noaa / NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

National Environmental Satellite,

Data, and Information Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NESDIS NGDC-18

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY:

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-18

DIGITAL ELEVATION MODEL OF ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY:

PROCEDURES, DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS

Kelly S. Carignan1

Lisa A. Taylor2

Barry W. Eakins1

Robin R. Warnken2

Tatiana Sazonova1

David C. Schoolcraft2

1Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder

2NOAA, 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 Atlantic City, New Jersey

iii

Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.1.3	 Topography..........................................................................................................17

3.1.4	 Bathymetry–Topography.....................................................................................19

3.2	 Establishing Common Datums .................................................................................................21

3.2.1	 Vertical datum transformations ...........................................................................21

3.2.2	 Horizontal datum transformations.......................................................................21

3.3	 Digital Elevation Model Development .....................................................................................22

3.3.1	 Verifying consistency between datasets..............................................................22

3.3.2	 Pre-surfacing of USACE bathymetric dataset.....................................................22

3.3.3	 Smoothing of bathymetric data ...........................................................................23

3.3.4	 Gridding the data with MB-System.....................................................................23

3.4	 Quality Assessment of the DEM...............................................................................................24

3.4.1	 Horizontal accuracy.............................................................................................24

3.4.2	 Vertical accuracy .................................................................................................24

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

3.4.4	 Comparison with source data files.......................................................................26

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

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

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

6.	 References........................................................................................................................................28

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

List of Figures

Figure 1. 	 Shaded-relief image of the Atlantic City, New Jersey DEM ......................................................1

Figure 2.	 Geologic regions of New Jersey .................................................................................................2

Figure 3.	 Source and coverage of datasets used to compile the Atlantic City DEM..................................4

Figure 4.	 Digital coastline datasets available in the Atlantic City region ..................................................5

Figure 5.	 Aerial photo of Atlantic City at Absecon Inlet............................................................................6

Figure 6.	 Spatial coverage of bathymetric datasets used to compile the Atlantic City DEM ....................8

Figure 7.	 Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Atlantic City region ..................................12

Figure 8.	 Digital USACE hydrographic survey coverage in the Atlantic City region .............................14

Figure 9.	 Spatial coverage of NOS shallow-water multibeam sonar surveys..........................................15

Figure 10.	 Coverage of extracted ENC soundings and the Intracoastal Waterway segments

digitized by NGDC ...................................................................................................................16

Figure 11.	 Map of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Atlantic City region ...........................................18

Figure 12.	 1/3 arc-second Atlantic City DEM and quad sheets west of Townsend Inlet...........................18

Figure 13.	 Coverage of CSC/JALBTCX 2005 LiDAR dataset used in building the Atlantic

City DEM...........................................................................................................................19

Figure 14.	 Hachured area illustrates coverage of VDatum tool.................................................................21

Figure 15.	 Example of artifcacts in test grid at Absecon Inlet ...................................................................22

Figure 16.	 Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H09552 and the

1 arc-second pre-surfaced bathymetric grid ......................................................................23

Figure 17.	 Slope map of the Atlantic City DEM........................................................................................25

Figure 18.	 Perspective view from the southeast of the Atlantic City DEM...............................................26

Figure 19.	 Histogram of the differences between one CSC LiDAR survey and the Atlantic

City DEM...........................................................................................................................26

CORRECTED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Carignan et al., 2009

iv

Figure 20.	 Histogram of the differences between NGS geodetic monument elevations and the

Atlantic City DEM.............................................................................................................27

Figure 21.	 Location of NGS geodetic monuments and the NOAAAtlantic City tide station....................27

List of Tables

Table 1.	 PMEL specifications for the Atlantic City, New Jersey DEM....................................................3

Table 2.	 Shoreline datasets used in the Atlantic City, DEM.....................................................................5

Table 3.	 Electronic navigational charts available in the Atlantic City, New Jersey region ......................6

Table 4.	 Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM................................................7

Table 5.	 Digital NOS hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM..........................9

