# Presentation: 207853

## USDA 2008 Imagery Planning Meeting

- Shirley Hall
- Farm Service Agency

## System of Records Changes

- Program Compliance Changes

- Changing Imagery Needs and NAIP

- GIS Centralization Effort

**Farm Service Agency**

## System of Records

**Public Federal Notices of System of Records Changes**
- CIMS (12/11/07)
- Multiple (12/12/07)
- 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

## Move to GIS Centralization: The Problem

- Service Center Servers are old and outdated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

## Option 1 Enhanced Distributed Environment

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

## Distributed, Pros and Cons

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

## Option 2 – Centralized, Terminal Services Environment 

- Centralized Servers Replace Service Center Servers
- Utilizes Current Desktop Applications running remotely
- New apps would be added as necessary
- Increased integration of Business Apps over time
- Public access and View Only Web access to Geospatial Data

## Term Svcs Only, Pros and Cons

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

## Option 3 Centralized, All Web

- Web Servers replace all Service Center Servers
- Migration of all Apps to Web Interface
- Integrated Business Apps
- Public Access and read-write Web Access to Geospatial Data

## Web Only, Pros and Cons

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

## Option 4, Centralized Hybrid Web and Terminal Services

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

## Hybrid Centralized, Pros and Cons

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

## What Next?

- Currently completing new Business Case and Cost Benefit Analysis
- 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
- CLU – Farm Records Data Reconciliation

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

- Jim Heald 202-720-0787
- _[Jim.heald@wdc.usda.gov](mailto:Jim.heald@wdc.usda.gov)_
- Ted Payne 202-720-2187
- Ted.payne@wdc.usda.gov

## FSA Compliance Changes

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

## Changes Under Review for NAIP

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

## What Remains Constant

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

## Target States for 2008

- 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 that have more recently indicated potential partnership: NC, ND
- *Potential State partners identified
- **FSA planned replacement

## On-going Activities

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