noaa / NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

National Environmental Satellite,

Data, and Information Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-21

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF PORT ORFORD, OREGON:

PROCEDURES, DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS 

K.S. Carignan

L.A.Taylor

B.W. Eakins

R.R. Warnken

T. Sazonova 

D.C. Schoolcraft

National Geophysical Data Center

Marine Geology and Geophysics Division

Boulder, Colorado

March 2009

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Gary Locke

Secretary

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

Dr. Jane Lubchenco

Under Secretary for Oceans

and Atmosphere/Administrator

National Environmental Satellite,

Data, and Information Service

Mary E. Kicza

Assistant Administrator

NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-21

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF PORT ORFORD, OREGON:

PROCEDURES, DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS

Kelly S. Carignan1

Lisa A. Taylor2

Barry W. Eakins1

Robin R. Warnken2

Tatiana Sazonova1

David C. Schoolcraft2

1

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder

2

NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado 

National Geophysical Data Center

Marine Geology and Geophysics Division 

Boulder, Colorado

March 2009
Carignan et al., 2009

ii

NOTICE

Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by the 

NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. Use of information 

from this publication concerning proprietary products or the test of such products for publicity

or advertising purposes is not authorized. 

Corresponding project contact:

Lisa A. Taylor

NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center

Marine Geology and Geophysics Division

325 Broadway, E/GC 3

Boulder, Colorado 80305

Phone: 303-497-6767

Fax: 303-497-6513

E-mail: Lisa.A.Taylor@noaa.gov

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/inundation/tsunami/inundation.html

Also available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

(http://www.ntis.gov)
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

iii

Contents

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................1

2. Study Area..........................................................................................................................................2

3. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................3

3.1 Data Sources and Processing ......................................................................................................4

3.1.1 Shoreline................................................................................................................5

3.1.2 Bathymetry ............................................................................................................7

3.1.3 Topography..........................................................................................................19

3.2 Establishing Common Datums .................................................................................................24

3.2.1 Vertical datum transformations ...........................................................................24

3.2.2 Horizontal datum transformations.......................................................................24

3.3 Digital Elevation Model Development .....................................................................................24

3.3.1 Verifying consistency between datasets..............................................................24

3.3.2 Smoothing of bathymetric data ...........................................................................25

3.3.3 Gridding the data with MB-System.....................................................................25

3.4 Quality Assessment of the DEM...............................................................................................26

3.4.1 Horizontal accuracy.............................................................................................26

3.4.2 Vertical accuracy .................................................................................................26

3.4.3 Slope maps and 3-D perspectives........................................................................27

3.4.4	 Comparison with source data files.......................................................................28

3.4.5 Comparison with NGS geodetic monuments......................................................29

4. Summary and Conclusions...............................................................................................................31

5. Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................31

6. References........................................................................................................................................31

7. Data Processing Software ................................................................................................................32

List of Figures

Figure 1. Shaded-relief image of the Port Orford, Oregon DEM...............................................................1

Figure 2. Google Earth satellite image of the Oregon coast ......................................................................2

Figure 3. Source and coverage of datasets used to compile the Port Orford DEM....................................4

Figure 4. RNC datasets used in developing a ‘derived coastline’ for the 

Port Orford DEM.................................................................................................................5

Figure 5. Spatial coverage of bathymetric datasets used to compile the Port Orford DEM ......................8

Figure 6. Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Port Orford region ....................................10

Figure 7. Spatial coverage of USACE hydrographic channel line surveys for the 

 Port Orford DEM...............................................................................................................12

Figure 8.	 Spatial coverage of multibeam swath sonar files from NGDC multibeam

database used in the Port Orford DEM..............................................................................14

Figure 9. QT Modeler image of data spikes in multibeam survey Tran2sou ...........................................15

Figure 10. QT Modeler image of multibeam survey LWAD99MV showing center beam 

noise errors of up to 50 meters ..........................................................................................15

Figure 11. QT Modeler image of cross section comparing gridded bathymetric surfaces.........................16

Figure 12. Images of gridded multibeam surveys provided by Oregon Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife/Marine Program...................................................................................................17

Figure 13. Spatial coverage of the OCS chart sounding data used to compile the Port Orford 

DEM ..................................................................................................................................18

Figure 14. Spatial coverage of topographic datasets used in the Port Orford DEM..................................19

Figure 15. NED topographic data at Coos Bay..........................................................................................20

Figure 16. Spatial coverage of the CSC topographic LiDAR within the Port Orford DEM 

boundary ............................................................................................................................21

Figure 17. Comparison of CSC LiDAR data coverage and NASA Geocover2000 

short-wavelength infrared image .......................................................................................22
Carignan et al., 2009

iv

Figure 18. Location and aerial photos of four NGDC digitized jetties......................................................23

Figure 19. Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H04891 and

 the 1 arc-second pre-surfaced bathymetric grid................................................................25

Figure 20. Slope map of the Port Orford DEM.........................................................................................27

Figure 21. Perspective view of the Port Orford DEM...............................................................................28

Figure 22. Histogram of the differences between USACE hydrographic survey ......................................28

Figure 23. Histogram of the differences between NGS monuments and Port Orford DEM......................29

Figure 24. Location of NGS geodetic monuments and the NOAA Port Orford tide station......................30

List of Tables

Table 1.	 PMEL specifications for the Port Orford, Oregon DEM ............................................................2

Table 2. Shoreline datasets available in the Port Orford, Oregon region .................................................5

Table 3. Raster nautical charts available in the Port Orford, Oregon region............................................6

Table 4. Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Port Orford DEM..................................................7

