This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-703 
entitled 'Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed to 
Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments' which was released on June 
23, 2004.

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

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

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

June 2004: 

Geospatial Information: 

Better Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative 
Investments: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-703]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-703, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

From homeland security to tracking outbreaks of disease, to 
investigating the space shuttle disaster to responding to natural 
disasters, the collection, maintenance, and use of location-based 
(geospatial) information has become critical to many federal agencies’ 
abilities to achieve their goals. Local governments and the private 
sector also rely on such data to support essential functions.

GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the federal government 
is coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets, including through 
oversight measures in place at the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), in order to identify and reduce redundancies in geospatial data 
and systems.

What GAO Found: 

OMB, individual federal agencies, and cross-government committees and 
initiatives such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the 
Geospatial One-Stop project have taken actions to coordinate the 
government’s geospatial investments across agencies and with state and 
local governments. However, these efforts have not been fully 
successful in reducing redundancies in geospatial investments for 
several reasons. First, a complete and up-to-date strategic plan for 
doing so has not been in place. Second, agencies have not consistently 
complied with OMB guidance that seeks to identify and reduce 
duplication. Finally, OMB’s oversight of federal geospatial activities 
has not been effective because its methods—the annual budget review 
process, the federal enterprise architecture effort, and the Federal 
Geographic Data Committee’s reporting process—are insufficiently 
developed and have not produced consistent and complete information. 
As a result of these shortcomings, federal agencies are still 
independently acquiring and maintaining potentially duplicative and 
costly data sets and systems. Until these problems are resolved, 
duplicative geospatial investments are likely to persist.

Entities That May Be Involved in Geospatial Data Collection and 
Processing Relating to a Single Geographic Location or Event: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making recommendations to the Director of OMB and the Secretary 
of the Interior to direct development of a national geospatial 
strategic plan, and recommendations to the Director of OMB to develop 
criteria for assessing interagency coordination on proposals for 
potential geospatial investments, and strengthen its oversight of 
geospatial projects. In providing oral comments on a draft of this 
report, OMB and Department of the Interior officials generally agreed 
with its content and recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-703.

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

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Although Steps Have Been Taken to Coordinate Geospatial Activities, 
Redundant Investments Remain: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Selected Agencies' Geospatial Activities: 

Appendix III: Key Federal Laws, Policies, and Guidance Affecting 
Geospatial Information and Systems: 

Appendix IV: OMB Circular A-16 Data Themes, Descriptions, and Lead 
Agencies: 

Appendix V: Glossary: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Summary of the NSDI, Geospatial One-Stop, and National Map 
Programs: 

Table 2: FEA Reference Models: 

Table 3: Selected Geospatial Activities at Federal Agencies: 

Table 4: OMB Circular A-16 Data Themes, Descriptions, and Lead Agencies: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: GIS Layers or Themes: 

Figure 2: Columbia Recovery Map: 

Figure 3: Hurricane Isabel Tracking Map: 

Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections and 
Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location: 

Figure 5: Multiple Street Centerline Data Sets Covering the Same 
Location in Texas: 

Abbreviations: 

BLM: Bureau of Land Management: 

BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOC: Department of Commerce: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOI: Department of the Interior: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

FEA: Federal Enterprise Architecture: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

FGDC: Federal Geographic Data Committee: 

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service: 

GIS: geographic information system: 

GPS: Global Positioning System: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

IT: information technology: 

MMS: Minerals Management Service: 

NILS: National Integrated Land System: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

NSDI: National Spatial Data Infrastructure: 

NSGIC: National States Geographic Information Council: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

TIGER: Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing: 

USACE: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers: 

USCB: U.S. Census Bureau: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USFS: U.S. Forest Service: 

USGS: U.S. Geological Survey

Letter June 23, 2004: 

The Honorable Adam H. Putnam: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Pete Sessions: 
House of Representatives: 

The federal government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial 
information--information linked to specific geographic locations--to 
help in decision making and to support many 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 essential functions. Among the many activities that can depend 
on critical analysis of geospatial information are conducting the 
decennial census, the maintenance of roads and other critical 
transportation infrastructure, and actions in response to natural 
disasters such as floods, tornadoes, and fires.

Federal agencies, states, and local governments may each provide 
services at the same geographic locations and may independently collect 
similar geospatial information about those locations, thus raising the 
question of how well the nation's geospatial assets[Footnote 1] are 
coordinated. You requested that we determine the extent to which the 
federal government is coordinating the sharing of geospatial assets, 
including through oversight measures at the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), in order to identify and reduce redundancies in federal 
geospatial data and systems. To address this objective, we identified 
key federal geospatial projects and reviewed capital asset plans, 
project plans, and other project documentation; conducted interviews 
with agency and OMB officials; and conducted focus groups with state, 
local, and private-sector representatives. Details of our objective, 
scope, and methodology are provided in appendix I. We conducted our 
work from October 2003 through May 2004 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief: 

OMB, individual federal agencies, and cross-government committees and 
initiatives such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and 
the Geospatial One-Stop project have each taken actions to coordinate 
the government's geospatial investments across agencies and with state 
and local governments. FGDC, Geospatial One-Stop, and other cross-
government entities have established Internet-based information-
sharing portals to support development of the National Spatial Data 
Infrastructure (NSDI); one goal of this effort is to address redundancy 
and incompatibility of geospatial information collected by many 
different organizations and stored and maintained at many different 
physical locations. In addition, FGDC has led geospatial standards-
setting activities, and conducted various outreach activities. 
Individual federal agencies have also taken steps to coordinate 
specific geospatial investments in certain cases--the Departments of 
Agriculture (USDA) and the Interior (DOI), for example, have 
collaborated on a land management system. Finally, OMB has attempted to 
oversee and coordinate geospatial investments by collecting and 
analyzing relevant agency information.

However, these efforts have not been fully successful in reducing 
redundancies in geospatial investments for several reasons: 

* A complete and up-to-date strategic plan has not been in place. The 
government's existing strategic plan for the NSDI is out of date and 
does not include specific measures for identifying and reducing 
redundancies.

* Federal agencies have not always fully complied with OMB direction to 
coordinate their investments. Many agency geospatial data holdings are 
not compliant with FGDC standards or are not published through its 
Internet clearinghouse.

* OMB's 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 the agency 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.

We are making recommendations to the Director of OMB and to the 
Secretary of the Interior to 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. We are 
also making recommendations to the Director of OMB to encourage better 
agency compliance with Circular A-16 by developing criteria for 
assessing the extent of interagency coordination on proposals for 
potential geospatial investments; and to strengthen oversight actions 
to better ensure that agencies do not invest in potentially redundant 
geospatial systems or data gathering efforts.

We received oral comments on a draft of this report from 
representatives of OMB's Offices of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
and Resource Management and from the Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior--Policy, Management, and Budget. Both agencies generally 
concurred with the content of our report and our recommendations. In 
addition, the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, and 
the Bureau of the Census provided technical comments, which have been 
incorporated into the final report where appropriate.

