that may be used for FEMA’s Risk MAP program to produce high quality flood
hazard studies. The results are adequate to help FEMA plan future LiDAR collection efforts from a
National perspective.
Appendix A – Data Dictionary
FIELD DESCRIPTION Required Domain
STATE_NAME Whole State Name where the project was done. Example: Illinois, Michigan, New York Y
STATE_FIPS FIPS code for the state. Example: 17, 26, 18 Y
COUNTY_NAM Whole County Name of the project Example: De Kalb, Clinton Y
CNTY_FIPS FIPS code for the county. Example 001, 055, 123 Y
PCOMM Community Identification Number for the entity. The state and county FIPS code combined. Example: 17001C
CITY_NAME Whole City Name for the city where the project was done. Example: New York, Detroit
TITLE Title of the project when data was collected. Example: King County Partial Countywide LiDAR Project, NAIP State of Texas Project. Y
VENDOR Vendor that collected the data. Example: Sanborn
COLLECTION_DATE
Date that the data set was collected. Specific dates if possible. Example: 4/2/10 to 4/5/10 Y
COLLECTION_METHOD Collection Technology used. Example: LiDAR, IFSAR, photogrammetry, soundings, etc. Y
DATA_FORMAT Format Data is currently in. Example: Contours, DEM Y
PROJECT_FOOTPRINT Footprint that the data covers. Example: Partial Countywide, Countywide, Community
VERTICAL_DATUM Vertical Datum as reported in survey report of metadata. Example: NAVD88, MSL, etc. Y
VERTICAL_ACCURACY Vertical Accuracy reported in survey report or metadata. Example: 10 cm RMSE or FVA Y
HORIZONTAL_DATUM Horizontal Datum as reported in the survey report or metadata. Example: NAD83, etc. Y
HORIZONTAL_ACCURACY Horizontal Accuracy as reported in the survey report or metadata. Example: 2 meters
PROJECTION Current projection of the data. Example: Geographic NAD83, decimal degrees, Z units = meters
QA Was quality assurance conducted on this data set? Yes or No Y
METADATA Are metadata available for this data set? Yes or no Y
METADATA_LINK Hyperlink to the metadata online. Example: http://ned.usgs.gov
FIELD DESCRIPTION Required Domain
CONTACT_NAME
Person to contact to request data or ask questions about the data. Example: John Smith, GIS specialist at Jackson County Planning Dept.
CONTACT_PHONE Contact phone number of the person whose office holds the data. Example: (123) 456-7890
CONTACT_EMAIL Contact email for the person whose office holds the data. Example: [email protected]
DATA_LOCATION Current location of the data. Example: A state or local entity, MIP, website, etc. Y
AGENCY Agency that holds the data. Example: Minnesota DNR, USGS
MAILING_ADDRESS Mailing address of the contact person or entity
CONSTRAINTS Were there constraints with the project? Yes, or no. Example: Financial, Environmental, etc. Y
HORIZONTAL_POSTING Horizontal point spacing for the data. Example: 1 meter, 3 meter
CONTOURS The contour information for the data. Example: 1ft, 2ft, 4ft
FEMA_REGION The FEMA Region for the county/community. Example: 1, 2, 3, 10
SHAPEFILE A shapefile that indicates the boundary of your data set. Example: footprint.shp
WEBLINK_TO
Either a hyperlink to the download mechanism or contact information for an organization that distributes the data. Example: http://www.co.dakota.mn.us/DoingBusiness/MapsAndServices/Download/LiDAR.htm
CONT_SUPP
RESTRICTION_TYPE More information about what type of restrictions to distribution. Example: Free to fed and state entities, can purchase data, restrictions undetermined, none.
RESTRICTIONS Are there any restrictions on distributing these data sets? Yes or No.