Table 5. Digital NOS hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Port Orford DEM............................9

Table 6. USACE surveys used in compiling the Port Orford DEM .......................................................11

Table 7. Multibeam surveys from NGDC database used in compiling the Port Orford DEM...............13

Table 8. Topographic datasets used in compiling the Port Orford DEM................................................19

Table 9. Summary of True Color and Short-Wavelength InfraRed (SWIR) satellite imagery 

representing surface features .............................................................................................22

Table 10. Relationship between Mean High Water and other vertical datums in the

Port Orford region..............................................................................................................24

Table 11. Data hierarchy used to assign gridding weight in MB-System.................................................25
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon:

Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis

1. Introduction

In March 2008, the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), an office of the National Oceanic andAtmospheric

Administration (NOAA), developed an integrated bathymetric–topographic digital elevation model (DEM) of Port 

Orford, Oregon (Fig. 1) for the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) NOAA Center for Tsunami

Research (http://nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/). The 1/3 arc-second1 coastal DEM will be used as input for the Method of 

Splitting Tsunami (MOST) model developed by PMEL to simulate tsunami generation, propagation and inundation. 

The DEM was generated from diverse digital datasets in the region (grid boundary and sources shown in Fig. 3) and 

will be used for tsunami inundation modeling, as part of the tsunami forecast system SIFT (Short-term Inundation 

Forecasting for Tsunamis) currently being developed by PMEL for the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers. This report 

provides a summary of the data sources and methodology used in developing the Port Orford DEM.

Figure 1. Shaded-relief image of the Port Orford, Oregon DEM. Contour interval is 50 meters in water and 100 meters on land. Image is in 

Mercator projection.

1. The Port Orford DEM is built upon a grid of cells that are square in geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude), however, the cells are 

not square when converted to projected coordinate systems, such as UTM zones (in meters). At the latitude of Port Orford, Oregon (42°44.6′ N, 

124°29.8′ W) 1/3 arc-second of latitude is equivalent to 10.3 meters; 1/3 arc-second of longitude equals 7.6 meters.
Carignan et al., 2009

2

2. Study Area

The Port Orford DEM covers the coastal region surrounding the town of Port Orford, Oregon from the Umpqua 

River in the north to the town of Ophir in the south and includes the communities of Port Orford, Langlois, Bandon, 

Charleston, Coos Bay, North Bend, and Winchester Bay (Fig. 2). Encompassing a portion of the Oregon Dunes 

National Recreation Area and the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the DEM includes many offshore rocks, 

small islands, reefs, and shoreline cliffs. The region is home to many species of coastal bird and animal life which 

provide recreation and educational opportunities. The town of Port Orford is located south of Cape Blanco, the 

westernmost point of the Oregon coast, and has a population of approximately 1,100. 

Figure 2. Google Earth satellite image of the Oregon coast. Port Orford DEM boundary shown in red. Image is in Mercator projection.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

3

3. Methodology

The Port Orford, Oregon DEM was constructed tomeet PMELspecifications(Table 1), based on inputrequirements

for the development of Reference Inundation Models (RIMs) and Standby Inundation Models (SIMs) (V. Titov, pers. 

comm.) in support of NOAA’s Tsunami Warning Centers use of SIFT to provide real-time tsunami forecasts in an 

operational environment. The best available digital data were obtained by NGDC and shifted to common horizontal 

and vertical datums: North America Datum 1983 (NAD 83) and Mean High Water (MHW), for modeling of maximum 

flooding, respectively2. Data processing and evaluation, and DEM assembly and assessment are described in the 

following subsections.

Table 1: PMEL specifications for the Port Orford, Oregon DEM.

Grid Area Port Orford, Oregon

Coverage Area 124.13o to 124.97o W; 42.53o to 43.73o N

Coordinate System Geographic decimal degrees

Horizontal Datum World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84)

Vertical Datum Mean High Water (MHW)

Vertical Units Meters

Grid Spacing 1/3 arc-second

Grid Format ESRI Arc ASCII grid

2. The horizontal difference between the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) and World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS 84) geographic 

horizontal datums is approximately one meter across the contiguous U.S., which is significantly less than the cell size of the DEM. Most GIS applications treat the two datums as identical, so do not actually transform data between them, and the error introduced by not converting between 

the datums is insignificant for our purposes. NAD 83 is restricted to North America, while WGS 84 is a global datum. As tsunamis may originate

most anywhere around the world, tsunami modelers require a global datum, such as WGS 84 geographic, for their DEMs so that they can model the 

wave’s passage across ocean basins. This DEM is identified as having a WGS 84 geographic horizontal datum even though the underlying elevation

data were typically transformed to NAD 83 geographic. At the scale of the DEM, WGS 84 and NAD 83 geographic are identical and may be used 

interchangeably.
Carignan et al., 2009

4

3.1 Data Sources and Processing

Shoreline, bathymetric, and topographic digital datasets (Fig. 3) were obtained from several U.S. federal, state 

and local agencies including: NOAA’s National Ocean Service (NOS), Office of Coast Survey (OCS) and Coastal

Services Center (CSC); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); and the 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine Resource Program (ORDFW). Safe Software’s (http://www.safe.

com/) FME data translation tool package was used to shift datasets to NAD 83 horizontal datum and to convert them 

into ESRI (http://www.esri.com/) ArcGIS shape files3. The shape files were then displayed with ArcGIS to assess data

quality and manually edit datasets. Vertical datum transformations to MHW were accomplished using FME, based 

upon data from the NOAA Port Orford tide station. Applied Imagery’s Quick Terrain Modeler software (http://www.

appliedimagery.com/) was used to evaluate processing and gridding techniques.

