U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Lidar Program Concept National Geospatial Advisory Committee December 2, 2009 Greg Snyder U.S. Geological Survey Land Remote Sensing Program

2 Outline  Lidar Overview  National Lidar Program Goals  Planned Lidar Study  Stakeholders and Coordination  Next Steps

3 Lidar Capabilities – Bare Earth Carol Prentice, USGS

4 Canopy Height Crown Width Length of Live Crown Height to Live Crown Underestimation Lidar Capabilities – Vegetation Structure Modeled Volume Lidar Cloud Actual Tree

5 Lidar Capabilities – Infrastructure

6 Lidar Capabilities - Intensity Grass Trees Roof types Water

7 Lidar Orthoimagery Structures Bare Earth Elevation Hydrology Land Cover Mapping Applications from Lidar Contours

8 Range of National Applications Vegetation / Biomass Urban / Suburban Response Coastal Studies Carbon / Disturbance studies Hydrologic Studies Volcano monitoring Land Cover Earthquake faults

9

10 Lidar Shoreline Extraction Edit Lidar Point Cloud VDatum Contour Shoreline from DEM QA/QC and perform error analysis Courtesy of NOAA

Slide 11 Conservation Planning –Assists in practice alternative selection. Conservation compliance –Improved wetland boundary mapping with 2 foot contour maps. Emergency Watershed Protection –Debris and sediment removal LIDAR data provided a pre-storm contour map

Slide 12 What is it? Discuss the 1ft contour need from the old soil conservation document. 10 Meter NED2 Meter LIDAR

Slide 13 We can summarize the proportion of LiDAR returns by various height strata (i.e., estimate the amount of veg by height strata) Estimating Estimating Veg Attributes Directly Crown Cover by Height Strata Courtesy USFS

Slide 14 LiDAR derived products Ashland Watershed Rogue River – Siskiyou NF Summary by stand polygon Crown Closure Overstory Tree Count Overstory Trees Per Acre Average Stand Height Quadratic Mean Diameter (overstory trees) Vegetation density by height strata Structure (multi- versus single- story) Courtesy USFS

15 How Many Applications ?  Mapping confined urban channels vs natural stream  In the creation of seamless topo/bathy products  Integration of elevation data into the National Elevation Dataset  Derivation of stream channel characteristics  Mapping and monitoring coastal hazards  Identification of small hydrologic features (ditches, tile drain studies)  Mapping fish habitat  Characterizing wildlife habitat  Identification of canopy gaps  Flood inundation modeling  Derivative hydrologic profiling  Disaster response  Fire science  High-resolution floodplain mapping  Characterization of canopy structure  Defining drainage basins  Jokulhaup monitoring  Fault-rupture mapping  Monitoring sea level rise  Natural Hazards  Identifying landslide-prone areas  Creating topographic maps  Glacier changes  Carbon sequestration assessments  Homeland security scenarios  Delineation of canopy surface and forest metrics  Determination of watershed characteristics  Delineation of building structures  Characterization of urban settings  Monitoring long-term shoreline change  Mapping land cover and land use  Measuring earthquake deformation  Delineation of volcanic structure  Monitoring volcano hazards  Urban mapping  Powerline mapping  Hydrologic Modeling  Bare earth products  Monitoring debris flows  Wave height surveys  Sedimentation into rivers  Monitoring geomorphic processes  Identification of ponding areas  Mapping wetland drainage  Creation of synthetic drainage networks  Identifying culverts  Transportation mapping  3-D visualization of buildings  Volume visualization  Identifying bird habitats

16 Why is Better Data Needed?  Many applications require it!  For example, National Elevation Dataset has an RMSE of 2meters  FEMA guidelines for flood hazard mapping require a RMSE of.185meters  3D data for above-terrain features (vegetation and built-up) has never been fully utilized  Recent high resolution lidar collections are inconsistent and difficult to integrate

NRC Recommendations  “Elevation for the Nation shall employ lidar as the primary technology for digital elevation data acquisition.  “A seamless nationwide elevation model has application beyond the FEMA Map Modernization program … As part of Elevation for the Nation, federal, state, and local mapping partners should have the option to request data that exceed minimum specifications if they pay the additional cost of data collection and processing required to achieve higher accuracies.  “The new data collected in Elevation for the Nation should be disseminated to the public as part of an updated National Elevation Dataset.”