PROGRESS Progress of the data project. Example: Planned, Complete Y
EXPECTED_COMPLETION Expected date of completion. Specific dates if possible. Example: 4/5/10
COMPLETION_DATE Date completed. Specific dates if possible. Example: 4/5/10
DATASET_NAME Name that describes the collection - include year, technology, and maybe owner. Example: 2009 USGS LiDAR collection
FIELD DESCRIPTION Required Domain
POINT_SPACING
Average distance between points or the contract specification for point spacing. Example: 1-3 meter, 10 meter
OWNER Owner of the data either through purchase or custodian of the data. Example: USGS, Lake County
ISLAND Often not applicable, but denotes specific islands if necessary.
PRODUCTS_AVAILABLE Additional products available related to the data. Example: shapefiles, additional studies, etc.
ADDITIONAL_NOTE
Any ancillary information about the dataset that may be useful to the user. Example: existence of coordinating hyperspectral imagery, funding source, etc.
Appendix B – Points of Contact
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
Region 1
CT
Lynn
Bjorklund USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 508-490-5074
CT
Michael
Howser GIS Librarian UConn MAGIC [email protected] 860-486-4589
CT
Jackie
Mickiwicz Connecticut DEP [email protected] 860-424-3085
CT Emily Wilson GIS Specialist UConn CLEAR [email protected]
ME Dan Walters USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 207-622-8201 x128
ME Michael Smith OIT Chair State [email protected] 207-215-5530
ME Joseph Young Mapping Coordinator Maine Floodplain Mgmt. Program [email protected] 207-287-8051
MA
Lynn
Bjorklund USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 508-490-5074
MA
Neil
MacGaffey MassGIS [email protected] 617-626-1057
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
MA Philip John MassGIS [email protected] 617-626-1185
NH Lin Neifert USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 802-229-4384
NH Fay Rubin Director NH GRANIT [email protected] 603-862-4240
NH
Rick
Chormann Senior Hydrogeologist NH Geological Survey [email protected] 603-271-1975
RI
Lynn
Bjorklund USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 508-490-5074
RI Greg Bonynge GIS Specialist URI Geospatial Ext. Program [email protected] 401-874-2180
VT Lin Neifert USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 802-229-4384
VT
David
Brotzman Executive Director VCGI [email protected] 802-882-3003
VT
Ned
Swanberg
Flood Plain Mapping
Coordinator VT DEC [email protected] 802.241.4596
Region 2
NJ Roger Barlow USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] (703) 648-5189
NJ John Tyrawski NJDEP [email protected] (609) 777-0151
NJ Roger Kerin NJ Highlands Commission
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
NJ Andy Rowan State GIO NJOIT [email protected]
NY Sam Wear Westchester County [email protected]
NY David Terrell USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] 717-702-2027
NJ Richard Dean Fort Dix [email protected] (609) 754 -6520
NY Tim Daly GIS Lead
NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation Division of Water [email protected] (518) 402-8260
NY Paul Weberg Senior Engineer FEMA Region II [email protected] (212) 680-3638
NY
Wassim
Nader VP Civil Department T.Y.LIN International/Medina [email protected] (908) 850-3366
NY Alex Sandoval Surveyor T.Y.LIN International/Medina [email protected] (908) 850-3366
NY Hani Rimawi
Project Engineer- East
District T.Y.LIN International/Medina [email protected] (908) 850-3366
NY
Matt
Mampara Associate Dewberry [email protected] (703) 849 0612
NY Jason Fenn Program Specialist FEMA Region II [email protected] (212) 680-3624
NY Brian Shumon GIS Lead FEMA Region II [email protected] (212) 680-3631
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
Region 3
DE, DC,
MD Roger Barlow USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] (703) 648-5189
Bruce Bauch USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] 502-493-1945
VA Diane Eldridge USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] (703) 648-4521
WV Craig Neidig USGS Geospatial Liason USGS [email protected] 304-347-5130 x237
PA David Terrell USGS Geospatial Liason [email protected] 717-702-2027
Region 4
AL
George
Heleine USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 601-933-2950
AL Mike Vanhook Geospatial Contact Geospatial Office (ALGO) [email protected] 334-242-4799
AL Leslie Durham State CTP Coordinator AL Dept. of Water Resources [email protected] 334-242-5506