Background: 

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

A geographic information system (GIS) is a system of computer software, 
hardware, and data used to capture, store, manipulate, analyze, and 
graphically present a potentially wide array of geospatial information. 
A GIS combines the disciplines of geography, cartography, computer 
science,

and mathematics to permit users to query and analyze the 
attributes[Footnote 2] of any entity or phenomenon that has been 
identified by its geographic location, providing a powerful ability to 
integrate different kinds of location-based information. A fully 
functional GIS includes hardware and software to support data input, 
output, storage, retrieval, display, and analysis. A variety of 
platforms support GIS processing, ranging from large mainframe 
computers and minicomputers to scientific workstations and personal 
computers. In many cases, hardware used to support other applications 
(e.g., payroll, accounting, and digital image processing) can also be 
used.

A variety of technologies, including remote sensing systems and the 
Global Positioning System (GPS), are used to collect the geospatial 
data in a GIS.[Footnote 3] Remote sensing systems collect data that are 
either emitted or reflected by the Earth and the atmosphere from a 
distance--such as from a satellite, airplane, or balloon. The GPS is a 
constellation of orbiting satellites that provides navigational data to 
military and civilian users around the world. With the proper 
equipment, users can receive signals from these satellites to calculate 
time, location, and velocity. GPS equipment is now being used on 
aircraft, ships, and land-based vehicles, and mobile hand-held units 
provide individuals with these capabilities as well.

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. Assuming that all of 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 others. For 
example, one theme could represent all of the streets in a specific 
area. Another theme could correspond to all of the buildings in the 
same area, and others could show vegetation or water resources. 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.

Typical geospatial data layers (or 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. Figure 1 portrays the concept of data themes in a GIS.

Figure 1: GIS Layers or Themes: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Geographic Information Systems and Data Provide a Broad Range of 
Benefits: 

State and local government agencies rely on geographic information 
systems 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 geographic 
information systems to identify intersections that have had a 
significant number of personal injury accidents to determine needs for 
improved traffic signaling or signage.

The usefulness of a GIS in disaster response situations was also 
demonstrated 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 (see fig. 2). 
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.

Figure 2: Columbia Recovery Map: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

A GIS can also be an invaluable tool in helping to ensure homeland 
security by facilitating preparedness, prevention, detection, and 
recovery and response to terrorist attacks. For example, according to a 
March 2002 Gartner report,[Footnote 4] New York City's GIS system 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 efforts. 
Specifically, daily flyovers were performed to monitor changes in the 
elevation of the site to detect weaknesses in the underground 
structure. In addition, thermal imagery was compared with underground 
infrastructure maps to determine the locations where fires were still 
smoldering and to help the New York City Fire Department and emergency 
crews in detecting potential new explosion sites from nearby flammable 
substances. Further, maps generated by geospatial information systems 
were used to transmit critical information to the public and emergency 
personnel and provided the Army and Police Department with critical 
data on other potential terrorist targets such as bridges, tunnels, 
and reservoirs.

Another use for GIS is in the tracking and responding to natural 
disasters such as hurricanes. For example, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) used its GIS capabilities and those of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to generate maps 
to track hurricane Isabel in September 2003. FEMA officials generated 
maps that estimated Isabel's track, and used a hurricane wind model to 
produce maps of projected damage-prone areas in affected states. These 
officials also produced wind damage estimates for structures and 
infrastructures, such as sewage treatment plants, nursing homes, 
schools, and hospitals. Further, the officials performed various 
demographic analyses that estimated the population and number of 
housing units in affected counties or other areas. Figure 3 shows an 
example of a hurricane-tracking map.

Figure 3: Hurricane Isabel Tracking Map: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Similarly, many other federal departments and agencies use GIS 
technology to help carry out their primary missions. Examples include 
the following: 

* The Department of Housing and Urban Development worked with the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop an enterprise 
geographic information system, which combines information on community 
development and housing programs with other types of data, including 
environmental and transportation data. The program provides homeowners 
and prospective home buyers with ready access to detailed local 
information about environmental hazards and other information that 
otherwise would likely be difficult to obtain.

* The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) uses GIS technology 
for a variety of public health functions, such as reporting the results 
of national health surveys. In addition, there are a variety of GIS-
based atlases of national mortality from causes such as injury, 
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and reproductive health problems. Other 
GIS activities focus on disease surveillance and prevention of 
infectious diseases that are caused by environmental exposure. A 
variety of mapping tools are published on the Web to facilitate citizen 
access to public health resources and other information.

* 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 by 
spatially locating all habitations within the United States and 
reporting the resulting census estimates and counts. Census provides 
the spatial information (not individual addresses) in this publicly 
accessible database through its Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/index.html].

* NOAA provides access to maps and other geospatial information on 
subjects such as the weather and climate, oceans and fisheries, and 
satellite imagery used for global weather monitoring at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.noaa.gov]. 

* EPA maintains a variety of databases with information about the 
quality of air, water, and land in the United States. EPA's Envirofacts 
system [Hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/index.html] provides 
public access to selected EPA environmental data.

Appendix II provides additional examples of federal geospatial 
activities.

Coordination of Federal Geospatial Activities: 

The federal government has for many years taken steps to coordinate 
geospatial activities both within and outside the federal government. 
In 1953, the Bureau of the Budget[Footnote 5] first issued its Circular 
A-16, encouraging expeditious surveying and mapping activities across 
all levels of government and avoidance of duplicative efforts. In 1990, 
OMB revised Circular A-16 to, among other things, establish FGDC within 
the Department of the Interior, to promote the coordinated use, 
sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide.

Building on that guidance, the President in 1994 issued Executive Order 
12906, assigning to FGDC the responsibility to coordinate the 
development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) to 
address redundancy and incompatibility of geospatial information. The 
infrastructure is defined by FGDC as the technologies, policies, and 
people necessary to promote sharing of geospatial data throughout all 
levels of government, the private and nonprofit sectors, and the 
academic community. The NSDI's goals are to reduce duplication of 
effort among agencies; to improve quality and reduce costs related to 
geographic information; to make the benefits of geographic data more 
accessible to the public; and to establish key partnerships with 
states, counties, cities, tribal nations, academia, and the private 
sector to increase data availability.

Further, in August 2002, OMB again revised Circular A-16 to reflect 
changes in geographic information management and technology and to more 
clearly define agency and FGDC roles and responsibilities. In addition 
to the responsibilities identified for FGDC, Circular A-16 outlines 
responsibilities and reporting requirements for individual federal 
agencies to help ensure that geospatial resources are used efficiently 
and contribute to building the NSDI. Among other things, the circular 
requires that agencies prepare geographic information strategies, use 
FGDC data standards, and coordinate and work in partnership with 
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector. These 
responsibilities are assigned to all agencies that collect, use, or 
disseminate geographic information or carry out spatial data 
activities.

