Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012: LiDAR for Intrastructure and Terrian Mapping - Results of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment

276

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
276
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. National Enhanced Elevation Assessment Results Summary and Next Steps Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012 March 5, 2012Kirk Waters Greg SnyderNOAA Coastal Services Center USGS Land Remote Sensing Programkirk.waters@noaa.gov gsnyder@usgs.gov
  • 2. Motivation for AssessmentStatus 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
  • 3. Elevation Inventory - Pacific Hawai’i American Samoa Guam and CNMI Potential QL 2 lidar collection in 2012/13
  • 4. National Enhanced Elevation Assessment About the ProjectSponsor:• National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP) committee member agenciesFunding Partners:• U.S. Geological Survey (Managing Partner)• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency• Federal Emergency Management Agency• Natural Resources Conservation ServiceIn-kind Partners:• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration• Many Federal agencies, state agencies and other study participants 4
  • 5. Assessment Goals• Assess national requirements for improved elevation data from technologies such as LiDAR and IFSAR – Includes resolution, accuracy, and refresh needs• Assess the benefits and costs of meeting these requirements• Evaluate multiple national program implementation scenarios to meet these needs 5
  • 6. 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 Intelligent Vehicle Landslide Hazards Navigation Natural Resource Infrastructure Management Flood Risk Mitigation Conservation
  • 7. Data Quality Level Choices Horizontal Vertical Accuracy Resolution Quality Levels Data Source Equivalent RMSEz in Point Density Contour Open Terrain Accuracy QL 1 OR/WA LiDAR 8 points/m2 9.25 cm 1 foot QL 2 SLR LiDAR 2 points/m2 9.25 cm 1 foot QL 3 FEMA LiDAR 1 – 0.25 points/m2 ≤18.5 cm 2 feet Imagery/ 46.3 – 139 QL 4 1 – 0.04 points/m2 5 – 15 feet LiDAR cm Imagery/ 92.7 – 185 QL 5 0.04 points/m2 10 – 20 feet IFSAR cmBathymetric 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 7
  • 8. Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits• Operational benefits (internal to organization) e.g., efficiency and productivity• Customer service benefits new/better/cheaper products and services• Other strategic and societal benefits• Benefits captured in dollars wherever possible• Environmental services benefits often not quantified 8
  • 9. Benefits for Top Business Uses Annual Benefits Conservative PotentialFlood Risk Management $295M $502MInfrastructure and Construction Management $206M $942MNatural Resources Conservation $159M $335MAgriculture and Precision Farming $122M $2,011MWater Supply and Quality $85M $156MWildfire Management, Planning and Response $76M $159MGeologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation $52M $1,067MForest Resources Management $44M $62MRiver and Stream Resource Management $38M $87MAviation Navigation and Safety $35M $56MLand Navigation and Safety $0.2M $7,125MTotal for all Business Uses (1 – 27) $1.2B $13B
  • 10. BU#8 – Agriculture and Precision FarmingJ.R. Simplot Company Mission Critical Requirements – QL 3 LiDAR is required for allagricultural land for site-specific application of seed, fertilizer, lime, pesticides and water tooptimize farm yields. Also used to reduce farm and pasture runoff that pollutes streams.Update Frequencies 6-10 years.Expected benefits $50M/year in the Red River Valley (parts of ND and MN) for farmdrainage-related losses to corn and wheat alone.Potential benefits $2B/year. If 10% of drainage-related productivity losses were avertedwith improved elevation data on a national basis. Image from University of Missouri Extension Precision Agriculture 10