FL
Richard
Butgereit State GIS Coordinator FL Div. of Emergency Mgt. [email protected] 850-413-9907
FL Louis Driber USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 850-553-3645
FL John Crowe Associate Hydrologist Northwest FL WMD [email protected] 850-539-5999 x226
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
FL Karen Kebert
Associate Water Resource
Planner Northwest FL WMD [email protected] 850-539-5999 x248
FL
Paul
Buchanan Geospatial Contact Suwannee River WMD [email protected] 386-362-1001
FL
Christine
Mundy GIS Program Coordinator St. Johns River WMD [email protected] 386-329-4145
FL
Ekaterina
Fitos Geospatial Contact Southwest FL WMD [email protected] 352-796-7211 x4219
FL
Diana
Umpierre Senior Geographer South FL WDM [email protected] 561-682-6822
GA
Keith
McFadden USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 770-903-9150
GA Lisa Weston Sr. GIS Specialist Dept. of Community Affairs [email protected] 404-679-3125
GA Eric McRae Associate Director
Carl Vinson Institute of Govt. at
Univ. of Georgia [email protected] 706-542-5308
GA Tom ShillocK State GIS Coordinator Environmental Protection Division [email protected] 404-463-0606
KY Bruce Bauch USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 502-493-1945
KY Kent Anness
Kentucky Division of Geographic
Information [email protected] 502-564-1450 x291
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
MS
George
Heleine USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 601-933-2950
MS
Stephen
Champlin Geospatial Contact
Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality [email protected] 601-961-5521
NC Steve Strader USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 919-571-4092
NC Jeff Brown GIS Program Manager
Center for Geographic information
and Analysis [email protected] 919-754-6584
SC Gary Merrill USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 803-750-6124
SC Jim Scurry
SC Dept. of Natural
Resources [email protected] 803-734-9494
TN
Dennis
Pederson Division Director Office for Information Resources [email protected] 615-741-9356
TN Bruce Bauch USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] 502-493-1945
Region 5
IL Shelly Silch USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 217-328-9732
IL David Mick GIS Analyst IDNR/Office of Water Resources [email protected] 217-782-4486
IL
Sally
McConkey Illinois State Water Survey -INRS [email protected] 217-333-5482
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
IL Kingsley Allan GIS Manager Illinois State Water Survey -INRS [email protected] 217-333-0545
IN David Nail USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 317-290-3333
IN David Knipe
Section Head/Central Basin
Eng. Services Indiana DNR [email protected] 317-232-4173
IN Scott Morlock Supervisory Hydrologist
USGS Indiana Water Sciences
Center http://in.water.usgs.gov 317-290-3333 ext 153
MI Steve Aichele USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 517-887-8918
MI Les Thomas NFIP Coordinator Michigan DNR [email protected] 517-335-3448
MI Bruce Menery Hydrologic Studies Unit Michigan DNR [email protected] 517-335-3181
MN Ronald Wencl USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 763-783-3207
MN
Suzanne
Jiwani
Floodplain Mapping
Hydrologist Minnesota DNR [email protected] 651-259-5681
MN Tim Loesch GIS Operations Supervisor Minnesota DNR [email protected] 651-259-5475
OH
Charles
Hickman USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 614-430-7768
OH Jeff Smith
Spatial Data Framework
Manager
Ohio Office of Information
Technology [email protected] 614-466-8862
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
OH Jonathan Sorg Environmental Specialist
Ohio DNR Div. of Soil and Water
Res. [email protected] 614-265-6780
WI Dick Vraga USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] 608-821-3896
WI
Amanda
Schwoegler WI CTP Project Lead Wisconsin DNR [email protected] 608-267-7571
WI
Robert
Watson Floodplain Engineer
Wisconsin DNR, Bureau of
Watershed [email protected] 608-266-8037
Region 6
AR
Luis
Hernandez MLRA Leader NRCS [email protected] (501) 301-3116
AR Pam Cooper GIS Coordinator NRCS [email protected] (501) 301-3146
AR Learon Dalby
Arkansas Geographic
Information Office
Arkansas Geographic Information
Office [email protected]
(501) 682-2767
NM
Laura
Gleasner MRGCD [email protected] (505) 277-3622 ext.230
NM
Douglas
Strech GIS Manager MRGCD [email protected]
(505)247-0234 ext.
