National Enhanced Elevation Assessment

Results Summary and Next Steps

Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012

March 5, 2012

Kirk Waters

NOAA Coastal Services Center

kirk.waters@noaa.gov

Greg Snyder

USGS Land Remote Sensing Program

gsnyder@usgs.gov

Motivation for Assessment 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

Hawai’i

Elevation Inventory - Pacific

Guam and CNMI

American Samoa

Potential QL 2 lidar collection in 2012/13

National Enhanced Elevation Assessment About the Project

Sponsor: • National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP) committee member agencies

Funding Partners: • U.S. Geological Survey (Managing Partner)

• National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

• Natural Resources Conservation Service

In-kind Partners: • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• Many Federal agencies, state agencies and other study participants

4

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

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

Navigation

Landslide Hazards

Natural Resource

Conservation

Infrastructure Management Flood Risk Mitigation

Data Quality Level Choices

7

Quality Levels Data Source

Horizontal

Resolution Vertical Accuracy

Point Density RMSEz 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 feet

Bathymetric 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

OR/WA

SLR

FEMA

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

Benefits for Top Business Uses

Annual Benefits

Conservative Potential

Flood Risk Management $295M $502M

Infrastructure and Construction Management $206M $942M

Natural Resources Conservation $159M $335M

Agriculture and Precision Farming $122M $2,011M

Water Supply and Quality $85M $156M

Wildfire Management, Planning and Response $76M $159M

Geologic Resource Assessment and Hazard Mitigation $52M $1,067M

Forest Resources Management $44M $62M

River and Stream Resource Management $38M $87M

Aviation Navigation and Safety $35M $56M

Land Navigation and Safety $0.2M $7,125M

Total for all Business Uses (1 – 27) $1.2B $13B

BU#8 – Agriculture and Precision Farming

10

J.R. Simplot Company Mission Critical Requirements – QL 3 LiDAR is required for all

agricultural land for site-specific application of seed, fertilizer, lime, pesticides and water to

optimize 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 farm

drainage-related losses to corn and wheat alone.

Potential benefits $2B/year. If 10% of drainage-related productivity losses were averted

with improved elevation data on a national basis.

Image from University of Missouri Extension Precision Agriculture

NOAA Business Use #1

NOAA Business Use #2

Lifecycle Data Management Costs

13

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

Highest Net Benefits Combined Federal, State, Nongovernmental Organizations

Quality Levels Update Frequencies

Scenario #4 later in this

briefing

14

National Program Implementation Scenarios

All include QL5 IFSAR of Alaska

Nationwide Implementation Scenarios that consider

Full Lifecycle Costs and not just Data Costs

Quality

Levels

Acquisition

Period

Scenario 1 (lowest cost, closest to Status Quo) QL3 25 years

Scenario 1A “ 15 years

Scenario 2 (mixed QL, highest net benefits to Feds)1 QL1/2/3 8 years

Scenario 2A “ 15 years

Scenario 3 (uniform QL w/high Net Benefits, B/C Ratio) QL2 8 years

Scenario 3A “ 15 years

Scenario 4 (mixed QL, highest Net Benefits, B/C Ratio) QL1/2/3/5 8 years

Scenario 4A “ 15 years

All would improve the Status Quo where some areas would be mapped several times over

while other areas would remain unmapped

1 QL3 minimum, also considers most-requested QL for Federal FA’s

15

Recommended Elevation Data Program Option 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%

* Note: All scenarios include QL5 (IfSAR) for Alaska

6

5 4 2 3

4A 2A 3A 1A

1

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

Do

llars

in M

illio

ns

Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits

% = Needs Satisfied by Scenario 59% 58% 66% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13% 71% 98%

Uniform QL1, Annual, B/C < 1

Uniform Q3,

25 year

Example Needs Not Met by QL 3

17

EPA - Environmental Protection,

Land Cover Characterization,

and Runoff Modeling

OSM - Mining Regulation and

Reclamation of Coal Mining

Activities

USFS - Wetlands mapping and

Characterization

selawik.fws.gov

Image courtesy of the Georgia Geospatial Advisory Council

Example Needs Not Met by QL 2

DOE - Population Distributions

and Dynamics

USGS - Mapping, Monitoring,

and Assessment of Biological

Carbon Stocks

NRC - Nuclear Power Plant Site

Natural Phenomena Hazard

Assessment and Risk Mitigation

fresc.usgs.gov

Courtesy DOE

18 www.usgs.gov

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

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

Scenario 1: QL3, 25-year

acquisition

22

Costs: $35.1M

Net Benefits: $113.3M

B/C Ratio: 4.226

Benefits Satisfied: 13%

Scenario 2: Mixed, 8-year

acquisition

23

Costs: $147.9M

Net Benefits: $551.0M

B/C Ratio: 4.726

Benefits Satisfied: 59%

Program Scenarios 1A-4A

24

Additional Program Scenarios To meet more requirements

25

All

5 4

2 3

4A 2A 3A 1A

1

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

$1,600

$1,800

$2,000

Do

llars

in M

illio

ns

Program Scenarios

Annual Costs Annual Total Benefits

% = Needs Satisfied by Scenario

59% 58% 66% 33% 30% 30% 22% 13% 71% 98%

Scenarios in Work

Frequency and Benefits by

Data Quality Level

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1 2 3 4 5

Frequency of QL Request

QL

$-

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

$350,000,000

$400,000,000

$450,000,000

$500,000,000

1 2 3 4 5

Benefits by QL

QL

Data Lifecycle Management

Cost Components

• Data storage

• Data processing, including derivatives

• Data provisioning

• Support staff

• Support technology

BU#18 – Land Navigation and Safety

Potential $7B/year

Images from Tuck Mapping Solutions

Combined use of LiDAR and

imagery for road surveys saves

costs for state and county

DOTs

New cars & trucks will use

LiDAR for transmission control;

reduce fuel & emissions and

provide driver fatigue warnings

TomTom and

Manufacturers

estimate 4-12%

savings in fuel

efficiency

We used 1% fuel savings to get $6B/yr

Basis for Potential $7B/yr in

Future http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/p

olicyinformation/pubs/pl1

0023/fig5_2.cfm

• American drivers consume

~175 B gallons of gasoline &

diesel fuel annually

• 1.75 billion gallons (1%) x

$3.50/gallon = $6.125B/year

• Starting in 2014, Intelligent

Transportation System (ITS) &

Advanced Driver Assistance

System (ADAS) will use 3D

roadway geometry

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/p

ublications/research/safet

y/10073/001.cfm

• Publication Number: FHWA-

HRT-10-073

Date: November 2010

• Roadway Geometry and

Inventory Trade Study for

IntelliDriveSM Applications

• Missouri DOT study

compares airborne LiDAR

costs with mobile mapping

and other technologies for

costs per linear mile

Scenario Name

Average

Annual

Costs

Average

Annual Net

Benefits

B/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%

Eight Candidate Program Scenarios

Benefit/Cost Analysis

25 Combinations of QL and Update Frequency

31

Each option assumes uniform national update frequency and QL.

Costs and benefits include CONUS only. Costs do not include data lifecycle management.

Synergy through Collaboration

Yellow shows aggregate costs and benefits of the three user groups working

independently.

Green shows the more favorable costs and benefits of the three user groups

working together.

(Costs and benefits form the prior 4 slides)

32

Aggregate Benefits for All Business Uses

33

BU# BU Name Enhanced Elevation Data Annual Benefits

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

Response

$9.975M $126.469M

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