1. National Enhanced Elevation Assessment
Results Summary and Next Steps
Hawaii Pacific GIS Conference 2012
March 5, 2012
Kirk Waters Greg Snyder
NOAA Coastal Services Center USGS Land Remote Sensing Program
kirk.waters@noaa.gov gsnyder@usgs.gov

2. 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

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 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

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 cm
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
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 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

10. BU#8 – Agriculture and Precision Farming
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
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 Benefits
Combined Federal, State, Nongovernmental Organizations
Quality Levels Update Frequencies
Scenario #4 later in this
briefing
14

15. National Program Implementation Scenarios
All include QL5 IFSAR of Alaska
Nationwide Implementation Scenarios that consider Quality Acquisition
Full Lifecycle Costs and not just Data Costs Levels 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

16. 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%
$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 3
EPA - Environmental Protection,
Land Cover Characterization,
and Runoff Modeling
Image courtesy of the Georgia Geospatial Advisory Council
OSM - Mining Regulation and
Reclamation of Coal Mining
Activities
USFS - Wetlands mapping and
Characterization
17
selawik.fws.gov

18. Example Needs Not Met by QL 2
DOE - Population Distributions
and Dynamics
Courtesy DOE
USGS - Mapping, Monitoring,
and Assessment of Biological
Carbon Stocks
fresc.usgs.gov
NRC - Nuclear Power Plant Site
Natural Phenomena Hazard
Assessment 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 QL
180 $500,000,000
160 $450,000,000
140 $400,000,000
$350,000,000
120
$300,000,000
100
$250,000,000
80 QL QL
$200,000,000
60
$150,000,000
40 $100,000,000
20 $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/yr
Combined use of LiDAR and New cars & trucks will use
imagery for road surveys saves LiDAR for transmission control;
costs for state and county reduce fuel & emissions and
DOTs 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 Analysis
25 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 working
independently.
Green shows the more favorable costs and benefits of the three user groups
working 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