Maxwel F Schwid Mackenzie K Keith Brandon T Overstreet 20260430 raster digital data; remote-sensing image; LAZ binary data https://doi.org/10.5066/P13AXTFZ In cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) surveyed ground control points and coordinated aerial photograph acquisition of Green Peter Lake, located on the Middle Santiam River about 8 kilometers upstream of the confluence of the Middle Santiam and South Santiam Rivers in western Oregon. Green Peter Lake is a multi-purpose reservoir impounded by the 100-meter ([m]; 327-foot [ft]) tall Green Peter Dam. Aerial photographs were acquired by the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) on December 9, 2023, December 12, 2023, and November 27, 2024, when water levels were at 271, 275, and 254 m (889, 903, and 832 ft; National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD 29]) elevation, respectively, below the typical annual “low pool” or minimum-conservation pool elevation of 281 m (922 ft) for flood-risk management operations. Photographs were acquired at consistent altitudes with a WaldoAir XCAM Ultra 50 camera mounted on a Cessna aircraft and captured the entire reservoir area as defined by full pool (or maximum-conservation pool, 308 m [1,010 ft]), including the major streams entering the reservoir, the Middle Santiam River and Quartzville Creek, as well as other smaller tributaries. The USGS applied structure-from-motion (SfM) techniques to these aerial photographs, following the workflow outlined in Over and others (2021) and used for similar datasets (Schwid and others, 2025), and generated three-dimensional xyz point clouds, digital surface models (DSM), and orthomosaics of Green Peter Lake. This data release includes ground control points, dataset footprints, original aerial photographs, point clouds, DSMs, and orthomosaics of Green Peter Lake with varying aerial extents and resolutions that were developed from imagery acquired in 2023 and 2024: (1) the December 9, 2023 model (GreenPeterLake_20231209) covered the main body of the reservoir and the Quartzville Creek arm but excluded the Middle Santiam River arm; (2) the December 13, 2023 model (GreenPeterLake_20231213) covered the main body of the reservoir and the Middle Santiam River arm but excluded the Quartzville Creek arm; (3) the November 27, 2024 model (GreenPeterLake_20241127) covered the entire reservoir area. This documentation describes the aerial photographs acquired by the Civil Air Patrol on December 13, 2023, and a high-resolution point cloud, DSM, and orthomosaic generated from SfM techniques using the aerial photographs. References: Over, J.R., Ritchie, A.C., Kranenburg, C.J., Brown, J.A., Buscombe, D., Noble, T., Sherwood, C.R., Warrick, J.A., and Wernette, P.A., 2021, Processing coastal imagery with Agisoft Metashape Professional Edition, version 1.6—Structure from motion workflow documentation: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2021–1039, 46 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211039. Schwid, M.F., Keith, M.K., and Overstreet, B.T., 2025, High-resolution orthoimagery and digital surface models of Fern Ridge Lake, Oregon, during annual low pool, January and February, 2023: U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P1Q5K657. Dam operations at the 15.1-square-kilometer (3,720-acre) Green Peter Lake, along with other hydrogeomorphic conditions, result in a diverse array of geomorphic processes and landforms within the reservoir. The original aerial photographs acquired by CAP, along with the point clouds, DSMs, and orthomosaics covering Green Peter Lake were created to provide high-resolution datasets depicting the reservoir floor that is exposed during low-pool conditions. These datasets are useful for evaluating geomorphic characteristics of the reservoir and assessing other landscape conditions; when compared with future datasets, these datasets will also be useful for tracking changes over time. The Spatial Data Organization and Spatial Reference Information elements in this metadata apply solely to the vector polygon dataset. However, all geospatial datasets are formatted with the same coordinate reference system and projection. The elevations of datasets created for this data release reference the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), whereas dam and lake level elevations reference the NGVD29 datum typically used by USACE for Willamette Valley System of dams. Uniform Resource Identifiers for the cloud-optimized datasets are available in the Digital Transfer Option sections. 