Table 6.	 USACE surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM .....................................................13

Table 7.	 Digital NOS shallow water multibeam surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City

DEM..................................................................................................................................15

Table 8.	 Topographic datasets used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM..............................................17

Table 9.	 Bathymetric–topographic dataset used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM...........................19

Table 10.	 Relationship between Mean High Water and other vertical datums at the Atlantic City

tide station #8534720........................................................................................................21

Table 11.	 Data hierarchy used to assign gridding weight in MB-System.................................................23

CORRECTED TABLE OF CONTENTS
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey:

Procedures, Data Sources and Analysis

1. Introduction

InOctober 2007,theNationalGeophysicalDataCenter(NGDC), an office oftheNationalOceanic andAtmospheric

Administration (NOAA), developed a bathymetric–topographic digital elevation model (DEM) of Atlantic City, New

Jersey (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 Atlantic City DEM.

Figure 1. Shaded-relief image of the Atlantic City, New Jersey DEM. Contour interval is 100 meters.

1. The Atlantic City 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 Atlantic City, New Jersey (39°21.828′ N,

74°25.099′ W) 1/3 arc-second of latitude is equivalent to 10.28 meters; 1/3 arc-second of longitude equals 7.98 meters.
Carignan et al., 2009

2

2. Study Area

The Atlantic City DEM covers the coastal region surrounding the town of Atlantic City, New Jersey from Cape

May in the south to Barnegat Light in the north and includes the communities of Wildwood, Avalon, Sea Isle City,

Ocean City, Brigantine, Beach Haven, and Harvey Cedars (Fig. 1).

Many of the rural communities surround Delaware Bay while the rapidly growing suburban and developing

urban populations are along the Atlantic coast. New Jersey’s coastal economy is based not only on tourism but also on

commercial and recreational fishing. The Outer Coastal Plain supports the economy by providing habitat to wildlife,

migratory birds, and marine life. The estuaries and salt marshes in this region were formed by the gradual infill of mud

and sand from the rivers while the barrier islands to the east act to protect these wetlands. Coastal processes such as

wave action and along shore currents continually shape and modify the New Jersey coastline.

Figure 2. Geologic regions of New Jersey. The Atlantic City DEM boundary is shown in red. (http://njaes.rutgers.edu/

njriparianforestbuffers/nativeALL.htm).
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

3

3. Methodology

The Atlantic City, New Jersey 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

forecastsin 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 Atlantic City, New Jersey DEM.

Grid Area Atlantic City, New Jersey

Coverage Area 74.00o to 75.05o W; 38.85o to 39.75o 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

3.1 Data Sources and Processing

Shoreline, bathymetric, topographic, and bathymetric–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 Joint Airborne LiDAR Bathymetry Technical Center

of Expertise (JALBTCX); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

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 Atlantic City tide station and NOAA’s Office of

Coast Survey and National Geodetic Survey VDatum model software (http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/vdatum.

htm). Applied Imagery’s Quick Terrain Modeler software (http://www.appliedimagery.com/) was used to edit and

assess the quality of the LiDAR data as well as evaluate processing and gridding techniques.

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.

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.
Carignan et al., 2009

4

Figure 3. Source and coverage of datasets used to compile the Atlantic City DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

5

3.1.1 Shoreline

Coastline datasets of the Atlantic City region were obtained from NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey, Coastal

Services Center (CSC); the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); and Center for Remote

Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) at Rutgers University. Analysis of the NJDEP and Rutgers coastlines showed

both to be less detailed than coastlines extracted from the ENCs and therefore were not used in building the Atlantic

City DEM. NGDC created a partial shoreline from CSC coastal LiDAR data that was used in combination with the

ENCs to build a ‘combined coastline’ for the Atlantic City region (Table 2; Fig. 4).

