This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-824T 
entitled 'Geospatial Information: Better Coordination and Oversight 
Could Help Reduce Duplicative Investments' which was released on June 
23, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Testimony:

Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, House Committee on 
Government Reform:

United States General Accounting Office:

GAO:

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:

Wednesday, June 23, 2004:

Geospatial Information:

Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative 
Investments:

Statement of Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues:

GAO-04-824T:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-824T, testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the 
Census, House Committee on Government Reform 

Why GAO Did This Study:

The collection, maintenance, and use of location-based (geospatial) 
information are essential to federal agencies carrying out their 
missions. Geographic information systems (GIS) are critical elements 
used in the areas of homeland security, healthcare, natural resources 
conservation, and countless other applications.

GAO was asked to review the extent to which the federal government is 
coordinating the efficient sharing of geospatial assets, including 
through Office of Management and Budget (OMB) oversight. GAO’s report 
on this matter, Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed to 
Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments (GAO-04-703), is being 
released today. GAO’s testimony focuses on the extent to which the 
federal government is coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets, 
including through oversight measures in place at the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), in order to identify and reduce 
redundancies in geospatial data and systems. 

What GAO Found:

OMB, cross-government committees, and individual federal agencies have 
taken actions to coordinate geospatial investments across agencies and 
with state and local governments. However, these efforts have not been 
fully successful for several reasons: 

* A complete and up-to-date strategic plan is missing. The existing 
strategic plan for coordinating national geospatial resources and 
activities is out of date and lacks specific measures for identifying 
and reducing redundancies.
* Federal agencies are not consistently complying with OMB direction 
to coordinate their investments.
* OMB’s oversight methods have not been effective in identifying or 
eliminating instances of duplication. This has resulted from OMB not 
collecting consistent, key investment information from all agencies.

Consequently, agencies continue to independently acquire and maintain 
potentially duplicative systems. This costly practice is likely to 
continue unless coordination is significantly improved. 

Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections and 
Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends:

In its report, GAO recommends that the OMB Director and the Secretary 
of the Interior develop a current, comprehensive strategic plan for 
coordinating federal geospatial assets; and makes other recommendations 
to OMB. In their comments on a draft of the report, OMB and Interior 
agreed with GAO’s recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-824T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Linda D. Koontz at (202) 
512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to participate in the Subcommittee's hearing on the 
federal government's use and coordination of geospatial information. 
The federal government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial 
information--information linked to specific geographic locations--to 
help in decision making and to support many essential functions, 
including national security, law enforcement, health care, the 
environment, and natural resources conservation. States, counties, 
cities, tribal governments, and the private sector also use geospatial 
information to support critical functions. Federal agencies, states, 
and local governments may each provide services at the same geographic 
locations and may independently collect similar geospatial information 
about those locations, thus raising the question of how well the 
nation's geospatial assets[Footnote 1] are coordinated.

To encourage greater coordination, in 1990, OMB established the Federal 
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) within the Department of the Interior 
to be the lead federal executive body responsible for promoting and 
guiding coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local government 
entities, academia, and the private sector. One of the committee's 
responsibilities is to establish a National Geospatial Data 
Clearinghouse to provide Web-based access to descriptions of available 
geospatial data, allowing governments at all levels, academia, and the 
private sector to make their data widely available.[Footnote 2] In 
addition to the clearinghouse, more recently, in 2002, OMB established 
the Geospatial One-Stop initiative to develop an Internet portal to 
provide easier, faster, and less expensive access to geospatial 
information for all levels of government and the public.[Footnote 3] 
Both the clearinghouse and Geospatial One-Stop, along with many other 
coordination activities, contribute to the development of the National 
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).[Footnote 4]

My testimony today follows up on testimony provided to the Subcommittee 
in June 2003.[Footnote 5] In my previous testimony, I noted that 
realizing the vision of a nationwide network of geospatial information 
systems is a formidable challenge and achieving full participation 
across governments in its development has been difficult. Today's 
testimony will highlight the extent to which the federal government is 
coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets, including through 
oversight measures in place at the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), in order to identify and reduce redundancies in geospatial data 
and systems.

My testimony today summarizes a report, prepared at your request, on 
federal coordination of geospatial investments.[Footnote 6] This report 
is being released to you today. Our work in preparing the report was 
conducted from October 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

OMB, individual federal agencies, and cross-government committees have 
each taken action to coordinate the government's geospatial investments 
across agencies and with state and local governments. Such coordination 
could result in reducing redundancies in geospatial activities and 
investments, with concomitant reductions in the costs associated with 
these activities. However, these efforts have not been fully successful 
in reducing redundancies in geospatial investments for several reasons.

