+ 3D Elev 3D Ele ation Pr v ogr ation Pr a ogr m September 13, 2012

Transcription

1 + 3D Elevation Program September 13, 2012

2 + Today s Agenda 2 3DEP Discussion with NSGIC 1. What s new with 3DEP? Larry Sugarbaker 2. NSGIC survey results Phil Worrall 3. Panel response to the survey 4. Open mic All

3 + 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) 3 A new initiative to implement an operational program by 2014 with a goal to acquire national coverage of enhanced elevation data. The 3DEP initiative implements recommendations resulting from the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA) study. Key 3DEP objectives: LiDAR data over the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and the territories on an eight-year cycle, IfSAR data over Alaska Source data and derivative products available as services All source data to be publically accessible without use restrictions

4 + National Program Recommendation 4 LiDAR, Quality Level 2 for 49 states, IfSAR, Quality Level 5 in Alaska 8 year acquisition Average Annual Costs: $146 M Average Annual Benefits: $690 M (B/C: 4.7:1) Total Possible Benefits Satisfied: 58% Highest quality level (QL1) on an annual cycle Millions $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 Dollars in M$1,200 98% Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits 71% 66% 59% 58% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13% % = Needs Satisfied by Scenario Recommended program (QL2) on an 8 year cycle QL3 on a 25 year cycle (closest to existing program) Needs addressed vary with data quality and replacement cycle

5 + 3DEP Transition 5 The 3D Elevation Program will result from a planned transition of the National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP) with the following characteristics: Managed nationwide point cloud dataset and product services Quality Level 2 or better LiDAR data for 49 states and IfSAR in Alaska Large area data acquisition projects (5,000 square miles and larger) Achieve nationwide coverage in 8 years Significant growth in the partnership base with greater representation from Federal agencies, state governments and the private sector

6 + 3DEP Tiered Governance Structure 6 Currently assessing options for implementation 3DEP Executive Steering Council Develop pprogram guidance, increase support within their respective organizations and expand program partnerships 3DEP Member Organization Committee (former National Digital Elevation Program Committee) - Identify 3D elevation data requirements, prioritize annual acquisition plan, advise 3DEP manager on product needs 3DEP Management, under USGS leadership executes operational objectives Outreach and Coordination Acquisition and Production Management Data Services Provider

7 + 3DEP Growth Strategies 7 Grow overall investments in elevation data Facilitate cooperation through improved resources Update the data acquisition specification to include a QL2 base specification Share best practices to promote compatible data collection across all organizations Develop model budget and authorizing language for use by others Expand partnerships with Federal agencies that benefit from 3DEP. As appropriate, increase coordination at the regional and state office levels. NRCS, USACE, DISDI, USGS, NOAA, FEMA, EPA, USFS, FAA, and NGA Target (and promote) statewide acquisition programs. Rely more heavily on states to coordinate with local governments Pursue public-private partnerships with select industries to include precision agriculture, vehicle navigation, energy, and forest products.

8 + 3DEP Starts in Alaska 8 Federal Executives Get Involved! Dire Need: Accurate elevation data do not exist over the majority of the State Alaska Mapping Roundtable DOI led discussion on the issue among more than 20 Federal agencies on June 28 Consensus was quickly reached to accelerate data acquisition DOI Deputy Secretary established the Alaska Mapping Executive Committee first meeting August 14 Committee actively seeking funding to complete IfSAR coverage of Alaska in 3 years as a first step toward 3DEP goals

9 + NGAC Elevation Subcommittee 9 NGAC has endorsed the 3DEP recommendation and is now reviewing key components of the proposed program. Their report will be presented at the next NGAC meeting. Question 1 - Feasibility of the large block acquisition strategy Question 2 Partnership funding model and assessment of other opportunities Q ti 3 H t b t th i t t ( Question 3 How to best engage the private sector (users of elevation data)