Figure 3. Source and coverage of datasets used to compile the Port Orford DEM.

3. FME uses the North American Datum Conversion Utility (NADCON; http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLS/Nadcon/Nadcon.html) developed by 

NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey (NGS) to convert data from NAD 27 to NAD 83. NADCON is the U.S. Federal Standard for NAD 27 to NAD 

83 datum transformations.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

5

3.1.1 Shoreline

Coastline datasets of the Port Orford region were obtained from NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey as Electronic

Navigational Charts (ENCs) and Raster Nautical Charts (RNCs); and the Oregon Resources Management Task Force 

(ORMTF). Of these datasets, only the RNCs were used to derive a coastline for the Port Orford DEM (Table 2; Fig. 

4). Both the ORMTF coastline and the extracted ENC coastline were shifted in different directions up to 100 meters 

from topographic datasets and were not used in the Port Orford DEM. The resolution of the ENC coastline was also 

too coarse for use in the DEM. 

Table 2: Shoreline dataset used in the Port Orford DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial 

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original Vertical 

Datum URL

OCS RNC 

derived 

coastline

2007 derived from 

raster data

1:20,000 to 

1:191,730

WGS 84 geographic 

(meters) Mean High Water

http://

nauticalcharts.

noaa.gov/mcd/

Raster/Index.htm

1) OCS Raster Nautical Charts

 Six raster nautical charts (RNCs) were available for the Port Orford area (Table 3) and downloaded from 

NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey website (http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/enc/index.htm). The RNCs are 

provided online as georeferenced raster images and cover the entire coastline within the DEM boundaries. 

RNC #18600 was not used, as smaller scale raster images were available covering the same area. 

Figure 4. RNC datasets used in developing a ‘derived coastline’ for the Port Orford DEM. Gray hachured regions show where manual 

adjustments to the coastline were made.
Carignan et al., 2009

6

Table 3: Raster nautical charts available in the Port Orford, Oregon region.

Chart Title Edition Edition Date Scale

18580 Cape Blanco to Yaquina Head 22 2005 1:191,730

18587 Coos Bay 70 2005 1:20,000

18588 Coquille River Entrance 37 2003 1:20,000

18589 Port Orford to Cape Blanco 16 2007 1:40,000

18600 Trinidad Head to Cape Blanco 14 2002 1:196,948

18601 Cape Sebastian to Humbug Mountain 14 2007 1:40,000

The coastlines shown on the RNC georeferenced raster images were extracted using the ArcGIS ‘Spatial Analyst’ 

tool, based on pixel values. The resulting data were resampled and converted to ESRI shape polygons. These lines 

were subsequently cleaned and edited to match the RNCs and be consistent with topographic datasets. These areas 

are shown in Figure 4 as hachured polygons. Some manmade features, such as bridges and piers, were removed 

to prevent their inclusion in the DEM. Jetties at Port Orford, Coquille River, Coos Bay, and Umpqua River were 

checked for accuracy against aerial photos, Google Earth images, and CSC LiDAR topography and adjusted to ensure 

representation in the DEM (See Sec. 3.1.3). 
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

7

3.1.2 Bathymetry

Bathymetric datasets used in the compilation of the Port Orford DEM include 34 NOS hydrographic surveys, 

22 hydrographic channel line surveys from USACE, 7 multibeam sonar swath files downloaded from the NGDC

multibeam sonar database, two multibeam sonar surveys from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine 

Resources Program (ORDFW), extracted ENC sounding data, and digitized RNC soundings (Table 4; Fig. 5).

Table 4: Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Port Orford DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial Resolution

Original 

Horizontal Datum/

Coordinate System

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

URL

NOS

1889 

to 

1991

Hydrographic 

survey 

soundings

Ranges from 10 

m to 1 km (varies 

with scale of survey, 

depth, traffic, and

probability of 

obstructions)

NAD 27 or NAD 

83 geographic

Mean Lower 

Low Water

http://www.ngdc.noaa.

gov/mgg/bathymetry/

hydro.html

USACE

2006 

to 

2007

Hydrographic 

channel line 

surveys

various, from 3 to 40 

meter point spacing

NAD 83 Oregon 

State Plane South 

(feet)

 Mean Lower 

Low Water

https://www.nwp.

usace.army.mil/op/

nwh/xyzcoastal.asp

NGDC 

1998 

to 

2003

Multibeam 

sonar swath 

files

raw MB files gridded

to 1 arc-second

WGS 84 

geographic

assumed 

Mean Sea 

Level

http://www.ngdc.noaa.

gov/mgg/bathymetry/

multibeam.html

ORDFW/Marine 

Resources 

Program

1999 

and 

2000

Multibeam 

sonar surveys 1 to 2 meter grid NAD 83 UTM Zone10 meters

Mean Lower 

Low Water

OCS RNCs

2003 

to 

2005

digitized 

soundings from 

RNCs

1:20,000 WGS 84 

geographic

Mean Lower 

Low Water

http://nauticalcharts.

noaa.gov/mcd/Raster/

Index.htm

OCS ENC 2005

extracted 

soundings from 

ENC

1: 191,730 WGS 84 

geographic

Mean Lower 

Low Water

http://chartmaker.ncd.

noaa.gov/MCD/enc/

index.htm
Carignan et al., 2009

8

Figure 5. Spatial coverage of bathymetric datasets used to compile the Port Orford DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

9

1) NOS hydrographic survey data

A total of 34 NOS hydrographic surveys conducted between 1889 and 1991 were available for use in 

developing the Port Orford DEM. The hydrographic survey data were originally vertically referenced to 

Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and horizontally referenced to either NAD 27 or NAD 83 datums (Table 

5; Fig. 6).

