noaa / NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

National Environmental Satellite,

Data, and Information Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-30

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF PORTLAND, MAINE:

PROCEDURES, DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS 

E. Lim 

L.A. Taylor

B.W. Eakins

K.S. Carignan

R.R. Warnken

P.R. Medley

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-30

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF PORTLAND, MAINE:

PROCEDURES, DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS 

Elliot Lim1 

Lisa A. Taylor2

Barry W. Eakins1

Kelly S. Carignan1

Robin R. Warnken2

Pamela R. Medley1

1

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

2

NOAA, National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, Colorado 

National Geophysical Data Center

Marine Geology and Geophysics Division 

Boulder, Colorado

March 2009
Lim 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 Portland, Maine

iii

Contents

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

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

3.	 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................2

3.1	 Data Sources and Processing ......................................................................................................3

3.1.1	 Shoreline................................................................................................................4

3.1.2	 Bathymetry ............................................................................................................6

3.1.3	 Topography..........................................................................................................16

3.1.4	 Topography-Bathymetry .....................................................................................21

3.2	 Establishing Common Datums .................................................................................................22

3.2.1	 Vertical datum transformations ...........................................................................22

3.2.2	 Horizontal datum transformations.......................................................................22

3.3	 Digital Elevation Model Development .....................................................................................23

3.3.1	 Verifying consistency between datasets..............................................................23

3.3.2	 Smoothing of bathymetric data ...........................................................................23

3.3.3	 Gridding the data with MB-System......................................................................24

3.4	 Quality Assessment of the DEM...............................................................................................25

3.4.1	 Horizontal accuracy.............................................................................................25

3.4.2	 Vertical accuracy .................................................................................................25

3.4.3	 Slope maps and 3-D perspectives........................................................................25

3.4.4	 Comparison with source data files.......................................................................27

3.4.5	 Comparison with NGS geodetic monuments......................................................27

4.	 Summary and Conclusions...............................................................................................................28

5.	 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................28

6.	 References........................................................................................................................................29

7.	 Data Processing Software ................................................................................................................29

List of Figures

Figure 1. 	 Shaded-relief image of the Portland DEM..................................................................................1

Figure 2.	 Photographs of Portland Head Light from 1900 and 1998.........................................................2

Figure 3.	 Source and coverage of datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM .....................................3

Figure 4.	 Repairing MEGIS with ENC coastlines .....................................................................................5

Figure 5.	 Adjusting combined coastline to fit JALBTCX lidar .................................................................5

Figure 6.	 Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Portland region ...........................................9

Figure 7.	 Coverage of the part of the USGS 15 arc-second grid used in developing the Portland

	 DEM ..................................................................................................................................10

Figure 8.	 Coverage of ENCs in the Portland region.................................................................................11

Figure 9.	 Coverage of USACE hydrographic surveys in the Portland region .........................................13

Figure 10.	 Coverage of UNH multibeam...................................................................................................14

Figure 11.	 Coverage of NOS shallow-water multibeam............................................................................15

Figure 12 Comparison of USGS quadrangle and NED contours..............................................................17

Figure 13 Comparison of NED zero-contour before and after conversion to MHW................................18

Figure 14.	 Coverage of CSC 2004 coastal lidar topography......................................................................19

Figure 15.	 Photograph of Casco Bay Bridge..............................................................................................20

Figure 16.	 Coverage of 2007 JALBTCX topography-bathymetry.............................................................21

Figure 17.	 Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H10986 and the

1 arc-second pre-surfaced bathymetric grid........................................................................24

Figure 18.	 Slope map of the Portland DEM...............................................................................................26

Figure 19.	 Perspective view from the southeast of the Portland DEM......................................................26

Figure 20.	 Histogram of the differences between CSC lidar and the Portland DEM ................................27

Figure 21.	 Histogram of the differences between NGS geodetic monument elevations and

	 the Portland DEM..............................................................................................................27
Lim et al., 2009

iv

Figure 22.	 Location of NGS geodetic monuments for the Portland DEM.................................................28

List of Tables

Table 1.	 PMEL specifications for the Portland DEM ...............................................................................1

Table 2.	 Shoreline datasets used in developing the Portland DEM..........................................................4

Table 3.	 Nautical charts available in the Portland region .........................................................................4

Table 4.	 Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM.......................................................6

Table 5.	 Digital NOS hydrographic surveys in the Portland region .........................................................7

Table 6.	 USGS multibeam swath sonar surveys used in compiling the Portland DEM.........................10

Table 7.	 USACE hydrographic sonar surveys used in compiling the Portland DEM ............................12

Table 8.	 Topographic datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM.....................................................16

Table 9.	 Topographic-bathymetric dataset used in compiling the Portland DEM..................................21

Table 10.	 Relationship between MHW and other vertical datums in the Portland region........................22

Table 11.	 Data hierarchy used to assign gridding weight in MB-System..................................................24
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine:

Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis

1. Introduction

	 In December 2008, the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC), an office of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), developed an integrated topographic-bathymetric digital elevation model

(DEM) of Portland, Maine (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

designed to represent modern morphology. It will be used for tsunami forecasting as part of the tsunami forecast

system Short-term Inundation Forecasting for Tsunamis (SIFT) currently being developed by PMEL for the NOAA

Tsunami Warning Centers. This report provides a description of the data sources and methodology used in developing

the Portland DEM.

