ASPRS PDAD
IADIWG Meeting December 13-15Report
APFO, Salt Lake CityASPRS Tampa 2007 Conference
8 May 2007
Based on ASPRS recommendation and contact with Federal, State, and Local government agencies and their contractors, it was apparent that the many agencies have common, immediate, digital imagery needs and requirements, and that the USGS needed to provided policy, guidelines, and standards for digital image data acquisition. The USGS established and is chairing the Inter-agency Digital Imagery Working Group (IADIWG) in support of new standards and quality assessment methodologies for the calibration of aerial imaging systems. The IADIWG consists of fourteen U.S. Government agencies that have common digital imaging requirements. The purpose of the working group is to identify requirements and issues related to USGS digital imagery acquisition policy, guidelines, and standards that are common to all agencies and to work together toward providing acquisition solutions to the community.
The USGS and the IADIWG held a government and industry focus group workshop in August 2005 to review the digital imagery acquisition guidelines; including contracting process and boilerplate specifications, manufacturer and data provider certification processes, and quality control and quality assurance processes. The focus group workshop was well attended and received by both digital aerial mapping camera manufactures and providers. The results of the workshop and updated draft guidelines and standards were presented to the community at the ASPRS PECORA conference in October 2005.
USGS and the IADIWG held a meeting and presented at the October 2006 ASPRS conference and to the PDAD meeting in Reno, NV.
The IADIWG has been working over the last year to finalize the charter with 14 Federal agencies and held face-to-face meeting in December 2006 at USFS APFO in Salt Lake City. Major areas of discustion and actions from the meeting were:
The next Face-to-Face meeting to be held in June 2007 at Billings Montana at BLM.
The
Meeting Notes:
In Attendance:
Greg Stensaas, Geoff Gabbot, George Lee, Tom Stanley, Stephen White, David Davis, Jon Christopherson, Bryan Christensen, Russ Jackson, Steve Helterbrand, Brian Huberty (phone), Lee Werth (phone) and Ed Freeborn (phone)
Day 1,
Greg Stensaas opened the meeting with a review of the history of IADIWG (Started November 2004) and stressed that IADIWG was still important. He talked about some of the innovations in camera system technology and the need for IADIWG to start thinking about discussing and working onDigital System Radiometry, LiDAR and Multiband imagery. Greg mentioned that an improved CalVal website was available Access to the site is password protected. Account and password can be obtained from Steve Helterbrand.
Agency Updates:
USGS:
George Lee spoke about some of the difficulties currently experienced by the USGS due to the ongoing A76. Both Rolla and Denver are submitting “Most Efficient Organization” (MEO) for themselves, so competing against each other and industry. He talked about the Geospatial Products and Services Contract (GPSE). This contract has both QBS and best value aspects and is being handled by Tim Saultz in Rolla. He also talked about the Commercial Remote Sensing Data Contract (CRSDC). This contract is for purchasing data “off the shelf” if it has already been collected. Satellite and Aerial imagery responsibilities have been assigned to separate parts of the USGS organization. The responsibility for satellite imagery will remain at within Geography at the USGSCenter for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) and the responsibility for aerial imagery will be shared by Geography and GIIA.
Greg provided updates on some of the efforts to design in situ calibration ranges and LiDAR ranges. He also provided an update on manufacturers certifications. Specifically, a visit to Leica on 24 June 2007. Also, Aerial Services (Cedar Falls,IA) is due to receive the first DiMAC camera in the US. Efforts are underway to obtain data for evaluation. USGS EROS and the City of Sioux Falls, SD have cooperated to create an insitu range. Jon mentioned that the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) plan to fly high resolution imagery over EROS in the future.
NOAA:
Stephen White talked about improvements to NOAA’s DSS camera. They have gone to bigger chips. They can have orthorectified imagery, at half-meter accuracy, available within two hours of landing. He mentioned that NOAA can now provide orthorectified imagery for download to the public. They do some contracting but defend their operations by saying they have a congressional mandate to produce a certain amount of coastal mapping each year and to have a plane and sensor available for emergency response. They have money earmarked by congress for purchase of a new plane and sensor. They are looking at splitting work with MAPPS contractors. NOAA will obtain the data and use contractors to process the data.