Data point spacing for the NOS surveys varied by collection date. In general, earlier surveys had greater 

point spacing than more recent surveys. All surveys were extracted from NGDC’s online NOS hydrographic 

database (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/hydro.html) referenced to NAD 83. The data were then 

converted to NAD 83 using FME software, an integrated collection of spatial extract, transform, and load 

tools for data transformation (http://www.safe.com). The surveys were subsequently clipped to a polygon 

0.05 degree (~5%) larger than the Port Orford DEM area to support data interpolation along grid edges. 

After converting all NOS survey data to MHW using a constant based on the Port Orford tide station (see 

Section 3.2.1), the data were displayed in ESRI ArcMap and reviewed for digitizing errors against scanned 

original survey smooth sheets and edited as necessary. The surveys were also compared to the topographic 

and other bathymetric datasets, the derived coastline, and NOS raster nautical charts (RNCs). The surveys 

were clipped to remove soundings that overlap the more recent multibeam surveys and where soundings from 

older surveys have been superseded by more recent NOS surveys.

Table 5: Digital NOS hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Port Orford DEM.

Survey ID Year Scale Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal Datum

H01946 1889 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H04217 1922 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04218 1922 120,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04452 1924 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04479 1924 40,000 MLLW NAD13

H04487 1925 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04505 1925 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04531 1925 120,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04503A 1925/26 120,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04812 1928 10,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04813 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04814 1928 10,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04815 1928 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04817 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04819 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04883 1928 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04885 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04886 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04887 1928 10,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04889 1928 120,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04890 1928 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04891 1928 20,000 MLLW NAD 27

H04896A 1928 80,000 MLLW NAD 27

H09238 1971 10,000 MLLW NAD 27

H09239 1971 10,000 MLLW NAD 27

H09240 1971 2,500 MLLW NAD 27

B00232 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00236 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00237 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83
Carignan et al., 2009

10

B00240 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00246 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00247 1990 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00283 1991 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

B00287 1991 50,000 MLLW NAD 83

Figure 6. Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Port Orford region. Some older surveys were not used as they 

have been superseded by more recent surveys. DEM boundary in red.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

11

2) USACE hydrographic channel line surveys

Twenty-two hydrographic channel line surveys were downloaded in xyz format from the USACE Portland 

District website (https://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/nwh/xyzcoastal.asp). The data were transformed to 

NAD 83 and MHW and changed to shape files using FME and quality checked in ArcMap against other

bathymetric datasets. 

Table 6: USACE hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Port Orford DEM.

Survey ID Year Original 

Vertical Datum

Original Horizontal 

Datum Resolution

Port Orford 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space from 5 to 30 meters with point 

spacing from 3 to 10 meters

Coos Bay Approaches 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~300 meters with point 

spacing of ~35 meters

Coos Bay Empire 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos Bay Ranges 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos Charleston 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space from 10 to 15 meters with point 

spacing of ~8 meters

Coos Entrance Ranges 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space from 15 to 50 meters with point 

spacing from 13 to 18 meters

Coos 

Ferndale Marshfield 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos Jarvis 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos North Bend 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos North Bend Ranges 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~22 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Coos site E 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~50 meters with point 

spacing of ~25 meters

Coos site F 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~150 meters with point 

spacing of ~25 meters

Coos site H 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~60 meters with point 

spacing of ~22 meters

Coquille Approaches 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~155 meters with point 

spacing of ~40 meters

Coquille Bandon boat 

basin 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet) Point spacing < 10 meters

Coquille ODMDS 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~60 meters with point 

spacing of ~25 meters

Umpqua River 

Approaches 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~300 meters with point 

spacing of ~25 meters

Umpqua River Entrance 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~15 meters with point 

spacing of ~10 meters

Section 103 Site 2006 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~55 meters with point 

spacing of ~20 meters

Salmon Harbor Reach 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~15 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters

Winchester Bay 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space from 8 to 15 meters with point 

spacing of ~10 meters

Barretts Range 2007 MLLW NAD 83 Oregon State 

Plane South (feet)

Line space of ~15 meters with point 

spacing of ~12 meters
Carignan et al., 2009

12

Figure 7. Spatial coverage of USACE hydrographic channel line surveys for the Port Orford DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

13

3) Multibeam swath sonar files

Nine multibeam swath sonar surveys were available from the NGDC multibeam database (http://www.

ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/multibeam.html) for use in the Port Orford DEM (Fig. 8, Table 7). This 

database is comprised of the original swath sonar files of surveys conducted mostly by the U.S. academic

fleet. The downloaded data were gridded to 1 arc-second resolution using MB-System. Two 1994 Ewing

surveys by Columbia University, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) were not used in building the 

DEM as analysis of the gridded data showed numerous, anomalous spikes and artifacts. 

Most of the multibeam swath surveys offshore southern Oregon were transits rather than dedicated seafloor surveys. All have a horizontal datum of WGS 84 geographic and undefined vertical datum, and were

assumed to be referenced to mean sea level (MSL).

Table 7: Multibeam swath sonar files used in compiling the Port Orford DEM.