Table 2: Shoreline datasets used in the Atlantic City, DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial 

Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original Vertical 

Datum URL

OCS ENCs 2006-

2007 Coastline 1:80,000 to

1:400,000 WGS 84 geographic Mean High Water

http://

nauticalcharts.

noaa.gov/mcd/

enc/index.htm

NGDC/CSC

LiDAR derived

shoreline

Contour WGS 84 geographic Mean High Water

Figure 4. Digital coastline datasets available in the Atlantic City region.
Carignan et al., 2009

6

1) OCS electronic navigational chart

Four electronic navigational charts (ENCs) were available for the Atlantic City area (Table 3) and were

downloaded from NOAA’s Office of Coast Survey website (http://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/mcd/enc/index.

htm). The ENCs are available in S-57 format and include coastline data files referenced to Mean High Water.

Other nautical charts were available as georeferenced raster nautical charts (RNCs; digital images of the

charts) and were used to QC bathymetric, bathymetric–topographic, and topographic datasets.

2) NGDC/Coastal Services Center LiDAR derived contour shoreline

In order to define the current coastline, NGDC processed the most recent high-resolution coastal

bathymetric–topographic LiDAR dataset available from CSC to create a zero-elevation coastline at Mean

High Water vertical datum. The zero contour line incorporated some jetties and coastal land features not

present in the ENC coastlines.

 Table 3: Electronic navigational charts available in the Atlantic City, New Jersey region.

Chart Title Edition Year of Source data Issue Date Scale

12300 Approaches to New York Nantucket Shoals to

Five Fathom Bank 12 2003 2007-07-26 1:400,000

12214 Cape May to Fenwick Island 9 1999 to 2004 2007-06-25 1:80,000

12304 Delaware Bay 8 1999 to 2004 2007-08-01 1:80,000

12318 Little Egg Inlet to Hereford Inlet 1 2005 2007-07-26 1:80,000

The ENC coastlines were merged with the derived contour coastline to create a ‘combined coastline’ for the

Atlantic City region. Channel inlets were included in the ‘combined coastline’ where digital bathymetric data were

present. Modifications to the coastline include adjustments to fit the most recent bathymetric–topographic data. In

addition, piers, docks, and bridges were removed (e.g., Fig. 5). All modifications were done using ArcMap editing

tools.

Figure 5. Aerial photo of Atlantic City at Absecon Inlet.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

7

3.1.2 Bathymetry

Bathymetric datasets used in the compilation of the Atlantic City DEM include 65 NOS hydrographic surveys,

eight USACE surveys located within harbors and inlets, three NOS shallow-water multibeam sonar surveys that cover

the near shore area, an NGDC digitized representation of the Intracoastal Waterway, and extracted ENC sounding data

(Table 4; Fig. 6).

Table 4: Bathymetric datasets used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial Resolution

Original 

Horizontal Datum/

Coordinate System

Original 

Vertical 

Datum

URL

NOS 1935 to

2002

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 Low

Water or

Mean Lower

Low Water

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

mgg/bathymetry/hydro.

html

USACE 2006 to

2007

Hydrographic

survey

profiles

Ranges from 150 to

1500 m line spacing

150 to 300 m apart

with 2 to 5 m point

spacing

NAD 83 New

Jersey State Plane

(feet)

NAVD88

(feet)

NOS 2003

Shallow water

multibeam

sonar

10 meters NAD 83

geographic

Mean Lower

Low Water

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

mgg/bathymetry/hydro.

html

NGDC -

ICW

digitized

soundings ~ 10 meters WGS 84geographic

Mean High

Water

OCS

ENC

2006 to

2007

Extracted

soundings 1:80,000 to 1:400,000 WGS 84geographic

Mean High

Water

http://nauticalcharts.noaa.

gov/mcd/enc/index.htm
Carignan et al., 2009

8

Figure 6. Spatial coverage of bathymetric datasets used to compile the Atlantic City DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

9

1) NOS hydrographic survey data

A total of 82 NOS hydrographic surveys conducted between 1935 and 2002 were available for use in

developing the Atlantic City DEM (Table 5; Fig. 7). The hydrographic survey data were originally vertically

referenced to Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) or Mean Low Water (MLW) and horizontally referenced to

either NAD 27 or NAD 83 datums. Only 65 of the 82 surveys were used in building the Atlantic City DEM,

as some older surveys have been superseded.