First, while the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and Geospatial 
One-Stop have been established to support the development of the NSDI 
and to address redundant and incompatible geospatial information, a 
complete and up-to-date strategic plan is not in place to help guide 
and effectively manage these activities. The government's existing 
strategic plan for the NSDI is out of date and does not include 
specific measures for identifying and reducing redundancies.

Second, while in certain cases federal agencies have taken steps to 
coordinate their specific geospatial activities, federal agencies have 
not always fully complied with OMB direction to coordinate their 
investments. Specifically, many agency geospatial data holdings are not 
compliant with established standards or are not published through the 
clearinghouse, although both are required by OMB in order to help 
coordinate national geospatial activities and investments.

Finally, although OMB has processes in place that could help identify 
potentially redundant geospatial investments, these oversight methods 
have not identified or eliminated specific instances of duplication. 
The processes used by OMB to identify potentially redundant geospatial 
investments have not been effective because OMB has not been able to 
collect key investment information from all agencies in a consistent 
way so that it could be used to identify redundancies. As a result of 
these shortcomings, federal agencies are independently acquiring and 
maintaining potentially duplicative and costly data sets and systems. 
Without better coordination, such duplication is likely to continue.

Our report includes recommendations to the Director of OMB and to the 
Secretary of the Interior to direct the development of an improved 
strategic plan for coordinating federal geospatial assets. It also 
makes recommendations to the Director of OMB to encourage better agency 
compliance with Circular A-16 by developing and implementing criteria 
for assessing the extent of interagency coordination on planned 
geospatial investments and to strengthen OMB's oversight actions to 
better ensure that agencies do not invest in potentially redundant 
geospatial systems or data gathering efforts. In their comments on a 
draft of the report, representatives of OMB's Offices of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs and Resource Management and the Assistant 
Secretary of the Interior--Policy, Management, and Budget generally 
agreed with these recommendations.

Background:

Geospatial information describes entities or phenomena that can be 
referenced to specific locations relative to the Earth's surface. For 
example, entities such as houses, rivers, road intersections, power 
plants, and national parks can all be identified by their locations. In 
addition, phenomena such as wildfires, the spread of the West Nile 
virus, and the thinning of trees due to acid rain can also be 
identified by their geographic locations.

A geographic information system (GIS) is a system of computer software, 
hardware, and data used to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, and 
graphically present a potentially wide array of geospatial information. 
The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple sets of geospatial 
data and display the combined information as maps with many different 
layers of information.

Each layer of a GIS map represents a particular "theme" or feature, and 
one layer could be derived from a data source completely different from 
the others. Typical geospatial data layers (themes) include cadastral-
-describing location, ownership, and other information about real 
property; digital orthoimagery--containing images of the Earth's 
surface that have the geometric characteristics of a map and image 
qualities of a photograph; and hydrography--describing water features 
such as lakes, ponds, streams and rivers, canals, oceans, and 
coastlines. As long as standard processes and formats have been used to 
facilitate integration, each of these themes could be based on data 
originally collected and maintained by a separate organization. 
Analyzing this layered information as an integrated whole can 
significantly aid decision makers in considering complex choices, such 
as where to locate a new department of motor vehicles building to best 
serve the greatest number of citizens. Figure 1 portrays the concept of 
data themes in a GIS.

Figure 1: GIS Layers or Themes:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Geographic Information Systems and Data Are Used and Produced by 
Federal, State, and Local Governments, and the Private Sector:

Federal, state, and local governments and the private sector rely on 
geographic information systems to provide vital services to their 
customers. These various entities independently provide information and 
services, including maintaining land records for federal and nonfederal 
lands, property taxation, local planning, subdivision control and 
zoning, and direct delivery of many other public services. These 
entities also use geographic information and geographic information 
systems to facilitate and support delivery of these services.

Many federal departments and agencies use GIS technology to help carry 
out their primary missions. For example, the Department of Health and 
Human Services uses GIS technology for a variety of public health 
functions, such as reporting the results of national health surveys; 
the Census Bureau maintains the Topologically Integrated Geographic 
Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database to support its mission to 
conduct the decennial census and other censuses and surveys; and the 
Environmental Protection Agency maintains a variety of databases with 
information about the quality of air, water, and land in the United 
States.

State governments also rely on geospatial information to provide 
information and services to their citizens. For example, the state of 
New York hosts a Web site to provide citizens with a gateway to state 
government services at http://www.nysegov.com/map-NY.cfm. Using this 
Web site, citizens can access information about state agencies and 
their services, locate county boundaries and services, and locate major 
state highways. Many other states, such as Oregon 
(http://www.gis.state.or.us/), Virginia 
(http://www.vgin.virginia.gov/index.html), and Alaska 
(http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/), provide similar Web sites and 
services.

