Building the National Spatial Data Infrastructure in Alaska

Alaska Geographic Data Committee Presented by: Richard McMahon, DNR

May 9, 2003

Build geographic information partnerships in Alaska

Leverage resources

Promote the visions and goals of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure

JuneauJuneau

BarrowBarrow

OrlandoOrlando

New YorkNew York

1,100 miles1,100 miles

1,100 miles1,100 miles

SIZE AND DISTANCE COMPARISON

At 586,400 square miles, Alaska At 586,400 square miles, Alaska is as wide as the lower 48 statesis as wide as the lower 48 statesand larger than Texas, California and larger than Texas, California and Montana combined and Montana combined

Vision

• Current and accurate geospatial data will be readily available to contribute locally, nationally, and globally to economic growth, environmental quality and stability, and social progress.

• Capture this vision by publishing the Alaska I-Team Plan for NSDI Implementation

AGDC

Some Themes of Data Are Commonly Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Transportation Water Cultural Elevations Parcels Boundaries

Currently use Need

Do you use these themes of digital data?(If no, do you foresee that you might need them?)

1996

Base Map Data FrameworkBase Map Data Framework

In progress

Complete Elevation (general)Elevation (general)

HydrographyHydrography

Geodetic controlGeodetic control

CadastralCadastral

TransportationTransportation

Governmental UnitsGovernmental Units

LandcoverLandcover

BathymetryBathymetry

Elevation (accurate)Elevation (accurate)

Digital OrthoimageryDigital OrthoimageryDoes not exist

The Information Technology Promise

InfrastructureInfrastructure

SpecificSpecificBusiness ApplicationsBusiness Applications

StandardStandardBusiness ApplicationsBusiness Applications

High Value ToHigh Value ToThe BusinessThe Business

Low Value ToLow Value ToThe BusinessThe Business

The Information Technology Challenge

High Value ToHigh Value ToThe BusinessThe Business

Low Value ToLow Value ToThe BusinessThe Business InfrastructureInfrastructure

SpecificSpecificBusiness ApplicationsBusiness Applications

StandardStandardBusinessBusiness ApplicationsApplications

80% Of Budget80% Of Budget80% Of Budget80% Of Budget

20% Of Budget20% Of Budget20% Of Budget20% Of Budget

10

Geographic Data

Base Data Decision Process

Decision Process

Cooperative Agreements:State – BLMState – USGS

Initiatives: eg Cadastral

CadastralGov. Units

16%

Hydrography7%

Transportation 9%

Geodetic Control12%

Elevation Models &

Ortho-Imagery57%

Relative Costs of Framework Layers

Data Sharing & Open Standards

“The Open GIS Consortium envisions the full integration of geospatial data and geoprocessing resources into mainstream computing and the widespread use of interoperable, commercial geoprocessing software throughout the information infrastructure.”

OCG 1996

gIS not GIS - Geoprocessing integrated

into the everyday workflow.

View from 10 Years Ago

Range Check with 1993 Issues 1. No agreed upon national vision of the NSDI, no apparatus to implement it.

Consequently, there is no national policy covering spatial data.

2. Because of the lack of central oversight, there appears to be extensive overlap and duplication in spatial data collection … high variation makes the sharing of spatial data is very difficult or impossible.

3. There are no current mechanisms that allow identification of spatial data have been collected, where the data are stored, who controls access, content of the data, and the data coverage.

4. Standard activities need to be expanded beyond transfer standards. There is no agreed upon representation of “base data” as a function of scale.

5. There are major impediments to, and few workable incentives for, the sharing of spatial data among the federal, state, and local organizations.

Open GIS Consortium, Inc.Open GIS Consortium, Inc.

1-meter resolution

Specifications

Urbanized area, native villages, major transportation corridors and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline

Color-Infrared Imagery

Quarter-quad format

Meets National Map Accuracy Standards

North American Datum 1983

Source: Gust Panos, BLM

Chair OrthoImagery Sub-Committee

Specifications

5-meter resolution

Statewide coverage

Quarter-quad format

Color-Infrared Imagery

Meets National Map Accuracy Standards

North American Datum 1983

LANDSAT 7 BASEMAP PROJECT

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Geographic Information Network of

Alaska

GINA

http://www.ion.gina.alaska.edu/

Statewide Basemap: Suitable for 1:63360

18

Digital Elevation ModelsDEM

Uses of digital elevation data:

aspectdrainagewatershed

slopelandform

contourssolar insolation

Geometric corrections for orthoimagery

Derive topographic information

Color swaths indicate the number of times the area was imaged by SRTM

0 1 2 3 4 ?