20231113 20231209 20231213 20241105 20241106 20241127 20241216 ground condition Complete None planned -122.5749 -122.3677 44.5206 44.4289 ISO 19115 Topic Categories biota elevation environment inlandWaters geoscientificInformation imageryBaseMapsEarthCover USGS Thesaurus structure from motion geospatial analysis aerial photography remote sensing geomorphology geospatial datasets digital elevation models image collections GPS measurement None fluvial geomorphology SfM photogrammetry orthoimagery orthomosaic GeoTIFF Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF Cloud Optimized Point Cloud dam reservoir drawdown river processes Civil Air Patrol Cessna Waldo USGS Metadata Identifier USGS:699f92bdb66b01a68b60a63a Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) Green Peter Lake Linn County Middle Santiam River Quartzville Creek Rumbaugh Creek State of Oregon Tally Creek Thistle Creek Whitcomb Creek Willamette River Willamette Valley none These data are in the public domain in accordance with Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication (CC0-1.0) and have no use constraints. Users are advised to read the dataset's metadata thoroughly to understand appropriate use and data limitations. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data retrieved from the system. Public domain data from the U.S. Government are freely redistributable with proper metadata and source attribution. The U.S. Geological Survey should be acknowledged as the data source in products derived from these data. Schwid, Maxwel F. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist Mailing and Physical

601 SW 2nd Avenue

Suite 1950

Portland OR 97204 United States 503-758-589 gs-w-or_sciencebase@usgs.gov These data were produced in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We thank Molly Casperson and Carley Smith from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for collecting ground control points. None Unclassified None Agisoft Metashape Professional Version 2.2.0; GDAL Version 3.10.3. Trimble global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers were used to collect the ground control points. An R12i receiver with Trimble’s real-time precise point positioning technology, Real Time eXtended (RTX), was used to collect a majority of the points. Where RTX corrections were unavailable, points were corrected with the Oregon Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) GNSS Network. A DA2 receiver with Trimble’s Catalyst service, which uses either RTX or RTK corrections, was used to collect the remaining points. Overall horizontal and vertical accuracy based on occupation of a USACE benchmark was within 8 centimeters. All data were acquired and handled in a consistent manner. Two crewed flights were contracted through the USACE to the Civil Air Patrol, Eugene, Oregon on December 9, 2023, December 12, 2023, and November 27, 2024. A total of 4,304 aerial photographs were captured at an average flight altitude of about 1,400 meters above ground level, collectively covering about 92 square kilometers. Photographs were acquired as three-band (RGB) images in JPEG format using a WaldoAir XCAM Ultra 50 camera, consisting of two oblique-mounted Canon EOS 5DS R cameras that were triggered simultaneously, mounted to a Cessna 182 aircraft. A NovAtel OEMStar GPS recorded camera positions in the image file EXIF data in UTC time zone. All aerial photographs were contemporaneously aligned in Agisoft Metashape software. Agisoft software determined which aerial photographs were used in SfM product (point cloud, DSM, and orthomosaic) generation based on photograph alignment and the validity of identified tie points, which represent common pixels in photographs as determined by the software. To provide check points for model accuracies, a portion of the ground control points were excluded from SfM product generation and used for model validation. Specifically, 13 of the 59 ground control points were used as check points. The tie points were visually inspected and filtered to exclude obvious anomalous points from the derivative products (dense point cloud, DSM, and orthomosaic). Aligned, referenced aerial photographs and their corresponding filtered tie points were separated into the three domains (20231209, 20231213, and 20241127) for dense point cloud and derivative product generation. The orthomosaics contain compression-derived artifacts occurring as erroneous pixel values that border the outer extent of each raster’s multiple overviews; these artifacts do not occur in, nor affect the underlying full-resolution images. The dataset is considered complete and consists of ground control points, coverage footprints, raw aerial photographs, dense point clouds, DSMs, and orthomosaics for the three separate acquisition efforts. All 59 surveyed ground control points are listed in the CSV text file, and all 4,304 aerial photographs are included in each associated zipped flight file. All aerial photographs, except those consisting entirely of cloud cover, were used to create SfM products (point clouds, DSMs and orthomosaics). Dense point clouds were generated for each domain from tie points identified in the Agisoft Metashape software after a standardized filtering process that excludes low-certainty or anomalous points. Filtered dense point clouds were used to create DSMs and orthomosaics. The dense point clouds and DSMs generated may contain false topography and high error propagated from the software’s identification of false tie points below the translucent, shallow water surface of the pool or in areas influenced by lake waves (Over and others, 2021). The DSMs and orthomosaics were clipped during