Local governments use GISs for a variety of activities. For example, 
local fire departments can use geographic information systems to 
determine the quickest and most efficient route from a firehouse to a 
specific location, taking into account changing traffic patterns that 
occur at various times of day. Additionally, according to a March 2002 
Gartner report,[Footnote 7] New York City's GIS was pivotal in the 
rescue, response, and recovery efforts after the September 11, 2001, 
terrorist attacks. The city's GIS provided real-time data on the area 
around the World Trade Center so that the mayor, governor, federal 
officials, and emergency response agencies could implement critical 
rescue, response, and recovery activities. Local governments often 
possess more recent and higher resolution geospatial data than the 
federal government, and in many cases private-sector companies collect 
these data under contract to local government agencies.

The private sector plays an important role in support of government GIS 
activities because it captures and maintains a wealth of geospatial 
data and develops GIS software. Private companies provide services such 
as aerial photography, digital topographic mapping, digital 
orthophotography, and digital elevation modeling to produce geospatial 
data sets that are designed to meet the needs of governmental 
organizations.

Figure 2 provides a conceptual summary of the many entities--including 
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector--that may 
be involved in geospatial data collection and processing relative to a 
single geographic location or event. Figure 3 shows the multiple data 
sets that have been collected by different agencies at federal, state, 
and local levels to capture the location of a segment of roadway in 
Texas.

Figure 2: Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections 
and Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 3: Multiple Street Centerline Data Sets Covering the Same 
Location in Texas:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Coordination of Federal Geospatial Activities:

As we testified last year, the federal government has for many years 
taken steps to coordinate geospatial activities, both within and 
outside of the federal government.[Footnote 8] These include the 
issuance of OMB Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906, and the E-
Government Act of 2002. In addition to its responsibilities for 
geospatial information under the E-Government Act, OMB has specific 
oversight responsibilities regarding federal information technology 
(IT) systems and acquisition activities--including GIS--to help ensure 
their efficient and effective use. These responsibilities are outlined 
in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,[Footnote 9] the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995,[Footnote 10] and OMB Circular A-11. Table 1 provides a 
brief summary of federal guidance related to information technology and 
geospatial information.

Table 1: Federal Guidance Related to Information Technology and 
Geospatial Information:

Guidance: OMB Circular A-11; 
Description: The circular establishes policy for planning, budgeting, 
acquisition, and management of federal capital assets. Specifically, it 
requires agencies to submit business cases to OMB for planned or 
ongoing major IT investments.[A].

Guidance: OMB Circular A-16; 
Description: Originally issued in 1953, and last revised in 2002, this 
circular, among other things, establishes FGDC within the Department of 
the Interior to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination 
of geospatial data nationwide.

Guidance: Executive Order 12906; 
Description: Issued in 1994, this order assigns to FGDC the 
responsibility to coordinate the development of the National Spatial 
Data Infrastructure (NSDI).

Guidance: Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 
Description: Includes a general requirement that the Director of OMB 
oversee the use of information resources to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of governmental operations to serve agency missions.

Guidance: Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996; 
Description: Requires the Director of OMB to promote and be responsible 
for improving the acquisition, use, and disposal of information 
technology by the federal government to improve the productivity, 
efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs.

Guidance: E-Government Act of 2002; 
Description: Requires OMB to oversee coordination with state, local, 
and tribal governments as well as public-private partnerships and 
other interested persons on the development of standard protocols for 
sharing geographic information to reduce redundant data collection and 
promote collaboration and the use of standards.[B]. 

Source: GAO.

[A] According to OMB Circular A-11, a major IT investment means a 
system or investment that requires special management attention because 
of its importance to an agency's mission; the investment was a major 
investment in the fiscal year 2004 submission and is continuing; the 
investment is for financial management and spends more than $500,000; 
the investment is directly tied to the top two layers of the Federal 
Enterprise Architecture; the investment is an integral part of the 
agency's modernization blueprint (EA); the investment has significant 
program or policy implications; the investment has high executive 
visibility; or the investment is defined as major by the agency's 
capital planning and investment control process. Investments that are 
e-government in nature or use e-business technologies must be 
identified as major investments regardless of their costs.

[B] P.L. 107-347, Section 216.

[End of table]

In addition to activities associated with federal legislation and 
guidance, OMB's Administrator, Office of Electronic Government and 
Information Technology, testified before the Subcommittee last June 
that the strategic management of geospatial assets would be 
accomplished, in part, through development of a robust and mature 
federal enterprise architecture. In 2001, the lack of a federal 
enterprise architecture was cited by OMB's E-Government Task Force as a 
barrier to the success of the administration's e-government 
initiatives.[Footnote 11] In response, OMB began developing the Federal 
Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and over the last 2 years it has 
released various versions of all but one of the five FEA reference 
models.[Footnote 12] According to OMB, the purpose of the FEA, among 
other things, is to provide a common frame of reference or taxonomy for 
agencies' individual enterprise architecture efforts and their planned 
and ongoing investment activities.[Footnote 13]

