NEEA 2012 Summary
description
Transcript of NEEA 2012 Summary
+
NEEA 2012 SummaryThe National Map
+National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)Status of Elevation Data
1996 - 2011 28% coverage - 49 states 15% coverage – Alaska 30+ year replacement cycle Program is efficient – less than
10% overlap of coverage Cooperative data projects work Data quality variable
Why is this a problem? Remaining 72% coverage is 30
or more years old. Alaska – very poor quality Meets 10% of need. Current
and emerging needs require much higher quality data.
Map depicts public sources of LiDAR in all states plus IfSAR data in Alaska
2
+National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Sponsor:National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP) – Twelve-member agencies, NSGIC
Partners:U.S. Geological Survey (Managing Partner)National Geospatial-Intelligence AgencyFederal Emergency Management AgencyNatural Resources Conservation ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationStudy participants - 34 Federal agencies, 50 states and others
Completed in December 20123
4+Business Uses (BU’s)
1. Natural resources conservation2. Water supply and quality3. River & stream resource management4. Coastal zone management5. Forest resources management6. Rangeland management7. Wildlife and habitat management8. Agriculture and precision farming9. Geologic resource assessment and
hazard mitigation10. Resource mining11. Renewable energy resources12. Oil and gas resources13. Cultural resources preservation and
management14. Flood risk management15. Sea Level rise and subsidence
16. Wildfire management, planning, and response
17. Homeland security, law enforcement, disaster response
18. Land navigation and safety19. Marine navigation and safety20. Aviation navigation and safety21. Infrastructure and construction
management22. Urban and regional planning23. Health and human services24. Real estate, banking,
mortgage, insurance25. Education K-12 and beyond26. Recreation27. Telecommunications
+Example Functional Activities (Needs)602 Functional Activities documented from 34 Federal agencies, 50 States and Territories and from sampled non-profit, industry, local governments and tribes
Precision Farming Land Navigation and Safety
Geologic Resources and Hazards Mitigation
Natural Resource Conservation
Infrastructure Management Flood Risk Mitigation
5
+Benefits for Top Business UsesAnnual Benefits
RankConservativ
e Potential1 Flood Risk Management $295M $502M2 Infrastructure and Construction Management $206M $942M3 Natural Resources Conservation $159M $335M4 Agriculture and Precision Farming $122M $2,011M5 Water Supply and Quality $85M $156M6 Wildfire Management, Planning and Response $76M $159M
7 Geologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation $52M $1,067M
8 Forest Resources Management $44M $62M9 River and Stream Resource Management $38M $87M
10 Aviation Navigation and Safety $35M $56M
:20 Land Navigation and Safety $0.2M $7,125M
Total for all Business Uses (1 – 27) $1.2B $13B
6
7+Data Quality Level Choices
Quality Levels Data Source
Horizontal Resolution Vertical Accuracy
Point DensityRMSEz in
Open Terrain
Equivalent Contour Accuracy
QL 1 LiDAR 8 points/m2 9.25 cm 1 foot
QL 2 LiDAR 2 points/m2 9.25 cm 1 foot
QL 3 LiDAR 1 – 0.25 points/m2 ≤18.5 cm 2 feet
QL 4 Imagery/LiDAR
1 – 0.04 points/m2
46.3 – 139 cm 5 – 15 feet
QL 5 Imagery/IFSAR 0.04 points/m2 92.7 – 185
cm 10 – 20 feetBathymetric LiDAR requirements assessed for three Quality Levels to include Low, Standard and High. Standard Quality Level (3-5 meter post spacing; RMSEz ~ 20 cm)Note – USGS LiDAR base acquisition specification version 13 is for QL3 data
+ 8
Scenario Name
Average Annual Costs
Average Annual Net
BenefitsB/C Ratio
Percent of Benefits Realized
Scenario #4 $160.6M $619.7M 4.858 66%
Scenario #2 $147.9M $551.0M 4.726 59%
Scenario #3 $146.4M $543.5M 4.713 58%
Scenario #4A $85.7M $308.4M 4.600 33%
Scenario #2A $78.9M $274.3M 4.478 30%
Scenario #3A $78.1M $270.6M 4.471 30%
Scenario #1A $58.5M $202.6M 4.461 22%
Scenario #1 $35.1M $115.7M 4.226 13%
8
8-year scenario
s
15-year scenarios
25-year scenario
Eight Candidate Program Scenarios
+
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000 6
5 4 2 3
4A 2A 3A 1A1
Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits
Dolla
rs in
Mill
ions
% = Needs Satisfied by Sce-nario
59% 58%66% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13%71%98%
Recommended Elevation Data ProgramQuality Level 2 (QL2) LiDAR* - 8 year acquisition Average Annual Costs: $146MAverage Annual Benefits: $690M (B/C Ratio - 4.7:1)Total Possible Benefits Satisfied: 58%
* Note: All scenarios include QL5 (IfSAR) for Alaska
9
+Recommended Elevation Data Program
Advantages: Achieves the majority of benefits High benefit-cost ratio and net benefits Benefits realized in 8 years instead of 30+ years for status quo Meets all lower QL requirements and partially satisfies QL1 Cost efficiencies achieved through large area acquisition strategy
QL2 LiDAR* - 8 year acquisition (3)10
* Note: All scenarios include QL5 (IfSAR) for Alaska
+Why QL2?