10 + Notable Development 10 H.R To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. Division F, Reauthorization of Certain Programs (note: Title II, National Flood Insurance Program) Section Technical mapping advisory council Section Ground elevation data accuracy assessment Section Inter-agency budget crosscut and coordination Section Interagency coordination study by the National Academy of Public Administration

11 + Interagency Elevation Inventory Ongoing NOAA, USGS, and FEMA collaboration to maintain the inventory and make the data accessible Currently processing data USGS Liaisons gathered for the FY12 update Inventory is critical to assessing progress towards 3DEP goals 11

12 + 3DEP Resources 12 NEEA Report USGS Fact Sheets NEEA at a glance 3D Elevation Program Resources in work State information sheets Journal articles 3DEP webpage ti /3DEP/i l

13 + Report of NSGIC Survey Findings 13 epo t o NSG C Su vey d gs Phil Worrall

14 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Funding - From the State perspective, what needs to be done to encourage more of the current investment in LiDAR to be aligned with the proposed p national program? 1. Develop a national strategy with standard products. (5) 2. Develop, communicate and coordinate the short and long term schedule with the states. (4) 3. Develop a fair cost-share share model. (3) 4. Accommodate local requirements and specifications. (2)

15 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Funding If Federal funds were available for a statewide LiDAR QL2 project in your state sometime in the next eight years, what percentage of the cost would you anticipate being able to fund from State and local government sources? A R f 5% t 50% ith Answer: Range from 5% to 50% with average of 27%

16 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Governance - How would you see your State represented in the three tiered 3DEP governance structure as outlined below? Answers: 3DEP Executive Steering Council Develop program guidance, increase support within member organizations and expand program partnerships. 3DEP Member Organization Committee (to replace the National Digital Elevation Program Committee) Identify data requirements, prioritize annual acquisition plan, and advise the 3DEP manager on product needs. 3DEP Management at USGS Execute operational objectives. 1. Individual State Representation: (15) Executive (4) Member (8) Management (3) 2. State Representation through organizations like NSGIC, NGAC, or URISA: (3)

17 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Governance What recommendations and suggestions could you make to ensure long term viability? 1. Develop a strong business plan and contracting mechanism with sustained funding. (7) 2. The transition plan and production schedule needs to be clearly defined. (4) 3 Must insure easy access to data and help (training) 3. Must insure easy access to data and help (training) with absorption into local GIS products. (2)

18 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Data Acquisition Could State plans and strategies align with the 3DEP strategy to move to larger area projects? 1. Yes! (8) 2. Yes with conditions* (7) *transition plan and project schedule needs to be clear.

19 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Data Acquisition Would a national initiative with increased funding encourage larger area (or statewide) acquisitions in your State? 1. Yes! (12) 2. Yes with conditions* (2) 3. Unknown (1) *product specifications, transition plan and project schedule needs to be clear.

20 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Data Acquisition Is the 3DEP goal to improve LiDAR data accuracy (QL2 or better) consistent t with your state plan? Note that the Alaska goal is for statewide IfSAR. 1. Yes! (11) 2. No (not precisely), but still a qualified Yes. (3) 3. QL2 is overkill in rural areas (1)

21 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Data Acquisition How can 3DEP best obtain information about your State s t LiDAR or IfSAR acquisition plans (i.e. USGS annual inventory, State business plans, GIS Inventory, other)? 1. Through State Clearinghouse (9) 2. From NEEA Survey Results (3) 3. Through USGS Liaisons (3)

22 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Communication How can your State help communicate the importance of the 3DEP initiative? Answer: Through outreach and education by State GIO and State t Council to their user community. (15)

23 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Communication What type of content and materials would help you communicate about 3DEP? 1. Outreach & Education Materials (9) Case Studies with ROI Documentation (How-to) Best Practices 2. One-page Program Fact Sheets (4)

24 + Report of Findings NSGIC Survey Additional Comments? Coastal Area LiDAR specifications might need to be different than inland LiDAR specifications. What coordinate systems (horizontal & vertical ) would the data be delivered in (e.g. Local government likely to want data in State Plane, State and others in UTM, etc ) Good luck! Go for it!