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). The data were then converted to NAD

83 and 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 Atlantic City DEM area to support data interpolation along grid edges.

After converting all NOS survey data to MHW using VDatum and tide station offset (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, bathymetric,

and bathymetric–topographic datasets, the combined coastline, and NOS raster nautical charts (RNCs). The

surveys were clipped to remove soundingsthat overlap the more recent multibeam surveys, where the USACE

surveys were located within the inlets and along the coastline and where soundings from older surveys have

been superseded by more recent NOS surveys.

 Table 5: Digital NOS hydrographic surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

Survey ID Year Scale Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal 

Datum

Vertical Datum 

conversion used

H05893 1935 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H05894 1935 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06141 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06142 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06144 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06188 1936 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06213 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06215 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06216 1936 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06214 1937 5,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06218 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06224 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06230 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06231 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06236 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06254 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06262 1937 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum
Carignan et al., 2009

10

H06271 1937 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H06345 1938 80,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H06225 1939 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06226 1940 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H06227 1940 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08219 1954 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08220 1954 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08221 1954 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08222 1954 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H08672 1962 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08674 1962 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08675 1962 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H08676 1962 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09153 1970/71 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09154 1970 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09203 1971 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09204 1971 5,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09241 1971 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09310 1972 5,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09311 1972 10,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09312 1972 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09533 1975 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09534 1975 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H09542 1975 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H09552 1975 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H09573 1975 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 VDatum

H09622 1976 40,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09699 1977 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset and

VDatum

H09700 1977 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

11

H09722 1977 5,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H09723 1977 20,000 mean low water NAD 27 Offset

H10167 1984 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 27 Offset

H10439 1992 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10440 1992 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10444 1992/93 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10446 1992/93 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10489 1993 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10234 1994 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10241 1994 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10573 1994 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

F00453 1999 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10917 1999 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10935 1999 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset and

VDatum

H10936 1999 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H10926 1999/2000 10,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H11081 2001/02 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset

H11104 2002 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 Offset and

VDatum

H11241 2004 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 UTM zone

18 North VDatum
Carignan et al., 2009

12

Figure 7. Digital NOS hydrographic survey coverage in the Atlantic City region. Some older surveys were not used as they 

have been superseded by more recent surveys. DEM boundary in brown.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

13

2) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hydrographic surveys

The USACE, Philadelphia District, provided NGDC with eight bathymetric surveys located along the

New Jersey coastline and within inlets (Table 6, Fig. 8). The surveys were collected in 2006 and 2007, and

referenced to NAD 83 New Jersey State Plane (feet) North and NAVD88 (feet) datums. The files were

converted to NAD 83 and MHW using FME. Point spacing averages less than 2 meters along profiles 1500

to 1700 meters long and averaging 300 meters apart. Inlet surveys are several thousand meter square grids

formed by intersecting survey lines with point spacing of less than 5 meters.

Beach profiles and inlet surveys were evaluated using Arc Map and surfaced with GMT (see section

3.3.2) to eliminate ridges and a “waffle” pattern.

 Table 6: USACE surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

Region Year of Survey Survey Scale Original Vertical Datum Original Horizontal 

Datum

Absecon Inlet 2006

2600 x 3600 m grid with <

150 m line spacing and < 5

m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Absecon Island

profiles 2006

beach profiles ~1500 m

wide, spaced ~300 m apart

with < 2 m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Cape May

profiles 2007

beach profiles ~1500 m

wide, spaced ~300 m apart

with < 2 m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Great Egg

Harbor Inlet 2006

4400 x 3800 m grid with 150

m line spacing and < 5 m

point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Avalon profiles 2007

beach profiles ~1500 m

wide, spaced ~300 m apart

with < 2 m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Brigantine Inlet 2006

