2005 NAIP Survey

Executive Summary

For

Iowa

USDA

Farm Service Agency

Aerial Photography Field Office

March 2006

**Contents**

**Section Pages**

1.  **Introduction 3**

    1.  **Purpose and Scope**

    2.  **Survey Submittals**

2.  **Qualitative Evaluation Summary 4-5**

**Executive Summary Supplemental Documents (Detached):**

**Executive Summary Supplemental 1 -- NAIP Survey Text Comments for
Question 13 (MS Word)**

**Executive Summary Supplemental 2 -- NAIP Survey Text Comments for
Question 14 (MS Word)**

**Section 1**

1.  **Introduction**

The primary purpose of NAIP is to acquire peak growing season "leaf on"
imagery, and deliver this imagery to United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) County Service Centers in order to maintain Common
Land Unit (CLU) boundaries and assist with crop compliance and a
multitude of other farm programs.

As evidenced by the types of customers requesting NAIP imagery, the
imagery has other purposes as well. Although our primary customers are
States and County Service Centers, other uses for NAIP imagery,
including military, real estate, recreation, planning, etc., cannot be
overlooked.

NAIP is a program with a relatively short history, beginning with pilot
projects in 2001 and 2002, and moving to full volume acquisition in 2003
to 2005, based on funding and partnering. NAIP is moving out of the
research and development phase and into sustainment status. By moving
into a sustainment phase, a program can build and evaluate a quality
business process, and stabilize. Part of this process is evaluating how
NAIP is working for its primary customers.

**1.1 Purpose and Scope**

The focus of this document is to assess in a qualitative manner how NAIP
is satisfying customer needs in Iowa. In other words, "How did APFO do
in providing *useful* NAIP imagery for its primary customer?" Answering
this question comprises the purpose and scope.

2.  **Survey Submittals**

For the initial disposition, the following States were sent surveys to
disseminate to County Service Centers for completion: WA, OR, OK, KS,
NE, MO, **IA**, MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, CT, and NC. No responses were
received from KS or AZ by the 15 Dec 2005 due date. WA noted that they
would respond to the survey, but due to imagery delivery/redelivery
dates, responses would likely be after 15 Dec.

A second waive of surveys was sent to the following States to
disseminate to County Service Centers for completion: CA, CO, MT, ND,
SD, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, VA, MD, PA, MI, RI, and CT. Responses
were requested by 17 Feb, and by 9 Mar for select states which received
imagery "late". Surveys were accidentally sent to CT twice, however,
County Service Centers only responded once. LA noted that they would
only be able to get a few Counties to complete the survey by the 9 Mar
due date. MI noted they would not be able to participate in the survey
because of CIR rework that would be completed after the survey due date.
MT noted that due to the late distribution of imagery, surveys would
likely be returned after the 9 Mar due date. During the second waive of
surveys, no survey responses were received by CO, GA, MI, or AL. Surveys
received after 9 Mar 06 were not scored.

**Section 2**

**2.0 Qualitative Evaluation Summary**

NAIP Assessment Surveys were provided by email to County Service Centers
via State Offices on 3 Nov 2005, and responses were requested by 15 Dec
05. Out of the responses received in Iowa, 4334 of a possible 5280
points were achieved, for a weighted average score out of 1.0 of .821,
for a rating of 82.1%. Translated into survey terms, this is an overall
rating of "Satisfied". The map on the following page graphically
represents overall survey results by county. These results indicate that
generally the counties that participated in the survey were satisfied
with 2005 NAIP and that the products met customer needs most of the
time. However, there is room for improvement.

Most textual comments from the survey revolved around color
quality/resolution, not being able to discern particular crops from
others, and timing of imagery acquisition and delivery. Textual comments
can be found in the Executive Summary Supplementals 1 and 2. A
statistical summary by question of survey results is shown below: Note
that Q1-8 are out of a possible 5 points and Q9-10 are out of a possible
10 points. Statistically, the lowest average scoring question was Q7,
"Is the imagery useful for government coordination, for example, in
communications with other Federal, State or local agencies?"
Statistically, the highest scoring questions were Q1 and Q4, "Was the
imagery received by your office in time to be useful for crop compliance
work?" and "Is the imagery useful for CLU maintenance?" respectively.

![](media/image1.png){width="6.252777777777778in"
height="3.245833333333333in"}

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="9.485416666666667in"
height="6.323611111111111in"}