UN Establishes Expert Geospatial Information Group

August 16, 2011 at 9:32 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

Source – Geoconnexion:

UN establishes expert geospatial information group

16 August 2011, 10:32am
UN establishes expert geospatial information group

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) made history earlier this month in Geneva by establishing a new intergovernmental body to address an emerging global issue. The UN Committee on Global Geospatial Information Management would bring together, for the first time at the global level, government experts from all member states to consult on the rapidly changing field of geospatial information.

At a time when few new intergovernmental bodies are being created, this decision reflected ECOSOC’s concern for promoting greater and wider use of geospatial information globally for sustainable development and humanitarian assistance. . . . [Full Story]

Disaster Charter: Flood in Niigata, Japan

August 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The Disasters Charter has been activated for a Flood in Niigata, Japan:

Flood in Niigata, Japan

Type of Event: Floods
Location of Event: Japan
Date of Charter Activation: 30/07/2011
Charter Requestor: Masaru Arakida, ADRC, on behalf of Niigata Prefecture
Project Management: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)

Description of the Event
Local governments in Niigata and Fukushima prefectures on Friday issued evacuation advisories to thousands of residents due to record rainfall in the two prefectures.

In Niigata Prefecture, the city of Sanjo advised about 88,000 people in 30,000 households to evacuate so it can discharge water that has flooded into Kasabori dam, while another 5,100 people from some 1,500 households in four other cities were also asked to take refuge in safe places.

In Fukushima Prefecture, the town of Tadami issued an evacuation advisory to all of its residents; about 4,800 people in 1,800 households while local fire-fighters said they received information that one person was caught in a mudslide.

Official Version of India’s New Data Policy is Available

July 7, 2011 at 5:30 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty
Source: ISRO
Download

Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP – 2011)
Recognising that Remote Sensing data provides much essential and critical information – which is an input for developmental activities at different levels, and is also of benefit to society;
Noting that a large number of users – both within and outside government, use Remote Sensing data from Indian and foreign remote sensing satellites for various developmental applications;
Taking into consideration the recent availability of very high-resolution images, from foreign and commercial remote sensing satellites, and noting the need for proper and better management of the data acquisition/ distribution from these satellites in India;
Recognising that national interest is paramount, and that security consideration of the country needs to be given utmost importance;
The Government of India adopts the Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP) – 2011 containing modalities for managing and/ or permitting the acquisition/ dissemination of remote sensing data in support of developmental activities.
Department of Space (DOS) of the Government of India shall be the nodal agency for all actions under this policy, unless otherwise stated.
1. For operating a remote sensing satellite from India, license and/ or permission of the Government, through the nodal agency, shall be necessary.
a. As a national commitment and as a “public good”, Government assures a continuous and improved observing/ imaging capability from its own Indian Remote Sensing Satellites (IRS) programme.
b. The Government, through the nodal agency, shall be the sole and exclusive owner of all data collected/ received from IRS. All users will be provided with only a license to use the said data, and add value to the satellite data.
c. Government reserves the right to impose control over imaging tasks and distribution of data from IRS or any other Indian remote sensing satellite,

India Changes Remote Sensing Restrictions

July 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

Source – Spatial Sustain:

India Eases Remote Sensing Restrictions

by Matt Ball on July 4, 2011

The government of India made two major data sharing policy decisions today regarding remote sensing. They have opened up the possibility for more government agencies to own and operate remote sensing satellites other than the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), and they have freed up all remote sensing imagery up to one meter resolution, where the previous restriction required data up to 5.8 meter resolution to be protected. . . . [Full Story]

Earth Imagery Firm RapidEye Seeking Bankruptcy ProtectionSource

June 30, 2011 at 11:14 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

Source: Space News

by Peter de Selding

PARIS — Germany’s pioneering RapidEye Earth imagery provider, which has taken the privatization of satellite Earth imagery perhaps further than any other company, has filed for Germany’s equivalent of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after breaching several of its loan covenants, RapidEye Chief Executive Wolfgang Biedermann said June 2.

Brandenberg-based RapidEye, whose constellation of five 150-kilogram optical Earth observation satellites was launched in August 2008, will continue operations and expects to emerge from a court-supervised restructuring with a more manageable debt, Biedermann said.