2500 x 3500 m grid with <

150 m line spacing and < 5

m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Brigantine Island

profiles 2006

beach profiles ~1500 m

wide, spaced ~300 m apart

with < 2 m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)

Ocean City

profiles 2006

beach profiles ~1700 m

wide, spaced ~300 m apart

with < 2 m point spacing

NAD 83 New Jersey State

Plane (feet) NAVD88 (feet)
Carignan et al., 2009

14

Figure 8. Digital USACE hydrographic survey coverage in the Atlantic City region.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

15

3) NOS shallow water multibeam survey

NOAA’s NOS conducted several shallow water multibeam sonar surveys along the New Jersey coast

(Table 7, Fig. 9). Three surveys were downloaded from the NGDC hydrographic survey website (http://www.

ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/hydro.html) in ASCII xyz gridded format in NAD 83 geographic at 10-meter

resolution and referenced to MLLW. This dataset provided dense bathymetric coverage for the area.

 Table 7: Digital NOS shallow water multibeam surveys used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

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

H11197 2003 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 geographic

H11198 2003 20,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 geographic

H11243 2004 40,000 mean lower low water NAD 83 geographic

Figure 9. Coverage of NOS shallow-water multibeam sonar surveys. 
Carignan et al., 2009

16

4) Office of Coast Survey Electronic navigational chart extracted soundings

The OCS electronic navigational chart sounding data were extracted from charts #12318 and #12304

and converted to MHW using FME. NGDC digitized additional soundings from chart #12304 in the Maurice

River channel at a depth of -1.82 meters based on Coast Pilot (Fig. 10). By increasing the density ofsoundings

in the river channel, the appearance of ‘pits’ in the pre-surfaced bathymetric grid was reduced. Soundings

from ENC #12318 were clipped to the shallow water multibeam surveys.

5) Digitized Intracoastal Waterway

NGDC digitized soundings with point spacing of less than one meter for the Intracoastal Waterway

(ICW; Fig. 10) at a depth of -1.82 meters for the small inland channel north of Sea Isle City and -3.66 meters

through the Cape May Channel. No other bathymetric data were available.

Figure 10. Coverage of extracted ENC soundings and the Intracoastal Waterway segments digitized by NGDC.

Some inconsistencies were identified while merging the bathymetric datasets due to the range in ages of the NOS

hydrographic surveys. Coastal erosion and development have modified the coastline dramatically; the inlets surveyed

in the early 40’s and 50’s have shifted hundreds of meters. In areas where more recent data were available, the older

surveys were either edited or removed.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

17

3.1.3 Topography

One topographic dataset in the Atlantic City region was obtained and used to build the Atlantic City DEM from

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; Table 8; Fig. 11). NGDC evaluated but did not use the Shuttle Radar Topography

Mission (SRTM) Elevation 1 arc-second DEM available from USGS.

Table 8: Topographic datasets used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

Source Year Data Type Spatial Resolution

Original Horizontal Datum/Coordinate System

Original Vertical 

Datum URL

USGS 1999-2000 NED DEM 1/3 arc-second NAD 83 geographic NAVD88 (meters) http://ned.usgs.

gov/

1) USGS NED topographic DEM

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

complete 1/3 arc-second coverage of the Atlantic City 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’.

In marshy areas, the NED topographic data had elevation values below zero. The Absecon Wilderness

Management Area and the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge consist of roughly 50,000 acres of

salt marsh and wetlands. A management technique called “diking” is employed to create acres of impounded

marsh habitat in the naturally occurring tidal salt marsh. Water levels are monitored and changed according

to wildlife needs and seasons (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/forsythe/). The process could result in NED

topographic data values of less than zero in areas represented as land on nautical charts and topographic

maps.

The Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) at Rutgers University

also provides research data on the changes in coverage of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Barnegat Bay

region (Fig. 11).

