1. USDA 2008 Imagery Planning Meeting Shirley Hall Farm Service Agency

2. System of Records Changes Program Compliance Changes Changing Imagery Needs and NAIP GIS Centralization Effort Farm Service Agency

3. System of Records Public Federal Notices of System of Records Changes CIMS (12/11/07) CIMS (12/11/07) Multiple (12/12/07) Multiple (12/12/07) Includes sharing CLU and other data with other Federal, State, local partners for conservation programs Includes sharing CLU and other data with other Federal, State, local partners for conservation programs Hold users of the data to FSA ethical standards and not to disclose the information without customer permission Hold users of the data to FSA ethical standards and not to disclose the information without customer permission

4. Move to GIS Centralization: The Problem Service Center Servers are old and outdated Service Center Servers are old and outdated Current Server Hardware does not adequately support High Performance for GIS Apps Like Land Use Current Server Hardware does not adequately support High Performance for GIS Apps Like Land Use Replacement is Cost Prohibitive Replacement is Cost Prohibitive Need a Solution Soon Need a Solution Soon Refresh for Workstations are also very Costly Refresh for Workstations are also very Costly Current Distributed Environment Doesn’t Support FSA needs Current Distributed Environment Doesn’t Support FSA needs Real time access to CLU data Real time access to CLU data Web Distribution and other Data Sharing Web Distribution and other Data Sharing Efficient Management of Out of County Land Efficient Management of Out of County Land Distribution Costs of Imagery Distribution Costs of Imagery Data Backup and other Data Vulnerability Issues Data Backup and other Data Vulnerability Issues Dependency on Service Center Staff for Routine Data Management tasks (DB compression, history table updater) Dependency on Service Center Staff for Routine Data Management tasks (DB compression, history table updater)

5. Option 1 Enhanced Distributed Environment New Servers at Every Service Center New Servers at Every Service Center Near Real Time Replication of Databases to a Centralized Server Near Real Time Replication of Databases to a Centralized Server Public Access and View Only Web Access to Geospatial Data Public Access and View Only Web Access to Geospatial Data Integrated Desktop Business Applications Integrated Desktop Business Applications Land Use, CRP, Price Support, etc. Land Use, CRP, Price Support, etc. Linkage to SCIMS, Farm Records and other Data Services Linkage to SCIMS, Farm Records and other Data Services

6. Distributed, Pros and Cons Pros Pros Utilizes current applications/databases Utilizes current applications/databases “Painless” transition “Painless” transition Relatively stable update path Relatively stable update path Communication with Sys36 Communication with Sys36 Cons Cons Expensive Infrastructure Expensive Infrastructure 2350+ Servers 2350+ Servers 12,000 Workstations to Manage and Refresh 12,000 Workstations to Manage and Refresh Data Management Expenses Data Management Expenses Software Distribution Software Distribution Limited Support for Web Limited Support for Web Security Issues Security Issues Physical security of servers and workstations Physical security of servers and workstations Data Security, more points of access for PII Data Security, more points of access for PII

7. Option 2 – Centralized, Terminal Services Environment Centralized Servers Replace Service Center Servers Centralized Servers Replace Service Center Servers Utilizes Current Desktop Applications running remotely Utilizes Current Desktop Applications running remotely New apps would be added as necessary New apps would be added as necessary Increased integration of Business Apps over time Increased integration of Business Apps over time Public access and View Only Web access to Geospatial Data Public access and View Only Web access to Geospatial Data

8. Term Svcs Only, Pros and Cons Pros Pros Centralized Environment/Databases Support most FSA current and future needs Centralized Environment/Databases Support most FSA current and future needs Efficient Efficient Proven High Performance GIS Environment Proven High Performance GIS Environment Faster Transition Faster Transition limited software development to utilize the environment limited software development to utilize the environment Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Software Distribution Improved Software Distribution Easier Database and Hardware Management Easier Database and Hardware Management Cheaper Workstation Refresh Cheaper Workstation Refresh Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff. Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff. Cons Cons Requires additional software licensing Requires additional software licensing Not the Web Not the Web May not meet all FSA requirements (unknown) May not meet all FSA requirements (unknown) Communication with Sys/36 Communication with Sys/36

9. Option 3 Centralized, All Web Web Servers replace all Service Center Servers Web Servers replace all Service Center Servers Migration of all Apps to Web Interface Migration of all Apps to Web Interface Integrated Business Apps Integrated Business Apps Public Access and read-write Web Access to Geospatial Data Public Access and read-write Web Access to Geospatial Data

10. Web Only, Pros and Cons Pros Pros Centralized Environment/Databases supports most FSA current and future needs Centralized Environment/Databases supports most FSA current and future needs Efficient for many types of GIS applications Efficient for many types of GIS applications Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Software Distribution Improved Software Distribution Cheaper Workstation Refresh Cheaper Workstation Refresh Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff. Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff. Cons Cons Slower Transition Slower Transition significant new software development and Database Design significant new software development and Database Design May not be ready when current Environment reaches critical failure May not be ready when current Environment reaches critical failure Performance for heavy editing applications using ArcGIS Server is unproven Performance for heavy editing applications using ArcGIS Server is unproven Land Use would be very risky Land Use would be very risky Development of Full Function GIS apps would be very difficult and slow Development of Full Function GIS apps would be very difficult and slow CLU Maintenance CLU Maintenance Communication with Sys/36 Communication with Sys/36