export from Agisoft software to exclude areas of high uncertainty or distortion, particularly in densely vegetated or forested areas or near edges where minimal photograph overlap inhibited photogrammetric processing. Differences in spatial extent of the datasets resulted from variations in photograph coverage between the three flights. No formal horizontal accuracy tests were performed. Sources of potential error that affect the horizontal accuracy include ground control point accuracy and error incurred during alignment, optimization, and ground control processing procedures within the Agisoft Metashape software. Although the aerial photograph locations (recorded by a NovAtel OEMStar GPS located on the aircraft) are used by the photogrammetric software during initial alignment, these location data are not included in the generation of any derivative products and therefore the positional accuracy and potential errors do not contribute to the overall horizontal accuracy of the products (point cloud, DSM, and orthomosaic). Horizontal accuracy likely decreases with distance from ground control. Ground control points surveyed with an RTX-enabled GNSS receiver had a reported horizontal precision ranging from 0.01 to 0.31 meters. Though not an assessment of horizontal or vertical accuracy, horizontal positions of ground control points were used to calculate a root mean square (RMS) estimate of positional error at discrete locations by the photogrammetric software and are described here. Additionally, residuals between withheld ground control points (check points) and the model can serve as an indication of accuracy. Ground control and check point error is reported by the software with precision that is higher than provided by model inputs (RTX-GNSS precision) and thus has been rounded. For the model, 43 ground control points were used to construct SfM datasets, and the model had a horizontal error of 26 centimeters, vertical error of 21 centimeters, and overall error of 33 centimeters. The 16 ground control points withheld as check points were compared to the model and had a horizontal error of 39 centimeters, vertical error of 55 centimeters, and overall error of 68 centimeters. Visual comparison of generated orthomosaics to publicly available aerial imagery indicated horizontal displacement was minimal for all datasets, although some obvious distortion (for example, holes, blurry areas, and discontinuity or irregularity of linear features) is noticeable where vegetation is present or there was very little photograph overlap. Increasing noise at surface water locations occurs within the model; these areas were not edited. No formal vertical accuracy tests were performed. However, vertical accuracy likely decreases with distance from ground control. Ground control points surveyed with an RTX-enabled GNSS receiver had a reported vertical precision ranging from 0.03 to 0.54 meters. Though not an assessment of horizontal or vertical accuracy, horizontal positions of ground control points were used to calculate an RMS estimate of positional error at discrete locations by the photogrammetric software and are described here. Additionally, residuals between withheld ground control points and the model can serve as an indication of accuracy. Ground control and check point error is reported by the software with precision that is higher than provided by model inputs (RTX-GNSS precision) and thus has been rounded. For the model, 43 ground control points were used to construct SfM datasets, and the model had a horizontal error of 26 centimeters, vertical error of 21 centimeters, and overall error of 33 centimeters. The 16 ground control points withheld as check points were compared to the model and had a horizontal error of 39 centimeters, vertical error of 55 centimeters, and overall error of 68 centimeters. Digital surface models, particularly in edge areas where photograph overlap was limited, may contain false topography as a result of the photogrammetric reconstruction process and/or model interpolation within sparse dense point cloud areas. Jin-Si R. Over Andrew C. Ritchie Christine J. Kranenburg Jenna A. Brown Daniel D. Buscombe Tom Noble Christopher R. Sherwood Jonathan A. Warrick Phillipe A. Wernette 2021 publication Open-File Report 2021-1039 online U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20211039 Digital 20210614 publication date Over and others (2021) Software settings and processing procedures. Maxwel F. Schwid Mackenzie Keith Brandon T. Overstreet 2025 dataset https://www.sciencebase.gov U.S. Geological Survey https://doi.org/10.5066/p1q5k657 Digital 20250311 publication date Schwid and others (2025) Software settings and processing procedures. Agisoft 2025 publication online Agisoft https://www.agisoft.com/pdf/metashape_2_2_en.pdf Digital 20250211 publication date Agisoft (2025) Software settings and processing procedures. Geospatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL) 2024 3.6.2 application/service online Geospatial Data Abstraction Library (GDAL) https://gdal.org/drivers/raster/cog.html#raster-cog https://gdal.org/en/stable/api/python Digital 20240218 publication date GDAL (2024) Raster conversion program for Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF creation. Hobu 2021 publication online Hobu Inc. https://copc.io/copc-specification-1.0.pdf Digital 2021 publication date Hobu (2021) Cloud Optimized Point Cloud (COPC) file format specifications. The USACE surveyed 6 control point features throughout Green Peter Lake on November 13, 2023, with a GNSS receiver; points were corrected in real-time using Trimble’s Catalyst service. The control points consisted of static infrastructure features (for example, parking lot pavement arrows, retaining-wall corners, stumps) or temporarily placed targets that were visible in the photographs. 