2012 mngislis panel discussion session 11: thursday, oct 4, 2:00-3:00pm lidar activities in...
TRANSCRIPT
2012 MNGISLIS PANEL DISCUSSION
SESSION 11: THURSDAY, OCT 4, 2:00-3:00pm
LiDAR ACTIVITIES IN MINNESOTA
AGENDA:STATUS OF PROJECT TIM LOESCH MN.IT at DNR
INFORMATION/OUTREACH NANCY RADER MN.IT at MNGEO
EDUCATION SEAN VAUGHN MN.IT at DNR
THE BIGGER PICTURE RON WENCL USGS
PROJECT STATUSTIM LOESCH MN.IT at DNR
INFORMATION AND DATA DOWNLOADNANCY RADER MN.IT at MnGeo
INFORMATION
Which areas are available?
LiDAR info page:www.mngeo.state.mn.us/chouse/elevation/lidar.html
State status map Hillshade status map Lists of counties by project area
Facebook pagefor latest QA/QC status
INFORMATION
What help is available?
Helpfiles on FTP site Readme & Watch me LAS & neutral format Tile index maps
Facebook comments Metadata Flight lines & dates Email
DATA DOWNLOAD – CURRENT OPTIONS
MnGeo FTP
County zipfile: Geodatabase format Tile folders
1/16 of USGS quad, grouped by county(likely will change to be grouped by 250k sheet)
Index maps show tile boundaries and filenames Geodatabase or raw format (LAS/LAZ)
Checklist of products within gdb files
DATA DOWNLOAD – POTENTIAL FUTURE OPTIONS
DRAFT options being considered by MnGeo and DNR
Interface in addition to FTP Link to DNR’s viewer so users can see the data
prior to download
Tailor download to layers and geography that the user needs Download tiles by selected area
e.g., city, watershed, user-specified polygon Separate derived products so they can be
downloaded individually
Based on user feedback and survey results
EDUCATIONSEAN VAUGHN MN.IT at DNR
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
MODULE INSTRUCTOR LengthNo.
sessions
Basics of Using LiDAR Data Joel Nelson 1 day 10
Terrain Analysis Joel NelsonHalf day 9
Hydrologic Applications Sean VaughnHalf day 7
Engineering Applications Ann Johnson 1 day 2
Forestry and Ecological Applications Andy Jenks
Half day 2
Wetland Mapping Joe KnightHalf day 4
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
Hands-on workshops presented at GIS labs:
UM-DuluthCloquet Forestry Center
UMN St. Paul Campus
Mankato State University Winona State University
St. Cloud State Univ.UM-Morris
Northland Comm. and Tech. College, East Grand Forks
Central Lakes College, Brainerd
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
Who attended?
Total attendance = 558 Unique participants = 226
41% Local Government
22% State Government
12% Federal Government
17% Private Sector
6% University
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
Post-workshop survey:
Evaluate workshops
Assess future needs
Results will be at z.umn.edu/lidar
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
Post-workshop Survey Results:
74% would join online discussion forum
Additional training needs (most frequent requests): Advanced hydrologic applications
Using LAS/LAZ/raw data
Preferred training formats: Half or full day hands-on classroom
Tip sheets
Webinar
Video tips
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
Coming to z.umn.edu/lidar:
Workshop exercises, including Step-by-step instructions
Practice data sets
Videos of key processes
Workshop lectures, including Slides
Video
Additional learning resources
ENRTF-FUNDED LiDAR TRAINING PROJECT
For more information:
Les Everett, [email protected],
612-625-6751
Ann Lewandowski, [email protected],
612-624-6765
z.umn.edu/lidar
3D ELEVATION PROGRAM (3DEP) A NATIONAL ELEVATION PROGRAM INITIATIVE
RON WENCL, USGS
The National Map
+ NATIONAL ELEVATION DATASET
18
A Rich History
Lithographic Section preparing stone blocks used in the printing of topographic maps. USGS, 1917
Cartographer Yutaka Hamamoto working on a Wild A-7 stereoplanigraph. USGS, 1968
LiDAR IMPROVES DATA QUALITY
Ten meter resolutionCourtesy of NRCS
Two meter resolution
+NATIONAL ENHANCED ELEVATION ASSESSMENT
• Sponsored by the National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)
and funded by USGS, NGA,FEMA, NRCS and NOAA to:– Document national requirements for improved elevation data from
technologies such as LiDAR and IfSAR
– Estimate the benefits and costs of meeting these requirements
– Evaluate multiple national enhanced program scenarios for government
consideration
• 602 mission-critical activities that require enhanced
elevation data were identified by:– 34 Federal agencies and 50 states
– A sampling of local governments, tribes, private and not‐for profit
organizations
• A national program has the potential to generate $1.2 billion
to $13 billion in new benefits each year
At a Glance:
20
+ STATUS OF THE NATION’S ELEVATION DATA
NEEA Inventory Results - September 2011
1996 - 2011 28% coverage - 49 states 15% coverage – Alaska 30+ year replacement cycle Program is well coordinated –
less than 10% overlap of coverage
Data quality variable
Why is this a problem? Remaining 72% coverage is 30
or more years old. Alaska – very poor quality Meets 10% of reported needs Current and emerging needs
require higher quality data
Map depicts public sources of LiDAR in all states plus IfSAR data in Alaska
21An update will be available in late 2012
+ DATA QUALITY LEVELS