Costs Associated with Gathering, Maintaining, and Using Geospatial Data 
Are Significant:

Costs associated with collecting and maintaining geographically 
referenced data and systems for the federal government are significant. 
Specific examples[Footnote 14] of the costs of collecting and 
maintaining federal geospatial data and information systems include:

* FEMA's Multi-Hazard Flood Map Modernization Program--estimated to 
cost $1 billion over the next 5 years;

* Census's TIGER database--modernization is estimated to have cost over 
$170 million between 2001 and 2004;

* Agriculture's Geospatial Database--acquisition and development 
reportedly cost over $130 million;

* Interior's National Map--development is estimated to cost about $88 
million through 2008;[Footnote 15]

* The Department of the Navy's Primary Oceanographic Prediction, and 
Oceanographic Information systems--development, modernization, and 
operation were estimated to cost about $32 million in fiscal year 2003; 
and:

* NOAA's Coastal Survey--expenditures for geospatial data are estimated 
to cost about $30 million annually.

In addition to the costs for individual agency GISs and data, the 
aggregated annual cost of collecting and maintaining geospatial data 
for all NSDI-related data themes and systems is estimated to be 
substantial. According to a recent estimate by the National States 
Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), the cost to collect detailed 
data for five key data layers of the NSDI--parcel, critical 
infrastructure, orthoimagery, elevation, and roads--is about $6.6 
billion. The estimate assumes that the data development will be 
coordinated among federal, state, and local government agencies, and 
the council cautions that without effective coordination, the costs 
could be far higher.

FGDC and Others Have Taken Steps to Coordinate GIS Activities, but Lack 
a Complete and Up-to-Date Strategic Plan to Guide Them:

Both Executive Order 12906 and OMB Circular A-16 charge FGDC with 
responsibilities that support coordination of federal GIS investments. 
Specifically, the committee is designated the lead federal executive 
body with responsibilities including (1) promoting and guiding 
coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local government 
agencies, academia, and the private sector in the collection, 
production, sharing, and use of spatial information and the 
implementation of the NSDI; and (2) preparing and maintaining a 
strategic plan for developing and implementing the NSDI.

Regarding coordination with federal and other entities and development 
of the NSDI, FGDC has taken a variety of actions. It established a 
committee structure with participation from federal agencies and key 
nonfederal organizations such as NSGIC, and the National Association of 
Counties, and established several programs to help ensure greater 
participation from federal agencies as well as other government 
entities. In addition, key actions taken by FGDC to develop the NSDI 
include implementing the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and 
establishing a framework of data themes.[Footnote 16] In addition to 
FGDC's programs, two other efforts are under way that aim to coordinate 
and consolidate geospatial information and resources across the federal 
government--the Geospatial One-Stop initiative and The National Map 
project.

* Geospatial One-Stop is intended to accelerate the development and 
implementation of the NSDI to provide federal and state agencies with a 
single point of access to map-related data, which in turn will enable 
consolidation of redundant geospatial data. OMB selected Geospatial 
One-Stop as one of its e-government initiatives, in part to support 
development of an inventory of national geospatial assets, and also to 
support reducing redundancies in federal geospatial assets. In 
addition, the portal includes a "marketplace" that provides information 
on planned and ongoing geospatial acquisitions for use by agencies that 
are considering acquiring new data to facilitate coordination of 
existing and planned acquisitions.

* The National Map is being developed and implemented by the U.S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) as a database to provide core geospatial data 
about the United States and its territories, similar to the data 
traditionally provided on USGS paper topographic maps. USGS relies 
heavily on partnerships with other federal agencies as well as states, 
localities, and the private sector to maintain the accuracy and 
currency of the national core geospatial data set as represented in The 
National Map.

According to Interior's Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management, and 
Budget, FGDC, Geospatial One-Stop, and The National Map are 
coordinating their activities in several areas, including developing 
standards and framework data layers for the NSDI, increasing the 
effectiveness of the clearinghouse, and making information about 
existing and planned data acquisitions available through the Geospatial 
One-Stop Web site.

Regarding preparing and maintaining a strategic plan for developing and 
implementing the NSDI, in 1994, FGDC issued a strategic plan that 
described actions federal agencies and others could take to develop the 
NSDI, such as establishing data themes and standards, training 
programs, and partnerships to promote coordination and data sharing. In 
April 1997, FGDC published an updated plan--with input from many 
organizations and individuals having a stake in developing the NSDI--
that defined strategic goals and objectives to support the vision of 
the NSDI as defined in the 1994 plan. No further updates have been 
made.

As the current national geospatial strategy document, FGDC's 1997 plan 
is out of date. First, it does not reflect the recent broadened use of 
geospatial data and systems by many government agencies. Second, it 
does not take into account the increased importance that has been 
placed on homeland security in the wake of the September 11, 2001, 
attacks. Geospatial data and systems have an essential role to play in 
supporting decision makers and emergency responders in protecting 
critical infrastructure and responding to threats. Finally, significant 
governmentwide geospatial efforts--including the Geospatial One-Stop 
and National Map projects--did not exist in 1997, and are therefore not 
reflected in the strategic plan.