20231113 Aerial photographs of Green Peter Lake were acquired by the Civil Air Patrol on December 9, 2023, between 13:23 to 16:31 Pacific Standard Time (PST) covering approximately 59 square kilometers of the reservoir area. Photographs were acquired as high-resolution JPG images using a WaldoAir XCAM Ultra 50 camera, consisting of two oblique-mounted Canon EOS 5DS R cameras that are triggered simultaneously, mounted to a Cessna 182 aircraft. A NovAtel OEMStar GPS recorded camera positions in the image file EXIF data in UTC time zone. The pilot flew in sub-latitudinal passes at about 1,500 meters above ground level over Green Peter Lake. A total of 1,132 photos were taken during the flight, from takeoff to landing. 20231209 Aerial photographs of Green Peter Lake were acquired by the Civil Air Patrol on December 13, 2023, between 13:45 to 15:11 Pacific Standard Time (PST) covering approximately 65 square kilometers of the reservoir area. Photographs were acquired as high-resolution JPG images using a WaldoAir XCAM Ultra 50 camera, consisting of two oblique-mounted Canon EOS 5DS R cameras that are triggered simultaneously, mounted to a Cessna 182 aircraft. A NovAtel OEMStar GPS recorded camera positions in the image file EXIF data in UTC time zone. The pilot flew in sub-latitudinal passes at about 1,500 meters above ground level over Green Peter Lake. A total of 1,198 photos were taken during the flight, from takeoff to landing. 20231213 The USGS surveyed 31 control point features throughout Green Peter Lake on November 5, 2024, with a GNSS receiver; points were corrected in real-time using either RTX or RTK. The control points consisted of static infrastructure features (for example, parking lot pavement arrows, retaining-wall corners, stumps) that were visible in the photographs. 20241105 The USGS surveyed 10 control point features throughout Green Peter Lake on November 6, 2024, with a GNSS receiver; points were corrected in real-time using either RTX or RTK. The control points consisted of static infrastructure features (for example, parking lot pavement arrows, retaining-wall corners, stumps) that were visible in the photographs. 20241106 Aerial photographs of Green Peter Lake were acquired by the Civil Air Patrol on November 27, 2024, between 13:03 to 14:51 Pacific Standard Time (PST) covering approximately 92 square kilometers of the reservoir area. Photographs were acquired as high-resolution JPG images using a WaldoAir XCAM Ultra 50 camera, consisting of two oblique-mounted Canon EOS 5DS R cameras that are triggered simultaneously, mounted to a Cessna 182 aircraft. A NovAtel OEMStar GPS recorded camera positions in the image file EXIF data in UTC time zone. The pilot flew in sub-latitudinal passes at about 1,400 meters above ground level over Green Peter Lake. A total of 1,974 photos were taken during the flight, from takeoff to landing. 20241127 The USGS surveyed 12 control point features throughout Green Peter Lake on December 16, 2024, with a GNSS receiver; points were corrected in real-time using either RTX or RTK. The control points consisted of static infrastructure features (for example, parking lot pavement arrows, retaining-wall corners, stumps) that were visible in the photographs. 20241216 All 4,304 photographs from the December 9,2023, December 13, 2023, and November 27, 2024 flights were added to Agisoft Metashape software (v. 2.2.0) for alignment to identify tie points (common pixels the software identifies between photos). All subsequent steps conducted in Agisoft Metashape software follow the 4-dimensional (4D) workflow outlined in Over and others (2021). Camera groups were created based on the two oblique cameras, but all photos remained in a single chunk. The coordinate system of the aerial photographs was converted from WGS84 (EPSG:4326) to NAD83(2011) UTM Zone 10 North (EPSG:6339) for the horizontal datum and projection and NAVD88 meters, GEOID 18 (EPSG:5703) for the vertical datum. The following reference settings were updated: measurement camera accuracy of 10 meters and marker accuracy of 0.1 meters; image coordinates marker accuracy of 1 pixel and tie point accuracy of 1 pixel. 2026 All aerial photographs were aligned together with an accuracy setting of "High", the generic preselection box checked, the reference preselection box checked and set to "Source," key point limit set to 60,000, and tie point limit set to 0 (meaning no tie point limit). The "Exclude stationary tie points," "Guided image matching," and "Adaptive camera model fitting" boxes were all left unchecked. 