Upgrade path (buy up options) to QL1 more affordable to partners
QL 3 data cannot be upgraded later, would need to be re-flown to meet needs for higher quality data
Ecosystem services benefits were not quantified but usually require QL2 and better
Emerging high value needs (ex. Land navigation) depend on QL2 Addresses growing trend toward higher resolution (GPSC)
11
Additional Considerations
12+Summary of Findings and Conclusions
Status quo program relatively efficient but meets less than 10% of measured needs.
All program scenarios provide favorable benefit cost ratios.
All program scenarios combine multiple requirements and collect data in large regular blocks to achieve improved cost efficiency.
IT infrastructure needed to manage data for all scenarios.
No technical barriers to moving ahead Major dollar benefits are realized from high quality
data.
+Introducing 3DEP
3DEP is the name developed for the recommended program
Purpose is to communicate that the program is more than bare earth elevation – the point cloud and other basic derivatives will be distributed and archived
Tagline under development: 3DEP gives you the perspective to see more than just what’s on the surface
13
3D Elevation Program
+Annual Benefits of 3DEP 14
To Top Agencies
NRCS USACE DISDI USGS NOAA FEMA EPA USFS FAA$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
+A Proposed 3DEP Funding Strategy
Coalition of Federal agencies to commit funding annually to a national program.
Top ten Federal agencies in rank order of benefits: NRCS, USACE, DISDI, USGS, NOAA, FEMA, EPA, USFS, FAA, and NGA
States and other partner agencies will be invited to participate to provide balance of program cost
Collection priorities will be based on coalition partner agency needs
Partners may buy up to higher quality level (Quality Level 1)
Acquisition cycle scales with funding
Cooperatively Funded Program Executed by USGS
15
+3DEP Development – Next Steps Communications ongoing with potential
partners and other stakeholders Developing 3DEP branding materials NGAC endorsement of program
recommendation and strategic advice on funding strategy
Develop governance model for community review (June/July) Flexible process to meet annual requirements of
partner agencies Use existing mechanism as the forum for
negotiations: National Digital Elevation Program Use lessons learned and model after successful
partnerships, e.g., National Agriculture Imagery Program
16
+Outreach Efforts
Associate Director, Federal Agency Outreach USACE, DISDI, FEMA, FAA completed, five more planned Positive tone, agencies understand need for better elevation Agencies welcome opportunity to stretch limited dollars Agencies interested in model initiative language Annual planning cycle and project specific needs present a
coordination challenge
Active follow-up needed to advance funding opportunities
Broader outreach strategy to States, select industries and associations under development.
17
+NGAC, NSGIC Endorsements
NGAC Recommendation: The NGAC endorses a national elevation program (i.e., 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP) as described in the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The NGAC encourages the USGS, the Department of the Interior, and Federal partner agencies to refine, adopt, and implement this program in partnership with other levels of government, academia, and the private sector.
NSGIC: Letter of endorsement was sent to the USGS Director in April. Member states are supporting the recommended program and are asking that there be advanced planning and buy up opportunities.
18
+ 19
Questions?