: 2 nd NRC Report Finding 1: “Topographic data are the most important factor in determining water surface elevations, base flood elevations, and the extent of flooding and, thus, the accuracy of flood maps in riverine areas.” Recommendation 1: “FEMA should increase collaboration with federal (e.g., USGS, NOAA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), state, and local government agencies to acquire high- resolution, high-accuracy topographic and bathymetric data throughout the nation.”

19 Goals and Expectations of a National Lidar Program  Authoritative elevation* data for Federal and State applications, along with derived products, integrated into agency business operations:  Built on partnerships to meet multiple agency needs  Using standards to maximize interoperability  Conducted in concert with Federal and State programs  Balancing requirements, benefits and costs  Offering on-demand data coupled with data services  Maximizing commercial sector involvement  Using best available technologies  Spawning new applications and user communities * Where the term elevation includes measurements of terrain, built features and vegetation canopy (and vegetation structure)

20 Expectations: Data  Nationally consistent 3D measurements of terrain, vegetation and built-up features  Point clouds or waveforms  Processed data (e.g., classified points), intensity imagery  Raster bare-earth digital elevation model and other agency-specific derivatives as requirements evolve

21 Expectations: Consistency  Consistent methodology for collecting, handling, processing, formatting and delivering lidar point cloud data  Retention of all collected raw data, intact and complete in geometry and attributes  These attributes enable reliable analysis across projects and wide areas

22 Expectations: Flexibility  Variable point spacing above a base specification determined by agency requirements, topography, land cover  Data update cycle appropriate to rates of landscape or coastal change  Variable data accuracy

23 Expectations: Data Services  Access to minimally processed, authoritative point cloud data  Derivative products and application services including the means to “plug-in” custom algorithms  Data management, computing and archive strategy

24 Scoping a National Lidar Study in 2010  The government is considering a program to improve mapping of terrain and landscape features  A study is being scoped to identify an optimal implementation strategy  Lidar is the technology of focus but study will summarize potential role of alternative technologies  Study funding provided by USGS and Federal partners

25 Candidate Lidar Study Objectives  Indentify core Federal and State lidar applications and requirements  Identify and compare technical approaches (and costs) for systematically meeting requirements  Determine the overall economic value of a national lidar data layer  Weigh benefit-cost ratios and recommend a preferred program alternative  Provide a strategy and cycle for refreshing data  Address data management challenges and potential solutions (may need separate study)

26 Other Study Topics of Interest  Look at current data acquisition, interoperability, exchange and delivery processes  Fusion of lidar with imagery other remote sensing data  Methodologies for evaluating lidar data accuracy over various land-use classes and physiographic extremes  Potential role of cloud computing

27 National Lidar Stakeholders  USGS, FEMA, USDA, NOAA, USACE, NASA, NGA and others  States, local and tribal governments  Organizations:  Association of American State Geologists  National States Geographic Information Council  National Association of Counties  AmericaView  Coastal States Organization  ASPRS, AAG, URISA, etc.  MAPPS  Science consortiums  Others…

28 Coordination Options and Approaches  Form a new Federal lidar coordination group  Leverage the National Digital Elevation Program (NDEP)  NDEP agencies coordinate operational elevation programs today  Gain executive-level visibility and support from FGDC  Regular updates and discussions with FGDC  Seek National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) advice and recommendations  Interact directly with State and local organizations  Interact broadly with stakeholders at public / professional meetings and individually

29 Summary and Observations  There is strong stakeholder interest in a consistent national lidar layer for topographic and non- topographic applications  There is great benefit and complexity in combining national requirements, funding and priorities  Partner involvement may include data, funding, technology, algorithms, etc.  Need sound business plan to underpin effort (based on Lidar Study)

30 FY 2010  Fund the Lidar Study  Step-up stakeholder engagement  Enhance cohesion across agencies through best practices and standards  Advance integrated agency lidar program planning

31 Sample questions for NGAC:  Does lidar study include the right topics?  Feedback on conceptual notion of a National Lidar Program?  Other developments, trends or studies that might improve prospects for a National Lidar Program?  Other constituencies / opportunities?