Cruise ID Year Original Vertical 

Datum

Original Horizontal 

Datum Institution

AT07L14 2002 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI)

AVON08MV 1999 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

University of California, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (UC/SIO)

AVON09MV 1999 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

University of California, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (UC/SIO)

CNTL04RR 2003 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

University of California, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (UC/SIO)

LWAD99MV 1999 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

University of California, Scripps Institution of 

Oceanography (UC/SIO)

Tecfluc 1998 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 

(MBARI)

Tran2sou 1998 assumed Mean Sea 

Level

WGS 84 

geographic

Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute 

(MBARI)
Carignan et al., 2009

14

Figure 8. Spatial coverage of multibeam swath sonar files from NGDC multibeam database used in the Port Orford region.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

15

After assessing individual survey quality, the gridded data were transformed to MHW in xyz format 

using FME, displayed in QT Modeler and edited using GEODAS Hydroplot and QT Modeler. Figure 9 

shows a band of anomalous data spikes in survey Tran2sou, which were removed before use in the DEM. 

Difficulties with multibeam data collection included center beam noise errors (Fig. 10) and swath end rolling,

“smiles and frowns” (Fig. 11). Surveys were manually edited down the center beam and at the edges where 

these errors were most pronounced, before creating a gridded bathymetric surface. Figure 11 shows the 

difference between a pre-edited and post-edited bathymetric surface. 

Figure 9. QT Modeler image of anomalous data spikes in the multibeam sonar survey Tran2sou. These spikes 

were removed by clipping out this section of trackline. 

Figure 10. QT Modeler image of multibeam survey LWAD99MV showing center beam noise errors of up to 50 meters. The survey was 

manually edited in strips or by individual points to remove the most significant errors. 
Carignan et al., 2009

16

Figure 11. QT Modeler image of cross section comparing gridded bathymetric surfaces of pre-edited data (shown in blue on the graph) and 

the post edited data (shown in red on the graph). 
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

17

4) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine Resources Program Multibeam survey

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine Resources Program provided two high-resolution 

multibeam surveys for Orford Reef south of Cape Blanca (top image in Fig. 12) and for Bandon Reef, the 

near shore area at the entrance to the Coquille River (lower right image in Fig. 12). Information on these 

surveys is detailed in habitat reports (Fox et. al, 1999 and 2000) and was downloaded from the ORDFW 

website (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/publications/). The surveys were transformed to MHW and NAD 

83 using FME and processed using the GMT ‘blockmedian’ tool, for use in creating a bathymetric surface. 

The full-resolution data files were used in the final gridding process.

Figure 12. Images of gridded multibeam surveys provided by the Oregon 

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife/MarineReseources Program. Orford Reef in 

gray box above and Bandon Reef in box to right.
Carignan et al., 2009

18

5) Office of Coast Survey chart soundings

The OCS electronic navigational chart (ENC) sounding data were extracted from chart #18580 and 

converted to MHW in a region without digital NOS soundings. Soundings were clipped to the multibeam 

sonar surveys, the USACE hydrographic surveys, and the more recent NOS hydrographic surveys. Additional 

soundings digitized from RNCs #18587 and #18588 were added near Coos Bay and Coquille River to ensure 

negative elevations in the bathymetric surface where no other digital sounding data were available.

Figure 13. Spatial coverage of the OCS chart sounding data used to compile the Port Orford DEM.

Inconsistencies were identified while merging the bathymetric datasets due to the range in ages of the

NOS hydrographic surveys and differences in resolution. In areas where more recent data were available, the 

older NOS surveys were either edited or removed. 
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

19

3.1.3 Topography

Three topographic datasets in the Port Orford region were obtained and used to build the Port Orford DEM 

(Table 8; Fig. 14). The USGS NED 1/3 arc-second data provided full coverage for the DEM area and the 2002 CSC 

LiDAR dataset covered the entire coastline. NGDC created an additional topographic dataset representing four coastal 

features not fully resolved in the NED or CSC dataset. NGDC evaluated but did not use the Shuttle Radar Topography 

Mission (SRTM) Elevation 1 arc-second DEM available from USGS, as the higher-resolution 1/3 arc-second NED 

DEMs provided complete coverage.

Table 8: Topographic datasets used in compiling the Port Orford DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

URL

USGS 1999-

2006 NED DEM 1/3 arcsecond NAD 83 geographic NAVD88(meters) http://ned.usgs.gov/

CSC 2002 LiDAR ~2 meters NAD 83 geographic NAVD88

(meters) http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/TCM/

NGDC

digitized 

elevation 

points

~10 meters WGS 84 geographic MHW 

(meters)

Figure 14. Spatial coverage of topographic datasets used in the Port Orford DEM.
Carignan et al., 2009

20

1) USGS NED topographic 1/3 arc-second DEMs

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Dataset (NED; http://ned.usgs.gov/) provides 

complete 1/3 arc-second coverage of the Port Orford region4. Data are in NAD 83 geographic coordinates 

and NAVD88 vertical datum (meters), and are available for download as raster DEMs. The bare-earth 

elevations have a vertical accuracy of +/- 7 to 15 meters depending on source data resolution. See the USGS 

Seamless web site for specific source information (http://seamless.usgs.gov/). The dataset was derived from 

USGS quadrangle maps and aerial photographs based on topographic surveys; it has been revised using data 

collected in 1999 and 2000. The NED DEM included “zero” elevation values over the open ocean, which 

were removed from the dataset by clipping to the combined coastline. The clipping process also removed 

artifacts shown in Figure 15. 

Figure 15. NED topographic data at Coos Bay. Red arrows point to artifacts present in the raw dataset.

