- Количество слайдов: 29
Texas Geographic Information Council September 19, 2007
Presentation Outline 1. 2. 3. The Need Vision for IFTN The Program: – Details – Benefits – Costs 4. Current Status 5. Next Steps
IFTN: The Need • Aerial and satellite imagery has become the foundation for most public and private GIS. • It is an essential dataset being collected by hundreds of different entities across the U. S. leading to higher costs, varying quality, duplication of effort, and patchwork coverage. • Quality nationwide or even statewide coverage is difficult to achieve because of funding shortfalls and uncoordinated efforts.
IFTN: The Vision The nation will have a sustainable and flexible digital orthoimagery program that meets the needs of local, state, regional, tribal, and federal agencies.
How Imagery for the Nation Began • September 2004 at NSGIC Annual Conference in Austin Texas. • A presentation by Ted Koch, (NSGIC’s representative to the NDOP Committee) described the initial vision and suggested 100% Federal funding and engendered some interesting dialogue. • NSGIC established a committee to research program costs and make a recommendation at its 2005 Conference in Rochester, New York. • NSGIC was then asked to present program to FGDC Steering Committee in October 2005
IFTN: The Program • NSGIC is now working with the National Digital Orthophoto Program (NDOP) Committee and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to work toward creating a nationwide aerial imagery program that will collect and disseminate standardized multi-resolution orthophoto products on a set schedule. • The imagery acquired through this program will remain in the public domain and archived to secure its availability for posterity.
IFTN: The Program • Two federal agencies are proposed to support the program: USDA / FSA & USGS. • The USDA’s National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) would provide annual 1 -meter nationwide imagery except Alaska would be covered by the USGS program. • NAIP would typically collect imagery during the growing season in natural color.
IFTN: The Program • The companion USGS program will produce 1 -foot resolution imagery about once every 3 years depending upon population density. • In addition, 50% matching funds would be available to partner on 6 -inch imagery for urban areas. • The USGS program will typically acquire imagery during winter and spring months in leaf-off natural color. However, the actual imagery acquisition will be driven by business needs.
IFTN: The Program • Each State will specify their orthoimagery requirements in a business plan that includes the following information: – Resolution and Accuracy Requirements – Coverage Footprints – Image Type (CIR, NC, B/W, etc. ) – Contracting Preferences – QA/QC Requirements – Funding Methods
IFTN: The Program • States would have the option to manage the program themselves and have “buy-up” options for enhanced products that better meet their needs. – – – – Color Infrared Increased Frequency Increased Footprint Increased Horizontal Accuracy Sampling to Lower Resolutions Increased Resolution (6” to 3” and 1’ to 6”) Improved Elevation Data Products Remove Building Lean (“True Ortho”)
IFTN: Benefits • Provides a consistent nationwide orthoimagery dataset with repeat cycles of 1 to 5 years. • Buy-up options provide flexibility to state and local governments. • • Imagery stays in public domain. • Federal government funds the baseline program. States and local governments can manage part of the program through their business plans.
IFTN: Current Status • The FGDC Steering Committee has showed continued interest and appointed an Executive Committee to review funding options (DHS, Commerce, OMB, Interior, Agriculture). • NDOP recommended a modified program to FGDC Steering Committee in January 2006 • A survey of stakeholders was conducted in 2006 with 1, 887 respondents that provided positive feedback.
IFTN: Current Status • The USGS and USDA in FY-2007 jointly funded a comprehensive Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). • The goal of the CBA is to provide a Business Case that accurately communicates IFTN program goals, objectives, and benefits to decision makers. • The draft results have just been completed and are available on-line at the NDOP website: http: //www. ndop. gov/pdf/Imagery_for_the_Nation_IFTN_CBA. pdf
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis • Realistic Phase-In 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”. – Analysis based only on programs actually surveyed. – Results were not extrapolated. – Used a conservative approach that avoids any inflation of numbers. • Adoption Rate: 20% - FY 09 45% - FY 10 70% - FY 11 90% - FY 12
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis Original IFTN Concept 1 -Meter (Enhanced NAIP – USDA managed) • • • Acquired annually over lower 48 states 100% federally funded HI and outlying areas on 3 year cycle Alaska on 5 year cycle (USGS) Limited buy-up options
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis Original IFTN Concept 1 -Foot Program (USGS managed) • 3 year cycle over states east of the Mississippi with complete coverage and counties west of Mississippi with population densities greater than 25 people per square mile. • 50% federal matching partnership funds to acquire 6 -inch imagery over Census defined urban areas
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis • Western states expressed concerns about inequity of original IFTN concept with regard to the 1 -foot program. • Requested that initiative be modified to include complete coverage for Western states. • 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.
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis Alternative #2: Follows original IFTN concept except identifies full Federal funding for nationwide 1 foot program. Alternative #3: Follows original IFTN concept except it requires mandatory 50% cost share from States to trigger production of 1 -foot program. Alternative #4: Follows original IFTN concept except identifies optional 50% cost share from States to trigger production of 1 -foot program.
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis • • Each alternative was assessed across: – – – Business processes Non-quantifiable benefits Costs Business requirements Risk Alternative 1 and 4 scored very closely.
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis • Alternative #1 presented highest overall risk: • Alternative #4 was determined to be the more viable option to implement – Potential funding resistance – Reduced rate of adoption – Less program flexibility – 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.
IFTN: Costs • No one knows how much is actually being spent by government on orthoimagery nationwide. • The CBA estimated ~ $167 million annually nationwide or $1. 7 billion over the next 10 years $1. 7 B in today’s dollars. • For Texas that equates to ~ $14 million annually or $136 million over 10 years. • Organized IFTN Program will cost ~ $150 million per year.
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis
IFTN: Cost Benefit Analysis Total Costs Recommendation: Alternative #4 Original IFTN Concept with Optional 50% Cost Share for 1 -foot Program
Imagery for the National Agricultural Imagery Program One-Meter Resolution Annual acquisition with 100% federal funding.
Imagery for the Nation U. S. Geological Survey Program One-Foot Resolution Acquisition approximately every 3 -years with 50% federal funding and optional 50% State funding.
Imagery for the Nation Geological Survey Program Six-Inch Resolution Acquisition approximately every 5 -years in urbanized areas with 50% federal cost share. U. S.
IFTN: Next Steps 1. The current objective is to ensure that IFTN is mentioned and partially funded in the Agriculture and Interior budgets for FY 09, and that it be fully funded in the FY 10 Budget. 2. To become a reality all the major stakeholders and legislators will need to support it given the increasing demands on the federal budget. 3. NSGIC is requesting that each of the State GIS Coordination Councils to support the program. 4. TGIC is being asked today to consider passing a resolution in support of the IFTN program.
IFTN: Resolution of Support 1. Supports federal budgeting for the program beginning in FY-2009. 2. Resolution would state that TGIC believes Texas and the nation would benefit from federal appropriations being provided to the program. 3. Helps support valuable programs as we move toward a period of potential federal budget cutbacks.
Questions ? Discussion. . . Michael Ouimet (512) 305 -9076 michael. [email protected] state. tx. us