1. The Portland 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 Portland, Maine (43°39′54′′N 70°16′9′′W) 1/3

arc-second of latitude is equivalent to 10.288 meters; 1/3 arc-second of longitude equals 7.47 meters.

Figure 1. Shaded-relief image of the 

Portland DEM. Contour intervals are 50 m 

for bathymetry, and 100 m for topography.
Lim et al., 2009

2

2. Study Area

	 The Portland DEM covers the coastal region surrounding the town of Portland, Maine. Included within the

DEM boundary are the coastal communities of Portsmouth, York, Old Orchard Beach, Yarmouth, and Bath. Portland

is located on Casco Bay about 50 miles north of the border with New Hampshire. As Maine’s primary shipping and

manufacturing center, petroleum accounts for much of the traffic through the port. In addition, the city produces paper,

processed foods, leather, and machinery.

	 Maine is famous for its “rockbound coast” buttressed by rugged, unchanging cliffs of stone. Rocky points

such as Portland Head, photographed a century ago, show little change after a hundred years of storms (Fig. 2).

Maine’s bedrock is very strong and consolidated and resists erosion from waves and weather. Other parts of Maine,

however, have a “soft coast” of loose or unconsolidated materials that are subject to erosion. Although a slow, steady

rise in sea-level is the underlying reason for modification of the coast, the noticeable erosion occurs quickly during

individual storms or landslide events.

Figure 2. Portland Head Light. A) Photographed around 1900. B) Photographed in 1998.

[Photo credit: State of Maine, Department of Conservation; http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/marine/facts/jul99-1.htm]

3. Methodology

	 The Portland DEM was constructed to meet PMEL specifications (Table 1), based on input requirements 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 of 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 Portland DEM.

Grid Area Portland, Maine

Coverage Area 70.74o to 69.63o W; 43.00o to 43.99o N

Coordinate System Geographic decimal degrees

Horizontal Datum World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS 84)

Vertical Datum MHW

Vertical Units Meters

Cell Size 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.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

3

3.1 Data Sources and Processing

Shoreline, bathymetric, topographic, and topographic-bathymetric digital datasets (Fig. 3) were obtained

from U.S. federal and state agencies including: NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey (OCS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)

and NGDC; the Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise (JALBTCX); the University of New

Hampshire (UNH); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); and the Maine

Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MEGIS). Safe Software’s FME data translation tool package

was used to shift datasets to NAD 83 geographic horizontal datum and to convert them into ESRI ArcGIS shapefiles3.

The shapefiles 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 tide station in Portland.

Applied Imagery’s Quick Terrain Modeler software was used to evaluate processing and gridding techniques.

Figure 3. Source and coverage of datasets used in compiling the Portland 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.
Lim et al., 2009

4

3.1.1 Shoreline

Coastline datasets of the Portland region (Table 2) were obtained from OCS and MEGIS. The two datasets

were used to develop a “combined coastline” of the Portland region.

Table 2: Shoreline datasets used in developing the Portland DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial 

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate System 

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

URL

NOAA

ENCs 2007

Digital

Nautical

Charts

1:40,000 WGS 84 geographic MHW http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/enc/

MEGIS 2004

Digitized

1:24,000

USGS DLG

1:24,000 NAD 83 Maine State Plane,

UTM zone 19N MHW http://megis.maine.gov/catalog/

1) NOAA nautical charts

Ten NOAA nautical charts were available for the Portland area (Table 3), and were downloaded from

NOAA’s OCS web site (http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/enc/). All charts are available as georeferenced

Raster Navigational Charts (RNCs; digital images of the charts), which were used to assess the quality

of bathymetric datasets. The charts were also available as Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs)4 that

represent chart features as individual digital objects. The ENCs are in S-57 format and include coastline data

files referenced to MHW. The ENC digital coastlines were used as a secondary dataset to provide complete

coverage of the DEM area (Fig. 4). This dataset contained many piers and other manmade structures that had

to be removed when building the combined coastline.

Table 3: Nautical charts available in the Portland region.