2026 The camera calibration model was optimized with the following coefficients: f, cx, cy, k1, k2, k3, p1, p2, and where f is focal length; cx and cy are the optimal point; k is radial distortion; and p translational distortion. 2026 A ground control point file (CSV) containing XYZ coordinates (NAD83(2011) UTM Zone 10 North (EPSG:6339) and NAVD88 meters, GEOID 18 (EPSG:5703)) was imported. The Agisoft software identified photos that contained each marker. Photographs were filtered by each marker and were inspected for marker placement relative to the ground control point visible in each photo. Markers were either left in their position and verified, moved to the correct position and verified, or removed. An even spatial distribution of ground control points were converted to check points for use in later model accuracy assessment (16 checkpoints out of the 59 survey points; see CSV). Camera GPS locations were excluded from further processing by unchecking (not disabling) all cameras in the reference-camera pane. Agisoft (2025) 2026 The camera calibration model was optimized with the following coefficients: f, cx, cy, k1, k2, k3, p1, p2, where f is focal length; cx and cy are the optimal point; k is radial distortion; and p translational distortion. 2026 The sparse cloud of approximately 18.2 million photogrammetric tie points generated during alignment was gradually filtered based on several criteria of model fit to identify and remove points with high reprojection error, with camera calibration model optimization in between each filtering step. First, the point cloud was visually inspected for anomalous points which were selected then deleted. Second, points with a “Reconstruction uncertainty” greater than 15.7 were selected then deleted; this removed approximately 9.1 million points that were generated due to poor camera geometries. The camera calibration model was then optimized with the following coefficients: f, cx, cy, k1, k2, k3, p1, p2. Third, points with a “Projection accuracy” greater than 6.3 were selected then deleted; this removed approximately 4.5 million points that were generated due to pixel matching errors derived from variations in image scaling. The camera calibration model was then optimized with the following coefficients: f, cx, cy, k1, k2, k3, p1, p2. Last, points with a “Reprojection error” greater than 0.2 were iteratively selected and deleted, without exceeding 10% of all points with each selection; this removed approximately 1.3 million points in total that were incorrectly reprojected after alignment. The camera calibration model was then optimized with the following coefficients: f, cx, cy, k1, k2, k3, k4, p1, p2, b1, b2, with “Fit additional corrections” checked. The final unweighted RMS reprojection error for the tie point cloud was 0.38 pixels. 2026 Aligned aerial photographs and their tie (and key) points were duplicated into three separate chunks. Photographs for the date not being processed were then disabled. 2026 Dense point clouds were built for each of the three chunks using the medium quality setting and mild depth filtering. Any anomalous or “floating” points were visually inspected and deleted. 2026 DSMs were built for each of the three chunks using the dense point cloud and interpolation enabled. Color for each chunk was homogenized using the "Calibrate Colors" with the "Calibrate white balance" option checked. 2026 Orthomosaics were built for each of the three chunks using the Mosaic blending mode, digital elevation model (DEM) surface, hole filling enabled, and default pixel size. 2026 Boundary polygons (footprints) were generated to exclude distorted areas or areas with missing points and/or raster values. All SfM products were exported using their default resolutions. Dense point clouds were exported as Cloud Optimized Point Clouds using default settings. DSMs were exported using default settings. Orthomosaics were exported without compression and saved as BigTIFF files. 2026 DSMs and orthomosaics were converted from standard GeoTIFFs to Cloud Optimized GeoTIFFs (COGs) using the Python binding of the Geospatial Data Abstraction Library’s (GDAL) COG raster driver (GDAL, 2024). Standard raster driver settings were maintained except for the following: DSMs were created using LZW (lossless) compression, floating point predictor, bilinear overview resampling, and BigTIFF set to “IF_SAFER;” orthomosaics were created using JPEG compression (default quality of 75), bilinear resampling, and BigTIFF set to “IF_SAFER.” This JPEG compression may alter pixel values from the original values output by the Agisoft software. Orthomosaics contain compression-derived artifacts occurring as erroneous pixel values that border the outer extent of each raster’s multiple overviews; these artifacts do not occur in, nor affect the underlying full resolution images. GDAL (2024) Agisoft (2025) 2026 Raster Pixel 111677 182032 3 Universal Transverse Mercator 10 0.9996 -123.0 