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 
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. 

Highlights of GAO-04-824T, testimony

before the Subcommittee on Technology, 

Information Policy, Intergovernmental 

Relations and the Census, House 

Committee on Government Reform 

June 23, 2004

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION 

Better Coordination and Oversight Could 

Help Reduce Duplicative Investments 

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activities is out of date and lacks specific measures for identifying and 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 

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. 

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. 
Page 1 GAO-04-824T 

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 assets1

 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.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.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).4

 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. 
Page 2 GAO-04-824T 

My testimony today follows up on testimony provided to the 

Subcommittee in June 2003.5

 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.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. 

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 

 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). 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-04-824T 

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. 

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 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-04-824T 

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. 
Page 5 GAO-04-824T 

Figure 1: GIS Layers or Themes 

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 

Geographic Information 

Systems and Data Are 

Used and Produced by 

Federal, State, and Local 

Governments, and the 

Private Sector 
Page 6 GAO-04-824T 

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,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 

 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). 
Page 7 GAO-04-824T 

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. 
Page 8 GAO-04-824T 

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

Location 
Page 9 GAO-04-824T 

Figure 3: Multiple Street Centerline Data Sets Covering the Same Location in Texas 
Page 10 GAO-04-824T 

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.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 1996,9

 the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,10

and OMB Circular A-11. Table 1 provides a brief summary of federal 

guidance related to information technology and geospatial information. 

 8

GAO-03-874T. 

9

40 U.S.C. § 11302(b). 

1044 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1). 

Coordination of Federal 

Geospatial Activities 
Page 11 GAO-04-824T 

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

Guidance Description 

OMB Circular A-11 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

OMB Circular A-16 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. 

Executive Order 12906 Issued in 1994, this order assigns to FGDC the responsibility to coordinate the development of 

the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 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. 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 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. 

E-Government Act of 2002 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. 

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 EGovernment Task Force as a barrier to the success of the administration’s 

e-government initiatives.11 In response, OMB began developing the Federal 

Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and over the last 2 years it has released 

 11OMB’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. 
Page 12 GAO-04-824T 

various versions of all but one of the five FEA reference models.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.13

Costs associated with collecting and maintaining geographically 

referenced data and systems for the federal government are significant. 

Specific examples14 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;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 

 12These 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. 

13An 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. 

14The 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. 

15This 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. 

Costs Associated with 

Gathering, Maintaining, 

and Using Geospatial Data 

Are Significant 
Page 13 GAO-04-824T 

• 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 NSDIrelated 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. 

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.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. 

 16The 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. 

FGDC and Others 

Have Taken Steps to 

Coordinate GIS 

Activities, but Lack a 

Complete and Up-toDate Strategic Plan to 

Guide Them 
Page 14 GAO-04-824T 

• 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 OneStop 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 
Page 15 GAO-04-824T 

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 1993,17 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. 

 17P.L. 103-62, section 3. 
Page 16 GAO-04-824T 

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 metadata18

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,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. 

 18Metadata 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. 

19According to Circular A-16, agencies are required to publish only data that they are able to 

share with the public. 

Individual Agencies 

Have Coordinated 

Specific Geospatial 

Investments, but Have 

Not Fully Complied 

with OMB Guidance 
Page 17 GAO-04-824T 

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 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. 

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) 

OMB’s Oversight of 

Federal Geospatial 

Assets and Activities 

Has Not Yet Identified 

Redundancies 

Agency IT Business Cases 

Do Not Completely 

Describe Geospatial Data 

Assets 
Page 18 GAO-04-824T 

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. 

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.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 

 20U.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). 

The Federal Enterprise 

Architecture Has Not Yet 

Effectively Identified 

Potentially Redundant 

Geospatial Investments 
Page 19 GAO-04-824T 

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 
Page 20 GAO-04-824T 

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. 

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 

FGDC-Administered 

Agency Reports Are Not 

Sufficient for Identifying 

Redundant Geospatial 

Investments 
Page 21 GAO-04-824T 

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. 

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 

Federal Agencies Continue 

to Collect and Maintain 

Duplicative Data and 

Systems 
Page 22 GAO-04-824T 

were met through the project, potentially costly and redundant datacollection 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. 
Page 23 GAO-04-824T 

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. 

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. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

(310717) 
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. However, 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. 
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. 

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 fulltext 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. 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

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 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs