Data Development Subcommittee Imagery Team MinutesApril 16, 2007

Data Development Subcommittee Imagery Team MinutesApril 16, 2007

The St Louis Imagery Meeting was held on April 16 at the St Louis Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD), 2350 Market Street in St Louis.

There were 23 people in attendance, Ray Fox (USGS Geospatial Liaison to Missouri), and Shelley Silch (USGS Geospatial Liaison to Illinois) led the meeting. The USGS, MSD, and St Louis County have cooperated on one-foot orthorectified imagery for the St Louis region in 2002, 2004, and 2006. As many cities and counties in the region have requirements for this imagery the meeting was held to gather requirements and explore development of a consortium to expand the area of coverage. The following counties were represented in Missouri; St Charles, St Louis, St Louis City. The Illinois counties of Madison, St Clair, and Monroe were also represented. Jefferson County Missouri was the only county in the region unable to attend. Missouri cities of Hazelwood, Chesterfield, Maryland Heights, St Peters and Ellisville were represented along with East West Gateway Coordinating Council, Laclede Gas, the St Louis Corps of Engineers, and MSD. Sanborn and Surdex Corporations were also in attendance.

The meeting Agenda is inbold, minutes follow the agenda item.

1. Introductions Each person was asked to identify themselves and their orthoimagry requirements.

2. Why we are here, 2008 Imagery

a. 2008 Imagery Requirements

The consensus of the group was for six inch resolution imagery.

b. 133 Urban Area Program explanation

Ray gave a brief overview of the 133 Urban Area Program which the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) funds through USGS. NGA needs one foot true color or better imagery that is less than two years old for St Louis.

3. Need for a consortium

a. Omaha example

Ray described how the Omaha Nebraska consortium has grown over the years to include more cities and counties in that region. Success from the last imagery acquisition builds more trust and cooperation to where all the counties in the region in both Nebraska and Iowa are cooperating, and counties outside the Omaha region in Nebraska are also now members of the consortium. The regional planning commission takes the lead and serves as the financial lead with each state, county and city signing financial obligating documents with the commission.

b. Chicago example

Shelley described how the Chicago region has also successfully come together, but without the regional council of government taking a lead role. The USGS has taken this responsibility which is the consensus for how the St Louis region should operate.

4. How do we get products?

a. Geospatial Products and Services Contract (GPSC)

The USGS has developed a new Architect-Engineer contract which has pre-approved contractors. The GPSC staff prepares task orders based on the customers requirements and ensure that the deliveries meet those requirements through an inspection process.

b. Missouri Option

Missouri is the second year of a two-year imagery for the state project which has a buy up option for local government.

5. What products do we want/need?

a. Imagery

i. one foot

The estimate for one foot imagery is $150-$200 per square mile

ii. six inch

The estimate for six inch imagery is $200-$250 per square mile.

These estimates were derived from a Request for Information Missouri issued last August along with actual costs from other recent acquisitions. The consensus was to go for the six inch resolution.

b. Elevation

i. Contours

The actual cost of the imagery is very dependant upon the amount of work the contractor must do to achieve a surface elevation model that will support the desired image resolution. A six inch resolution image that meets National Map Accuracy Standards typically needs a surface elevation that supports a two foot contour accuracy.


LIDAR provides a very accurate surface elevation model but is expensive to obtain. MSD has LIDAR for its area of responsibility. All participants were asked to investigate their existing elevation data model.

6. USGS/NGA contribution 116K USGS has $116,000 to contribute for this project through NGA.

7. Quality Control vs Inspection/Validation USGS has capacity to only do an inspection of the data. Contributing members will need to devise a quality control process. USGS can provide their procedures.

ACTIONS:A working group comprised of Andrew Wagner, Paul Trudt, Fred Jones, MelisaMcLean, June Nunn, Charles Kofron, and Ray Fox was formed to develop the specifications. The group is scheduled to meet in Mid-May.



Comments are closed.