1. National Spatial Data Infrastructure Federal Geographic Data Committee David Painter 2001 NSDI Cooperative Agreements Program

2. CAP projects (1994 - 2000) l clearinghouse implementations l metadata training l metadata thematic implementations l metadata tool development l educational outreach l framework implementations l standards development & implementation l establishment of coordination groups l web mapping testbed software development l U.S & Canadian collaboration

3. CAP Guidelines l Fund new organizations l Funding at seed level l Fund proven solutions l Sustainable projects l Encourage/require: - Partnerships - In-kind resource match

4. CAP Guidelines l Fund infrastructure development - Not data collection - Not GIS startup or upgrades l Cooperative agreement not contract, not pure grant l Year performance period l Project outcomes measurable

5. CAP - Federal participants l Federal & non-federal cannot compete (separate $ allocations) l Some agencies cannot participate l Federal organizations must budget funding for following FY l NBII funding contribution

6. NSDI Cooperative Agreement Program Funding & Awards Over 300 awards involving over 900 organizations 199419951996199719981999 Awards 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Funds Thousaands $ AwardsFunds ~ $9 M Since 1994 Since 1994 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7. CAP sector participation State government Academic institutions Federal agencies County & city government Regional organizations Tribal government Private business

8. 2000 CAP Program Award Categories 1. Metadata training and assistance “Don’t Duck Metadata” 30 awards ($2,000 - $30,000) 30 awards ($2,000 - $30,000) 2. ISO Metadata Software Development - 2 awards ($30,000) 2. ISO Metadata Software Development - 2 awards ($30,000) 3. ISO Metadata Training Development - 1 award ($70,000) 3. ISO Metadata Training Development - 1 award ($70,000) 4. Web Mapping Testbed Projects - 4 awards ($55,000) 4. Web Mapping Testbed Projects - 4 awards ($55,000) 5. Framework Demonstration Projects (US) - 4 awards $70,000) 5. Framework Demonstration Projects (US) - 4 awards $70,000) 6. Canadian & US Framework Projects (US/CA) - 1 award $55,000) 6. Canadian & US Framework Projects (US/CA) - 1 award $55,000) $1,000,000 total funds

9. “Don’t Duck Metadata” CAP Metadata Assistance Program 2000 1999

10. Interoperability & Web Mapping Testbed Projects

11. NSDI Framework Projects 1996 1997 1998 2000

12. 2001 Cooperative Agreements Program (timeline)  November 2000 announcement  January-February 2001 open period  Awards April – May 2001  www.fgdc.gov on-line information

13. n Metadata training and assistance n Clearinghouse integration with Web Mapping n Canadian & US Framework Projects (US/CAN) n US Framework projects? 2001 CAP Project Categories $1,000,000 total funds

14. 2001 CAP Don’t Duck Metadata n Category 1: Metadata implementation & creation Ô receive training, funding for metadata creation Ô 35 – 45 projects, <$6,000 Ô in-kind match %50 salaries Ô New organizations & framework themes priority n Category 2: Metadata trainer assistance Ô provide training (travel, facilities, materials) Ô up to $30,000 Ô 4 – 5 projects Applicable standards: Metadata - FGDC version 2 CSDGM or ISO 19115

15. 2001 CAP Clearinghouse integration with Web Mapping l Category 3: Deploy web map client & server software for linking to and and viewing geospatial data from metadata in the Clearinghouse using embedded URL Ô Funding for consultants/software integrators Ô <$20,000 for 10 projects Ô 50% in-kind resource match Applicable standards: (1) Metadata - FGDC version 2 CSDGM or ISO 19115; (2) OpenGIS WMS 1.0 Web Mapping Services (3) Clearinghouse node registered with FGDC

16. 2001 CAP Canadian/US Collaborative Framework Project l Category 5: Stimulate and build framework activities over a common international geography. Ô 1-2 projects up to $55,000 Ô 100% in-kind resource match & partnership required Ô FGDC and GeoConnections collaborative funding program Ô projects broadly address framework in technical, institutional, organizational, business contexts

17. Framework Implementation is a Priority n n Data development, maintenance & integration n n Data access n n Data management n n Coordination n n Executive guidance n n Resource management n n Monitoring & response Digital orthoimagery Elevation and bathymetry Boundaries Geodetic Transportation Cadastral Hydrography Federal agencies State agencies Regional agencies Local agencies Private Companies Utilities - necessary to build and maintain the framework Non- profits

18. Possible Framework Avenues l Separate or addendum CAP later for US Framework l Standards development, specification & conformance Ô Hydrography, interoperability l Post grant analysis of CAP framework projects (RFP) l I-team support? l Framework Data Survey Server in the Clearinghouse l Education?

19. NCGIA CAP Survey Overall picture l Surveyed: awarded, not awarded, non-participant l Successful CAP projects Ô Significant development of metadata – clearinghouse Ô Correlated to number of GIS personnel Ô Spillovers (demonstration) to other organizations Ô Projects supported by post-grant investment Ô Grant improved in-house technical capacity Ô Majority ranked grant highly in success Preliminary report

20. NCGIA CAP Survey (findings) l Among Successful applicants: Ô 90% FGDC grants effective Ô Post grant investment $35,000 Ô 50% project spillover Ô Grants support 50-60% of costs Ô Most grants in government sector Ô Few grants in private sector Ô Grants highly contributive to project Ô Most grants new organizations Ô Most applicants intend to apply again Ô 65% of applicants would proceed regardless Ô 35% of applicants would not have proceeded Ô Chief benefit is support full-scale projects.

21. NCGIA CAP Survey (findings) l Among Unsuccessful applicants: Ô Employed smaller numbers of GIS personnel Ô Half of unsuccessful applicants proceeded with some variant of original proposal Ô With limited in-house GIS expertise, unsuccessful applicants were more likely to seek outside help from other organizations (consultants, academics, etc.) Ô Most unsuccessful applicants intend to apply to the CAP in the future

22. FGDC CAP Contacts Metadata - Richard Pearsall, 703.648.4532, rpearsall@usgs.gov Clearinghouse & Web Mapping - Doug Nebert, 703.648.4151, dnebert@usgs.gov Framework – Milo Robinson, 703.648.5162 mrobinson@usgs.gov CAP Program - David Painter 703.648.5513, dpainter@usgs.gov