Chart # Chart name Scale Format ENC #

13278 Portsmouth to Cape Ann 1:80,000 RNC, ENC US4MA04M

13283 Portsmouth Harbor - Cape Neddick Harbor to

Isles of Shoals 1:20,000; insets 1:10,000 RNC, ENC US5NH02M

13285 Portsmouth to Dover and Exeter 1:20,000 RNC, ENC US5NH01M

13286 Cape Elizabeth to Portsmouth 1:80,000; insets 1:10,000 RNC, ENC US4ME01M

13288 Monhegan Island to Cape Elizabeth 1:80,000 RNC, ENC US4ME03M

13290 Casco Bay B 1:40,000 RNC, ENC US5ME13M

13292 Portland Harbor and Vicinity A 1:20,000 RNC, ENC US5ME10M

13295 Kennebec and Sheepscot River Entrances 1:15,000 RNC, ENC US5ME15M

13296 Boothbay Harbor to Bath Including Kennebec

River 1:15,000 RNC, ENC US5ME16M

13298 Kennebec River-Bath to Courthouse Point 1:15,000 RNC, ENC US5ME18M

2) Maine GIS coastline

MEGIS modified the USGS 1:24,000 hydrography digital line graph (DLG) quadrangle files to produce

the Maine coastline. MEGIS reformatted the DLG files into Arc/INFO coverages and projected them into the

Maine State Plane Coordinate system, NAD 83. The coastline was then extracted from the files and edited.

Polygon topology was also created for each quadrangle.The coverages were then projected into NAD 83

meters. This coastline contains many manmade features; NGDC removed piers and docks from the dataset.

4. The Office of Coast Survey (OCS) produces NOAA Electronic Navigational Charts (NOAA ENC®) to support the marine transportation

infrastructure and coastal management. NOAA ENC®s are in the International Hydrographic Office (IHO) S-57 international exchange format,

comply with the IHO ENC Product Specification and are provided with incremental updates, which supply Notice to Mariners corrections and

other critical changes. NOAA ENC®s are available for free download on the OCS web site. [Extracted from NOAA OCS web site: http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/enc/]
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

5

Figure 4. MEGIS coastline gap. The ENC coastline (red) was used to connect broken segments 

in the MEGIS coastline (black). 

Figure 5. Jetties at the entrance to Wells Harbor. The ‘combined coastline’ built by NGDC was 

adjusted to fit 5 meter resolution JALTCBX topographic-bathymetric coastal lidar data. 

The ENC and MEGIS coastlines were integrated into a combined coastline for the Portland DEM (Fig. 4), which

was then adjusted to align with the large-scale RNCs, high-resolution coastal lidar data (e.g., Fig. 5), and satellite

imagery extracted from Google Earth. Breakwaters, causeways, and large bridge columns were manually digitized

by NGDC for representation in the combined coastline and the Portland DEM (Fig. 5). The combined coastline was

converted to xyz data with 10 m point spacing using NGDC’s GEODAS software for use in building a pre-surfaced

bathymetric grid (see Sec. 3.3.2).
Lim et al., 2009

6

3.1.2 Bathymetry

Bathymetric datasets used in the compilation of the Portland DEM included 72 NOS hydrographic surveys,

a 15 arc-second USGS grid, extracted NOAA ENC sounding data, USACE hydrographic harbor surveys, UNH

multibeam swath sonar surveys, and two NOS shallow-water multibeam swath sonar surveys (Table 4; Fig. 3).

Datasets were originally referenced to mean low water (MLW), mean lower low water (MLLW) or mean sea level

(MSL).

Table 4: Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

URL

NGDC 1861 to

2003

NOS

hydrographic

survey soundings

Ranges from 10

meters to 1 kilometer

(varies with scale of

survey, depth, traffic,

and probability of

obstructions)

NAD 83 geographic

MLW or

MLLW

(meters)

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/

bathymetry/hydro.html

USGS 2001 Compiled

Bathymetry Grid ~450 meters NAD 83 geographic MSL(meters)

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-

801/bathy/data.htm#Grids%20

and%20Contours

NOAA

ENC

2006 to

2007

Extracted

soundings 1:10,000 to 1:80,000 WGS 84 geographic MLLW(meters)

http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/

mcd/enc/

USACE 1998 to

2007

Hydrographic

surveys

Scattered soundings

and channel profiles

NAD 27 Maine

State Plane (feet)

NGVD29

(feet)

http://www.nae.usace.army.

mil/navigation/navigation2.

asp?mystate=ma

UNH 2007 Multibeam

swath sonar 5 meters WGS 84 UTM zone19 (meters)

MLLW

(meters)

http://www.gulfofmaine.org/

gommi/coveragemap.php

NGDC 2000 to

2005

NOS shallowwater multibeam

sonar

10 meters NAD 83 UTM zone

19N (meters)

MLLW

(meters)

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/

bathymetry/hydro.html

1) National Ocean Service hydrographic survey data

A total of 72 NOS hydrographic surveys conducted between 1861 and 2003 were available in digital

form for use in developing the Portland DEM (Table 5; Fig. 6). The hydrographic survey data were originally

vertically referenced to MLW or MLLW and horizontally referenced to the NAD 83 geographic datum. Two

of the older surveys (H03033 and H04808) were not used in building the Portland DEM, as they have been

superseded by more recent surveys.

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 NOS Hydrographic Survey

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

subsequently clipped to a polygon 0.05 degrees (~5%) larger than the Portland DEM area to support data

interpolation along grid edges.

After converting all NOS survey data to MHW using FME (see Sec. 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, bathymetric, and topographic-bathymetric

datasets, the combined coastline, and NOAA RNCs. The surveys were clipped to remove soundings that

overlap more recent NOS and USACE bathymetric surveys.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

7

Table 5. Digital NOS hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Portland DEM.