In addition to being out of date, the 1997 document lacks important 
elements that should be included in an effective strategic plan. 
According to the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993,[Footnote 17] such plans should include a set of outcome-related 
strategic goals, a description of how those goals are to be achieved, 
and an identification of risk factors that could significantly affect 
their achievement. The plans should also include performance goals and 
measures, with resources needed to achieve them, as well as a 
description of the processes to be used to measure progress.

While the 1997 NSDI plan contains a vision statement and goals and 
objectives, it does not include other essential elements. These missing 
elements include (1) a set of outcome-related goals, with actions to 
achieve those goals, that would bring together the various actions 
being taken to coordinate geospatial assets and achieve the vision of 
the NSDI; (2) key risk factors that could significantly affect the 
achievement of the goals and objectives; and (3) performance goals and 
measures to help ensure that the steps being taken result in the 
development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.

FGDC officials, in consultation with the executive director of 
Geospatial One-Stop, USGS, and participating FGDC member agencies, have 
initiated a "future directions" effort to begin the process of updating 
their existing plan. However, this activity is just beginning, and 
there is no time frame as to when a new strategy will be in place. 
Until a comprehensive national strategy is in place, the current state 
of ineffective coordination is likely to remain, and the vision of the 
NSDI will likely not be fully realized.

Individual Agencies Have Coordinated Specific Geospatial Investments, 
but Have Not Fully Complied with OMB Guidance:

OMB Circular A-16 directs federal agencies to coordinate their 
investments to facilitate building the NSDI. The circular lists 11 
specific responsibilities for federal agencies, including (1) 
preparing, maintaining, publishing, and implementing a strategy for 
advancing geographic information and related spatial data activities 
appropriate to their mission, in support of the NSDI; (2) using FGDC 
standards, including metadata[Footnote 18] and other appropriate 
standards, documenting spatial data with relevant metadata; and (3) 
making metadata available online through a registered NSDI-compatible 
clearinghouse site.

In certain cases, federal agencies have taken steps to coordinate their 
specific geospatial activities. For example, the Forest Service and 
Bureau of Land Management collaborated to develop the National 
Integrated Land System (NILS), which is intended to provide land 
managers with software tools for the collection, management, and 
sharing of survey data, cadastral data, and land records information. 
At an estimated cost of about $34 million, a single GIS--NILS--was 
developed that can accommodate the shared geospatial needs of both 
agencies, eliminating the need for each agency to develop a separate 
system.

However, despite specific examples of coordination such as this, 
agencies have not consistently complied with OMB's broader geospatial 
coordination requirements. For example, only 10 of 17 agencies that 
provided reports to FGDC reported having published geospatial 
strategies as required by Circular A-16. In addition, agencies' spatial 
data holdings are generally not compliant with FGDC standards. 
Specifically, the annual report shows that, of the 17 agencies that 
provided reports to FGDC, only 4 reported that their spatial data 
holdings were compliant with FGDC standards. Ten agencies reported 
being partially compliant, and 3 agencies provided answers that were 
unclear as to whether they were compliant. Finally, regarding the 
requirement for agencies to post their data to the National Geospatial 
Data Clearinghouse,[Footnote 19] only 6 of the 17 agencies indicated 
that their data or metadata were published through the clearinghouse, 
10 indicated that their data were not published, 1 indicated that some 
data were available through the clearinghouse.

According to comments provided by agencies to FGDC in the annual report 
submissions, there are several reasons why agencies have not complied 
with their responsibilities under Circular A-16, including the lack of 
performance measures that link funding to coordination efforts. 
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, few incentives 
exist for cross-agency cooperation because budget allocations are 
linked to individual agency performance rather than to cooperative 
efforts. In addition, according to USGS, agencies' activities and 
funding are driven primarily by individual agency missions and do not 
address interagency geospatial coordination. In addition to the 
information provided in the annual report, Department of Agriculture 
officials said that no clear performance measures exist linking funding 
to interagency coordination.

OMB's Oversight of Federal Geospatial Assets and Activities Has Not Yet 
Identified Redundancies:

OMB has recognized that potentially redundant geospatial assets need to 
be identified and that federal geospatial systems and information 
activities need to be coordinated. To help identify potential 
redundancies, OMB's Administrator of E-Government and Information 
Technology testified in June 2003 that the agency uses three key 
sources of information: (1) business cases for planned or ongoing IT 
investments, submitted by agencies as part of the annual budget 
process; (2) comparisons of agency lines of business with the Federal 
Enterprise Architecture (FEA); and (3) annual reports compiled by FGDC 
and submitted to OMB. However, none of these major oversight processes 
have been effective tools to help OMB identify major redundancies in 
federal GIS investments.