More recently, in December 2002, the E-Government Act of 2002 was 
signed into law, requiring OMB to coordinate 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.[Footnote 6]

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. For example, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996[Footnote 7] 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. These requirements help to advance OMB's federal 
IT management responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995,[Footnote 8] which has a similar but more general requirement that 
the Director of OMB oversee the use of information resources to improve 
the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations to serve 
agency missions. Appendix III provides brief descriptions of key 
federal legislation, policies, and guidance that apply to IT and 
geospatial information and systems investments.

To help carry out its investment oversight role, OMB established 
requirements for the acquisition and management of IT resources in its 
Circular A-11. The circular establishes policies 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.[Footnote 9] These business 
cases require agencies to answer questions to help OMB determine if the 
investment should be funded. Agency business case submissions must also 
include (1) the type of data used by the IT investment, including 
geospatial data; (2) whether the data needed for the investment already 
exist at the federal, state, or local level, and plans to gain access 
to that data; (3) potential legal reasons why existing data cannot be 
transferred; and (4) compliance with FGDC standards. According to 
Circular A-11, agency responses to these questions are reviewed as part 
of OMB's evaluation of the overall business case.

In addition to activities associated with Circulars A-11 and A-16, in a 
June 2003 congressional hearing, OMB's Administrator, Office of 
Electronic Government and Information Technology, stated that the 
strategic management of geospatial assets would be accomplished, in 
part, through development of a robust and mature federal enterprise 
architecture. In 2001, the lack of a Federal Enterprise Architecture 
was cited by OMB's E-Government Task Force as a barrier to the success 
of the administration's e-government initiatives.[Footnote 10] In 
response, OMB began developing the FEA, and over the last two 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[Footnote 11] efforts and their 
planned and ongoing investment activities.

State and Local Government and Private-Sector Geospatial Information 
and GIS Activities: 

State and local governments and the private sector independently 
provide information and services apart from those provided by the 
federal government, including maintaining land records for nonfederal 
lands, property taxation, local planning, subdivision control and 
zoning, and direct delivery of many other public services. These 
entities use geographic information and GIS to facilitate and support 
delivery of these services. In fact, 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.

For example, the state of New York hosts a Web site to provide citizens 
with a gateway to state government services at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.nysegov.com/map-NY.cfm]. Using this Web site, citizens can 
access information about state agencies and their services, and locate 
county boundaries, services, and major state highways. New York also 
developed a clearinghouse [Hyperlink, http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/] 
to disseminate information about statewide GIS programs and provide 
information and services including state maps, aerial photographs, and 
a help desk to provide support for both general questions and specific 
questions regarding the use of GIS software. Many other states, such as 
Oregon [Hyperlink, http://www.gis.state.or.us/], Virginia [Hyperlink, 
http://www.vgin.virginia.gov/index.html], and Alaska [Hyperlink, 
http://www.asgdc.state.ak.us/], provide similar Web sites and services.

For local governments, GIS applications have become integral resources 
for public works, and financial, public safety, and economic 
developments. A 2003 survey sponsored by Interior showed that GIS 
technology is recognized as an essential tool by many local 
governments. For example, Fairfax County in Virginia developed GIS 
applications to provide online products and services to the public that 
include: 

* a digital map viewer to see and download property, zoning, 
topography, or contour maps;

* an aerial orthoimagery[Footnote 12] photo viewer to access aerial 
photographs of specific parcels, areas of interest, or addresses;

* a department of tax administration parcel finder to locate detailed 
information about a specific property and to view that parcel with the 
parcel viewer; and: 

* a map gallery that contains many common maps produced by the Fairfax 
County GIS and Mapping Department. The maps are letter size and 
available in many formats for downloading and printing.

The private sector also 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 government 
organizations.

Figure 4 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 5 shows the multiple data 
sets that have been collected by different agencies at federal, state, 
and local levels to capture the location of a segment of roadway in 
Texas.

Figure 4: Conceptual Diagram of Multiple Geospatial Data Collections 
and Processing Associated with a Single Geographic Location: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 5: Multiple Street Centerline Data Sets Covering the Same 
Location in Texas: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

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

Costs associated with collecting and maintaining geographically 
referenced data and systems for the federal government are significant. 
Specific examples of the costs of collecting and maintaining federal 
geospatial data and information systems[Footnote 13] include: 

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

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

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

* Interior's National Map--development is estimated to cost about $88 
million through 2008;[Footnote 14]

* 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 GIS systems 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 collection will be 
coordinated among federal, state, and local government agencies, and 
the council cautions that without effective coordination, the costs 
could be far higher.

Although Steps Have Been Taken to Coordinate Geospatial Activities, 
Redundant Investments Remain: 

OMB, individual federal agencies, and cross-government committees and 
initiatives such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and 
the Geospatial One-Stop project have each taken actions to coordinate 
the government's geospatial investments. FGDC and other cross-
government entities have established Internet-based information-
sharing portals to support development of the NSDI, led geospatial 
standards-setting activities, and conducted various outreach 
activities. In addition, individual federal agencies have taken steps 
to coordinate specific geospatial investments in certain cases--
Agriculture and Interior have collaborated on a land management system. 
Finally, OMB has attempted to oversee and coordinate geospatial 
investments by collecting and analyzing relevant agency information.

However, these efforts have not been fully successful in reducing 
redundancies in geospatial investments for several reasons. First, a 
complete and up-to-date strategic plan has not been in place. 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, federal agencies have not always fully complied 
with OMB direction to coordinate their investments. Many agency 
geospatial data holdings are not compliant with FGDC standards or are 
not published through the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. 
Third, OMB's 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 the agency 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 shortcomings in all three of these domains, federal 
agencies are independently acquiring and maintaining potentially 
duplicative and costly data sets and systems. Without better 
coordination, such duplication is likely to continue.

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

Both Executive Order 12906 and OMB Circular A-16 charge FGDC with 
responsibilities that support coordination of federal GIS investments. 
Specifically, the committee is designated the lead federal executive 
body responsible for (1) developing, implementing, and maintaining 
spatial data standards; (2) 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; (3) 
communicating information about the status of infrastructure-related 
activities via the Internet; and (4) preparing and maintaining a 
strategic plan for developing and implementing the NSDI.

According to OMB Circular A-16, FGDC is to develop standards, with 
input from a broad range of data users and providers. Geospatial 
standards are intended to facilitate data sharing and increase 
interoperability among automated geospatial information systems. In 
addition, according to Circular A-16, the committee is to adopt 
national and international standards in lieu of federal standards, 
whenever possible, and restrict its standards-development activities to 
areas not covered by other voluntary standards-consensus bodies.

To address these responsibilities, FGDC has created a standards working 
group that includes federal agencies, states, academia, and the private 
sector. The working group has developed, and the committee has 
endorsed, a number of different geospatial standards, including 
metadata[Footnote 15] standards, and are working to continue developing 
additional standards. The committee's working group also coordinates 
with national and international standards bodies to ensure that 
potential users support their work.

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. The committee structure is composed of (1) a steering 
committee that sets the high-level strategic direction for FGDC and (2) 
agency-led subcommittees and working groups. The subcommittees and 
working groups provide the basic structure for institutions and 
individuals to interact and coordinate with each other during the 
implementation of the NSDI. FGDC membership includes 19 federal 
agencies, with the Secretary of the Interior and the Deputy Director 
for Management, OMB, serving as Chair and Vice-Chair, respectively.

Key actions taken by FGDC to develop the NSDI include implementing a 
National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and establishing a framework of 
data themes. The clearinghouse is a decentralized system of Internet-
based servers that contain descriptions of available geospatial data--
over 300,000 metadata records, and information on over 2 million 
digital images are currently available through the clearinghouse. It 
allows individual agencies, consortia, or others to promote their 
available geospatial data. The framework of data themes is a 
collaborative effort in which commonly used data "layers" are 
developed, maintained, and integrated by public and private 
organizations within a geographic area. Local, regional, state, and 
federal organizations and private companies can use the framework as a 
way to share resources, improve communications, and increase 
efficiency. Appendix IV provides detailed descriptions of the framework 
data themes and other geospatial data layers.

OMB Circular A-16 also calls for FGDC to communicate information, via 
the Internet, about its activities related to NSDI development; 
committee memberships; and the status of agencies' work on committees, 
subcommittees, and working groups. FGDC is also to provide a collection 
of technical publications, articles, and reports related to the NSDI. 
To address these responsibilities, FGDC has established a Web site at 
[Hyperlink, www.fgdc.gov] w [Hyperlink, http://www.fgdc.gov] 
ww.fgdc.gov that provides information on its organizational structure 
and agencies' activities on its committees and subcommittees--including 
minutes of meetings for each. The Web site also provides, among other 
information, technical articles, fact sheets, newsletters, and news 
releases.

In addition to FGDC's programs to support developing and implementing 
the NSDI, 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. 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,[Footnote 16] in part to support development of an 
inventory of national geospatial assets, and also to support reducing 
redundancies in federal geospatial assets. The Department of the 
Interior was designated as the managing partner to lead the project, 
with development support from various other federal agencies. As of 
April 2004, over 9,000 metadata records were accessible through the 
Geospatial One-Stop portal, located at [Hyperlink, www.geodata.gov]. 
According to the initiative's executive director, the portal will 
continue to add metadata records by implementing a metadata 
"harvesting" program to actively gather metadata from many sources, 
beginning with the clearinghouse. 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. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing and 
implementing The National Map 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. Through this 
project, USGS maintains an archive for the historic preservation of 
data and science applications; provides products and services that 
include paper maps, digital images, data download capabilities, and 
scientific reports; and promotes geographic integration and analyses. 
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 efforts 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.

Table 1 summarizes the NSDI, Geospatial One-Stop, and National Map 
programs.

Table 1: Summary of the NSDI, Geospatial One-Stop, and National Map 
Programs: 

Description; 
National Spatial Data Infrastructure: The technology, policies, 
standards, human resources, and related activities necessary to 
acquire, process, distribute, use, maintain, and preserve geospatial 
data; 
Geospatial One-Stop: An e-government initiative sponsored by OMB to 
enhance government efficiency and improve citizen service; 
The National Map: A resource to enable and communicate information 
related to geographic science.

Purpose; 
National Spatial Data Infrastructure: To ensure that geospatial data 
from multiple sources (federal, state, local, and tribal governments, 
academia, and the private sector) are available and easily integrated 
to enhance the understanding of our physical and cultural world; 
Geospatial One-Stop: To develop a geospatial portal to make easier, 
faster, and less expensive access to geospatial information available 
for all levels of government and the public; 
The National Map: To provide trusted, integrated, seamless, and 
continually maintained geospatial base data and archives, along with 
related models and applications.

Data collected; 
National Spatial Data Infrastructure: Data themes that include geodetic 
control, orthoimagery, elevation, transportation, hydrography, 
cadastral, and government units; 
Geospatial One-Stop: Seventeen data categories, representing all NSDI 
data themes; 
The National Map: Eight base data themes, including five NSDI framework 
themes, and related scientific models and applications.

Standards; 
National Spatial Data Infrastructure: Common and repeated rules, 
conditions, guidelines, or characteristics for data and related 
processes. NSDI standards are developed and promulgated by FGDC using 
an established process with input from a broad range of data users and 
providers; 
Geospatial One-Stop: Adopts, adapts, or develops standards and Internet 
protocols necessary for effective implementation of the NSDI; currently 
completing work on FGDC information content standards for the NSDI 
framework data themes; 
The National Map: Encourages and promotes the use of standards for 
database creation and developing and assuring conformance to standards, 
guidelines, and characterizations of technology.

Web site; 
National Spatial Data Infrastructure: www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/nsdi.html; 
Geospatial One-Stop: www.geo-one-stop.gov; 
The National Map: www.nationalmap.usgs.gov. 

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

In addition to its other responsibilities, OMB Circular A-16 charges 
FGDC with leading the preparation of a strategic plan for the 
implementation of the NSDI. Such a plan could ensure coherence among 
the many geospatial coordination activities that are under way and 
provide ways to measure success in reducing redundancies. 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. In conjunction 
with EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for 
example, now makes geospatial information about housing available to 
potential home buyers over the Internet. This is one of several agency 
geospatial projects that did not exist in 1997. Second, significant 
governmentwide geospatial efforts--including the Geospatial One-Stop 
and the National Map projects--did not exist in 1997 and are therefore 
not reflected in the strategic plan. Finally, the 1997 plan 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 a key role to play in supporting 
decision makers and emergency responders in protecting critical 
infrastructure and responding to threats.

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

While the 1997 NSDI plan contains a vision statement and goals and 
objectives, it does not include other essential elements. For example, 
FGDC's plan does not include 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. Specifically, the plan does not include a 
description of how the development and implementation of geospatial 
standards could foster coordination of national geospatial investments, 
and what actions FGDC is taking to help ensure that standards are 
implemented to effectively support such coordination. The plan also 
does not identify how the programs that FGDC uses to promote 
coordination among federal agencies and other entities fit together in 
a cohesive approach to support and facilitate collaboration.

In addition to not developing a plan that integrates each of FGDC's 
activities to ensure that the actions it takes effectively contribute 
to its vision, the strategy does not identify key risk factors that 
could significantly affect the achievement of the goals and objectives. 
Identifying such risk factors would be the first step in mitigating 
them, helping to ensure that the plan's goals and objectives are 
achievable.

Finally, the current plan does not include performance goals and 
measures to help ensure that the steps being taken are resulting in the 
development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Performance 
goals and measures, with processes in place to measure progress, are 
important factors to ensuring the overall effectiveness of the plan and 
whether the objectives of the plan are being met.