4. The USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) has been developed by merging the highest-resolution, best quality elevation data available across 

the United States into a seamless raster format. NED is the result of the maturation of the USGS effort to provide 1:24,000-scale Digital Elevation 

Model (DEM) data for the conterminous U.S. and 1:63,360-scale DEM data for Georgia. The dataset provides seamless coverage of the United 

States, HI, AK, and the island territories. NED has a consistent projection (Geographic), resolution (1 arc second), and elevation units (meters). The 

horizontal datum is NAD 83, except for AK, which is NAD 27. The vertical datum is NAVD88, except for AK, which is NGVD29. NED is a living 

dataset that is updated bimonthly to incorporate the “best available” DEM data. As more 1/3 arc second (10 m) data covers the U.S., then this will 

also be a seamless dataset. [Extracted from USGS NED website]
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

21

2) CSC LiDAR topography

The 2002 NASA/USGS Airborne LiDAR Assessment of Coastal Erosion (ALACE) Project topographic 

LiDAR dataset was downloaded from the CSC website (http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/TCM/) and transformed to 

NAD 83 and MHW using FME.

Figure 16. Spatial coverage of the CSC topographic LiDAR within the Port Orford DEM boundary.

As this dataset was not processed to bare earth and contained elevation values over open water, NGDC 

processed the data to simulate bare earth. First, elevations below 0.85 meters were filtered out, removing the

majority of water-surface returns. Next, the data were gridded using MB-System to create a 1/3 arc-second 

grid that aligned the USGS NED topographic DEM. ArcGIS 3D Analyst was used to remove points where 

the difference between the NED and the LiDAR data were greater than 7 meters. Areas where data were 

removed by this technique roughly correspond to false color satellite images representing vegetation (Fig. 17; 

Table 9). This technique also created a smoother seam between the two datasets.
Carignan et al., 2009

22

Table 9: Summary of True Color and Short-Wavelength InfraRed (SWIR) satellite imagery representing surface features 

(https://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/tutorial/Landsat%20Tutorial-V1.html).

Surface Feature True Color SWIR (GeoCover2000)

Red: Band 3 Red: Band 7

Green: Band 2 Green: Band 4

Blue: Band 1 Blue: Band 2

Trees and Bushes olive green shades of green

Crops medium to light green shades of green

Wetland Vegetation dark green to black shades of green

Water shades of blue and green black to dark blue

Urban Areas white to light blue lavender

Bare Soil white to light blue magenta, lavender, or pale pink

Figure 17. Comparison of CSC LiDAR data coverage before and after NGDC processing and NASA Geocover2000 short-wavelength infrared 

image of the Cape Blanca and Port Orford region. A) CSC LiDAR coverage. Green is coverage before processing, red is post processing 

coverage. B) Pink/magenta areas in satellite image have less vegetation than green colored areas.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

23

3) NGDC digitized elevation points

As neither the NED DEMs nor the CSC LiDAR data fully represent the jetties at Port Orford, Coquille 

River, Coos Bay, and Umpqua River, NGDC created digital representations of the features in ArcMap. 

Elevations assigned to the jetties are based on NGS monument elevations where available or CSC LiDAR 

values (point spacing ~10 meters).

Figure 18. Location and aerial photos of four NGDC digitized jetties. Photos from USACE photo database 

(https://eportal.usace.army.mil/sites/DVL/default.aspx)

After processing, the topographic data were viewed in ArcMap to make sure that the transitions along dataset 

edges were smooth. The data were then converted to xyz format using FME for the final gridding process.
Carignan et al., 2009

24

3.2 Establishing Common Datums

3.2.1 Vertical datum transformations

Datasets used in the compilation and evaluation of the Port Orford DEM were originally referenced to a number 

of vertical datums including Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), Mean Low Water (MLW), and Mean Sea Level 

(MSL). All datasets were transformed to MHW to provide the maximum flooding for inundation modeling. Units were

converted from feet to meters as appropriate.

1) Bathymetric data

The NOS hydrographic surveys, the multibeam sonar surveys, the navigation chart soundings, and the 

USACE channel line surveys were transformed from MLLW and MSL to MHW, using constants based on 

the Port Orford tide station (Table 10).

2) Topographic data

The USGS NED 1/3 arc-second DEMs and the CSC topographic LiDAR data were originally referenced 

to NAVD88. Conversion to MHW, using FME software, was accomplished by adding a constant offset of 

-1.853 meters (Table 10) as measured at the Port Orford tide station.

Table 10. Relationship between Mean High Water and other vertical datums at the Port Orford tide station #9431647.

Vertical datum Difference to MHW

MSL -0.805

NAVD88 -1.853

MLW -1.589

MLLW -2.004

3.2.2 Horizontal datum transformations

Datasets used to compile the Port Orford DEM were originally referenced to WGS 84 geographic, NAD 83 

geographic, NAD 27 geographic, or NAD 83 Oregon State Plane South datums. The relationships and transformational 

equations between these horizontal datums are well established. All data were converted to a horizontal datum of NAD 

83 geographic using FME software.

3.3 Digital Elevation Model Development

3.3.1 Verifying consistency between datasets

After horizontal and vertical transformations were applied, the resulting ESRIshape files were checked inArcMap

for consistency between datasets. Problems and errors were identified and resolved before proceeding with subsequent

gridding steps. The evaluated and edited ESRI shape files were then converted to xyz files in preparation for gridding.

Problems included:

•	 Suspect topographic elevations located on open-ocean in both NED and CSC datasets.

•	 Inconsistencies between the NED and CSC topographic data. 

•	 Data errors in multibeam swath sonar surveys, which were expressed as anomalous spikes. Manual editing of 

the multibeam sonar data were necessary to minimize these artifacts. 

•	 Topographic CSC LiDAR dataset not processed to bare earth. The dataset required filtering of elevation

values on land and removal of returns from the water surface.