NOS Survey ID Year Of Survey Survey Scale Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal Datum of survey

H06959 1944 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06960 1944 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06961 1944 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06661 1941 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H06857 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08090 1953/55 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H08091 1953 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08092 1954 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08160 1954/55 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08161 1954/55 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08162 1954 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H08254 1955 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08256 1955 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08257 1955 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H08258 1955 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H10830 1998 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

H07795 1950 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06808 1942 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06809 1942 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06810 1942/43 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H06837 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06839 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06840 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06841 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06842 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06843 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06844 1943 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06858 1943 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H07127 1947 40,000 MLW NAD 27

H07140 1947 40,000 MLLW NAD 27

H07147 1946 40,000 MLW NAD 27

H07148 1946 40,000 MLW NAD 27

H07149 1946 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H06564 1940 120,000 MLW NAD 27

H06672 1941 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06673 1941 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06675 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06677 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06716 1941 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H06708 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06728 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06730 1941 20,000 MLW NAD 27

H06731 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06732 1941 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08163 1953/54 5,000 MLW NAD 27

F00445 1998 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

F00460 2000 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

H10763 1997 10,000 MLLW NAD 83
Lim et al., 2009

8

NOS Survey ID Year Of Survey Survey Scale Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal Datum of survey

H10771 1997 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

H10831 1998 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

H10963 1999/2000 10,000 MLLW NAD 83

H00741A 1859/1902 10,000 MLW NAD1913

H00741B 1874/1902 10,000 MLW NAD1913

H00790 1861 10,000 MLW United States Standard Datum 1901

H00933 1867 40,000 MLW NAD 27

H01064 1869/1903 10,000 MLW Unknown Horizontal Datum

H01836 1888 40,000 MLW Unknown Horizontal Datum

H03032 1909 20,000 MLW United States Standard Datum 1901

H04303 1923 20,000 MLW NAD1913

H04805 1927/28 40,000 MLW NAD1913

H04808 1928 10,000 MLW NAD1913

H06800 1942 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06801 1942 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06802 1942 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06803 1942 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06804 1942 5,000 MLW NAD 27

H06805 1942 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06806 1942 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H06807 1942 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H08255 1955/58 10,000 MLW NAD 27

H10646 2000/03 10,000 MLLW NAD 83
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

9

Figure 6. Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Portland DEM. Some older surveys were not used as they have been 

superseded by more recent surveys. DEM boundary in red; combined coastline in brown.
Lim et al., 2009

10

2) U.S. Geological Survey Gulf of Maine grid

A 15 arc-second grid of the Gulf of Maine, built by the USGS in 2001, was used in the development of

the Portland DEM. The grid was originally vertically referenced to MLLW and horizontally referenced to

the NAD 83 geographic datum. Due to its coarse resolution the data were only used in areas where no other

bathymetric data were available (Fig. 7).

Table 6: USGS 15 arc-second grid used in compiling the Portland DEM.

Dataset Year Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal Datum Resolution

USGS Gulf of Maine

Gridding Project 2001 MLLW NAD 83 geographic ~450 meters

Figure 7. Coverage of the part of the USGS 15 arc-second grid used in developing the Portland DEM. 

DEM boundary in red; combined coastline in black.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

11

3) NOAA Electronic Navigational Chart soundings

NOAA ENC sounding data were extracted from charts #13278, 13288, and 13296. The ENCs provided

sounding data where bathymetric coverage was very sparse or not available. Sounding data from these charts

were extracted using FME.

ENC Chart #13278 covers the area from Portsmouth to Cape Ann. Soundings range from ~250 meters to

~1 kilometer apart, and depths range from 3.48 meters to 203.68 meters. The scale for this dataset is 1:80,000.

ENC Chart #13288 covers the area from Monhegan Island to Cape Elizabeth. Soundings range from

~300 meters to 2.5 kilometers apart, and depths range from 3.18 meters to 169.28 meters. The scale for this

dataset is 1:80,000.

ENC Chart #13296 covers the area from Boothbay Harbor to Bath, including the Kennebec River.

Soundings range from ~35 meters to ~120 meters, and depths range from 2.58 meters to 52.48 meters. The

scale for this dataset is 1:15,000.

Figure 8. Coverage of ENCs in the Portland region. DEM boundary in red; combined coastline in black.
Lim et al., 2009

12

4) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hydrographic surveys of harbor channels

USACE conducted ten surveys at the entrance of harbors in the Portland region (Table 7; Fig. 9). All data

were originally in Maine State Plane coordinates NAD 27 horizontal datum. Depths were in feet relative to

NGVD29.

Table 7: USACE hydrographic sonar surveys used in compiling the Portland DEM.