  • 11. NOAA Business Use #1
  • 12. NOAA Business Use #2
  • 13. Lifecycle Data Management Costs Typical lifecycle management costs vary by scenario For example, for an eight year program:  QL 3 data 49 states and QL 5 Alaska  $7.7M average annual costs  $61.5 total for eight years  QL 1 data 49 states and QL 5 Alaska  $13.27M average annual costs  $106.2M total for eight years  Cost difference due to different data volumes and scope of services 13
  • 14. Highest Net BenefitsCombined Federal, State, Nongovernmental Organizations Quality Levels Update FrequenciesScenario #4 later in thisbriefing 14
  • 15. National Program Implementation Scenarios All include QL5 IFSAR of AlaskaNationwide Implementation Scenarios that consider Quality AcquisitionFull Lifecycle Costs and not just Data Costs Levels PeriodScenario 1 (lowest cost, closest to Status Quo) QL3 25 yearsScenario 1A “ 15 yearsScenario 2 (mixed QL, highest net benefits to Feds)1 QL1/2/3 8 yearsScenario 2A “ 15 yearsScenario 3 (uniform QL w/high Net Benefits, B/C Ratio) QL2 8 yearsScenario 3A “ 15 yearsScenario 4 (mixed QL, highest Net Benefits, B/C Ratio) QL1/2/3/5 8 yearsScenario 4A “ 15 yearsAll would improve the Status Quo where some areas would be mapped several times overwhile other areas would remain unmapped1 QL3 minimum, also considers most-requested QL for Federal FA’s 15
  • 16. Recommended Elevation Data ProgramOption 1: Quality Level 2 (QL2) LiDAR* - 8 year acquisition (3)• Average Annual Costs: $146M• Average Annual Benefits: $690M (B/C Ratio - 4.7:1)• Total Possible Benefits Satisfied: 58%Option 2: Uniform QL2 LiDAR - 15 year acquisition (3A)• Average Annual Costs: $78M• Average Annual Benefits: $349M (B/C Ratio - 4.5:1)• Total Possible Benefits Satisfied: 30% $2,000 6 Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits $1,800 $1,600 Uniform QL1, Annual, B/C < 1 Dollars in Millions $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 Uniform Q3, 5 4 2 25 year $800 3 $600 4A 2A 3A $400 1A $200 1 $0 98% 71% 66% 59% 58% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13% % = Needs Satisfied by Scenario * Note: All scenarios include QL5 (IfSAR) for Alaska
  • 17. Example Needs Not Met by QL 3EPA - Environmental Protection,Land Cover Characterization,and Runoff Modeling Image courtesy of the Georgia Geospatial Advisory CouncilOSM - Mining Regulation andReclamation of Coal MiningActivitiesUSFS - Wetlands mapping andCharacterization 17 selawik.fws.gov
  • 18. Example Needs Not Met by QL 2DOE - Population Distributionsand Dynamics Courtesy DOEUSGS - Mapping, Monitoring,and Assessment of BiologicalCarbon Stocks fresc.usgs.govNRC - Nuclear Power Plant SiteNatural Phenomena HazardAssessment and Risk Mitigation www.usgs.gov 18
  • 19. 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 19
  • 20. Next Steps• Formalize program recommendations• Intensify outreach – Summary publications – Engage key professions, industries, states, etc. – Coordination with partner agencies – FGDC and NGAC• Develop funding strategy 20
  • 21. Backup Slides 21
  • 22. Scenario 1: QL3, 25-year acquisition Costs: $35.1M Net Benefits: $113.3M B/C Ratio: 4.226 Benefits Satisfied: 13% 22
  • 23. Scenario 2: Mixed, 8-year acquisition Costs: $147.9M Net Benefits: $551.0M B/C Ratio: 4.726 Benefits Satisfied: 59% 23
  • 24. Program Scenarios 1A-4A 24
  • 25. Additional Program Scenarios To meet more requirements Program Scenarios $2,000 All $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 Dollars in Millions $1,200 $1,000 5 4 $800 2 3 $600 4A 2A $400 3A 1A $200 1 $0 98% 71% 66% 59% 58% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13% Scenarios in Work % = Needs Satisfied by Scenario Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits 25
