1. Imagery For The Nation Cost Benefit Analysis October 24, 2007

2. 2 Agenda  Introduction  Methodology  Description of Current State and Future State  Description of Alternatives  Assessment of Alternatives  Findings

3. 3 Purpose & Scope  The Purpose of the IFTN Cost Benefit Analysis is to:  Respond to FGDC tasking to NDOP  Assist with IFTN program and budget decisions  Provide justification for future planning  Demonstrate the need for consistent federal funding  Identify lead federal agencies to facilitate coordination mechanisms  The Scope of the Cost Benefit Analysis consists of:  A study that is modeled after OMB Circular A-94, and follows USDA and USDOI 2007 Information Technology Capital Planning g uidance  An assessment of the baseline and four IFTN proposed alternatives  Evaluation of the proposed alternatives to include calculation of financial metrics (ROI, NPV)  Recommendations based on statistically valid data gathered from representatives of the orthoimagery community

4. 4 Methodology Methodology Overview ProcedureActivity Identify Alternatives Status quo (baseline) and four viable alternatives were identified through consultation with IFTN Sponsors. Perform Data Collection Primary and secondary data collection was gathered on 643 programs (govt. agencies, private sector users, photogrammetric firms) using interviews, surveys, and facilitated sessions. Estimate Costs Lifecycle costs were estimated for the period from 2007 – 2016 adhering to OMB A-94 guidance. Estimate Benefits Quantifiable (cost savings and cost avoidance) and non-quantifiable lifecycle benefits were estimated based on SAMPLE SIZE ONLY. Compare Alternatives Alternatives were evaluated in the following areas: Business processes, cost, non-quantifiable benefits, risk, and requirements.

5. 5 Current State Business Processes are hampered by a lack of coordination between federal, state, and local government resulting in overlapping imagery acquisition efforts and disparate employment of standards.  Orthoimagery coverage limited in accessibility and scalability  Common standards are not universally implemented  Limited coordination between all levels of government results in duplicative efforts  Each organization independently manages its program, regardless of jurisdictional consideration or sharing similar requirements with other organizations Description of Current State

6. 6 Description of Future State  Creates a national aerial imagery program to collect and disseminate standardized multi- resolution products on “set” schedules  Federal, state, and local partners can exercise cost sharing options for any required orthoimagery enhancements  Provides a reliable business model for orthoimagery production  IFTN imagery will be placed in the public domain and archived for historical purposes IFTN proposes streamlined business processes through a single coordination and distribution entity that will concentrate on acquisition and standardization concerns.

7. 7 Description of Alternatives  Alternative #1 – Original IFTN Concept  Nationwide coverage of 1-m resolution imagery that is federally funded  1-ft resolution imagery that is federally funded with coverage that is determined by a population model  6-in resolution imagery of identified urbanized areas that is acquired through a mandatory 50% cost share program  Frequency: ―1 M. = Every Year in Lower 48 States, 3 Years HI and Insular Areas, 5 Years AK ―1 Ft. & 6 In. = Every 3 Years  Alternative #2 – Original IFTN Concept with Full Federal Funding for 1-ft Program/No population model  Alternative #3 – Original IFTN Concept with Mandatory 50% Cost Share for 1-ft Program/No population model  Alternative #4 – Original IFTN Concept with Optional 50% Cost Share for 1-ft Program/No population model

8. 8 Assessment of Alternatives  The alternatives were evaluated using the following criteria:  Business Processes – Current and future state approach to examine the concept of operations.  Non-Quantifiable Benefits – Those which cannot be assigned a numeric value, and can be related to improvements in quality of service, improved decision making, and enhanced products.  Cost Comparison – Cost effectiveness of each alternative. Determined using several financial metrics (ROI and NPV).  Business Requirements – Ability of each alternative to meet the expected user requirements.  Risk – Ability of the alternative to achieve overall investment objectives within defined financial, technical, operational, legal and contractual, and organizational constraints.

9. 9 Findings: Functional Comparison of the Current State and Alternatives Criteria Current State Alternative #1: Original IFTN Concept Alternative #2: Original IFTN Concept with Full Federal Funding for 1-ft Program Alternative #3: Original IFTN Concept with Mandatory 50% Cost Share for 1-ft Program Alternative #4: Original IFTN Concept with Optional 50% Cost Share for 1-ft Program Score Business Processes 24444 Non-Quantifiable Benefits 24444 Cost 24113 Business Requirements 13322 Risk 12324 Total Score: 817151317 Rating Scale: 1-Lowest value2-Marginal value3-Good value4-Best value

10. 10 Findings: Preferred Alternative  This alternative presents a positive ROI and NPV while providing an equitable program to all federal, state, and local agencies.  This is particularly appealing to western states, since most of their less populous areas require higher resolution imagery to support industries such as, utility corridors, transportation, energy development, and tourism.  The rate of adoption of such a program is also estimated to be higher than that of Alternative #1 due to the population requirements which limit the national coverage of 1-ft imagery.  Alternative #4 offers the flexibility that will allow statewide coordinating councils (with federal representation) to determine the exact land area of coverage for the 1-ft program. The Preferred Alternative is #4: Original IFTN Concept with Optional 50% Cost Share for 1-ft Program

11. 11 Breakout of Total Costs by Agency: Alternative #4 Other Surveyed Programs includes costs of federal, state, and local programs adopting IFTN between FY07 and FY12. The total costs assume a 90% adoption rate for these programs by 2012, with 10% residual for the remainder of the lifecycle.

12. 12 Financial Viability of Alternative #4  The estimated ROI of 0.37:1 for Alternative #4 means that benefits from cost savings and avoidance will accrue at a rate estimated at $0.37 for each $1 of non-recurring investment funding.  The Net Present Value of the estimated lifecycle benefits ($31M) represents 2% of the total risk adjusted life cycle costs of Alternative #4.  There is a positive correlation between quantifiable benefits and identification of additional baseline programs. This translates to a direct increase in both ROI and NPV for every additional program respondent.  Bottom line financial conclusion demonstrates program consolidation and IFTN adoption decreases costs for federal, state, and local programs.

13. 13 Questions & Answers