Location Year

Original 

Vertical Datum 

(feet)

Original Horizontal 

Datum (feet) Spatial Resolution

Portland 2004 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 130-1700 meters long, spaced 15-20

meters apart, with ~2 meter point spacing

Kennebunk River 2004 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 10-100 meters long, spaced 10-15

meters apart, with <1 meter point spacing

Royal River 2007 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 75-100 meters long, spaced 10-20

meters apart, with <1 meter point spacing

Saco River 1999 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 350-2000 meters long, spaced 8–12

meters apart, with <1 meter point spacing

Scarborough River 2004 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 100 to 150 meters long, spaced 8–10

meters apart, with <1 meter point spacing

Biddeford 1998 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 600 to 700 meters long, spaced 5-10

meters apart, with ~1 meter point spacing

Josias River 2007 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 100 to 200 meters long, spaced 2-10

meters apart, with ~2 meter point spacing

Portsmouth 2005 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 200-300 meters long, spaced ~30

meters apart, with ~2 meter point spacing

Wells Harbor 2007 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 200-350 meters long, spaced ~8

meters apart, with ~2 meter point spacing 

York Harbor 2005 NGVD29 NAD 27 Maine State

Plane

Profiles 100-600 meters long, spaced 10-20

meters apart, with ~5 meter point spacing
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

13

Figure 9. Coverage of USACE hydrographic surveys in the Portland region. Combined coastline in black.
Lim et al., 2009

14

5) University of New Hampshire multibeam swath sonar survey

UNH with the Center of Coastal and Ocean Mapping (CCOM) conducted a high-resolution multibeam

swath sonar survey in the Three Dory Ledge region in the southeast portion of the Portland DEM (Fig. 11).

Data were provided to NGDC by Larry Mayer of CCOM. Original data were in ASCII xyz gridded format

in WGS 84, UTM zone 19 at 5-meter resolution and referenced to MLLW. This dataset provided dense

bathymetric coverage in deeper water in the southeast portion of the Portland DEM.

Figure 10. Coverage of the UNH multibeam swath sonar survey. Combined coastline in black.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

15

6) National Ocean Service shallow-water multibeam survey 

NOAA’s NOS conducted two recent shallow-water multibeam swath sonar surveys at the entrances to

Portland Harbor and Back Bay (Fig. 11). The surveys were downloaded from NGDC’s NOS Hydrographic

Survey Database (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/hydro.html) in ASCII xyz gridded format

in NAD 83, UTM zone 19 at 10-meter resolution and referenced to MLLW. This dataset provided dense

bathymetric coverage in Portland Harbor and the entrance to Back Bay.

Figure 11. Coverage of the NOS shallow-water multibeam swath sonar surveys H11467 and F00524. Combined coastline in black.
Lim et al., 2009

16

3.1.3 Topography

	 Two topographic datasets were used to build the Portland DEM: one from USGS and one from NOAA CSC

(Table 8; Fig. 3). NGDC also digitized values for breakwaters and jetties prevalent in areas near estuaries.

Table 8: Topographic datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

(meters)

URL

USGS 1999-

2006 NED DEM 1/3 arcsecond NAD 83 geographic Mixed http://ned.usgs.gov/

NOAA

CSC 2004 Coastal topographiclidar 1 to 3 meters NAD 83 geographic NAVD88 http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/

NGDC Digitized elevation

points ~2.5 meters WGS 84 geographic MHW

1) U.S. Geological Survey NED topographic DEM

USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) provides complete 1/3 arc-second coverage of the Portland

region5. The dataset is available for download as raster DEMs in NAD 83 geographic horizontal datum and

NAVD88 vertical datum (meters). 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.

NGDC visually compared georeferenced images (TIFFs) of USGS topographic quadrangles in the

Portland area with the NED dataset before and after its conversion to MHW (Figs. 12 and 13). The 20-ft

contours on the quadrangles are referenced to vertical datums of either National Geodetic Vertical Datum

of 1929 (NGVD29) or MSL; the coastlines are relative to MHW. NGDC generated 20-foot contours from

the original “NAVD88” NED dataset using ArcGIS, which were then draped over the USGS topographic

quadrangle images for comparison (e.g., Fig. 12). The NED data were also converted from NAVD88 to

MHW: the resulting NED “zero” contour (e.g., Fig. 13) is significantly inland of the actual MHW coastline,

which, if accurate, would produce coastal flooding with each tidal cycle.

NGDC has concluded that the NED DEMs in the Portland region are actually in a mixed vertical datum,

with values above 20 feet (6 meters) in either NGVD29 or MSL (depending upon quadrangle), and the

coastal “zero” value being relative to MHW; the original NED data also contain “zero” elevation values over

the open ocean, which were removed from the dataset by clipping to the combined coastline. Values between

zero (MHW) and 20 feet (NGVD29/MSL) are not consistent with either datum. Note that in the Portland

region, the MHW coastline is at approximately the 5-foot (1.5 meter) NGVD 29/MSL contour (see Table 9).

In an effort to overcome this mixing of vertical datums in the NED DEMs, NGDC converted the NED

dataset from NGVD29/MSL (see Table 10) to MHW using ArcGIS. Elevations in the converted data that

were greater than or equal to 0.5 meters were extracted directly from the grids. Elevations that were less than

0.5 meters were set to an assigned value of 0.5 meters above MHW to prevent inappropriate coastal flooding,

though fortunately, there is significant coastal lidar data in the Portland region. The resulting NED data were

clipped to the lidar coverage areas (Figs. 14 and 16) to limit the effects of this approximate NED vertical

datum conversion.

