# Presentation: 429889

## Geospatial Investments Review

- Jason Freihage, OMB
-  J. Milo Robinson, FGDC

**Notes:**
PPT:Metadata
Title:Geospatial Investments Review
Date: Friday, June 6, 2003
Short description of content: presentation at FGDC Steering Committee  
Creator name and email:
Milo Robinson (703) 648-5162  mrobinson@fgdc.gov
Jason Freihage (202) 395-9180 jason_freihage@omb.eop.gov

## Mandates for Taking Action

-  Steering Committee Action Item (Oct 2002)
- The FGDC will discuss OMB's proposal for an impartial Board of Experts to review geospatial investments, and provide a recommendation to OMB
- Pass Back Language (Nov 2002)
- No strategic Approach to Geospatial Investments
- USGS, FEMA, Census, FGDC
- Report to OMB

**Notes:**
Pass back Language:
Currently, there is no strategic approach to geospatial investments by the USGS, US Census Bureau and FEMA. OMB expects that the USGS National Map, US Census Bureau’s MAF/TIGER modernization and FEMA’s Flood Plain Map Modernization efforts will coordinate investments in FY2003 where possible. By March 31, 2003, the FGDC and the Geospatial One-Stop Team, working with the three agencies, should provide a report to OMB which identifies: 1) geospatial investments that can be combined from these efforts during FY003, such as applications that can automate data collection and updates with state and local government; and 2) whether a unified business case would be appropriate for FY2004

## This Is Not a New Problem

-  Lack of Budget Information Across Agencies
-  1973 OMB Federal Mapping Task Force
- $304 M being spent in 1972
-  Piecemeal Programs, Lack of Central Management, Fragmented Federal authority, Recommended New Civilian Agency
-  1993 OMB Data Call
- $4,093 M being spent in 1992
-  Improve coordination and efficiency

**Notes:**
Long history of efforts including: 1906 Executive Order established United States Geographic Board that was granted advisory powers for the preparation of maps – to avoid duplication of work and improve standardization

....in Federal geographic data programs, develop standards to avoid unnecessary and wasteful duplication of effort a recommendation to OMB

Projection for 2002 ($6 B linear growth) ($ 27 B exponential growth) 

## It’s Time to Move Forward 

-  OMB Circular A-16 requires:
- Federal Agencies to promote and fully utilize partnerships that promote cost effective data collection,... that leverages Federal and other resources.
-  Agencies to provide or develop the required technology and services required to enable and provide access to NSDI data and information
-  Lead agencies for a theme need to address human and financial resource needs

- It’s Time to Move Forward

**Notes:**
Point 1: Can’t leverage if you don’t know what the investments are 
Point 2: Financial data is an important part of NSDI, but not very transparent
Point 3: Agencies need to look at financial needs

## What Was Done 

-  FGDC Options Paper Developed (Nov)
- Discussed at Coordination Group (Dec & Jan)
-  Review Team Meetings and Discussion
- Three meetings (Feb, March, April)
-  Updates to Coordination Group (March & May)

- What Was Done

## Review Team Strategy 

-  Develop a pilot effort to:
- define categories for geospatial investments
- identify quality and quantity of data layers
- open lines of communication
-  Focus on One or Two Themes (Elevation, Roads)
-  Share Exhibit 300s (National Map, Tiger, Flood Plain)
-  Develop Table as a tool, based on 1993 data call
- (Table aligns with GOS market place)

- Review Team Strategy

**Notes:**
Review Team consisted of 
2-4 OMB reps
2 FEMA reps
3-4 USGS reps
1 Census reps
2 FGDC reps
1-3 Other Interested reps

## Investment Review Questions

-  Describe the range of data quality and accuracy.
-  Are metadata for the raw data on an NSDI     clearinghouse? If so please include the URL?
- Which additional programs does your agency use to support the data needs for this data theme?
- What standards are used in collection or sharing of the data? **	**

## FEMA Results for Elevation FY02*

- FEMA Results for Elevation FY02*

| $ in thousands | Data Collection | Data Integration | Archiving | Public Access |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| FEMA  | 4,554 | 2,090 | 18 | 0 |
| Other Feds | 330 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Non Feds | 5,085 | 2,554 | 16 | 0 |
| Total Value | 9,969 | 4,644 | 34 | 0 |

- Grand Total $14.6 million

- *Provisional numbers subject to further review

## USGS Results for Elevation FY02*

- USGS Results for Elevation FY02*

| $ 1000 | Data Collection | Data Integration | Archiving | Public Access |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| USGS  | 3,839 | 4,189  | 161  | 298  |
| Other Feds | 1,268
 | 546 | 36 | 0 |
| Non Feds | 46
 | 88  | 3 | 0 |
| Total Value | 5,153 | 4,823  | 200 | 298  |

- Grand Total $10.5 million

- *Provisional numbers subject to further review

## Census Results for Roads FY02*

- Census Results for Roads FY02*

- Grand Total $7.0 million

- *Provisional numbers subject to further review

## Lessons Learned

-  Aligning Geospatial Investments requires common language and definitions
- Improving the clarity of geospatial investments can help build trust and fuels partnerships

**Notes:**
Enable wider review of budget information by FGDC member agencies. This results in greater scrutiny of expenditures and programs by peers without an explicit board. In essence all become part of board.

Trust is a key component of collaborative teams. The stronger the level of trust, the better able we, FGDC, can pursue NSDI implementation. A significant challenge is to develop trusting NSDI partnerships.

## Next Steps

- Agreement from Steering Committee that this is a valid tool for collecting information on geospatial investments.
- Commitment from Steering Committee that agencies will use the table to report investments with 2005 budget submissions, focusing on Framework themes.(Sept 2003)

**Notes:**
Enable wider review of budget information by FGDC member agencies. This results in greater scrutiny of expenditures and programs by peers without an explicit board. In essence all become part of board.

Trust is a key component of collaborative teams. The stronger the level of trust, the better able we, FGDC, can pursue NSDI implementation. A significant challenge is to develop trusting NSDI partnerships.