The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple sets of geospatial data and graphically display that information as maps with potentially many different layers of information. Assuming that all the information is at the same scale and has been formatted according to the same standards, users can potentially overlay spatial information about any number of specific topics to examine how the layers interrelate. 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 other layers. For example, one theme could represent all the streets in a specified area. Another theme could correspond to all the buildings in the same area, and others could show vegetation or water resources. As long as standard processes and formats have been arranged 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 GIS. The expansion of Internet connectivity in recent years has substantially enhanced the potential value of GIS because now it is possible to locate and harness data from many disparate GIS databases to develop very rich analytical information on almost any topic that is associated with physical locations. Data that were once collected and used only for a single purpose could now have much broader applications. Further, the community of GIS users has been broadened to include potentially anyone with an Internet connection. For example, citizens can now use home computers to obtain answers to specific questions about land use in their state or local jurisdiction. Commercial entrepreneurs can combine GIS data about zoning and tax-incentive areas to determine what parts of a city are best suited for establishing a new business. Federal, state, and local government agencies are using GIS today to provide vital services to their customers. 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. Highway departments use GIS to identify intersections that have had a significant number of personal injury accidents to determine needs for improved traffic signaling or signage. GIS can also be an invaluable tool in ensuring homeland security by facilitating preparedness, prevention, detection, and recovery and response to terrorist attacks. Many federal departments and agencies use GIS technology to help carry out their primary missions. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) worked with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop E-MAPS, which combines information on HUD’s community development and housing programs with EPA’s environmental data. The program provides homeowners and prospective homebuyers with ready access to detailed local information about environmental hazards that otherwise would likely have been very difficult to obtain. In another example, the Department of Health and Human Services uses GIS technology to analyze data on population and topography (including roads, streams, and land elevation), as well as information gathered from residents. These data are used to track the spread of environmental contamination through a community, to identify geographic areas of particular health concern, and to identify susceptible populations, such as children or the elderly. The usefulness of GIS in disaster response was demonstrated recently in connection with the Space Shuttle Columbia recovery effort. After the loss of Columbia on February 1, 2003, debris was spread over at least 41 counties in Texas and Louisiana. Analysis of GIS data was critical to the efficient recovery and documentation of that debris. The Texas state GIS program provided authorities with precise maps and search grids to guide field reconnaissance and collection crews. Officials in charge of the effort used maps of debris fields combined with GIS data about the physical terrain to carefully track every piece of debris found. This information not only contributed to an efficient recovery effort but also may help experts to refine theories about why Columbia perished. In developing this testimony, our objectives were to describe the many GIS activities under way throughout the federal government and the federal government’s efforts to coordinate these activities, the long-standing challenges of adopting and implementing federal GIS standards, and the role of Geospatial One-Stop. To address these objectives, we obtained relevant documentation from the Department of the Interior and interviewed Geospatial One-Stop project officials as well as representatives from state agencies and private sector organizations involved in GIS activities with the federal government. We also analyzed the accomplishments and planned activities of the Geospatial One-Stop initiative in light of identified challenges to geospatial data sharing. We performed our work between May 2003 and June 2003, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. According to the Department of the Interior, about 80 percent of all government information has a geospatial data component, such as an address or other reference to a physical location. It is not surprising, then, that a wide variety of geospatial data collection efforts are ongoing throughout the federal government, each established for a different purpose but often collecting and maintaining the same or similar information. In fact, according to the 2001 initial business case for Geospatial One-Stop, about 50 percent of the federal government’s geospatial data investment is redundant. For every GIS application, federal agencies must manage the geospatial data that are at the heart of that application. In many cases, agencies maintain the same data that are referenced to the same geographic location. For example, both HUD and the Census Bureau maintain essentially the same geospatial data regarding congressional districts, city boundaries, railroads, interstate highways, and state highways. The two agencies maintain separate GIS systems for storing and analyzing this information. In many cases, agencies independently collect data that, while not identical, is similar and potentially duplicative in many respects. For example, both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) collect and analyze information regarding uranium-milling facilities, and they both cover the same geographic areas. DOE concentrates on tracking the status of former uranium processing sites, whereas NRC gathers and maintains information on current uranium milling facilities in the same mid-western locations. In cases such as this, significant efficiencies may be gained by coordinating the two collection efforts. In other cases, data may be collected in different resolutions or with different degrees of accuracy but still essentially cover the same theme over the same geographic area. Local governments often possess the most recent and highest resolution geographic data; however, these data often are collected to serve specific missions and may be difficult to use for other purposes. For instance, when the Forest Service created a national- level GIS for the forest ecosystem, it was faced with reconciling data from a variety of incompatible locally developed systems. Local agencies had used a variety of standards for each forest and district. In assembling these data into a unified, coherent database, the Forest Service had to adopt the lowest-resolution format in order to maintain full coverage of all forests. As a result, much of the higher-resolution content of the local data could not be used. Much of the effort in building this system was spent reconciling data sets to make them usable in an integrated database. The biggest problem with collecting this duplicative geospatial data is its cost. According to a recent study, up to 80 percent of GIS costs are related to the collection and management of geospatial data. In 1993, OMB performed a data call in which it estimated that $4.1 billion was spent annually, at the federal level, on collection and management of geographically referenced data. In addition, state and local governments are estimated to spend twice that of the federal government on collection and management of geographic referenced data. The federal government has tried for years to reduce duplicative geospatial data collection by coordinating GIS activities both within and outside the federal government. In 1953 the Bureau of the Budget first issued its Circular A-16, encouraging expeditious surveying and mapping activities across all levels of government and avoidance of duplicative efforts. More recently, the E-Government Act of 2002 directed the Office of Management and Budget to coordinate the development of standard protocols for sharing geographic information to reduce redundant data collection and promote collaboration and the use of standards. Although progress has been made over this 50-year span, much work still remains to be done. Over the past several decades we and others, such as the National Research Council and the National Academy of Public Administration, have made a set of recommendations aimed at promoting the coordination of GIS efforts and data. In 1969, we recommended that mapping by state and local agencies under federal programs should be accomplished, where appropriate, in a manner enabling such work to contribute to the national mapping program. In 1982, we issued another report recommending interagency coordination to prevent duplicative computer-mapping programs. In response to this and other recommendations, OMB revised Circular A-16 in 1990, to, among other things, establish a Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), chaired by the Department of the Interior, to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. Building on that effort, a program was established by Executive Order 12906 in 1994 to develop a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) to address the problem of the redundancy and incompatibility of geospatial information collected by many different organizations and stored and maintained at many different physical locations. Figure 2 provides a federal GIS coordination timeline. As a result of these federal geospatial coordination efforts, the federal government has begun to establish the NSDI through a number of component programs.