0.0 500000.0 0.0 row and column 0.09017589999999989 0.09017589999999809 meters NAD83_National_Spatial_Reference_System_2011 GRS 1980 6378137.0 298.257222101 North American Vertical Datum of 1988 0.001 meters Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinates GreenPeterLake_20231213_ortho.tif Pixel-based raster with 3 layers (bands) of information for each pixel. Spatial Data Organization and Reference Information for this dataset are described in their respective sections. USGS Band_1 Red band Agisoft Metashape 0 NoData Producer defined 1 255 Unitless Band_2 Green band Agisoft Metashape 0 NoData Producer defined 1 255 Unitless Band_3 Blue band Agisoft Metashape 0 NoData Producer defined 1 255 Unitless GreenPeterLake_20231213_dsm.tif Digital surface model raster; Coordinate reference system: NAD83(2011) UTM Zone 10 North (EPSG:6339) and NAVD88 meters, GEOID 18 (EPSG:6318); Raster pixel dimensions: X – 45508, Y – 27919; Raster bands: 1; Raster pixel size: X - 0.3607040000000012, Y - 0.36070399999999747 USGS Value Elevation Agisoft Metashape 0 NoData Producer defined 201.8 798.3 Meters (NAVD88) GreenPeterLake_20231213_pointcloud.copc.laz Three-dimensional point cloud; Coordinate reference system: NAD83(2011) UTM Zone 10 North (EPSG:6339) and NAVD88 meters, GEOID 18 (EPSG:6318); Point count: 973220061; the attribute information associated with point clouds was output by the software in the LAZ file standard (LAS 1.2) with a point type of 1. Attributes include location (northing, easting, and elevation), color (red, blue, and green components), intensity (absent), classification (all points unclassified), confidence (1 to 16; how many depth maps used to generate each point), and XYZ normal vectors (-1 to 1). Hobu, 2021 GreenPeterLake_20231213_photographs_00-03.zip Acquisition files (760 photos) for December 13, 2023, covering the southeastern portion of the lake in a zipped folder. Producer Defined GreenPeterLake_20231213_photographs_04-05.zip Acquisition files (438 photos) for December 13, 2023, covering the central portion of the lake in a zipped folder. Producer Defined This metadata describes five datasets, each with a Detailed Description Element. The Spatial Data Organization and Spatial Reference Information elements in this metadata apply solely to the orthomosaic raster dataset. Where applicable to the other datasets, equivalent fields for these elements are provided in the respective Entity and Attribute Information – Detailed Description elements. However, all geospatial datasets are formatted with the same coordinate reference system and projection. Not applicable U.S. Geological Survey - ScienceBase Mailing and Physical

Denver Federal Center

Building 810

Mail Stop 302

Denver CO 80225 United States 1-888-275-8747 sciencebase@usgs.gov Although these data have been used by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, no warranty expressed or implied is made by the U.S. Geological Survey as to the accuracy of the data. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by the U.S. Geological Survey in the use of these data, software, or related materials. The use of firm, trade, or brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. The names mentioned in this document may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective trademark owners. ZIP 1 JPG Zipped folders containing photographs. LZW compression. 16510 ScienceBase This link points to the landing page for the entire data release, which includes access to these data files. LAZ The LAZ file contains the unclassified point cloud compressed with LASzip and formatted as a Cloud Optimized Point Cloud. Use LASzip, available from http://www.laszip.org or other software that can read LAZ files. 10290 https://prod-is-usgs-sb-prod-publish.s3.amazonaws.com/699f92bdb66b01a68b60a63a/GreenPeterLake_20231213_pointcloud.copc.laz This link is for accessing the point cloud via cloud-based storage and can be used to download the data or for cloud-based queries. GeoTIFF GDAL 3.6.2 8-bit TIFF 8-bit unsigned integer Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF orthomosaic with JPEG compression. JPEG compression. 887 https://prod-is-usgs-sb-prod-publish.s3.amazonaws.com/699f92bdb66b01a68b60a63a/GreenPeterLake_20231213_ortho.tif This link is for accessing the orthomosaic raster via cloud-based storage and can be used to download the data or for cloud-based queries. GeoTIFF GDAL 3.6.2 32-bit TIFF 32-bit floating point Cloud Optimized GeoTIFF DSM with LZW compression. LZW compression. 2390 https://prod-is-usgs-sb-prod-publish.s3.amazonaws.com/699f92bdb66b01a68b60a63a/GreenPeterLake_20231213_dsm.tif This link is for accessing the digital surface model raster via cloud-based storage and can be used to download the data or for cloud-based queries. None. This dataset is provided by USGS as a public service. 20260430 Schwid, Maxwel F. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologist Mailing and Physical

601 SW 2nd Avenue

Suite 1950

Portland Oregon 97204 United States 503-758-5589 gs-w-or_sciencebase@usgs.gov FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time