BOR:
Lee Werth COTR for the aerial photogrammetry contract. BOR is using traditional photogrammetry for elevation data because they have to meet 2 foot National Map Accuracy Standards and LiDAR isn’t capable of doing that at the moment. Their contact for imagery is currently with Aerometric and Horizons. It is a Best value contract because price “is / was” a factor. One factor in their contract is that emergency requests for imagery must be covered with an allotted time frame. Typically the areas they map are small. One example given was 5mile by 5 mile area. The size of the area varies. BOR is also undergoing a “managing for excellence” trend (a fancy name for downsizing). Some of the BOR area offices want to use Satellite data. Recently a request was made to get all of Colorado covered using Landsat. The are cooperating with the University of Nebraska and some other agencies to develop water supply and usages models, that will take into account terraced lands.
FWS:
Brian Huberty. FWS has a plane with a camera port in it. FWS main concerns are obtaining highly accurate imagery in the right time frame. When combating Insect diseases the management timeframes are short so to map them they need quick response for flying and they need the data quickly; less than 2 days. Features in the imagery need to be within one pixel of actual location. They would prefer to use multispectral with “tunable” filters to be able to interpret data quickly. Near real time delivery of imagery is needed for wild fire management
BLM:
Russ Jackson: One of the biggest issues facing BLM is getting contracting officers to understand and appreciate the benefit of Digital imagery for land management issues. It is quicker to deliver and has potentially more bands. Pricing models for the imagery are a deterrent to the acceptance of digital imagery. BLM is working on a bureau-wide geospatial support contract. They want CORs to use this contract so people will use digital data to crate their final products for vegetation studies. Again, time from collection to delivery is a big factor. BLM is looking to use UAVs for data collection. These have the potential to fly in adverse conditions and fly cheaper than manned aircraft. The helped acquire a UAV for University of Alaska, Fairbanks
NASA: Thomas Stanley
Aerial Program has taken a big cut. Everything has to have an “exploration” aspect to get approved. Camera Calibration and Validation activities will be moved to the Research and Analysis part of NASA. Tom talked about potential changes to doing Land Use Characterizations using AWIFS instead of Landsat. Acqua and Terra are at the end of lifespan. NASA is looking at other systems to cover these program issues. Airborne isn’t the answer for them.
FSA, NRCS, USFS: Geoff Gabbot:
Geoff provided a background on NAIP. All 48 contiguous states flown in 2006. Current NAIP contract was a 3yr IDIQ contracted awarded to 10 contractors. All 10 contractors received work via the contract in 2006. Selection is based on past performance, capacity and other measures. In 2006, Digital acquisition passed film acquisition 54% to 46%. He estimated that by 2009 NAIP will be 2/3 digital 1/3 film. The ongoing CR has impacted them a little but they are still planning on procuring imagery at least up to last years level. Some of the imagery they procure is 2meter resolution and some is 1 meter resolution. In response to IFTN discussions, they are planning to go to 1-meter imagery across the board. They have put out a RFI to seek information on the impact of digital imagery and received responses from 13 companies.
NRCS has a requirement for annual photography. The acquire film imagery over 70,000 sites per year. NRCS wants to move to digital after the expiration of the current contract. FSA has similar thoughts.
Break for Lunch:
Membership: There were questions asking about membership from NIST, EPA, COE, DHS and FSA. Discussion centered on who to appoint to contact these agencies: See action items
Charter Discussions: Greg received comments on the charter from Russ, John and Dave. Those comments will be incorporated. There was discussion on what the appropriate level of signer was for the charter. Some agencies are using Bureau Level and some are using Center Chief level. Agencies need to decide and get names to Greg for inclusion in the letter. See Actions:
Contracting Guidelines: Steve H.
Discussed the implementation of a web based glossary, tutorial, and sample image products to help users get the data they need. The primary purpose of the web page would be to provide education to users so that they understand the capabilities of the imagery in relationship to their tasks. Rather than requiring people to specify digital imagery is allows them to understand what they need.
Manufacturer Certification Process: Jon
Jon reported on the status of the Manufactures Certification Process. Most of the Major manufacturer’s have been done or scheduled. DiMAC has (will) ship a camera to Aerial Services and EDC has been working closely with Aerial Services to develop an insitu range. Some concern was expressed over the involvement of Aerial Services in this arrangement since none of the other manufacturer’s were able to have that much “influence.”
Data Providers Certification Process: Bryan C.
Bryan presented his current certification process. Plan on certifying data providers every 3 years and may certify from reports and questionnaires provided by data providers rather than visiting each data provider. There was a lot of discussion on the time frame a certification is good for and also on the merits of a certification that didn’t involve a visit.