1344
NM Gary Kress Geospatial Contact NM USGS [email protected] (303)202-4451
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
OK Greg Scott Soil Scientist NRCS [email protected]
(405) 742-1249
OK
Dr. Mike
Sharp
Director, Information
Technology Division
Oklahoma Conservation
Commission [email protected] (405) 521-4813
OK
Darryl
Williams
USGS Geospatial Liaison
for Oklahoma USGS [email protected] (405) 810-4403
TX Felicia Retiz StratMap Team Leader TNRIS [email protected] (512) 463-8862
Region 7
MO
Timothy
Haithcoat State GIS Coordinator
Geographic Resource Center &
MSDIS [email protected] (573) 882-1404
MO Ray Fox USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] (573) 308-3744
MO Mark Duewell Senior GIS Specialist
Geographic Resource Center &
MSDIS [email protected] (573) 882-6734
MO Jim Harlan Assistant Program Director
Geographic Resource Center &
MSDIS [email protected] (573) 882-1356
MO Levi Boettler
Research Specialist, FEMA
flood mapping
Geographic Resource Center &
MSDIS [email protected] (573) 882-2149
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
MO Josh Bullock
Office of Administration,
Information Technology Services
Division (513)-751-3290
MO
Elizabeth
Cook GIS Specialist USDA-NRCS [email protected] (573) 876-9396
MO Chad Markin
US Army Corps of Engineers Rock
Island District (RID) [email protected] (309)-794-4200
MO
Jason
Schneider Project Manager
Greenhorne & O’Mara – Kansas
City [email protected] (913)-498-00500
MO Frank Nelson
Missouri Department of
Conservation [email protected] 573.222.2432
MO
Marty
Comstock
USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service [email protected] (573)-876-9387
MO Tony Spicci GIS Coordinator
Missouri Department of
Conservation [email protected] 573.882.9909
MO
Jason
Warzinik GIS Manager Boone County Gov. Cntr [email protected] 573.886.4325
MO
Jonathan
Bode GIS Analyst Boone County [email protected] 573.886.4303
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
MO
Erin Kemper
Information Services Greene County
416.864.1876
MO
Sheila
McCarthy
St. Louis District, Corps of
Engineers [email protected] (314) 331-8149
MO
Dale
Schmutzler
Floodplain Management
Officer [email protected] 573.526.9135
MO
Karen
McHugh
Floodplain Management
Officer
MO State Emergency
Management [email protected] 573.526.9129
MO Alicia Williams
Amec Earth & Environmental
615.333.0630
MO Dennis Lawler Amec Earth & Environmental
785.272.6830
MO Lisa Chapman GIS Coordinator Cass County [email protected] 816-380-8190
MO Steve Marsh
Information Technology
Director Jackson County [email protected] (816) 881-4584
MO Julia Cole Metro St. Louis Sewer District [email protected] 314.768.2744
MO
Patsy
Alexander GIS Manager Taney County [email protected] 417.546.7210
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
IA Alan D. Jensen State GIS Coordinator
Iowa Geographic Information
Council (IGIC) [email protected] 641-782-8426
IA Chris Kahle
Iowa DNR-Geological
Survey [email protected] (319) 335-1583
KS Ivan Weichert State GIS Coordinator
Kansas Information Technology
Office [email protected] (785) 296-0257
KS
Ingrid
Landgraf USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] (785) 832-3566
KS Tom Morey State NFIP Coordinator Kansas Department of Agriculture [email protected] (785) 296-5440
KS Ken Nelson Manager Kansas Geological Survey [email protected] (785)-864-2164
KS Eileen Battles Kansas Geological Survey
(785)-864-200
KS Travis Rome State GIS Contact
Natural Resource Conservation
Service [email protected] 785.823.4587
KS Andy Megrail Kansas Dept. of Agriculture [email protected] (785) 296-2513
KS
Ingrid
Landgraf U.S. Geological Survey [email protected] (785) 832-3566
OK Sarah Harris USACE – Tulsa [email protected] 918.669.7366
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
KS John Rogers GIS Manager
Sedgwick County Geographic
Information Services [email protected] 316.660.9290
KS Andy Smith GIS Administrator Ford County [email protected] 620.227.4673
KS Joe Finley
Director, Engineering
Services City of Dodge City [email protected] 620.225.8106
KS Daryl Reeves GIS Coordinator City of Dodge City [email protected]
KS Samuel Seeley
Lyon County Floodplain
Manager Lyon County Floodplain Manager [email protected] 620-341-3471
NE Larry K. Zink State GIS Coordinator Nebraska GIS Steering Committee [email protected] 402-471-3206
NE Jim Langtry USGS Geospatial Liaison Nebraska Water Science Center [email protected] (402) 328-4128
NE Shuhai Zheng Division Head Nebraska DNR [email protected] (402)-471-3936
NE Josh Lear Natural Resources Planner Nebraska DNR [email protected] 402-471-3954
NE Staci Parent
Floodplain Mapping
Specialist Nebraska DNR [email protected] (402)-471-1737
NE
Tony D.