Quality Level
Horizontal Point Spacing
(meters) Vertical Accuracy
(centimeters) Description
1 0.35 9.25 High accuracy and resolution LiDAR
2 0.7 9.25 Medium-high accuracy and resolution LiDAR
3 1-2 <18.5 Medium accuracy and resolution LiDAR – similar to USGS specification version 13 and most data collected to date
4 5 46-139Early or lower quality LiDAR and photogrammetric elevations produced from aerotriangulated NAIP imagery
5 5 93-185 Lower accuracy and resolution, primarily from IfSAR
22
Developed for NEEA study
+ LiDAR AT THREE QUALITY LEVELS
23
Simulated Quality Levels based on resampled QL1 data
0.35 meter point spacing (QL1)
0.7 meter point spacing (QL2)
1.4 meter point spacing (QL3)
+ EXAMPLE BUSINESS USES
Precision Farming Land Navigation and Safety
Geologic Resources and Hazards Mitigation
Natural Resource Conservation
Infrastructure Management
Flood Risk Mitigation
24
+ NATIONAL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION 25
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%
Needs addressed vary with data quality and replacement cycle
Existing program (QL3) on a 25 year cycle
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800
$1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000
Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits
Dol
lars
in M
illio
ns
% = Needs Satisfied by Scenario59% 58%66% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13%71%98%
Highest quality level (QL1) on an annual cycle
Recommended program (QL2) on an 8 year cycle
+ 3D ELEVATION PROGRAM (3DEP)
• The 3DEP program initiative implements one of the 10
program scenarios resulting from the NEEA study
• Key 3DEP goals:• LiDAR data over conterminous United States, Hawaii, territories on 8-year cycle
• IfSAR data over Alaska
– LiDAR point cloud data to be publically accessible
– Multiple derivative products will be supported as services and will
be freely available
• 3DEP is a program initiative the USGS is developing
with a goal to implement an operational program by
FY1426
A new initiative to implement the recommendations of the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment (NEEA)
+ PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY IN 3DEP TRANSITION
• Shift to higher quality data (QL2) and larger area projects
– Cost gap between QL2 and QL3 is narrowing
– Emphasis on cost-effective large-area or statewide projects
• Share project and funding plans farther in advance to
better coordinate and expand interagency data
collection
• Seek new Federal, State and other partners
• Increase coordination and planning with regional and
state offices of Federal Agencies
• Prioritize Alaska IfSAR in 3DEP data collection plans27
Initial Steps Towards 3DEP Goals:
+ 3DEP OUTREACH EFFORTS
• USGS Associate Director and National Geospatial
Program Director conducting outreach to NRCS, USACE,
DISDI, USGS, FEMA, EPA, USFS, FAA, NGA and NOAA
– All understand need for better elevation
– Interest in model initiative language and best practices to support
transition towards 3DEP
– Agency mandates to fund mission/project-specific acquisitions presents a
challenge to achieving contiguous coverage
• FGDC - Briefings to the Executive Committee, Steering Committee, Coordination Group and National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC); NGAC has established a 3DEP sub-committee
• Broader outreach to States, select industries, associations
• NEEA website and fact sheets published 28
+ BUDGET STRATEGY
• Develop increased support from Federal agencies that
benefit from 3DEP– NRCS, USACE, DISDI, USGS, NOAA, FEMA, EPA, USFS, FAA, and NGA
– Funding mix and expectations will adjust with experience
• States / local governments as key funding partners
• Continue outreach to develop new 3DEP partners
• Facilitate partner participation
– Develop new agreements to enable both long-term partnerships and
event-driven opportunities
– Share best practices to promote 3DEP-compatible data collection within
partner and non-partner organizations
– Provide model budget language for use by agencies
29
Expanding 3DEP resources:
+INTERAGENCY ELEVATION INVENTORY
30
• Ongoing NOAA, USGS, and FEMA collaboration to maintain the inventory and make the data accessible
• USGS Liaisons currently gathering data for FY12 update
• Inventory is critical to assessing progress towards 3DEP goals
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/inventory/
+ 3DEP RESOURCES
• NEEA Report
• USGS Fact Sheets
– NEEA at a glance
– 3D Elevation Program
• Resources in work– State information
sheets
– Journal articles
– 3DEP webpage
31
http://nationalmap.gov/3DEP/neea.html
+ RECENT UPDATE INFORMATION
32
LiDAR Base Specifications Released:http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/11b4/
www.mngeo.state.mn.us/committee/elevation
TIM LOESCH MN.IT at DNR [email protected]
NANCY RADER MN.IT at MNGEO [email protected]
SEAN VAUGHN MN.IT at DNR [email protected]
RON WENCL USGS [email protected]
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
LIDAR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE
LIDAR RESEARCH AND EDUCATION SUBCOMMITTEE