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 
the 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 complete 
and up-to-date national strategic plan, with measurable goals and 
objectives for developing the NSDI, is in place, coordination will 
continue to be limited, resulting in unnecessary duplication of 
geospatial assets and activities.

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

OMB Circular A-16 directs federal agencies to coordinate their 
investments to facilitate building the NSDI. The circular lists 11 
specific responsibilities for federal agencies, including: 

* 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;

* using FGDC standards, including metadata and other appropriate 
standards, documenting spatial data with relevant metadata; and: 

* 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, Agriculture's U.S. Forest 
Service and Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 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. BLM and the Forest Service signed a formal 
interagency agreement at the outset of the project, coordinated project 
planning and management, and shared project funding. 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. In another 
example, HUD and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked 
together to develop an enterprise GIS that combines information on 
HUD's community development and housing programs with EPA's 
environmental data, as well as other agencies' data, to provide 
homeowners and prospective home buyers with ready access to detailed 
local information about environmental hazards and other pertinent 
information, including data about roadways, population, and local 
landmarks.

However, despite such examples of coordination, agencies have not 
always complied with OMB's broader geospatial coordination 
requirements. For example, only 10 of the 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, 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 
clearinghouse,[Footnote 18] 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, and 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 the 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 there are no clear performance measures that link 
funding to interagency coordination.

OMB's Oversight of Federal Geospatial Assets and Activities Has Not 
Identified Redundant Investments: 

OMB has recognized that potentially redundant geospatial assets need to 
be identified and that federal geospatial systems and information 
efforts 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: 

* business cases for planned or ongoing IT investments, submitted by 
agencies as part of the annual budget process;

* comparisons of agency lines of business with the Federal Enterprise 
Architecture (FEA); and: 

* annual reports compiled by FGDC and submitted to OMB.

In addition, OMB has asked for detailed information from federal 
agencies on specific types of geospatial information and systems assets 
as an additional means of identifying and minimizing redundant IT 
investments.

None of OMB's major oversight processes--the annual review process 
associated with development of the federal budget, the FEA effort, and 
the FGDC-administered Circular A-16 reporting process--have been 
effective tools to help OMB identify major redundancies in federal GIS 
investments. 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. However, until more effective 
oversight measures are in place, duplicative and potentially costly 
geospatial data and projects are likely to continue, resulting in 
inefficient use of limited resources.

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

In their IT business cases submitted annually as part of the budget 
process, 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, develop floodplain mapping, and locate areas of interest 
related to hazard areas. 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. Similarly, Census's fiscal year 
2005 business case for its MAF/TIGER Enhancement project indicates that 
state, local, tribal, and private-sector spatial data are used for the 
realignment of the street centerlines and other features. However, like 
the Flood Map Modernization business case, the MAF/TIGER Enhancement 
business case does not categorize these data according to the Circular 
A-16 data themes, which would allow OMB to compare them with other 
agencies' holdings. Without categorizing the data using the standard 
data themes as an important step toward coordinating that data, 
information about agencies' planned or ongoing use of geospatial data 
in their business cases cannot be effectively assessed to determine 
whether it could be integrated with other existing or planned federal 
geospatial assets.

The Federal Enterprise Architecture Is Not Yet Effective in Identifying 
Potentially Redundant Geospatial Investments: 

An FEA is being constructed that, once it is further developd, may help 
identify potentially redundant geospatial investments. It will comprise 
a collection of five interrelated "reference models" designed to 
facilitate cross-agency analysis and the identification of duplicative 
investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration within and 
across federal agencies. According to recent GAO testimony on the 
status of the FEA, although OMB has made progress on the FEA, it 
remains a work in process and is still maturing.[Footnote 19] The five 
FEA reference models are summarized in table 2.

Table 2: FEA Reference Models: 

Reference model: Business Reference Model; 
Description: Describes the business operations (lines of business) of 
the federal government independent of the agencies that perform them, 
including defining the services provided to state and local 
governments; 
Status: Version 2.0 released June 2003.

Reference model: Service Component Reference Model; 
Description: Identifies and classifies IT service (i.e., application) 
components that support federal agencies and promote the reuse of 
components across agencies; 
Status: Version 1.0 released June 2003.

Reference model: Technical Reference Model; 
Description: Describes how technology is supporting the delivery of 
service components, including relevant standards for implementing the 
technology; 
Status: Version 1.1 released August 2003.

Reference model: Performance Reference Model; 
Description: Provides a common set of general performance outputs and 
measures for agencies to use to achieve business goals and objectives; 
Status: Version 1.0 released September 2003.

Reference model: Data and Information Reference Model; 
Description: Describes, at an aggregate level, the types of data and 
information that support program and business line operations, and the 
relationships among these types; 
Status: Not yet released. 

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

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 they 
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. GAO supports 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 
visualization service, which defines capabilities that support the 
conversion of data into graphical or picture form. One component of 
visualization service is associated with mapping, geospatial, 
elevation, and GPS 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, it will categorize the 
government's information along general content areas and describe data 
components that are common to many business processes or activities.

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

FGDC-Administered Agency Reporting Does Not Provide Adequate 
Information for Identifying Redundant Geospatial Investments: 

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

For the fiscal year 2003 report, agencies were asked to respond to a 
number of 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. Eight of the FGDC partner agencies, including the 
Departments of Energy, Justice, and Homeland Security, and the National 
Science Foundation, did not provide reports for fiscal year 2003. In 
addition, nonpartner agencies, including the Departments of Education, 
Labor, Veterans Affairs and the Treasury, did not provide reports, 
although all agencies that collect, use, or disseminate geospatial 
information, regardless of whether they are FGDC partners, are required 
to do so. According to OMB's program examiner for the Department of the 
Interior, OMB does not know in detail how well agencies are complying 
with the reporting requirements in Circular A-16. Until the information 
reported by agencies is consistent and complete, OMB may not be able to 
effectively use what information they do have to identify potential 
geospatial redundancies.

OMB's Supplemental Data Requests Have Not Provided Sufficient 
Information to Identify Potentially Redundant Investments: 

In addition to the three tools OMB uses to identify potentially 
redundant geospatial investments, it has also issued special requests 
to agencies to report on their geospatial investments to help support 
its oversight function for geospatial information, as required by OMB 
Circular A-16. For example, as part of the 2004 budget cycle, OMB 
initiated a pilot project to collect detailed cost information on one 
geospatial data theme--elevation data. Despite specifying criteria for 
identifying elevation data, the pilot encountered problems.

FGDC developed criteria for this pilot process, but OMB did not follow 
it. Budget examiners at OMB modified the criteria to take into account 
the agencies' widely varying missions, and broadened the criteria for 
individual agencies to make it easier for them to identify elevation 
data in the same way they tracked the data internally. As a result, 
elevation data were not reported consistently and could not be compared 
across agencies.