Krause Hydraulic Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
Omaha District [email protected] (402) 995-2326
NE Chad Nabity Director City of Grand Island [email protected] (308)-385-5240
NE Rose Braun GIS Manager [email protected] (402)479-3696
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
NE
Michael
Schonlau GIS Coordinator Douglas County- City of Omaha mschonlau@douglascounty_ne.gov 402.444.3982
NE
James
Gaspers
Information Technology
Manager City of Scotts Bluff [email protected] (308)-630-6202
Region 8
CO Jon Gottsegen State GIS Coordinator
Colorado Governor’s Office of
Information Technology [email protected]
CO Carol Griffin USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
MT
Stu
Kirkpatrick State GIS Coordinator
Montana Department of
Administration - Information
Technology Services Division [email protected]
MT
Lance
Clampitt USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
ND Bob Nutsch State GIS Coordinator
North Dakota Information
Technology Department [email protected]
ND Steve Shivers USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
SD Erik Nelson State GIS Coordinator
South Dakota Bureau of
Information and
Telecommunication [email protected]
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
SD Steve Shivers USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
UT Bert Granbert
Manager – State
Geographic Information
Database
Utah’s Automated Geographic
Reference Center [email protected]
UT Dave Vincent USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
WY
Jeffery
Hamerlinck
Director – University of
Wyoming GIS Center University of Wyoming [email protected]
WY Barbara Ray USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected]
Region 9
AZ Eugene Trobia State Cartographer Arizona State Land Department [email protected] (602) 542-3190
AZ/NV Tom Sturm USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] (650) 329-4326
CA
Carol
Ostergren USGS Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] (916) 278-9510
CA
David Harris
GIS Coordinator
CA Natural Resources Agency
(916) 445-5088
CA
Joel Dudas
GIS Coordinator
CA Department of Water
Resources
(916) 651-7002
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
HI
Craig Tasaka
GIS Coordinator
State Office of Planning
(808) 587-2899
HI
Henry Wolter
USGS Geospatial Liaison
USGS
(808) 587-2409
NV
Ron Hess
GIS Coordinator
Nevada Bureau of Mines and
Geology
(775) 784-6692
Region 10
AK Craig Seaver AK USGS Liaison USGS [email protected] (907) 786-7089
AK Anne Johnson GIS Coordinator DNR [email protected] (907) 269-8535
AK Jeff Urbanus
Flood Hazard
Administrator CTP - Municipality of Anchorage [email protected] (907) 343-8023
AK
Ruth St.