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]	
Carignan et al., 2009

18

	 Two areas of the NED DEM dataset have an offset in elevation values of up to 1 meter. Both are located at the

seams of the USGS quads, one just west of Townsend Inlet and the other in the Barnegat Bay area. Figure 12 illustrates

the intersection of four quads and the corresponding area in the final 1/3 arc-second Atlantic City DEM. Other online

topographic datasets at similar resolution also contained this offset as they use the NED data. The SRTM 1 arc-second

DEM did not accurately reflect topography and was not used.

Figure 12. 1/3 arc-second Atlantic City DEM and quad sheets west of Townsend Inlet. A) The resulting elevation offsets shown as difference 

between light and dark green shades. B) Image of four USGS quad sheets. In both images, the black arrow points to the intersection of the quads.

Figure 11. Map of submerged aquatic vegetation in the Atlantic 

City region. Courtesy of Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) at Rutgers University (http://

crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/runj/bbdata/index.html).
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

19

3.1.4 Bathymetry–Topography

	 Two bathymetric–topographic LiDAR datasets were available from NOAA’s Coastal Services Center (CSC)

Coastal Remote Sensing Program, covering the ocean coastal region of the Atlantic City DEM from Cape May to

Barnegat Bay. The NOAA/USGS/NASA Airborne LiDAR Assessment of Coastal Erosion (ALACE) Project for

the US Coastline dataset was conducted from 1996 to 2000 to study coastal changes along the New Jersey eastern

seaboard. The CSC/JALBTCX 2005 dataset is part of the National Coastal Mapping Program to depict the elevations

above and below water along the east coastal zone (Fig. 13, Table 9). As both datasets provide full coverage of the

entire length of the Atlantic Ocean shoreline, only the more recent CSC/JALBTCX 2005 dataset was used in building

the Atlantic City DEM. Neither dataset was processed to bare earth.

Table 9: Bathymetric–topographic dataset used in compiling the Atlantic City DEM.

Source Year Data Tyle Spacial Resolution

Original Horizontal 

Datum/Coordinate 

System

Original Vertical 

Datum

CSC/JALBTCX 2005 Coastal LiDAR < 5 meters NAD 83 geographic NAVD88 (meters)

Figure 13. Coverage of the CSC/JALBTCX 2005 LiDAR dataset used in building the Atlantic City DEM.
Carignan et al., 2009

20

1) CSC/JALBTCX bathymetric–topographic LiDAR 2005

The CSC/JALBTCX LiDAR dataset provided bathymetric–topographic coverage for the coastal and

near shore regions of the New Jersey coast. These data were obtained in NAD 83 geographic horizontal

datum and NAVD88. FME was used to re-project the xyz data to WGS 84 geographic and to MHW. Point

spacing varied from less than 5 meters with full coverage at the shoreline to greater spacing farther from

shore. These data were not processed to bare earth.

In order to simulate a bare earth surface, the LiDAR data were filtered using FME to remove all elevations on

land over 5 meters. This elevation was used because the majority of the land surface located on the shoreline averaged

less than 5 meters, referencing USGS quad sheets. Elevations over 5 meters in the NED topographic dataset that were

also shown to be over 5 meters on the USGS quads sheets were retained for use in building the final DEM. While not

a replacement for bare earth processing, the filtering removed the majority of buildings, elevated roadways, and large

piers. Each data file was reviewed and edited using ArcMap tools to remove docks, bridges, and piers over water.

Several anomalous returns were found during this QC process and were also removed.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

21

3.2 Establishing Common Datums

3.2.1 Vertical datum transformations

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

of vertical datums including Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW), Mean Low Water (MLW), and North American

Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). 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 USACE surveys, and the NOS multibeam sonar survey were

transformed from MLLW and MLW to MHW, using FME software, by adding a constant taken from the

Atlantic City tide station #8534720 (Table 10) or by processing using the VDatum tool (http://nauticalcharts.

noaa.gov/csdl/vdatum.htm ) based on VDatum coverage (Fig. 14).

Figure 14. Hachured area illustrates coverage of VDatum tool.