  • 26. Frequency and Benefits by Data Quality Level Frequency of QL Request Benefits by QL180 $500,000,000160 $450,000,000140 $400,000,000 $350,000,000120 $300,000,000100 $250,000,00080 QL QL $200,000,00060 $150,000,00040 $100,000,00020 $50,000,000 0 $- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 26
  • 27. Data Lifecycle Management Cost Components• Data storage• Data processing, including derivatives• Data provisioning• Support staff• Support technology
  • 28. BU#18 – Land Navigation and Safety Potential $7B/year TomTom and Manufacturers estimate 4-12% savings in fuel efficiency We used 1% fuel savings to get $6B/yrCombined use of LiDAR and New cars & trucks will useimagery for road surveys saves LiDAR for transmission control;costs for state and county reduce fuel & emissions andDOTs provide driver fatigue warnings Images from Tuck Mapping Solutions
  • 29. Basis for Potential $7B/yr in Future http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/p http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/p olicyinformation/pubs/pl1 ublications/research/safet 0023/fig5_2.cfm y/10073/001.cfm• American drivers consume • Publication Number: FHWA- ~175 B gallons of gasoline & HRT-10-073 diesel fuel annually Date: November 2010• 1.75 billion gallons (1%) x • Roadway Geometry and $3.50/gallon = $6.125B/year Inventory Trade Study for• Starting in 2014, Intelligent IntelliDriveSM Applications Transportation System (ITS) & • Missouri DOT study Advanced Driver Assistance compares airborne LiDAR System (ADAS) will use 3D costs with mobile mapping roadway geometry and other technologies for costs per linear mile
  • 30. Eight Candidate Program Scenarios Average Average Percent of Scenario Name Annual Annual Net B/C Ratio Benefits Costs 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%
  • 31. Benefit/Cost Analysis25 Combinations of QL and Update Frequency Each option assumes uniform national update frequency and QL. Costs and benefits include CONUS only. Costs do not include data lifecycle management. 31
  • 32. Synergy through Collaboration (Costs and benefits form the prior 4 slides)Yellow shows aggregate costs and benefits of the three user groups workingindependently.Green shows the more favorable costs and benefits of the three user groupsworking together. 32
  • 33. Aggregate Benefits for All Business Uses Enhanced Elevation Data Annual Benefits BU# BU Name Conservative Benefits Potential Benefits 14 Flood Risk Management $294.706M $501.576M 21 Infrastructure and Construction Management $206.212M $941.951M 1 Natural Resources Conservation $159.225M $335.152M 8 Agriculture and Precision Farming $122.330M $2,011.330M 2 Water Supply and Quality $85.288M $156.351M 16 Wildfire Management, Planning and Response $75.700M $158.950M 9 Geologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation $51.750M $1,066.750M 5 Forest Resources Management $43.949M $61.655M 3 River and Stream Resource Management $38.422M $86.582M 20 Aviation Navigation and Safety $35.000M $56.000M 4 Coastal Zone Management $23.785M $41.740M 11 Renewable Energy Resources $10.050M $100.050M 12 Oil and Gas Resources $10.000M $100.000M 17 Homeland Security, Law Enforcement, Disaster $9.975M $126.469M Response 15 Sea Level Rise and Subsidence $5.780M $21.660M 22 Urban and Regional Planning $4.197M $68.569M 10 Resource Mining $1.686M $4.864M 7 Wildlife and Habitat Management $1.510M $4.020M 25 Education K-12 and Beyond $0.264M $2.264M 18 Land Navigation and Safety $0.191M $7,124.875M 27 Telecommunications $0.185M $1.850M 26 Recreation $0.050M $0.050M 13 Cultural Resources Preservation and Management $0.000M $7.000M 23 Health and Human Services $0.000M $1.000M 19 Marine Navigation and Safety $0.000M $0.000M 24 Real Estate, Banking, Mortgage, Insurance $0.000M $0.000M 6 Rangeland Management $0.000M $0.000M Total Estimated Annual Dollar Benefits $1,180.224M $12,980.707M 33

×