A data collection effort associated with the fiscal year 2005 budget 
process raised the same questions as the 2004 effort about its 
effectiveness to support OMB's oversight responsibilities. As part of 
the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle, OMB again requested supplemental 
information from federal agencies to identify which agencies are 
collecting geospatial data, for what purposes, and covering which 
geographic areas; federal expenditures related to data collection and 
the extent of leveraging of those expenditures; the extent of sharing 
of and public access to federal geospatial data; and the use of 
standards. Specifically, OMB asked agencies that spend $500,000 or more 
on any geospatial data to report information on all types of geospatial 
data, with a focus on the seven types of framework data identified by 
FGDC. However, because the earlier problems have not been addressed, 
the 2005 supplemental data request is also unlikely to provide useful 
information for OMB to identify redundant federal geospatial 
investments.

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

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

We found that 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.

Further, in a recent report on coastal mapping and charting, the 
National Research Council cited numerous examples of redundant activity 
in coastal mapping, including aerial imaging, shoreline mapping, and 
habitat mapping.[Footnote 20] The council noted that redundancy in data 
collection is of most concern, as it is by far the most expensive of 
geospatial activities, and concluded that agencies do not have an 
efficient means of determining whether an area of interest has been 
previously mapped. Without better-coordinated activities, federal 
agencies are likely to continue to duplicate data collection.

Conclusions: 

The longstanding problem of effectively coordinating federal geospatial 
investments to reduce unnecessary redundancies and their concomitant 
costs has not yet been resolved. A number of activities have been 
initiated with the aim of better coordinating geospatial investments, 
including the OMB-required activities of FGDC, as well as the 
Geospatial One-Stop initiative and other projects such as The National 
Map. In addition, individual agencies have collaborated on specific 
geospatial projects, and OMB has adopted several processes for 
identifying redundant geospatial investments.

However, these efforts have not been very successful in reducing 
redundancies in geospatial investments. A complete and up-to-date 
strategic plan to coordinate the government's various geospatial 
activities is lacking, and federal agencies have not fully complied 
with OMB's Circular A-16 guidance. Similarly, OMB's processes for 
identifying duplicative federal geospatial investments have not proven 
effective.

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. In addition, without effective 
oversight by OMB, agencies might not have adequate incentives to fully 
coordinate their geospatial activities, and OMB will not be able to 
identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments. Until these 
shortcomings are addressed, cost savings from eliminating duplicative 
geospatial investments will not materialize.

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to encourage more coordination of geospatial assets, reduce 
needless redundancies, and decrease costs, we recommend that the 
Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Interior, in coordination with 
the FGDC, establish milestones for the development of an updated 
national geospatial data strategic plan, ensuring that the plan 
includes: 

* outcome-related strategic goals and objectives;

* a plan for how the goals and objectives are to be achieved;

* identification of key risk factors that could significantly affect 
the achievement of the general goals and objectives and a mitigation 
plan for those risk factors; and: 

* performance goals and measures that will be used to ensure that the 
goals and objectives of the NSDI are being met.

To encourage better agency compliance with Circular A-16, we also 
recommend 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, we recommend that the Director of OMB strengthen the agency's 
oversight actions to more effectively coordinate federal geospatial 
data and systems acquisitions and thereby reduce potentially redundant 
investments. Specifically, OMB should: 

* require that information about planned geospatial data acquisitions 
provided in agencies' business cases include specific categorizations 
of all geospatial data according to the standardized data themes 
defined by FGDC and described in OMB Circular A-16; and: 

* require that all federal agencies submit annual reports to FGDC on 
their GIS investments, including geospatial systems and data sets 
already in place.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We received oral comments on a draft of this report from 
representatives of OMB's Offices of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
and Resource Management and from the Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior--Policy, Management, and Budget. The officials from both 
agencies generally agreed with the content of our draft report and our 
recommendations and provided technical comments, which have been 
incorporated where appropriate. In addition, the Departments of Defense 
and Health and Human Services and the Bureau of the Census also 
provided oral technical comments, which have been incorporated where 
appropriate.

Concerning our recommendation that OMB strengthen its oversight to more 
effectively coordinate federal geospatial data and systems 
acquisitions, the OMB representatives stated 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.

The Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary of the Interior--
Policy, Management, and Budget noted that our report emphasizes 
geospatial investments rather than the broader and more comprehensive 
geospatial strategies outlined in OMB Circular A-16, and pointed out 
that encouraging the growth of a national spatial data infrastructure-
-versus tracking geospatial investments and minimizing duplication--
required different approaches. In the department's view, activities by 
FGDC and the Geospatial One-Stop initiative to develop an 
infrastructure for information sharing have established business 
practices that can result in sound investments. We agree with the 
department that these are valuable activities that can promote sound 
investments. Moreover, a detailed strategic plan, coupled with improved 
oversight and agency compliance with coordination guidance, remain 
critical steps to achieving the objective of reducing duplication in 
federal geospatial investments.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member, House Committee on Government Reform, and the Ranking 
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census. In addition, we are 
providing copies to the Director of OMB and the Secretary of the 
Interior, and the report is available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

Should you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-6240 or John de Ferrari, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-
6335. We can also be reached by e-mail at [Hyperlink, koontzl@gao.gov] 
 and [Hyperlink, deferrarij@gao.gov], respectively. Other key 
contributors to this report were Michael Holland, Steven Law, and 
Elizabeth Roach.

Signed by: 

Linda D. Koontz: 
Director, Information Management Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objective was to determine 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 federal 
geospatial data and systems.

To address this objective, we reviewed relevant federal guidance and 
legislation, including The E-Government Act of 2002; The Clinger-Cohen 
Act of 1996; The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; Executive Order 
12906: Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access; OMB 
Circular A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget; 
OMB Circular A-16: Coordination of Geographic Information and Related 
Spatial Data Activities; and OMB Circular A-130: Management of Federal 
Information Resources. Appendix III provides additional information 
about each. We also reviewed agency IT business cases, known as Exhibit 
300s, submitted as part of the annual budget process. In addition, we 
evaluated the Federal Enterprise Architecture reference models and 
various FGDC documents and interviewed officials from the following 
federal agencies in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area: 

* Department of Agriculture;

* Department of Commerce, including the Census Bureau and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;

* Department of Defense, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency;

* Department of Health and Human Services;

* Department of Homeland Security, including the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency;

* Department of the Interior, including the Bureau of Land Management 
and the U.S. Geological Survey;

* Environmental Protection Agency; and: 

* Office of Management and Budget.

We interviewed program officials representing key federal geospatial 
projects, including the Federal Geographic Data Committee, Geospatial 
One-Stop, The National Map, and the TIGER Modernization project. For 
these projects, we reviewed key documents such as capital asset plans, 
project plans, and other project documentation.