In an interview, Biedermann said RapidEye, which has never sought to hide the difficulties of a business model without a major long-term government customer guarantee, is confident that its principal financial sponsors are willing to reorganize the company’s debt profile to allow the business to proceed. Whether that will include new ownership as part of the insolvency proceedings, he said, is unknown. More…

Italy-Egypt Space Cooperation

June 28, 2011 at 11:30 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law, Space Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

Source – Italian Space Agency:

COSMO-SkyMed: agreement with Egypt
The first agreement to collaborate with Egypt in the field of space observation signed

15 Jun 2011

Yesterday in Cairo the ASI President, Enrico Saggese, and the President of NARSS (National Authority for Remote Sensing and Space Sciences), Ayman El-Dessouki, signed the first agreement of collaboration in space between Italy and Egypt in the field of Earth observation. The ceremony, which took place during the Italian-Egyptian Science Day, was opened by the Italian ambassador, Claudio Pacifico, in the presence of the Italian Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Vincenzo Scotti and four Egyptian ministers, the Minister for Education and Research, the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Electricity and Energy.

In his presentation, the ASI president showed numerous satellite images of Egypt, taken by the Italian radar system COSMO-SkyMed. Among the ‘assets’ of the Italian system that were greatly appreciated was the fact that the radar data, more than the optical data, allows us to effectively monitor the territory. ASI also participated in a workshop on the use of remote sensing data in archaeology. Egyptologists, geologists, historians and physicists gathered together to explore methods and new disciplines connected to the space data, useful in monitoring an extremely fluid and dynamic territory such as the desert and, in particular, the Egyptian desert, which still remains largely unexplored.

S. 1223: Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011

June 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces, Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

S. 1223: Location Privacy Protection Act of 2011 was introduced on June 16, 2011 by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN).

H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act

June 20, 2011 at 10:31 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces, Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

H.R. 2168: Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act was introduced on June 14, 2011 by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT3):

HR 2168 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2168

To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 14, 2011

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLES.

This Act may be cited as the `Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act’ or the `GPS Act’.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.

(a) In General- Part 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 119 the following:

`CHAPTER 120–GEOLOCATION INFORMATION

`Sec.

`2601. Definitions.

`2602. Interception and disclosure of geolocation information.

`2603. Prohibition of use as evidence of acquired geolocation information.

`2604. Emergency situation exception.

`2605. Recovery of civil damages authorized.

`Sec. 2601. Definitions

`In this chapter:

`(1) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE- The term `electronic communication service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2510.

`(2) ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE- The term `electronic surveillance’ has the meaning given that term in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

`(3) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION- The term `geolocation information’ means, with respect to a person, any information that is not the content of a communication, concerning the location of a wireless communication device or tracking device (as that term is defined section 3117) that, in whole or in part, is generated by or derived from the operation of that device and that could be used to determine or infer information regarding the location of the person.

`(4) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `geolocation information service’ means the provision of a global positioning service or other mapping, locational, or directional information service to the public, or to such class of users as to be effectively available to the public, by or through the operation of any wireless communication device, including any mobile telephone, global positioning system receiving device, mobile computer, or other similar or successor device.

`(5) INTERCEPT- The term `intercept’ means the acquisition of geolocation information through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

`(6) INVESTIGATIVE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER- The term `investigative or law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States or of a State or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or to make arrests for, offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses.

`(7) PERSON- The term `person’ means any employee or agent of the United States, or any State or political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust, or corporation.

`(8) REMOTE COMPUTING SERVICE- The term `remote computing service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2711.

`(9) STATE- The term `State’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

`(10) WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE- The term `wireless communication device’ means any device that enables access to, or use of, an electronic communication system or service, remote computing service, or geolocation information service, if that device utilizes a radio or other wireless connection to access such system or service.

`(11) COVERED SERVICE- The term `covered services’ means electronic communication service, remote computing service, or of geolocation information service.

`Sec. 2602. Interception and disclosure of geolocation information

`(a) In General-

`(1) PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSURE OR USE- Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to–

`(A) intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, geolocation information pertaining to another person;

`(B) intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person geolocation information pertaining to another person, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in violation of this paragraph;

`(C) intentionally use, or endeavor to use, any geolocation information, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in violation of this paragraph; or

`(D)(i) intentionally disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the geolocation information pertaining to another person intercepted by means authorized by subsections (b) through (h), except as provided in such subsections;

`(ii) knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of such information in connection with a criminal investigation;

`(iii) having obtained or received the information in connection with a criminal investigation; and

`(iv) with intent to improperly obstruct, impede, or interfere with a duly authorized criminal investigation.

`(2) PENALTY- Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

`(b) Exception for Information Acquired in the Normal Course of Business- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of covered services, whose facilities are used in the transmission of geolocation information, to intercept, disclose, or use that information in the normal course of the officer, employee, or agent’s employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of a geolocation information service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks.