•	 Digital, measured bathymetric values from NOS surveys date back over 100 years. More recent data, such as 

the USACE hydrographic surveys depths, differed from older NOS data by as much as 10 meters nearshore 

and up to 75 meters in deeper water compared to multibeam data. The older NOS survey data were excised 

where more recent bathymetric data exists.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

25

3.3.2 Smoothing of bathymetric data

The NOS hydrographic surveys are generally sparse at the resolution of the 1/3 arc-second Port Orford DEM: 

in both deep water and in some areas close to shore, the NOS survey data have point spacing up to 1900 m apart. In 

order to reduce the effect of artifacts in the form of lines of “pimples” in the DEM due to this low-resolution dataset, 

and to provide effective interpolation into the coastal zone, a 1 arc-second-spacing ‘pre-surface’ bathymetric grid 

was generated using GMT, an NSF-funded share-ware software application designed to manipulate data for mapping 

purposes (http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/).

The NOS hydrographic point data, in xyz format, were clipped to remove overlap with the USACE soundings, the 

NGDC multibeam data, the ORDFW multibeam survey data, the ENC sounding data, and the digitized RNC sounding 

data and combined into a single file, along with points extracted from the combined coastline—to provide a buffer

along the entire coastline. The coastline elevation value was set at -1.0 m to ensure a bathymetric surface below zero 

in areas where data are sparse or non-existent.

The point data were median-averaged using the GMT tool ‘blockmedian’ to create a 1 arc-second grid 0.05 

degrees (~5%) larger than the Port Orford DEM gridding region. The GMT tool ‘surface’ was then used to apply a 

tight spline tension to interpolate elevations for cells without data values. The GMT grid created by ‘surface’ was 

converted into an ESRI Arc ASCII grid file, and clipped to the combined coastline (to eliminate data interpolation into

land areas). The resulting surface was compared with original soundings to ensure grid accuracy (e.g., Fig. 19) and 

exported as an xyz file for use in the final gridding process (see Table 11).

Figure 19. Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H04891 and the 1 arc-second pre-surfaced 

bathymetric grid.

3.3.3 Gridding the data with MB-System

MB-System (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/MB-System/) was used to create the 1/3 arc-second Port 

Orford DEM. MB-System is an NSF-funded free software application specifically designed to manipulate submarine

multibeam sonar data, though it can utilize a wide variety of data types, including generic xyz data. The MB-System 

tool ‘mbgrid’ was used to apply a tight spline tension to the xyz data, and interpolate values for cells without data. 

The data hierarchy used in the ‘mbgrid’ gridding algorithm, as relative gridding weights, is listed in Table 11. Greatest 

weight was given to the CSC LiDAR data. Least weight was given to the pre-surfaced 1 arc-second bathymetric grid. 

Gridding was performed in quadrants, with the resulting Arc ASCII grids seamlessly merged in ArcCatalog to create 

the final 1/3 arc-second Port Orford DEM.

 Table 11. Data hierarchy used to assign gridding weight in MB-System.

Dataset Relative Gridding Weight

CSC topographic coastal LiDAR 1,000,000

OR DFW Multibeam surveys 10,000

NGDC Multibeam surveys 1,000

USACE surveys 10,000

Digitized Nautical Charts 100

USGS NED topographic DEM 100

Digitized Jetties 10,000

NOS hydrographic surveys 10

Derived coastline 1

Pre-surfaced bathymetric grid 1
Carignan et al., 2009

26

3.4 Quality Assessment of the DEM

3.4.1. Horizontal accuracy

The horizontal accuracy of topographic and bathymetric features in the Port Orford DEM is dependent upon the 

datasets used to determine corresponding DEM cell values. Topographic features have an estimated accuracy of up 

to 10 meters: CSC topographic LiDAR data have an accuracy between 1 and 3 meters; NED topography is accurate 

to within about 10 meters. Bathymetric features are resolved only to within a few tens of meters in deep-water areas. 

Shallow, near-coastal regions, rivers, and harbor surveys have an accuracy approaching that of sub aerial topographic 

features. Positional accuracy is limited by the sparseness of deep-water soundings, potentially large positional 

uncertainty of pre-satellite navigated (e.g., GPS) NOS hydrographic surveys, and by manmade morphologic change 

(e.g., channel dredging and building of jetties).

3.4.2 Vertical accuracy

Vertical accuracy of elevation values for the Port Orford DEM is also highly dependent upon the source datasets 

contributing to DEM cell values. Topographic areas have an estimated vertical accuracy between 0.1 to 0.3 meters 

for CSC LiDAR data, and up to 7 meters for NED topography. Bathymetric areas have an estimated accuracy of 

between 0.1 meters and 5% of water depth. Those values were derived from the wide range of input data sounding 

measurements from the early 20th century to recent, GPS-navigated sonar surveys. Gridding interpolation to determine 

values between sparse, poorly-located NOS soundings degrades the vertical accuracy of elevations in deep water.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

27

3.4.3 Slope maps and 3-D perspectives

ESRI ArcCatalog was used to generate a slope grid from the Port Orford DEM to allow for visual inspection and 

identification of artificial slopes along boundaries between datasets (e.g., Fig. 20). The DEM was transformed to UTM

Zone 10 coordinates (horizontal units in meters) in ArcCatalog for derivation of the slope grid; equivalent horizontal 

and vertical units are required for effective slope analysis. Three-dimensional viewing of the UTM-transformed DEM 

was accomplished using ESRI ArcScene (e.g., Fig. 21). Analysis of preliminary grids revealed suspect data points, 

which were corrected before recompiling the DEM. Figure 1 shows a color image of the 1/3 arc-second Port Orford 

DEM in its final version.