Amour Development Specialist
DCRA/Planning and Land
Management [email protected] (907) 269-4527
AK
Bernardo
Hernandez
Community Development
Director
CTP -Fairbanks-North Star
Borough [email protected]
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
AK
Taunnie
Boothby State NFIP Coordinator
DCRA/Planning and Land
Management [email protected] (907) 269-4583
AK Dan Mahalak Kenai Peninsula Borough [email protected]
AK Nicole Grewe Community Planner
DCRA/Planning and Land
Management [email protected] (907) 465-8249
AK
Crane
Johnson USACE
AK Mary Azelton USACE [email protected]
AK Marty Martin ASGDC Administrator
Alaska State Geo-spatial Data
Clearinghouse [email protected] (907) 269-8837
ID Dan Katz USACE
ID
Scott
Stoddard USACE
ID
Ellen
Berggren USACE
ID
Mary
McGown State NFIP Coordinator IDWR [email protected] (208) 287-4928
ID
Barbara
McEvoy State NFIP Coordinator IDWR [email protected] (208) 287-4926
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
OR
Sherri
Schneider OR Geospatial Liaison USGS [email protected] (503) 251-3210
OR Susan Nelson GIS Analyst BLM [email protected] (503) 808-6139
OR Cy Smith State GIS Coordinator
DAS/EISPD Geospatial Enterprise
Office [email protected] (503) 378-6066
OR Jed Roberts Geospatial Coordinator CTP – DOGAMI [email protected] (971) 673-1546
OR John English
LiDAR Database
Coordinator CTP – DOGAMI [email protected] (971) 673-1557
OR Ian Madin
Chief Scientist – Oregon
LiDAR Consortium Lead CTP – DOGAMI [email protected] (971) 673-1542
OR Ian Reid GIS Specialist USDA/NRCS [email protected] (503) 414-3015
OR Anna Bennett Klamath Tribes [email protected]
OR Don Lewis
Assistant Director -
Geologic Survey and
Services Program CTP – DOGAMI [email protected] (971) 673-1541
OR Glen Hess Hydrologist (SW Spec) USGS [email protected] (503) 251-3470
OR Julie Ammann USACE [email protected]
OR Seshu Vaddey USACE [email protected]
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
OR
Christine
Shirley State NFIP Coordinator DLCD [email protected] (503) 373-0050 x250
OR
Stephen
Lucker State NFIP Coordinator DLCD [email protected] (503) 373-0050 x269
WA Joy Paulus WA State GIS Coordinator DIS [email protected] 360-902-3447
WA Tom Carlson WA USGS Liaison USGS [email protected]
WA Tony Hartrich GIS Manager Quinault Tribe [email protected]
WA Craig Weaver Seismic Expert USGS [email protected] (206) 685-3812
WA Bob Rose
Assistant Environmental
Manager Yakama Nation [email protected] (509) 865-6262
WA Joseph Jones Hydrologist USGS [email protected] (253) 428-3600
WA, OR, ID
Diana
Martinez Senior GIS Analyst/LiDAR PSRC/PSLC [email protected] (206) 971-3052
WA Dave Steele
Geodetic Survey Unit
Director DNR [email protected] (360) 902-1171
WA, OR,
ID, AK Roger Parsons NOAA [email protected]
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
WA
David
Michalsen USACE [email protected]
WA, OR, ID Jennifer Bayer USGS [email protected]
WA Terry Curtis
Photogrammetry
Supervisor DNR [email protected] (360) 902-1210
WA Tim Walsh Chief Geologist DNR [email protected] (360) 902-1432
WA
Christopher
Magirl USGS [email protected] (253) 552-1617
WA Jerry Franklin
Floodplain Mapping
Coordinator DOE [email protected] (360) 407-7470
WA Dan Sokol State NFIP Coordinator DOE [email protected] (360) 407-6902
WA
Scott
Campbell USACE [email protected]
WA Alan Smith CGIS Manager WSDOT [email protected] (360) 596-8925
WA, OR, ID
Melanie
Paquin Regional GIS Manager USBOR-PN [email protected] (208) 378-5166
WA, OR, ID
Kristin
Swoboda USBOR-PN [email protected] (208) 378-5244
Geospatial Key Contacts
State Name Title Agency Email Phone
WA, OR, ID
Jennifer
Bountry Hydraulic Engineer USBOR [email protected] (303) 445-3614
ID Linda Davis
Senior GIS Analyst
(Principal Steward for NHD
in ID) IDWR [email protected] (208) 387-4877
WA, OR, ID Tracy Schwarz USACE [email protected]