To better understand federal efforts to coordinate with state and local 
governments and the private sector, we interviewed state and local 
government and private sector officials at several conferences, 
including the ESRI Federal User Conference and the National Association 
of Counties Legislative Conference. In addition, we conducted focus 
groups at three national conferences in March 2004: (1) The National 
League of Cities Congressional City Conference; (2) the Management 
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors Federal Programs 
Conference; and (3) the National States Geographic Information Council 
Midyear Conference. At these focus groups we asked state and local 
government and private sector officials for their views on what the 
federal government was doing to coordinate its geospatial activities 
with them and what could be done to improve the coordination of federal 
geospatial activities. A total of 34 state and local government and 
private sector officials attended these focus groups.

In addition, to determine the extent of state and local participation 
in the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse and the Geospatial One-
Stop portal, we obtained information from FGDC officials about the 
metadata records contained in the clearinghouse and conducted analyses 
of the data referenced in the Geospatial One-Stop portal.

We conducted our work from October 2003 through May 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Selected Agencies' Geospatial Activities: 

Many federal agencies have established geospatial activities to help 
them achieve their specific goals and objectives. Table 3 highlights 
selected federal geospatial activities at certain agencies. The table 
is not intended to be a comprehensive list of agency geospatial 
activities.

Table 3: Selected Geospatial Activities at Federal Agencies: 

Agency: Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Forest Service; 
Activities: The Forest Service uses GIS to provide information on 
vegetation, water, fire, and soil for specified forests. The agency 
also develops digital orthophoto quad images and maintains a 
clearinghouse with geospatial metadata. In addition, the Forest Service 
is working with Interior's Bureau of Land Management to develop the 
National Integrated Land System, to support the management of cadastral 
records and land parcel information.

Agency: USDA/National Cartography and Geospatial Center (NCGC); 
Activities: NCGC Internet Mapping offers Web access to view samples of 
hydrography, digital orthophotography, digital topographic data, and 
other integrated data layers. In addition, NCGC supports an Aerial 
Photography Field Office with a library of over 10 million images 
dating from 1955 to the present.

Agency: USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); 
Activities: The NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway provides easy and 
consistent access to natural resource data by geographic area such as 
county or state. Users can search for data by theme, such as digital 
orthoimagery, digital elevation models, or soils.

Agency: USDA/Farm Service Agency (FSA); 
Activities: The FSA is implementing software that will be important in 
the maintenance of the Common Land Unit (CLU), which will track all 
farming activity across the country. The CLU should be completed 
nationwide in fiscal year 2005.

Agency: Department of Commerce (DOC)/Census Bureau; 
Activities: The Census Bureau developed the Topologically Integrated 
Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) database, which automates 
the mapping and related geographic activities required to support the 
decennial census and the bureau's sample survey programs. Census is 
also working on the Master Address File/TIGER (MAF/TIGER) Accuracy 
Improvement Project, which seeks to improve accuracy in TIGER by 
acquiring and using, as a first priority among data sources, digital 
files prepared and provided by state, local, and tribal governments. 
In addition, Census maintains the TIGER Enhancement Database, which 
includes metadata about state and local geospatial data. Census also 
conducts the Boundary and Annexation Survey to update the information 
it has about the legal boundaries, names, governmental status, and 
types of municipalities in the United States.

Agency: DOC/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); 
Activities: NOAA makes extensive use of GIS technology to store the 
large quantity of data it collects. For example, the Pacific Marine 
Environmental Laboratory and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center 
collect data about the physical and biological characteristics of the 
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska, which are then stored in a GIS. In 
addition, NOAA's Coastal Services Center develops products and services 
through project partnerships that address specific technical needs and 
capacities of the coastal management community. These projects 
typically focus on data access and distribution, Internet mapping, and 
spatial data analysis and visualization as a means of addressing 
coastal hazards, smart growth, marine protected areas, or coastal 
permitting issues.

Agency: Department of Defense (DOD)/National Geospatial Intelligence 
Agency (NGA); 
Activities: NGA provides timely, accurate, global aeronautical, 
topographical, and maritime geospatial information in support of 
national security objectives.

Agency: DOD/Army Corps of Engineers; 
Activities: The Army Corps of Engineers collects hydrographic data 
along the Inland Waterway to ensure that navigation channels are 
dredged to authorized depths; aerial photography and elevation data of 
authorized projects to support a variety of planning-and construction-
related activities, and uses geospatial technologies as part of its 
water control, real estate, planning and reconnaissance studies, 
emergency management, regulatory, environmental restoration, 
engineering and reconstruction missions.

Agency: DOD/Navy; 
Activities: The Navy's Oceanographic Information System collects, 
analyzes, processes, manages, produces, and distributes classified and 
unclassified oceanographic data and products. In addition, the system 
functions as the initial collection and processing entity for mapping 
and charting geodesy data and information.

Agency: Department of Energy (DOE)/Los Alamos National Laboratory; 
Activities: The Los Alamos National Laboratory's GISLab supplies 
geospatial information for internal and external users of geospatial 
data. Current projects include fire-related spatial data, floodplain 
mapping and hydrological modeling, field mapping for forest management, 
and mesoscale climate change modeling.

Agency: DOE/National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 
Activities: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory site provides 
dynamically generated maps of renewable energy resources that determine 
which energy technologies are viable solutions in the United States. 
These maps include GIS Clean Cities Map, Wind Map, Transportation 
Technologies Map, Map of Indian Lands, Solar Maps, and Federal Energy 
Management Program Maps.

Agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)/Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry; 
Activities: The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
manages a geospatial data warehouse that contains base map, 
sociodemographic, emergency response, environmental, hazard, and health 
resource data.

Agency: HHS/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 
Activities: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention engages in a 
variety of GIS activities that serve disease surveillance and 
prevention themes. The National Center for Injury Prevention and 
Control publishes Web-based maps on injury statistics and mortality 
atlases; the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Heath 
Promotion uses GIS to analyze and publish geospatial data, such as 
mapping risk factor data and the prevalence of fluoridated water 
systems, cardiovascular mortality atlases, etc; and the National Center 
for Environmental Health (NCEH) has recently deployed the Environmental 
Public Health Geography Network, a system designed to publish and share 
geospatial data, metadata and maps. NCEH also deployed the Spatial 
Epidemiology and Emergency Management System, a Web-based system to 
provide easy and rapid access to and mapping of geospatial data; 
Agency: HHS/National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute; 
Activities: The National Cancer Institute maintains the Cancer 
Mortality Maps & Graph Web Site, which provides information on 
geographic patterns and time trends of cancer death rates from 1950 to 
1994 for more than 40 types of cancer.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS); 
Activities: Various DHS components are frequent users of geospatial 
information, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 
the Bureau of Transportation Security, the Coast Guard, and the Secret 
Service.