Agency IT Business Cases Do Not Completely Describe Geospatial Data 
Assets:

In their IT business cases, agencies must report the types of data that 
will be used, including geospatial data. According to OMB's branch 
chief for information policy and technology, OMB reviews these business 
cases to determine whether any redundant geospatial investments are 
being funded. Specifically, the process for reviewing a business case 
includes comparing proposed investments, IT management and strategic 
plans, and other business cases, in an attempt to determine whether a 
proposed investment duplicates another agency's existing or already-
approved investment.

However, business cases submitted to OMB under Circular A-11 do not 
always include enough information to effectively identify potential 
geospatial data and systems redundancies because OMB does not require 
such information in agency business cases. For example, OMB does not 
require that agencies clearly link information about their proposed or 
existing geospatial investments to the spatial data categories (themes) 
established by Circular A-16. Geospatial systems and data are 
ubiquitous throughout federal agencies and are frequently integrated 
into agencies' mission-related systems and business processes. Business 
cases that focus on mission-related aspects of agency systems and data 
may not provide the information necessary to compare specific 
geospatial investments with other, potentially similar investments 
unless the data identified in the business cases are categorized to 
allow OMB to more readily compare data sets and identify potential 
redundancies.

For example, FEMA's fiscal year 2004 business case for its Multi-Hazard 
Flood Map Modernization project indicates that topographic and base 
data are used to perform engineering analyses for estimating flood 
discharge, developing floodplain mapping, and locating areas of 
interest related to hazards. However, FEMA does not categorize these 
data according to standardized spatial data themes specified in 
Circular A-16, such as elevation (bathymetric or terrestrial), 
transportation, and hydrography. As a result, it is difficult to 
determine whether the data overlap with other federal data sets. 
Without categorizing the data using the standard data themes as an 
important step toward coordinating that data, information about 
agencies' planned or ongoing use of geospatial data in their business 
cases cannot be effectively assessed to determine whether it could be 
integrated with other existing or planned federal geospatial assets.

The Federal Enterprise Architecture Has Not Yet Effectively Identified 
Potentially Redundant Geospatial Investments:

An FEA is being constructed that, once it is further developed, may 
help identify potentially redundant geospatial investments. According 
to OMB, the FEA will comprise a collection of five interrelated 
reference models designed to facilitate cross-agency analysis and the 
identification of duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for 
collaboration within and across federal agencies. According to recent 
GAO testimony on the status of the FEA, although OMB has made progress 
on the FEA, it remains a work in process and is still maturing[Footnote 
20].:

OMB has identified multiple purposes for the FEA. One purpose cited is 
to inform agencies' individual enterprise architectures and to 
facilitate their development by providing a common classification 
structure and vocabulary. Another stated purpose is to provide a 
governmentwide framework that can increase agencies' awareness of IT 
capabilities that other agencies have or plan to acquire, so that 
agencies can explore opportunities for reuse. Still another stated 
purpose is to help OMB decision makers identify opportunities for 
collaboration among agencies through the implementation of common, 
reusable, and interoperable solutions. We support the FEA as a 
framework for achieving these ends.

According to OMB's branch chief for information policy and technology, 
OMB reviews all new investment proposals against the federal 
government's lines of business in its Business Reference Model to 
identify those investments that appear to have some commonality. Many 
of the model's lines of business include areas in which geospatial 
information is of critical importance, including disaster management 
(the cleanup and restoration activities that take place after a 
disaster); environmental management (functions required to monitor the 
environment and weather, determine proper environmental standards, and 
address environmental hazards and contamination); and transportation 
(federally supported activities related to the safe passage, 
conveyance, or transportation of goods and people).

The Service Component Reference Model includes specific references to 
geospatial data and systems. It is intended to identify and classify IT 
service components (i.e., applications) that support federal agencies 
and promote the reuse of components across agencies. The model includes 
29 types of services--including customer relationship management and 
the visualization service, which defines capabilities that support the 
conversion of data into graphical or picture form. One component of the 
visualization service is associated with mapping, geospatial, 
elevation, and global positioning system services. Identification of 
redundant investments under the visualization service could provide OMB 
with information that would be useful in identifying redundant 
geospatial systems investments.

Finally, the Data and Information Reference Model would likely be the 
most critical FEA element in identifying potentially redundant 
geospatial investments. According to OMB, this model will categorize 
the government's information along general content areas and describe 
data components that are common to many business processes or 
activities.

