Geospatial Information: Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative Investments
Published: 2004-06-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 due to (1) 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 The existing strategic plan for coordinating national geospatial resources and activities is out of date and lacks specific measures for identifying and reducing redundancies, (2) federal agencies are not consistently complying with OMB direction to coordinate their investments, and (3) 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 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. 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. Both the clearinghouse and Geospatial One-Stop, along with many  other coordination activities, contribute to the development of the  National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).
My testimony today follows up on testimony provided to the  Subcommittee in June 2003. 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Geographic Information Systems and Data Are Used and Produced by Federal, State, and Local Governments, and the Private Sector
paragraphs: 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, 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.
section_title: Coordination of Federal Geospatial Activities
paragraphs: 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. 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, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,  and OMB Circular A-11. Table 1 provides a brief summary of federal  guidance related to information technology and geospatial information.
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. 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.  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.
section_title: Costs Associated with Gathering, Maintaining, and Using Geospatial Data Are Significant
paragraphs: Costs associated with collecting and maintaining geographically  referenced data and systems for the federal government are significant.  Specific examples 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;   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.
section_title: FGDC and Others Have Taken Steps to Coordinate GIS Activities, but Lack a Complete and Up-to- Date Strategic Plan to Guide Them
paragraphs: 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. 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, 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.
section_title: Individual Agencies Have Coordinated Specific Geospatial Investments, but Have Not Fully Complied with OMB Guidance
paragraphs: 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  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, 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.
section_title: OMB’s Oversight of Federal Geospatial Assets and Activities Has Not Yet Identified Redundancies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Agency IT Business Cases Do Not Completely Describe Geospatial Data Assets
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: The Federal Enterprise Architecture Has Not Yet Effectively Identified Potentially Redundant Geospatial Investments
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: FGDC-Administered Agency Reports Are Not Sufficient for Identifying Redundant Geospatial Investments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Federal Agencies Continue to Collect and Maintain Duplicative Data and Systems
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
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.