Source: Rick Guritz, UAF SAR Facility

22

SAR Tandem Mission: Fairbanks

ESA Tandem Mission Results; Accuracy Assessment

Rick Guritz; ASF Special Projects Manager

Source: Rick Guritz, UAF SAR Facility

23

DEM Control GPS Road Survey

• Methodology: – Conducted GPS surveys

on road – Compare DEM heights vs.

measured GPS heights – Map errors – Statistical summary

comparing GPS with the DEM

Fairbanks GPS Project Lead:

Dave Burns, DNR Forestry Division

24

DNR Forestry GPS Road Survey

Source:Dave Burns,

Division of Forestry Rick Guritz

UAF SAR Facility

25

Statistical AssessmentGPS Road Survey

USGS_ELEV TOPSAR_ELEV TOPSARPRE_ELEV STAR3I_ELEV STAR3IPRE_ELEV TANDEM_ELEV TANDEMPRE_ELEVmin -68.07 -20.39 -111.43 -9.58 -14.28 -30.32 -60.40max 67.24 14.12 20.09 17.70 26.21 7.16 12.07average -1.97 -2.87 -2.59 2.21 1.82 -7.05 -6.45stdevp 12.34 3.61 4.02 3.74 4.74 3.97 5.64rmse 12.50 4.62 4.78 4.35 5.08 8.09 8.56

Source: Rick GuritzUAF SAR Facility

26

DEM SAR Feasibility Assessment

• Product Accuracy - Tandem Results over Fairbanks are well within the National Map accuracy standards (1:24,000 scale). Proceed with further development.

• Data Availability – There is adequate coverage, ascending and descending for ~ 50% of Alaska, ~50% descending only

• Data Quality – Quality is adequate in spite of varying topography and land cover conditions for the majority of the state.

• Distribution – ESA derived products are unrestricted – public domain.

Bathymetry & CoastlineMajor NOAA Bathymetric Studies Underway.

Alaska Coastline

Miles of Coastline

NOAA

26,000 + miles

USGS 1:63,360

40,000+ miles

Geodetic Control

• Low Density Control Grid

• Deployment of CORS Stations Underway

• Plans Tied to Air Transportation Grid - FAA Airports

• Alaska DOT/PF densifying grid along transportation routes.

CORS: Continuously Operating Reference Stations

Alaska Cadastral Project

Source: Alaska BLM Cadastral Survey

30

Topography

Alaska Cadastral

Project Vision

Public Survey

Private Survey

Federal Land Parcels

State Land Parcels

Borough & Muni

Native Parcels

Documents

Ortho-images

Land Use eg. Trails

All Land Owners

Reports and Data Tables

~ 100,000 Plats & Surveys

~100,000 State and Federal Plats and Surveys Available

33

Cadastral: Spatially Enabled Recorder’s Office

No MAP BASED

search option available

34

Contents:Home Download Data Tools and Utilities    Available Surveys    SDMS Township Query New    Protracted Corners New    Township Locator New    Survey Query

Help:    Using Interactive Maps    Frequently Asked Questions    Questions/Comments

Site Information:    Use of Cookies    Disclaimer    Privacy Policy

35

Cadastral – Land Ownership – Governmental Units

Answers the question for industry and the general public:Who administers this land, where are the political jurisdictions?

This layer is about 80% Complete.

Transportation

Alaska Road Network

Alaska Road Network

Alaska has 13,485 miles of roads.

Arkansas a state 1/12th the size ofAlaska has six times the road mileageat 77,085 miles

Transportation Data Sources

Transportation As Part of Statewide Basemap• Statewide Highway System• Borough Roads• Forest Roads - Timber and Fire Programs• Mining Access, RS2477• North Slope Infrastructure• Transportation Planning: Part of 1993 Land

Selections – Corridor Analysis Maps• FAA Airports• Right of Way Projects - Decisions

41

DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM CENTERLINE DATA

• ROADWAY CENTERLINE PROJECT GOAL: create a current, accurate digital dataset of the State Transportation Network using DGPS receivers. 

• New methodology planned for Summer 2003 season, goal is to reduce total cost and time required to process raw data.

• The program has been in place for three field seasons.

• The posted data is a fraction of what has been collected, more data will be added on a regular basis.

• Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Statewide GIS Mapping Section is project manager. 

• http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/mapping/web/dgps_centerline.html

42

State of Alaska Watershed and Stream Hydrography Enhanced Datasets

(AWSHED) Project

Funded by:

Source:

Dennis Tol

Alaska BLM

Sub-Committee Chair

Phone - 907 271-3348E-mail - dtol@ak.blm.gov

43

National Hydrographic Database Alaska Key Products

• Routed stream coverage with standard waterbody identifiers

• Delineated 5th and 6th level Hydrologic Units

• Leading Application: Statewide Fisheries Database- Anadromous Waters Catalog

44

45

Watershed Delineation for the Upper Copper River Catalog Unit(4th Level)

46

47

Alaska Watershed and Stream

Hydrography Enhanced Datasets

Web Site - HTTP://agdc.usgs.gov/hydro

Dennis Tol

Alaska BLMPhone - 907 271-3348

E-mail - dtol@ak.blm.gov

NHD Website: http://nhd.usgs.gov

49

Managing the Geospatial Library

Transportation

FGDC OtherStandards

OGCOMG WWWC ISO SisterDisciplines

© 1998, Open GIS Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved© 1998, Open GIS Consortium, Inc. All Rights Reserved

50

Key Points

Alaska needs a new basemap. The paper based maps from USGS are no longer meeting our needs.

Alaska deserves a digital basemap that is consistent with National Standards.

Basemap information is essential for planning developments, managing assets, improving living conditions, responding to disasters and protecting the environment.

51

Spatial data infrastructure has significant economic benefits to the community. Benefit-Cost ratios have been as high as

9 : 1

Benefits of spatial data increase as more organizations have access to the data. The Alaska Initiatives have broad support in the community. I-Team Plans are the next step.

Key Points