Although the FEA includes elements that could be used to help identify 
redundant investments, it is not yet sufficiently developed to be 
useful in identifying redundant geospatial investments. While the 
Business and Service Component reference models have aspects related to 
geospatial investments, the Data and Information Reference Model may be 
the critical element for identifying agency use of geospatial data 
because it is planned to provide standard categories of data that could 
support comparing data sets among federal agencies. However, this model 
has not yet been completed and thus is not in use. Until the FEA is 
completed and OMB develops effective analytical processes to use it, it 
will not be able to contribute to identifying potentially redundant 
geospatial investments.

FGDC-Administered Agency Reports Are Not Sufficient for Identifying 
Redundant Geospatial Investments:

OMB Circular A-16 requires agencies to report annually to OMB on their 
achievements in advancing geographic information and related spatial 
data activities appropriate to their missions and in support of the 
NSDI. To support this requirement, FGDC has developed a structure for 
agencies to use to report such information in a consistent format and 
for aggregating individual agencies' information. Using the agency 
reports, the committee prepares an annual report to OMB purportedly 
identifying the scope and depth of spatial data activities across 
agencies.

For the fiscal year 2003 report, agencies were asked to respond to 
several specific questions about their geospatial activities, including 
(1) whether a detailed strategy had been developed for integrating 
geographic information and spatial data into their business processes, 
(2) how they ensure that data are not already available prior to 
collecting new geospatial data, and (3) whether geospatial data are a 
component of the agency's enterprise architecture. However, additional 
information that is critical to identifying redundancies was not 
required. For example, agencies were not requested to provide 
information on their specific GIS investments or the geospatial data 
sets they collected and maintained. According to the FGDC staff 
director, the annual reports are not meant to provide an inventory of 
federal geospatial assets. As a result, they cannot provide OMB with 
sufficient information to identify redundancies in federal geospatial 
investments.

Further, because not all agencies provide reports to FGDC, the 
information that OMB has available to identify redundancies is 
incomplete. According to OMB's program examiner for the Department of 
the Interior, OMB does not know how well agencies are complying with 
the reporting requirements in Circular A-16. Until the information 
reported by agencies is consistent and complete, OMB will not be able 
to effectively use it to identify potential geospatial redundancies.

According to OMB officials responsible for oversight of geospatial 
activities, the agency's methods have not yet led to the identification 
of redundant investments that could be targeted for consolidation or 
elimination. The OMB officials said they believe that, with further 
refinement, these tools will be effective in the future in helping them 
identify redundancies. In addition, OMB representatives told us that 
they are planning to institute a new process to collect more complete 
information on agencies' geospatial investments by requiring agencies 
to report all such investments through the Geospatial One-Stop Web 
portal. OMB representatives told us that reporting requirements for 
agencies would be detailed in a new directive that OMB expects to issue 
by the end of summer 2004.

Federal Agencies Continue to Collect and Maintain Duplicative Data and 
Systems:

Without a complete and up-to-date strategy for coordination or 
effective investment oversight by OMB, federal agencies continue to 
acquire and maintain duplicative data and systems. According to the 
initial business case for the Geospatial One-Stop initiative, about 50 
percent of the federal government's geospatial data investment is 
duplicative. Such duplication is widely recognized. Officials from 
federal and state agencies and OMB have all stated that unnecessarily 
redundant geospatial data and systems exist throughout the federal 
government. The Staff Director of FGDC agreed that redundancies 
continue to exist throughout the federal government and that more work 
needs to be done to specifically identify them. DHS's Geospatial 
Information Officer also acknowledged redundancies in geospatial data 
acquisitions at his agency, and said that DHS is working to create an 
enterprisewide approach to managing geospatial data in order to reduce 
redundancies. Similarly, state representatives to the National States 
Geographic Information Council have identified cases in which they have 
observed multiple federal agencies funding the acquisition of similar 
data to meet individual agency needs.

For example, USGS, FEMA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) each 
maintain separate elevation data sets: USGS's National Elevation 
Dataset, FEMA's flood hazard mapping elevation data program, and DOD's 
elevation data regarding Defense installations. FEMA officials 
indicated that they obtained much of their data from state and local 
partners or purchased them from the private sector because data from 
those sources better fit their accuracy and resolution requirements 
than elevation data available from USGS. Similarly, according to one 
Army official, available USGS elevation data sets generally do not 
include military installations, and even when such data are available 
for specific installations, they are typically not accurate enough for 
DOD's purposes. As a result, DOD collects its own elevation data for 
its installations. In this example, if USGS elevation data-collection 
projects were coordinated with FEMA and DOD to help ensure that the 
needs of as many federal agencies as possible were met through the 
project, potentially costly and redundant data-collection activities 
could be avoided. According to the USGS Associate Director for 
Geography, USGS is currently working to develop relationships with FEMA 
and DOD, along with other federal agencies, to determine where these 
agencies' data-collection activities overlap.