5. The USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED; http://ned.usgs.gov/) 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. 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 web site]
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

17

Figure 12. Comparison between USGS topographic quadrangle contours and the original NED data. 

A) Color image of USGS topographic quadrangle centered on Great Diamond Island. Brown lines and numbers denote 20 ft. topographic 

contours relative to NGVD29 vertical datum. B) 20 ft. contours (red) generated from the original NED data (converted to units of feet for 

comparison), which is identified in the metadata as relative to NAVD88 vertical datum. Note the strong correlation between the “NAVD88” NED 

contours and NGVD29 USGS quadrangle contours.
Lim et al., 2009

18

Figure 13. Comparison of the NED DEM before and after its conversion from NAVD88 to MHW. A) Color image of “NAVD88” NED DEM, 

with georeferenced USGS topographic quadrangle in the background. Note that the “zero” contour is consistent with the MEGIS and USGS 

coastlines, which are relative to MHW. B) Color image of the NED DEM after conversion from NAVD88 to MHW, with USGS topographic 

quadrangle in the background. The “zero” contour for the NED data is now significantly inland relative to the MHW MEGIS and quadrangle 

coastlines, which would produce coastal flooding with each tidal cycle.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

19

2) Coastal Services Center coastal lidar survey

NOAA CSC provides online access to coastal topographic lidar data from numerous federal agencies

through its web site (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ldart). A joint NOAA/NOS/CSC 2004 lidar survey from

Portsmouth to Back Bay was available for use in the Portland DEM. Original data were in ASCII XYZ

format, and NAD 83 geographic and NAVD88 datums. Due to the large size of the survey, NGDC tiled this

survey into 26 tiles of 1 million points each for easier visualization and editing. The dataset was used to

help define the position of the MHW combined coastline from Cape Elizabeth to Back Bay and areas of Old

Orchard Beach (Fig. 14). The survey contained returns from the surface of water bodies, which were removed

in ArcMap by clipping to the combined coastline.

Figure 14. CSC 2004 coastal lidar coverage in the Portland region. CSC lidar data were superseded by the more recent JALBTCX 

dataset and only used in areas where JALTCBX lidar was not present. Blue and purple represent pre-gridded 1 arc-second bathy 

surface. Combined coastline in black.
Lim et al., 2009

20

3) NGDC digitized elevations

Several manmade features were either poorly represented or not represented at all in available digital

elevation datasets: the Casco Bay Bridge columns (Fig. 15) and coastal jetties and breakwaters. The two main

columns for the Casco Bay Bridge were digitized to a height of 15 meters while the cylindrical columns to

the front and back of the main columns were digitized to a height of 5 meters. Point spacing for both features

were approximately 1 to 3 meters.

NGDC digitized coastal jetties in Portland Harbor and the Scarborough River estuary. Jetties were

assigned a value of either 0.5 or 1 meter above MHW, with points located every 5 meters along each jetty or

breakwater. 

Figure 15. Photograph of Casco Bay Bridge. Digitized features include the two main columns supporting the drawbridge and the 

cylindrical columns to the front and back of the main columns. 
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

21

3.1.4 Topography-Bathymetry

One topographic-bathymetric dataset was available from JALBTCX, covering the southwestern and

northeastern portion of the Portland DEM from Portsmouth to Cape Elizabeth (Fig. 16; Table 9).

Table 9: Topographic-bathymetric dataset used in compiling the Portland DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original 

Vertical Datum URL

JALBTCX 2007 Coastal

lidar < 5 meters NAD 83 geographic,UTM zone 19N

NAVD88

(meters) http://shoals.sam.usace.army.mil

1) Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise topographic-bathymetric lidar

The 2007 JALBTCX lidar dataset provided topographic-bathymetric coverage for the coastal and near

shore regions south of Cape Elizabeth to Portsmouth. These data were obtained in NAD 83 UTM zone 19N

horizontal datum and NAVD88 vertical datum. FME was used to re-project the grids to NAD 83 geographic

and to MHW. Point spacing was less than 5 meters, with full coverage at the shoreline to more sparse

coverage farther from shore, where “clumps” of data surround rocks and kelp.

Figure 16. Coverage of JALBTCX 2007 topographic-bathymetric lidar survey in the Portland region. Blue and purple represent pregridded 1 arc-second bathy surface. Combined coastline in black.
Lim et al., 2009

22

3.2 Establishing Common Datums

3.2.1 Vertical datum transformations

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

of vertical datums including MLLW, MLW, MSL, NAVD88, and NGVD29. All data were transformed to MHW to

provide the maximum flooding for inundation modeling. Units were converted from feet to meters when necessary.

1) Bathymetric data

The NOS hydrographic surveys, the ENC extracted soundings, USGS 15-meter-resolution grid, USACE

harbor surveys, UNH multibeam swath sonar survey, and NOS shallow-water multibeam bathymetric data

were transformed from NGVD29, MLLW, MLW, and MSL to MHW, using the differences between as

measured at the Portland NOAA tide station, #8418150 (see Table 10; http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/).

2) Topographic and topographic-bathymetric data

CSC coastal topographic lidar and JALBTCX topographic-bathymetric lidar datasets were originally

referenced to NAVD88. The USGS NED 1/3 arc-second DEMs were originally referenced to NGVD29 or

MSL (see Sec. 3.1.3). Conversion to MHW, using FME software, was accomplished by using the difference

between MHW and the NGVD29 and NAVD88 vertical datums, as measured at the Portland tide station,

#8418150 (Table 10).

Table 10. Relationship between MHW and other vertical datums in the Portland region.

Vertical datum Difference to MHW

NAVD88 -1.285

MSL -1.381

NGVD29 + -1.507

MLW -2.781

MLLW -2.886

* Datum relationships determined by tidal station #8418150 at Portland, Maine. + Assumed to be equivalent to MSL.

3.2.2 Horizontal datum transformations

Datasets used in compiling the Portland DEM were originally referenced to WGS 84 and NAD 83 geographic,

and NAD 27 Maine State Plane (feet), NAD 83 UTM zone 19N, and WGS 84 UTM zone 19 (meters) horizontal

datums. The relationships and transformational equations between these horizontal datums are well established. Data

were converted to a horizontal datum of NAD 83 geographic using FME software.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

23

3.3 Digital Elevation Model Development

3.3.1 Verifying consistency between datasets

After horizontal and vertical transformations were applied, the resulting ESRI shapefiles were analysed in

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

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

for gridding. Problems included:

•	 Erroneous valuesin NOS hydrographic surveys. These values were checked againstsurvey smoothsheets

and deleted in ArcMap.

•	 Data values over the ocean, bays and rivers in the NED topographic DEMs. The dataset required

automated clipping to the combined coastline.

•	 Discrepancies discovered in NED vertical datum. NGDC shifted the NED data from NGVD29 to MHW

and set all resulting values less than 0.5 m to 0.5 m. 

•	 Coastal topographic lidar data contained returns from the ocean surface. These data were clipped to the

combined coastline.

•	 Digital, measured bathymetric values from NOS surveys date back over 140 years. More recent data,

such as the USACE hydrographic surveys differed from older NOS data by as much as 10 meters. The

older NOS survey data were excised where more recent bathymetric data exists. 

•	 CSC lidar included returns from piers and docks. These values were manually excised by clipping to the

combined coastline.

3.3.2 Smoothing of bathymetric data

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

in deep water the NOS survey data have point spacing up to 4 km 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

shareware software application designed to manipulate data for mapping purposes.

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

survey data, NGDC-digitized soundings, and where NOS soundings crossed the modern combined coastline. The

NOS data were then combined with these bathymetric data and the ENC sounding data 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 to -1.0 m to ensure that the bathymetric surface was below zero in areas where coastal bathymetry data

are sparse or nonexistent (e.g., bays).

	 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 Portland 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. 17), converted

to a shapefile, and then exported as an xyz file for use in the final gridding process (see Table 11).
Lim et al., 2009

24

Figure 17. Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H10986 and the 1 arc-second pre-surfaced 

bathymetric grid.

3.3.3 Gridding the data with MB-System

MB-System was used to create the 1/3 arc-second Portland DEM. MB-System is an NSF-funded shareware

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 USACE hydrographic

harbor surveys and coastal topographic 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 Portland DEM.

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

Dataset Relative Gridding Weight

JALBTCX 1000

NGDC digitized features 1000

Coastal topographic lidar 100

USACE hydrographic surveys 100

University of New Hampshire Multibeam 100

NOS shallow-water multibeam 100

USGS NED topographic DEM 10

USGS 15m. Grid 10

NOS hydrographic survey soundings 10

ENC soundings 10

Pre-surfaced bathymetric grid 1
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

25

3.4 Quality Assessment of the DEM

3.4.1. Horizontal accuracy

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

DEM cell size and the datasets used to determine corresponding DEM cell values. Topographic features have an

estimated accuracy of about 10 meters: coastal topographic lidar data have an accuracy of approximately 6 meters,

NED topography is accurate to within about 10 meters, and JALTCBX topographic-bathymetric lidar is accurate to

within 6 meters. Bathymetric features are resolved only to within a few hundred meters in deep-water areas. Shallow,

near-coastal regions, rivers, and harbor surveys have an accuracy approaching that of subaerial topographic features.

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

of pre-satellite navigated (e.g., GPS) NOS hydrographic surveys.

3.4.2 Vertical accuracy

Vertical accuracy of elevation values for the Portland 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

coastal topographic 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.

3.4.3 Slope maps and 3-D perspectives

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

identification of artificial slopes along boundaries between datasets (e.g., Fig. 21). The DEM was transformed to UTM

zone 19 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. 22). 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 Portland DEM

in its final version.
Lim et al., 2009

26

Figure 18. Slope map of the Portland DEM. Flat-lying slopes are white; dark shading denotes steep 

slopes; combined coastline in red.