Figure 20. Slope map of the Port Orford DEM. Flat-lying slopes are 

white; dark shading denotes steep slopes; derived coastline in red.
Carignan et al., 2009

28

Figure 21. Perspective view from the southwest of the Port Orford DEM. No vertical 

exaggeration.

3.4.4	 Comparison with source data files

To ensure grid accuracy, the Port Orford DEM was compared to select source data files. Files were chosen on

the basis of their contribution to the grid-cell values in their coverage areas (i.e., had the greatest weight and did not 

significantly overlap other data files with comparable weight). A histogram of the differences between a USACE

hydrographic survey file located at the approach to Coos Bay and the Port Orford DEM is shown in Figure 22.

Differences range from -4.0 to 3.4, with 39 out of 3829 soundings exceeding 1.0-meter discrepancy from the DEM. 

These soundings were located where two USACE surveys overlapped and around the reef at Gregory Point. 

Figure 22. Histogram of the differences between one USACE hydrographic survey and the Port Orford DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

29

3.4.5 Comparison with NGS geodetic monuments

The elevations of 710 NOAA NGS geodetic monuments were extracted from online shape files of monument

datasheets (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/datasheet.prl), which give monument positions in NAD 83 (typically 

sub-mm accuracy) and elevations in NAVD88 (in meters). Monuments installed on lighthouses or buildings were not 

included in assessment of the DEM.

 Elevations were shifted to MHW vertical datum (see Table 10) for comparison with the Port Orford DEM 

(see Fig. 24 for monument locations). Differences between the Port Orford DEM and the NGS geodetic monument 

elevations range from -304 to 60 meters, with the majority of them within ± 10 meters (Fig. 23). Negative values 

indicate that the DEM is less than the monument elevation. Monuments located in a lighthouse, on sand dunes, and at 

a rock quarry had the greatest negative values. The monuments with the greatest positive values were located in areas 

with steep terrain and have a horizontal accuracy of ± 6 arc-seconds (~180 meters).

Figure 23. Histogram of the differences between NGS geodetic monument elevations and the Port Orford DEM.
Carignan et al., 2009

30

Figure 24. Location of NGS geodetic monuments, shown as green triangles, and the NOAA Port Orford tide station, red 

circle. NGS monument elevations were used to evaluate the DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Port Orford, Oregon

31

4. Summary and Conclusions

An integrated bathymetric–topographic digital elevation model of the Port Orford, Oregon region, with cell 

spacing of 1/3 arc-second, was developed for the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) NOAA Center

for Tsunami Research. The best available digital data from U.S. federal, state and local agencies were obtained by 

NGDC, shifted to common horizontal and vertical datums, and evaluated and edited before DEM generation. The 

data were quality checked, processed and gridded using ESRI ArcGIS, FME, GMT, MB-System and Quick Terrain 

Modeler software. 

Recommendations to improve the Port Orford DEM, based on NGDC’s research and analysis, are listed below:

•	 Conduct hydrographic surveys for near-shore areas, especially in bays and river inlets.

•	 Complete bathymetric–topographic LiDAR surveying of entire region, especially within coastal zones.

•	 Process CSC topographic LiDAR data to bare earth.

•	 Re-survey older, low-resolution NOS hydrographic surveys in deeper waters.

5. Acknowledgments

The creation of the Port Orford DEM was funded by the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. The

authors thank Chris Chamberlin and Vasily Titov (PMEL); Daniel Proudfit of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Portland

District; and Arlene Merems and David Fox of Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine Resources Program.

6. References

Nautical Chart #18580 (RNC and ENC), 22nd Edition, 2005. Cape Blanco to Yaquina Head. Scale 1: 191,730. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #18587 (RNC), 70th Edition, 2005. Coos Bay. Scale 1:20,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, 

National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #18588 (RNC), 37th Edition, 2003. Coquille River Entrance. Scale 1:20,000. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #18589 (RNC), 16th Edition, 2007. Port Orford to Cape Blanco. Scale 1:40,000. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #18600 (RNC and ENC), 14th Edition, 2002. Trinidad Head to Cape Blanco. Scale 1:196,948. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #18601 (RNC), 14th Edition, 2007.Cape Sebastian to Humbug Mountain. Scale 1:40,000. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Fox, D.S.; Amend, M.; Merems, A. 1999. 1999 Nearshore Rocky Reef Assessment, Final Report for 1999 Grant 

Contract No.99-072. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife/Marine Program.

Fox, D.S.; Amend, M.; Merems, A.; Appy, M. 2000. 2000 Nearshore rocky reef assessment. Newport, OR: Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 32 pp.
Carignan et al., 2009

32

7. Data Processing Software

ArcGIS v. 9.2, developed and licensed by ESRI, Redlands, Oregon, http://www.esri.com/

FME 2007 GB – Feature Manipulation Engine, developed and licensed by Safe Software, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 

http://www.safe.com/

GEODAS v. 5 – Geophysical Data System, free software developed and maintained by Dan Metzger, NOAA National 

Geophysical Data Center, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/geodas/

GMT v. 4.1.4 – Generic Mapping Tools, free software developed and maintained by Paul Wessel and Walter Smith, 

funded by the National Science Foundation, http://gmt.soest.hawaii.edu/

MB-System v. 5.1.0, free software developed and maintained by David W. Caress and Dale N. Chayes, funded by the 

National Science Foundation, http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/MB-System/

Quick Terrain Modeler v. 6.0.1, LiDAR processing software developed by John Hopkins University’s Applied Physics 

Laboratory (APL) and maintained and licensed by Applied Imagery, http://www.appliedimagery.com/