In another example, officials at the Department of Agriculture and the 
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) both said they have 
purchased data sets containing street-centerline data from commercial 
sources, even though the Census Bureau maintains such data in its TIGER 
database. According to these officials, they purchased the data 
commercially because they had concerns about the accuracy of the TIGER 
data. The Census Bureau is currently working to enhance its TIGER data 
in preparation for the 2010 census, and a major objective of the 
project is to improve the accuracy of its street location data. 
However, despite Agriculture and NGA's use of street location data, 
Census did not include either agency in the TIGER enhancement project 
plan's list of agencies that will be affected by the initiative. 
Without better coordination, agencies such as Agriculture and NGA are 
likely to continue to need to purchase redundant commercial data sets 
in the future.

In summary, although various cross-government committees and 
initiatives, individual federal agencies, and OMB have each taken 
actions to coordinate the government's geospatial investments across 
agencies and with state and local governments, agencies continue to 
purchase and maintain uncoordinated and duplicative geospatial 
investments. Without better coordination, such duplication is likely to 
continue. In order to improve the coordination of federal geospatial 
investments, our report recommends that the Director of OMB and the 
Secretary of the Interior direct the development of a national 
geospatial data strategy with outcome-related goals and objectives; a 
plan for how the goals and objectives are to be achieved; 
identification of key risk factors; and performance measures. Our 
report also recommends that the Director of OMB develop criteria for 
assessing the extent of interagency coordination on proposals for 
potential geospatial investments. Based on these criteria, funding for 
potential geospatial investments should be delayed or denied when 
coordination is not adequately addressed in agencies' proposals. 
Finally, our report provides specific recommendations to the Director 
of OMB in order to strengthen the agency's oversight actions to more 
effectively coordinate federal geospatial data and systems acquisitions 
and thereby reduce potentially redundant investments.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee 
may have at this time.

Contact and Acknowledgments:

For further information regarding this statement, please contact me at 
(202) 512-6240 or by e-mail at koontzl@gao.gov. Other key contributors 
to this testimony included Neil Doherty, John de Ferrari, Michael P. 
Fruitman, Michael Holland, Steven Law, and Elizabeth Roach.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Geospatial assets include geographic information systems (GIS), 
data, technology, and standards. 

[2] The National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse is a decentralized 
system of Internet-based servers that contain descriptions of available 
geospatial data. It allows individual agencies, consortia, or others to 
promote their available geospatial data.

[3] Geospatial One-Stop is an e-Government initiative sponsored by OMB 
to enhance government efficiency and improve citizen service.

[4] The NSDI includes the technologies, policies, and people necessary 
to promote sharing of geospatial data throughout all levels of 
government, the private and non profit sectors, and the academic 
community.

[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Geographic Information Systems: 
Challenges to Effective Data Sharing, GAO-03-874T (Washington, D.C.: 
June 10, 2003). 

[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Geospatial Information: Better 
Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments, 
GAO-04-703 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004). 

[7] B. Keller and G. Kreizman, To The Rescue: GIS in New York City on 
Sept. 11 (Gartner Inc., March 2002), http://www.gartner.com (downloaded 
March 10, 2004).

[8] GAO-03-874T.

[9] 40 U.S.C. § 11302(b).

[10] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1).

[11] OMB's E-Government Task Force identified 23 initiatives (two 
additional initiatives were subsequently added) aimed at improving 
service to individuals, service to businesses, intergovernmental 
affairs, and federal agency-to-agency efficiency and effectiveness.

[12] These reference models include the Business Reference Model, the 
Service Component Reference Model, the Technical Reference Model, the 
Performance Reference Model, and the Data and Information Reference 
Model. 

[13] An enterprise architecture is a blueprint, defined largely by 
interrelated models, that describes (in both business and technology 
terms) an entity's "as is" or current environment, its "to be" or 
future environment, and its investment plan for transitioning from the 
current to the future environment.

[14] The scope of these cost estimates varies and may include 
development, operation, or both. The examples are for illustrative 
purposes and are not intended to be compared.

[15] This figure does not include costs for data acquisition. Some 
National Map data are acquired from Landsat satellites, which are 
estimated to cost about $95 million to operate through 2008.

[16] The framework of data themes is a collaborative effort in which 
commonly used data "layers" are developed, maintained, and integrated 
by public and private organizations within a geographic area. Local, 
regional, state, and federal organizations and private companies can 
use the framework as a way to share resources, improve communications, 
and increase efficiency.

[17] P.L. 103-62, section 3.

[18] Metadata refers to data that contain or define other data. For 
geospatial information, metadata provides information about, among 
other things, sources used, collection methods, and the date the data 
were collected. 

[19] According to Circular A-16, agencies are required to publish only 
data that they are able to share with the public.

[20] U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: The 
Federal Enterprise Architecture and Agencies' Enterprise Architectures 
Are Still Maturing, GAO-04-798T (Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2004).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative 
arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, 
D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S. 
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 
20548: