Imagery for the Nation Background and Status IADIWG Denver Meeting September 19, 2007
Background • A proposal developed by the National State Geographer’s Information Council (NSGIC) and the National Digital Orthoimagery Program to create a new nationwide aerial imagery program that will collect and disseminate standardized multi-resolution products on “set” schedules • Base products to be funded by Federal Agencies with “buy-ups” funded by States
Background • Vision – The nation will have a sustainable and flexible digital imagery program that meets the needs of local, state, regional, tribal and federal agencies • Current Situation Nationally – Duplication of acquisition and effort – Not taking advantage of economy of Scale (nationwide contracting) – Reducing ROI and availability of product
Background • Administered by the USGS – 6 -in imagery over Census blocks with a population greater than 1, 000/sq. mi. , 3 -year cycle, 50% cost-share with States and localities – 1 -ft imagery over counties with a population greater than 25/sq. mi. , 3 -year cycle – 1 -m imagery over Alaska (2. 5 -m more practical), 5 -year cycle • Administered by USDA-FSA – 1 -m imagery over 48 States (NAIP), 1 -year cycle – 1 -m imagery over Ocean Islands (HI, PR, VI, etc. ), 3 year cycle
Background • All Imagery acquisition would be contracted – – – 6 -in & 1 -ft imagery via aerial 1 -m imagery over Alaska via aerial 2. 5 -m imagery over Alaska via satellite 1 -m imagery over 48 States (NAIP) via aerial 1 -m imagery over Ocean Islands via satellite • USGS and USDA-FSA would quality assure imagery • USGS and USDA-FSA would archive and disseminate imagery
Cost Benefit Analysis • Funded by USGS and USDA • Completed by Perot Systems, Inc. • Purpose to assist in: – program decisions – budget estimates – justifications for future planning
Cost Benefit Analysis January 2007 – Perot began in-person interviews and detailed surveys with representatives of: • Federal, State and local government agencies • Entities that represented private sector users • Photogrammetric companies
Cost Benefit Analysis Included NSGIC 2006 IFTN webbased survey for a more complete picture of: • Number of orthoimagery acquisition programs • Level of government expenditures
Cost Benefit Analysis • Analysis based only on programs actually surveyed • Results were not extrapolated. • Extremely conservative approach that avoids any inflation of numbers
Cost Benefit Analysis Realistic Phase-In Approach and Acceptance Rates Used • Anticipated that program would never meet 100% of needs • Did not expect acceptance by all agencies that could use it’s products. • Projected costs include “other programs” (outside IFTN) that would do “business as usual”
Cost Benefit Analysis Original IFTN Concept: 1 -Meter (Enhanced NAIP – USDA managed) • Acquired annually over lower 48 • HI and insular areas on 3 -year cycle • Alaska on 5 -year cycle (USGS) • Limited buy-up options
Cost Benefit Analysis Original IFTN Concept: 1 -foot (USGS Managed Program ) • 3 -year cycle over States east of Mississippi (complete coverage) • All counties west of Mississippi with population densities greater than 25 people per square mile • 50% matching partnership funds to acquire 6 -inch imagery over Census defined urban areas
Cost Benefit Analysis Western Governor’s Association • Wrote to FGDC March 2007 • Expressed concerns about inequity of original IFTN concept with regard to 1 -foot program • Requested that initiative be modified to include complete coverage for Western states
Cost Benefit Analysis The CBA considered three additional alternatives: • Full 1 -foot coverage was considered to determine actual costs • 2 other cost-sharing options were examined for the 1 -foot component. • 1 meter program remains the same, and the population model remains in effect for Alaska and the insular areas for the 1 -foot program for all alternatives
Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative #2 • Follows original IFTN concept except identifies full Federal funding for nationwide 1 -foot program
Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative #3 • Follows original IFTN concept except it requires mandatory 50% cost share from States to trigger production of 1 -foot program
Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative #4 • Follows original IFTN concept except identifies optional 50% cost share from States to trigger production of 1 -foot program
Cost Benefit Analysis Each alternative was assessed across • Business processes • Non-quantifiable benefits • Costs • Business requirements • Risk Alternative 1 and 4 scored very closely
Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative 1 presented highest overall risk – Potential funding resistance – Reduced rate of adoption – Less program flexibility
Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative #4 was determined to be the more viable option to implement • Lowest risk • More likely to generate backing of state and local groups and be supported by Congress • Adoption rates and program flexibility were considered to be higher
Cost Benefit Analysis Validated Current State Costs over the next 10 years - $1. 7 B – Today’s dollars – 643 programs based on interviews and surveys
Cost Benefit Analysis Adoption Rate: 20% - FY 09 45% - FY 10 70% - FY 11 90% - FY 12 Anticipated there will always be some agencies/groups that will create products to meet individual needs
Cost Benefit Analysis Ramp –Up Rate • Majority of phase-in costs spread over FY 09 -FY 11 • Program not projected in the study to be fully functional until FY 2012
Cost Benefit Analysis Component Costs
Cost Benefit Analysis Total Costs Recommendation: Alternative #4 Original IFTN Concept with Optional 50% Cost Share for 1 -foot Program
Cost Benefit Analysis NDOP sub-committees developing greater level of detail • Technical management • Acquisition management • Program management
Cost Benefit Analysis CBA posted at: www. ndop. gov Additional information www. nsgic. org
Скачать презентацию Imagery for the Nation Background and Status IADIWG
c9ad725c7904dd4b74003a6076403c5c.ppt