neea 2012 summary

+ NEEA 2012 Summary The National Map

Upload: afram

Post on 26-Feb-2016




1 download


NEEA 2012 Summary. The 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


Page 1: NEEA 2012 Summary


NEEA 2012 SummaryThe National Map

Page 2: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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


Page 3: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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

Page 4: NEEA 2012 Summary

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

Page 5: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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


Page 6: NEEA 2012 Summary

+Benefits for Top Business UsesAnnual Benefits


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


Page 7: NEEA 2012 Summary

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

Page 8: NEEA 2012 Summary

+ 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-year scenario


15-year scenarios

25-year scenario

Eight Candidate Program Scenarios

Page 9: NEEA 2012 Summary












$2,000 6

5 4 2 3

4A 2A 3A 1A1

Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits


rs in



% = 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


Page 10: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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

Page 11: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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)


Additional Considerations

Page 12: NEEA 2012 Summary

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


Page 13: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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


3D Elevation Program

Page 14: NEEA 2012 Summary

+Annual Benefits of 3DEP 14

To Top Agencies











Page 15: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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


Page 16: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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


Page 17: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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.


Page 18: NEEA 2012 Summary

+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.


Page 19: NEEA 2012 Summary

+ 19