Figure 19. Perspective view from the southeast of the Portland DEM. 

Vertical exaggeration–times 5.
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

27

3.4.4 Comparison with source data files

To ensure grid accuracy, the Portland 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 coastal

topographic lidar survey file and the Portland DEM is shown in Figure 20. Differences cluster around zero, with only

a handful of points, in regions of steep topography, exceeding 1-meter discrepancy from the DEM.

Figure 20. Histogram of the differences between the 2004 CSC topographic lidar survey of southeast Portland Harbor and 

the Portland DEM.

3.4.5 Comparison with National Geodetic Survey geodetic monuments

The elevations of 1122 NOAA NGS geodetic monuments were extracted from online shapefiles of monument

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

(typically sub-mm accuracy) and elevations in NAVD88 (in meters). Elevations were shifted to MHW vertical datum

(see Table 10) for comparison with the Portland DEM (see Fig. 28 for monument locations). Differences between the

Portland DEM and the NGS geodetic monument elevations range from -63.78 to 48.95 meters, with the majority of

them being within a few meters; negative values indicate that the DEM is less than the monument elevation (Fig. 21).

Inspection of datasheets for those monuments with significant discrepancy from the DEM show that they are caused

by poor accuracy in monument location (+/- 6 arc-seconds; ~180 m), monuments located on manmade structures such

as bridges, piers or lighthouses (not the ground surface), or by monuments that are lost.

Figure 21. Histogram of the differences between NGS geodetic monument elevations and the Portland DEM.
Lim et al., 2009

28

Figure 22. Location of NGS geodetic monuments and NOAA tide stations in the Portland region. 

NGS monument elevations were used to evaluate the DEM.

4. Summary and Conclusions

	 An integrated topographic-bathymetric DEM of the Portland, Maine region, with cell size of 1/3 arc-second,

was developed for the PMEL NOAA Center for Tsunami Research. The best available digital data from U.S. federal

and state 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 ArcGIS, FME, GMT, MBSystem and Quick Terrain Modeler software.

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

•	 Complete topographic lidar surveying of coastal areas in the region.

•	 Conduct high-resolution hydrographic surveys, concentrating in estuaries and harbors.

•	 Adjust the NED dataset to a single vertical datum in the Portland region (see Sec. 3.1.3).

•	 Conduct hydrographic surveys in areas of deeper water approximately 25 km to the south of

Boothbay Harbor.

5. Acknowledgments

	 The creation of the Portland DEM was funded by the NOAA Center for Tsunami Research at PMEL. The

authors thank Nazila Merati and Vasily Titov (PMEL), William Walker (USACE, New England district), Larry Mayer

and Mashkoor Ahmad Malik (CCOM/JHC/UNH), and Christopher L. Macon (JALBTCX).
Digital Elevation Model of Portland, Maine

29

6. References

Electronic Navigational Chart #13278 (RNC), 8th Edition, 2008, Portsmouth to Cape Ann. Scale 1:80,000. U.S.

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

Electronic Navigational Chart #13283 (RNC), 7th Edition, 2008, Cape Neddick Harbor to Isles of Shoals. Scale

1:20,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Electronic Navigational Chart #13285 (RNC), 9th Edition, 2008, Portsmouth to Dover and Exeter. Scale 1:20,000.

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

Electronic Navigational Chart #13286 (RNC), 6th Edition, 2008, Cape Elizabeth to Portsmouth. Scale 1:80,000. U.S.

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

Electronic Navigational Chart #13288 (RNC), 6th Edition, 2008, Monhegan Island to Cape Elizabeth. Scale 1:80,000.

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

Electronic Navigational Chart #13290 (RNC), 6th Edition, 2008, Casco Bay B. Scale 1:40,000. U.S. Department of

Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Electronic Navigational Chart #13292 (RNC), 15th Edition, 2008, Portland Harbor and Vicinity A. Scale 1:20,000.

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

Electronic Navigational Chart #13295 (RNC), 6th Edition, 2008, Kennebec and Sheepscot River Entrances. Scale

1:15,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Electronic Navigational Chart #13296 (RNC), 6th Edition, 2008, Boothbay Harbor to Bath Including Kennebec River.

Scale 1:15,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Electronic Navigational Chart #13298 (RNC), 4th Edition, 2008, Kennebec River-Bath to Courthouse Point. Scale

1:15,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Roworth, E. and Signell, R. P., Construction of Digital Bathymetry for the Gulf of Maine, longitude: 71.5 - 63 W,

latitude : 39.5 - 46 N, U.S. Geological Survey Open-file Report 98-801, http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-

801/

7. Data Processing Software

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

FME 2008 GB – Feature Manipulation Engine, developed and licensed by Safe Software, Vancouver, BC, Canada,

http://www.safe.com/

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

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

GMT v. 4.3.0 – Generic Mapping Tools, shareware 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, shareware 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 and maintained and licensed by Applied Imagery, http://www.appliedimagery.com/