25 + Responses and Actions 25 3DEP Resolution Specifications Governance Data Acquisition

26 + Tradeoffs Resolution, Benefits, Cost 26 Quality Level Total Requests Annual Benefits Percent (Benefits) QL1 101 $400 M 34% QL2 134 $280 M 24% QL3 168 $460 M 39% QL4 17 $5 M < 1% QL5 34 $40 M 3% 24 Percent of benefits associated with QL2 requirements Majority of States have significant requirements for QL2 or QL1 Cost differential between QL3 and QL2 is decreasing Projects already are trending toward QL2 Buy up is more affordable for partners seeking QL1 data

27 + Specification for QL2 Need for QL2 Specification emerged in the survey as a key for ensuring that data collected meet program goals and for communicating what partners can expect from 3DEP 27 This is not yet available but will be addressed d and will need buy in from NDEP and state partners We saw in the survey that there are some technical issues cropping up that t will need to be addressed d Quality Levels (QL) Source Point Density (pts/m 2) Nominal Pulse Spacing (NPS) (m) DEM Post Spacing (arc- sec, m) Vertical RMSEz (cm) Equivalent Contour Accuracy (ft) QL1 lidar /27, ~ QL2 lidar /27, ~ QL3 lidar /9, ~ QL4 images /3, ~ QL5 IfSar /3, ~

28 + Specification for QL2 28 Specific details to follow (New 3DEP web page coming soon) USGS Draft V13 - Lidar Base Specification is now available as Lidar Base Specification Version 1.0 ( This New Version 1.0 document does not completely address QL2 issues - USGS plans to write and publish an Addendum to this document to address 3DEP and QL2 fully NDEP Elevation Guidelines Ver. 1 (10 May, 2004) NDEP Committee is currently working with ASPRS (Dave Maune) on a major update to this document that will include 3DEP and QL2

29 + Governance 29 States want to participate in all tiers of the proposed governance Need to clarify Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requirements for the proposed committees and the appropriate role for states

30 + 3DEP Data Acquisition 30 Transition Strategy Given Existing Funding Levels Begin moving towards 3DEP goals by better coordinating state and federal plans to achieve large areas at quality level 2 For discussion: a potential approach for FY14 USGS coordinate with NDEP to develop a heat map of federal FY14 plans to identify areas with high potential to achieve large area and quality goals with state and/or local participation Look at other factors such as collecting in areas with no existing LiDAR coverage and age of existing coverage to develop criteria USGS use a broad national announcement to communicate criteria and call for initial project proposals States coordinate with local government where possible to develop and submit project proposals Work through NDEP to select projects for funding to maximize coverage of large areas at quality level 2 or better

31 + Open Mic Discussion 31 Questions to Consider Broad National Announcement Approach Would this work for your State? What criteria would you suggest for decision making? 3DEP inventory how can we improve it? Should we be asking for more information on state acquisition plans? Specifications are there other issues to consider? Communications what content do you need in a State factsheet on 3DEP? What other 3DEP ideas or concerns are on your mind?

32 + Backup Slides 32

33 + What Constitutes Cost Share? 33 W at Co st tutes Cost S a e New acquisition funds Credit for recent LiDAR data ingested into national system In-kind support services Independent QA/QC Help develop value-added products (e.g. mosaics, hyrdoenforced DEM ) Use of regional/local firms - e.g. GPS around control/qc points, value-added products

34 + 3DEP Risks 34 Initiative looses energy due to inadequate outreach or competing messages by the user community. USGS and partner acquisition funds are insufficient to move the community toward larger projects. Technology infrastructure modernization or operational improvements are too slow (or costly) to meet immediate needs. State government or private sector inclusion in the governance of 3DEP becomes too limited under existing regulations.