Quality Assessment Standards and Tools: Bryan C
Laptop froze up. Had to reboot. Missed this one. Bryan needs to include this
Training Discussions:
Dave Davis offered to help develop tutorials and Russ Jackson mentioned the BLM training center in Phoenix. Steve talked about inviting USGS State Liaisons to participate in development and review of training materials.
Day 2:
IADIWG and NDOP / NDEP Relationship: Lee and Jackson
The purpose for discussing this issue was to help develop interoperability between agencies,to determine if there was a way to build into image format standards and metadata standards. The discussion began with George and Russ providing a background on NDOP and NDEP. USGS funded ASPRS to study and provide guidance for the ortho program. The result of that study was to tie the elevation and ortho programs together. USGS created a “Raster Master” position to handle that activity and appointed George Lee to fill the position. Lots of similarities and differences between the two groups. One striking difference is that NDOP coordinates acquisition of orthophotos. NDEP doesn’t have an acquisition motivation. Tying the programs together could be difficult because NDOP needs elevation to make orthos, NDEP doesn’t care about orthophotos. There are many other uses for elevation data that NDEP is concerned about. The USGS will draft a proposed plan to describe how an elevation program will be responsive to projects. It will recommend data cycles and standards so USGS can shift money to pay for new elevation data in support of Ortho production. USGS is interested in cooperating with states for broad LIDAR coverage There is a big need for the USGS (and other feds) to ramp up their knowledge base in LiDAR and other new technologies so testing (validation and verification ) of data sets can be accomplished responsibly and efficiently. George would like for higher level authorities in each of the IADIWG agencies to voice more support for IADIWG activities. David expressed concerns about diluting the efficiency of NDOP and NDEP for their respective purposes if they are combined. He said that separate groups might cover their specific responsibilities as separate entities. It was suggested that perhaps they be one organization with two sub-committees. One big issue discussed was the need for adequate resources and funding to facilitate research and testing of new technology. Greg suggested annual meetings with NDOP, NDEP and IADIWG to present working plans and coordinate activities.: Actions: see list.
APFO ITT report review: Geoff
APFO wanted some help assessing image quality. They contracted with ITT to study image quality issues. The purpose was to help APFO build image quality into the contracts up front rather than reviewing it in later.
IADIWG Planning:
Greg wants to get our activities into a trackable format like Microsoft Project. Another discussion about membership occurred at this point. The idea being that we are signing a charter and we might as well have all the right groups on the charter.
International Collaboration:
Greg mentioned that EuroSDR, Canada and Australia were all interested in developing guidelines and standards. EuroSDR is established by international Treaty so they would have a lot of influence in Europe. These was discussion about trying to come up with a reciprocal certification between IADIWG and EuroSDR. This would alleviate some concerns by manufacturer’s that they would have to pay for certification in every country they sell cameras. ISPRS commission 1 (working group 6) optical airborne systems was mentioned as a potential working partner.
Relations and integration with DHS, NGS, DOD efforts:
Little discussion here but everyone has an action to seek out POCs in these agencies.
IFTN discussion:
Ted Koch mentioned a proposal by NSGIC for a national orthophoto program to provide consistent funding levels for imager. States are frustrated by the inability of the Federal Government to provide imagery (or funding) consistently. The want a fully funded cyclic program and they want it funded with Federal Dollars but they don’t want federal oversight. Concerns raised included: 1) IFTN is for color photography not CIR. Some federal agencies need CIR. 2)Who is going to QC the “special” products that states want to purchase through IFTN? 3) Data management Issues for distribution, storage, licensing and training. USDA perspective: One difficult contract to manage.
ASPRS conference planning:
Greg mentioned a CRADA written by Ed Freeborn. Everyone should review
Greg is going to send out a PDAD session list to the group.
George stated that ASPRS has formed a special committee to revise a paper called “guidelines for procurement of Phtogrammetric services” The revision is supposed to include geospatial products rather than just photogrammetric services. It was noted that some states prohibit QBS contracts and some States require QBS contracts. MAPPS has filed a lawsuit to require the federal government to honor state requirements.
Round Robin:
Geoff thinks we need to revisit Data Providers Certification. He has some ideas and concerns that he will present.
Next Face-to-face meeting to be held in June 2007 at BillingsMontana.