2) Topographic data

The USGS NED 1/3 arc-second DEMs were originally referenced to NAVD88. Conversion to MHW,

using FME software, was accomplished by adding a constant offset of -0.479 meters (Table 10) as measured

at the Atlantic City tide station.

3) Bathymetric–topographic data

The CSC bathymetric–topographic LiDAR data were transformed from NAVD88 to MHW by adding a

constant offset of -0.479 meters using FME.

Table 10. Relationship between Mean High Water and other vertical datums at the Atlantic City tide station #8534720.

Vertical datum Difference to MHW

NAVD88 -0.479 meters

MLW -1.225 meters

MLLW -1.276 meters

3.2.2 Horizontal datum transformations

Datasets used to compile the Atlantic City DEM were originally referenced to WGS 84 geographic, NAD 83

UTM Zone 18 North, NAD 83 New Jersey State Plane, NAD 83 geographic, or NAD 27 geographic horizontal

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.
Carignan et al., 2009

22

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 elevations located on and within salt marshes and estuaries.

•	 Inconsistencies within the NED topographic data in two areas. These inconsistencies appear to result from

merging of digitized USGS quad sheets.

•	 Data values over the ocean and rivers in the NED topographic data reflecting non-bare earth features. The

dataset required automated clipping to the combined coastline.

•	 Bathymetric–topographic LiDAR dataset not processed to bare earth. The dataset required filtering of

elevation values on land and manual editing of individual features.

•	 Digital, measured bathymetric values from NOS surveys date back over 70 years. More recent data, such

as the USACE hydrographic surveys differed from older NOS data by as much as 10 meters vertically and

over 100 meters horizontally. The older NOS survey data were excised where more recent bathymetric data

exists.

3.3.2 Pre-surfacing of USACE bathymetric dataset

The USACE bathymetric surveys consist of widely spaced beach profiles and soundings with ‘cross-hatched’

patterns at inlets. This point distribution required pre-surfacing using GMT to minimize the artifacts. Original

non-surfaced bathymetric datasets were not used in the final gridding process after test grids showed excessive

“patchwork” artifacts where datasets merged or overlapped (Fig. 15).

Figure 15. Example of artifacts in test grid at Absecon Inlet. “Waffle” pattern resulted from incorporating non-surfaced USACE survey dataset in 

final gridding. 
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

23

3.3.3 Smoothing of bathymetric data

The NOS hydrographic survey data are generally sparse at the resolution of the 1/3 arc-second Atlantic City

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, a 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 JALBTCX bathymetric–

topographic LiDAR data, then combined with the surfaced and clipped USACE soundings, the NOS multibeam data,

ENC sounding data, and the digitized ICW segments 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 -0.5 m to ensure a

bathymetric surface below zero in areas where data is 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 Atlantic City 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. 15),

converted to a shape file, and then exported as an xyz file for use in the final gridding process (see Table 11).

Figure 16. Histogram of the differences between NOS hydrographic survey H09552 and the 1 arc-second pre-surfaced 

bathymetric grid.

3.3.4 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 Atlantic

City DEM. MB-System is an NSF-funded share-ware 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 bare-earth LiDAR data. Least weight was given to the pre-surfaced 1

arc-second bathymetric grid. Gridding was performed in quads with the resulting Arc ASCII grids seamlessly merged

in ArcCatalog to create the final 1/3 arc-second Atlantic City DEM.

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

Dataset Relative Gridding Weight

CSC bathymetric–topographic coastal LiDAR 1,000,000

USGS NED topographic DEM 1000

Combined coastline 100

Pre-surfaced bathymetric grid 10
Carignan et al., 2009

24

3.4 Quality Assessment of the DEM

3.4.1. Horizontal accuracy

The horizontal accuracy of topographic and bathymetric features in the Atlantic City 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 bathymetric–topographic LiDAR data have an accuracy of approximately 6 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 the morphologic

change that occurs in this dynamic region.