`(c) Exception for Conducting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance- Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of the official duty of the officer, employee, or agent to conduct electronic surveillance, as authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

`(d) Exception for Consent-

`(1) IN GENERAL- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person to intercept geolocation information pertaining to another person if such other person has given prior consent to such interception unless such information is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.

`(2) CHILDREN- The exception in paragraph (1) permits a parent or legal guardian of a child to intercept geolocation information pertaining to that child or to give consent for another person to intercept such information.

`(e) Exception for Public Information- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for any person to intercept or access geolocation information relating to another person through any system that is configured so that such information is readily accessible to the general public.

`(f) Exception for Emergency Information- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for any investigative or law enforcement officer or other emergency responder to intercept or access geolocation information relating to a person if such information is used–

`(1) to respond to a request made by such person for assistance; or

`(2) in circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that the life or safety of the person is threatened, to assist the person.

`(g) Exception for Theft or Fraud- It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept geolocation information pertaining to the location of another person who has unlawfully taken the device sending the geolocation information if–

`(1) the owner or operator of such device authorizes the interception of the person’s geolocation information;

`(2) the person acting under color of law is lawfully engaged in an investigation; and

`(3) the person acting under color of law has reasonable grounds to believe that the geolocation information of the other person will be relevant to the investigation.

`(h) Exception for Warrant-

`(1) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection:

`(A) COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION- The term `court of competent jurisdiction’ includes–

`(i) any district court of the United States (including a magistrate judge of such a court) or any United States court of appeals that–

`(I) has jurisdiction over the offense being investigated;

`(II) is in or for a district in which the provider of a geolocation information service is located or in which the geolocation information is stored; or

`(III) is acting on a request for foreign assistance pursuant to section 3512 of this title; or

`(ii) a court of general criminal jurisdiction of a State authorized by the law of that State to issue search warrants.

`(B) GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY- The term `governmental entity’ means a department or agency of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof.

`(2) WARRANT- A governmental entity may intercept geolocation information or require the disclosure by a provider of covered services of geolocation information only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction, or as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

`(i) Prohibition on Divulging Geolocation Information-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), a person providing covered services shall not intentionally divulge geolocation information pertaining to another person.

`(2) EXCEPTIONS- A person providing covered services may divulge geolocation information–

`(A) as otherwise authorized in subsections (b) through (h);

`(B) with the lawful consent of such other person;

`(C) to another person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such geolocation information to its destination; or

`(D) which was inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appears to pertain to the commission of a crime, if such divulgence is made to a law enforcement agency.

`Sec. 2603. Prohibition of use as evidence of acquired geolocation information

`Whenever any geolocation information has been acquired, no part of such information and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.

`Sec. 2604. Emergency situation exception

`(a) Emergency Situation Exception- Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any investigative or law enforcement officer, specially designated by the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Associate Attorney General, or by the principal prosecuting attorney of any State or subdivision thereof acting pursuant to a statute of that State, may intercept geolocation information if–

`(1) such officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists that–

`(A) involves–

`(i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person;

`(ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest; or

`(iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime; and

`(B) requires geolocation information be intercepted before an order authorizing such interception can, with due diligence, be obtained;

`(2) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered to authorize such interception; and

`(3) an application for an order approving such interception is made within 48 hours after the interception has occurred or begins to occur.

`(b) Failure To Obtain Court Order-

`(1) TERMINATION OF ACQUISITION- In the absence of an order, an interception of geolocation information carried out under subsection (a) shall immediately terminate when the information sought is obtained or when the application for the order is denied, whichever is earlier.

`(2) PROHIBITION ON USE AS EVIDENCE- In the event such application for approval is denied, the geolocation information shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter and an inventory shall be served on the person named in the application.

`Sec. 2605. Recovery of civil damages authorized

`(a) In General- Any person whose geolocation information is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate.

`(b) Relief- In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes–

`(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

`(2) damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

`(3) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

`(c) Computation of Damages- The court may assess as damages under this section whichever is the greater of–

`(1) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation; or

`(2) statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.

`(d) Defense- It is a complete defense against any civil or criminal action brought against an individual for conduct in violation of this chapter if such individual acted in a good faith reliance on–

`(1) a court warrant or order, a grand jury subpoena, a legislative authorization, or a statutory authorization;

`(2) a request of an investigative or law enforcement officer under section 2604; or

`(3) a good-faith determination that an exception under section 2602 permitted the conduct complained of.

