National Spatial Data Infrastructure 2001 NSDI Cooperative Agreements

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

CAP projects (1994 - 2000) 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 l

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

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

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

NSDI Cooperative Agreement Program Funding & Awards 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2500 1000 500 Thousaands $ Funds Awards 2000 0 1994 1995 1996 1997 Awards 1998 Funds 1999 2000 ~ $9 M Since 1994 Over 300 awards involving over 900 organizations

CAP sector participation State government Academic institutions Federal agencies County & city government Regional organizations

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

NSDI Framework Projects 1996 1997 1998 2000

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

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

2001 CAP Don’t Duck Metadata n Category 1: Metadata implementation & creation Ôreceive training, funding for metadata creation Ô 35 – 45 projects, <$6, 000 Ôin-kind match %50 salaries ÔNew organizations & framework themes priority Category 2: Metadata trainer assistance Ôprovide training (travel, facilities, Applicable standards: Metadata - FGDC version 2 CSDGM materials) or ISO 19115 n

2001 CAP Clearinghouse integration with Web Mapping Category 3: Deploy web map client & server software for linking to and viewing geospatial data from metadata in the Clearinghouse using embedded URL l 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) Open. GIS WMS 1. 0 Web Mapping Services (3) Clearinghouse node registered with FGDC

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

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

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

NCGIA CAP Survey Overall picture Surveyed: awarded, not awarded, non-participant l Successful CAP projects ÔSignificant development of metadata – clearingh ÔCorrelated to number of GIS personnel ÔSpillovers (demonstration) to other organization ÔProjects supported by post-grant investment ÔGrant improved in-house technical capacity ÔMajority ranked grant highly in success l Preliminary report

NCGIA CAP Survey (findings) l Among Successful applicants: Ô 90% FGDC grants effective ÔPost grant investment $35, 000 Ô 50% project spillover ÔGrants support 50 -60% of costs ÔMost grants in government sector ÔFew grants in private sector ÔGrants highly contributive to project ÔMost grants new organizations ÔMost applicants intend to apply again Ô 65% of applicants would proceed regardless Ô 35% of applicants would not have

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

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