3.4.2 Vertical accuracy

Vertical accuracy of elevation values for the Atlantic City 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 Atlantic City, New Jersey

25

3.4.3 Slope maps and 3-D perspectives

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

identification of artificial slopes along boundaries between datasets (e.g., Fig. 17). The DEM was transformed to UTM

Zone 18 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. 18). 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 Atlantic City

DEM in its final version.

Figure 17. Slope map of the Atlantic City DEM. Flat-lying slopes are white; dark shading denotes 

steep slopes; combined coastline in red.
Carignan et al., 2009

26

Figure 18. Perspective view from the southeast of the Atlantic City DEM. Vertical 

exaggeration–times 50.

3.4.4 Comparison with source data files

To ensure grid accuracy, the Atlantic City 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 CSC

topographic LiDAR survey file and theAtlantic City DEM is shown in Figure 19. Differences cluster around zero, with

only a handful of soundings, in regions of steep topography, exceeding a 0.51-meter discrepancy from the DEM.

Figure 19. Histogram of the differences between one CSC LiDAR survey and the Atlantic City DEM.
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

27

3.4.5 Comparison with NGS geodetic monuments

The elevations of 1247 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). Elevations were shifted to MHW vertical datum (see

Table 10) for comparison with the Atlantic City DEM (see Fig. 21 for monument locations). Differences between the

Atlantic City DEM and the NGS geodetic monument elevations range from -15 to 5 meters, with the majority of them

being within +/-2 meters range. Negative values indicate that the monument elevation is less than the DEM (Fig. 20).

Only 15 monuments out of 260 total showed significant deviations from the DEM. Such discrepancies are caused by

the rough terrain in the Atlantic City area, where significant changes in local relief could occurhappen on the scale of

less then 10 meters.

Many monuments are mounted on buildings and bridges and were therefore not included in assessment of the

DEM.

Figure 20. Histogram of the differences between NGS geodetic monument elevations and the Atlantic City DEM.

Figure 21. Location of NGS geodetic monuments, shown as green triangles, and the NOAA Atlantic City tide station, 

yellow circle. NGS monument elevations were used to evaluate the DEM.
Carignan et al., 2009

28

4. Summary and Conclusions

A bathymetric–topographic digital elevation model of the Atlantic City, New Jersey 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 Atlantic City DEM, based on NGDC’s research and analysis, are listed below:

•	 Conduct LiDAR surveys for near-shore areas especially in bays and estuaries.

•	 Complete topographic LiDAR surveying of entire region especially at coastal marshes.

•	 Process CSC bathymetric–topographic LiDAR data to bare earth.

5. Acknowledgments

The creation of the Atlantic City DEM was funded by the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. The

authors thank Chris Chamberlin and Vasily Titov (PMEL); LTjg David Fischman, NOAA/NESDIS/NGDC/MGG;

NOAAAtlantic Hydrographic Office staff; and Monica Chasten, Harry Friebel, and Joe Scolari, USACE Philadelphia

District Office.

6. References

NauticalChart #12214, 9th Edition, 2007.Cape May to Fenwick Island. Scale 1:80,000. U.S. Department ofCommerce,

NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #12300, 12th Edition, 2007. Approaches to New York Nantucket Shoals to Five Fathom Bank. Scale

1:400,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #12304, 8th Edition, 2007. Delaware Bay. Scale 1:80,000. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA,

National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Nautical Chart #12318, 1st Edition, 2007. Little Egg Inlet to Hereford Inlet. Scale 1:80,000. U.S. Department of

Commerce, NOAA, National Ocean Service, Coast Survey.

Lathrop, Richard G., Paul Montesano, Scott Haag, 2003, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Mapping in the Barnegat Bay

National Estuary Update to Year 2003, http://crssa.rutgers.edu/projects/runj/bbay.html
Digital Elevation Model of Atlantic City, New Jersey

29

7. Data Processing Software

ArcGIS v. 9.2, developed and licensed by ESRI, Redlands, California, 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, shareware 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, 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 (APL) and maintained and licensed by Applied Imagery, http://www.appliedimagery.com/