`(e) Limitation- A civil action under this section may not be commenced later than two years after the date upon which the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

`(f) Administrative Discipline- If a court or appropriate department or agency determines that the United States or any of its departments or agencies has violated any provision of this chapter, and the court or appropriate department or agency finds that the circumstances surrounding the violation raise serious questions about whether or not an officer or employee of the United States acted willfully or intentionally with respect to the violation, the department or agency shall, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the decision and findings of the court or appropriate department or agency promptly initiate a proceeding to determine whether disciplinary action against the officer or employee is warranted. If the head of the department or agency involved determines that disciplinary action is not warranted, such head shall notify the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the department or agency concerned and shall provide the Inspector General with the reasons for such determination.

`(g) Improper Disclosure Is Violation- Any willful disclosure or use by an investigative or law enforcement officer or governmental entity of information beyond the extent permitted by this chapter is a violation of this chapter for purposes of this section.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters for part 1 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 119 the following:

2601′.

(c) Conforming Amendments- Section 3512(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (2)–

(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), respectively; and

(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:

`(B) a warrant or order for geolocation information or records related thereto, as provided under section 2602 of this title;’.

SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT FOR SEARCH WARRANTS TO ACQUIRE GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is amended–

(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking the period at the end and inserting a comma and `including geolocation information.’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(F) `Geolocation information’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601 of title 18, United States Code.’.

SEC. 4. FRAUD AND RELATED ACTIVITY IN CONNECTION WITH OBTAINING GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.

(a) Criminal Violation- Section 1039(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in paragraph (2)–

(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and’ at the end;

(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon and `and’; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(C) includes any geolocation information service.’;

(2) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) GEOLOCATION INFORMATION SERVICE- The term `geolocation information service’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601.’.

(b) Conforming Amendments-

(1) DEFINITION AMENDMENTS- Section 1039(h)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(A) in the paragraph heading, by inserting `OR GPS’ after `PHONE’; and

(B) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- Section 1039 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(A) in the section heading by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’;

(B) in subsection (a)–

(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’; and

(ii) in paragraph (4), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’;

(C) in subsection (b)–

(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting `or GPS’ after `Phone’;

(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’ both places that term appears; and

(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’; and

(D) in subsection (c)–

(i) in the subsection heading, by inserting `or GPS’ after `Phone’;

(ii) in paragraph (1), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’ both places that term appears; and

(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting `or GPS’ after `phone’.

(3) CHAPTER ANALYSIS- The table of sections for chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 1039 and inserting the following:

`1039. Fraud and related activity in connection with obtaining confidential phone or GPS records information of a covered entity.’.

(c) Sentencing Guidelines-

(1) REVIEW AND AMENDMENT- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing Commission, pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, shall review and, if appropriate, amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable to persons convicted of any offense under section 1039 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by this section.

(2) AUTHORIZATION- The United States Sentencing Commission may amend the Federal sentencing guidelines in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987 (28 U.S.C. 994 note) as though the authority under that section had not expired.

SEC. 5. STATEMENT OF EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF ACQUIRING GEOLOCATION INFORMATION.

(a) In General- No person may acquire the geolocation information of a person for protective activities or law enforcement or intelligence purposes except pursuant to a warrant issued pursuant to rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by section 3, or the amendments made by this Act, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801).

(b) Geolocation Information Defined- In this section, the term `geolocation information’ has the meaning given that term in section 2601 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2.

Moscow court upholds ban against satellite image distributor

May 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

Source – EARSC:

Moscow court upholds ban against satellite image distributor

A Moscow court upheld a ban on Friday prohibiting the Russian research and development company ScanEx from distributing satellite images of Earth at a resolution higher than two meters.

Scanex works under license from the Russian federal space agency, Roscosmos, to collect, process and disseminate Earth remote sensing data. . . . [Full Story]

Disasters Charter: Flood in Central Midwest, USA

April 29, 2011 at 10:28 am | Posted in Remote Sensing Law | Leave a comment

by P.J. Blount with the blog faculty

The Disasters Charter has been activated for Flood in Central Midwest, USA:

Flood in Central Midwest, USA

Type of Event: Flood
Location of Event: Midwest, USA
Date of Charter Activation: 28/04/2011
Charter Requestor: USGS on behalf of US Corps of Engineers, States of Missouri and Illinois
Project Management: University of Wyoming

Description of the Event:
Flood stage in Cairo is at 40 feet, and the river is expected to crest soon at 60.5. Additional heavy rains of 2+ inches overnight in southern Illinois caused many smaller streams to again rise to flood levels. This is in addition to already high levels on larger streams in southern IL. Water levels exceed NWS Flood Stage at 40 USGS streamgages in IL. Moderate to major flooding is occurring on the Kaskaskia, Big Muddy, Illinois, Little Wabash Rivers as well as border rivers (Wabash, Mississippi and Ohio Rivers).

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | The Pool Theme.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.