11. Option 4, Centralized Hybrid Web and Terminal Services Centralized Servers replace Service Center Servers Centralized Servers replace Service Center Servers Some Applications “Desktop”/Term Svcs Some Applications “Desktop”/Term Svcs Apps needing More GIS Functionality Apps needing More GIS Functionality Heavy Polygon editing, Cartographic Needs Heavy Polygon editing, Cartographic Needs CLU Maintenance CLU Maintenance Land Use Land Use Short-term Transition Short-term Transition Many Apps go to the Web Many Apps go to the Web Light Editing, Canned Maps, Canned Reports Light Editing, Canned Maps, Canned Reports Bin Tool, TERRA, CLU Viewers Bin Tool, TERRA, CLU Viewers

12. Hybrid Centralized, Pros and Cons Pros Pros Centralized Environment/Databases support all FSA current and future requirements Centralized Environment/Databases support all FSA current and future requirements Efficient Efficient Faster Transition (limited software development to utilize the environment) Faster Transition (limited software development to utilize the environment) Tools that will remain in Terminal Services long-term Tools that will remain in Terminal Services long-term Tools moved to Term Svcs for an interim period Tools moved to Term Svcs for an interim period Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Allows full integration with Business Apps (SCIMS, Farm Records) Allows mid and long term transition to full Web applications Allows mid and long term transition to full Web applications Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Security of Data and Infrastructure Improved Software Distribution Improved Software Distribution Cheaper Workstation Refresh Cheaper Workstation Refresh Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff Centralized Management. Reduced dependence on Service Center staff Cons Cons Requires additional software licensing for Term Svcs Requires additional software licensing for Term Svcs Communication with Sys/36 Communication with Sys/36

13. What Next? Currently completing new Business Case and Cost Benefit Analysis Currently completing new Business Case and Cost Benefit Analysis Currently testing Terminal Services on a Small Test network using current Applications Currently testing Terminal Services on a Small Test network using current Applications Hope to Pilot Test Citrix Terminal Services for Geospatial Applications later this Fiscal Year Hope to Pilot Test Citrix Terminal Services for Geospatial Applications later this Fiscal Year CLU – Farm Records Data Reconciliation CLU – Farm Records Data Reconciliation

14. Contacts Jim Heald 202-720-0787 Jim Heald 202-720-0787 Jim.heald@wdc.usda.gov Jim.heald@wdc.usda.gov Jim.heald@wdc.usda.gov Ted Payne 202-720-2187 Ted Payne 202-720-2187 Ted.payne@wdc.usda.gov Ted.payne@wdc.usda.gov

15. FSA Compliance Changes GAO Audit GAO Audit Revised Statistical Sampling Method Established Revised Statistical Sampling Method Established Producer Selection – All Programs/All Farms Reviewed Producer Selection – All Programs/All Farms Reviewed FY 2007 – 2000+ Farms FY 2007 – 2000+ Farms Program dependent site visits required throughout the year Program dependent site visits required throughout the year Producer Selection for 2008 in January Producer Selection for 2008 in January

16. Changes Under Review for NAIP More focus on over-all programmatic support and less on compliance (acreage spot check) activity More focus on over-all programmatic support and less on compliance (acreage spot check) activity Move to 1 meter only Move to 1 meter only Revise the cycle timeframe Revise the cycle timeframe FSA area of concern is only CLU areas FSA area of concern is only CLU areas Still Leaf-On/Growing Season, but look at extending collection window Still Leaf-On/Growing Season, but look at extending collection window Determine if flexibility can be provided in delivery timeframes Determine if flexibility can be provided in delivery timeframes Other long term opportunities Other long term opportunities

17. What Remains Constant Partnership Participation Partnership Participation Performance Measures with USGS for 17 Western States Performance Measures with USGS for 17 Western States Continue to work to stabilize funding Continue to work to stabilize funding Need to collect/publicize benefits of NAIP and impacts if the program goes away Need to collect/publicize benefits of NAIP and impacts if the program goes away Continuous Program Improvements Continuous Program Improvements NAIP continues to fit into the IFTN Proposal NAIP continues to fit into the IFTN Proposal

18. Target States for 2008 States “next in line” based on acquisition cycle schedule: *MN, OK, *IN, VA, MA, *NH, *VT, RI, NY** States “next in line” based on acquisition cycle schedule: *MN, OK, *IN, VA, MA, *NH, *VT, RI, NY** Out of Cycle States with potential partnership contributions identified: TN, TX, KS, WI, ID Out of Cycle States with potential partnership contributions identified: TN, TX, KS, WI, ID Out of Cycle States that have more recently indicated potential partnership: NC, ND Out of Cycle States that have more recently indicated potential partnership: NC, ND *Potential State partners identified **FSA planned replacement

19. On-going Activities Reconcile/review requirement submissions Reconcile/review requirement submissions Looking at other issues and opportunities (e.g., discontinue public CCM Downloads, how to handle out of cycle collections) Looking at other issues and opportunities (e.g., discontinue public CCM Downloads, how to handle out of cycle collections) Confirm changes Confirm changes Complete transition plan Complete transition plan Determine funding and subsequent impacts Determine funding and subsequent impacts Formal announcement of changes Formal announcement of changes Continue with planned RFP and selection activities. Continue with planned RFP and selection activities.