Agency: DHS/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 
Activities: FEMA provides a full range of GIS services to all FEMA 
program offices, including storm tracking and damage prediction maps, 
remote sensing maps, maps of federally declared counties in an 
affected state, basic census demographics about an affected area by 
county and census block, street locations, and summaries of 
teleregistered and service center applicants, housing inspection 
numbers, Help-line calls, disaster unemployment claims, Small Business 
Administration applicants, etc. In addition, FEMA's Flood Map 
Modernization Program will update FEMA's current stock of flood maps 
in order to produce more accurate and accessible digital flood maps and 
make those maps accessible via the Internet.

Agency: Department of the Interior (DOI)/Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM); 
Activities: BLM uses GIS to store and analyze public land and 
administrative jurisdiction information. In addition, BLM is working 
with the Forest Service to develop the National Integrated Land System 
(NILS) to provide business solutions for the management of cadastral 
records and land parcel information in a GIS environment.

Agency: DOI/Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS); 
Activities: The Fish and Wildlife Service uses GIS technology to: 
maintain wetlands data, as referenced in OMB Circular A-16, and share 
that data through a cooperative agreement with The National Map; create 
and share a variety of information on endangered species, fisheries and 
habitat conservation, and national wildlife refuges; make metadata 
available on the NSDI through a cooperative agreement with USGS; and 
share an interactive mapping application with basic information on 
Fish and Wildlife Service offices through Geospatial One-Stop.

Agency: DOI/National Park Service; 
Activities: The National Park Service uses geospatial data to enhance 
preservation of park resources with scientific spatial analysis and 
modeling, enhance visitor experiences with GPS tools and tips; provide 
an Interactive Map Center to deliver base maps and park brochure maps 
for geographic reference and navigation to and within parks; and 
provide search and rescue maps.

Agency: DOI/U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); 
Activities: USGS's Cooperative Topographic Mapping program works with 
partners in other federal agencies; in state, county, and local 
governments, and in the private sector to ensure that accurate, 
current, and complete data that locate and describe the Earth's 
features are available and that products such as the USGS topographic 
series maps are kept up to date. The Geographic Analysis and Monitoring 
program conducts research to understand the rates, causes, and 
consequences of landscape change over time and uses that research to 
model change processes for predicting future conditions. The Land 
Remote Sensing program, working with NASA, NOAA, commercial satellite 
companies, state and local governments, and international programs, 
collects, maintains, and distributes millions of images acquired from 
satellite and aircraft sensors. In addition, USGS provides a site that 
serves as a node of the NSDI for finding and accessing USGS spatial 
data related to hydrography. In addition, USGS is developing and 
implementing The National Map as a database to provide core geospatial 
data about the United States and its territories similar to the data 
provided on USGS paper topographic maps. Through this project, USGS 
maintains an archive for the historic preservation of data and science 
applications; provides products and services that include paper maps, 
digital images, data download capabilities, and scientific reports; 
and promotes geographic integration and analyses.

Agency: Department of Justice/Justice Programs Office for Victims of 
Crime; 
Activities: Uses GIS to map crime victim services.

Agency: Department of Transportation (DOT)/Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS); 
Activities: The Bureau of Transportation Statistics maintains the 
National Transportation Atlas Data Shapefile Download Center, which is 
a set of transportation-related geospatial data for the United States, 
including transportation networks, transportation facilities, and other 
spatial data used as geographic reference.

Agency: DOT/Volpe National Transportation Systems Center; 
Activities: The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center uses GIS 
to identify data such as county boundaries, roadways, and railroads, 
measure ambient noise levels, and search for locations such as historic 
beacon sites and environmental data.

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); 
Activities: EPA uses a variety of geospatial data in order to support 
its mission to protect human health and the environment. Specific 
examples of activities supported by geospatial information include: 
conducting analyses to help manage urban/suburban growth, responding to 
oil spills and other emergency situations, identifying sources of 
pollution for source water protection, tracking toxic substances, 
cleaning up and monitoring Superfund sites, detecting and evaluating 
landscape patterns and changes, analyzing the relationship between 
health and environmental contaminants, and monitoring water quality. 
EPA also maintains the Environmental Information Management System 
(EIMS), the EPA node on the Federal Geographic Data Committee 
Clearinghouse. Users can obtain metadata about EPA Geospatial data 
through EIMS.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the 
Environmental Protection Agency; 
Activities: The Enterprise Geographic Information System combines 
information on HUD's community development and housing programs with 
EPA's environmental data, and other agencies' data, to provide 
location, type, and performance of HUD-funded activities in every 
neighborhood across the country and select EPA information on 
brownfields, hazardous wastes, air pollution, and wastewater 
discharges. It also provides information on population, transportation 
and roadways, and local landmarks.

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); 
Activities: NASA's Global Change Master Directory enables users to 
locate and obtain access to Earth science data sets and services 
relevant to the global change and Earth science research. The database 
holds more than 15,000 descriptions of Earth science data sets and 
services covering all aspects of Earth and environmental sciences.

Agency: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); 
Activities: The TVA provides an interactive map of the entire TVA 
power system, a network of reservoirs and power plants. 

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Key Federal Laws, Policies, and Guidance Affecting 
Geospatial Information and Systems: 

The E-Government Act of 2002, Section 216: Common Protocols for 
Geographic Information Systems. The purposes of this section are to (1) 
reduce redundant data collection and information and (2) promote 
collaboration and use of standards for government geographic 
information. It requires the Director of OMB to oversee (1) an 
interagency initiative to develop common geospatial protocols; (2) the 
coordination with state, local, and tribal governments, public private 
partnerships, and other interested persons of effective and efficient 
ways to align geographic information and develop common protocols; and 
(3) the adoption of common standards.

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. The Clinger-Cohen Act directs the OMB 
Director to promote and improve the acquisition, use, and disposal of 
information technology by the federal government to improve the 
productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs, 
including through dissemination of public information and the reduction 
of information collection burdens on the pubic.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This legislation directs the OMB 
Director to oversee the use of information resources to improve the 
efficiency and effectiveness of government operations to serve agency 
missions, including burden reduction and service delivery to the 
public. This includes developing, coordinating, and overseeing the 
implementation of federal information resources management policies, 
principles, standards, and guidelines.

Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and 
Access. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure. This order, 
originally issued in 1994 and revised in 2003, establishes FGDC as the 
interagency coordinating body for the development of the NSDI and 
directs FGDC to involve state, local, and tribal governments in the 
development and implementation of the NSDI. The executive order also 
establishes a National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse, directs FGDC to 
develop standards for implementing the NSDI, and requires that federal 
agencies collecting or producing geospatial data shall ensure that data 
will be collected in a manner that meets all relevant standards adopted 
through the FGDC process. In addition, the executive order requires the 
Interior Secretary to develop strategies for maximizing cooperative 
participatory efforts with state, local, and tribal governments, the 
private sector, and other nonfederal organizations to share costs and 
improve efficiencies of acquiring geospatial data.

OMB Circular A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 
Budget. Part 7, Planning Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of 
Capital Assets. This circular establishes policy for planning, 
budgeting, acquisition, and management of federal capital assets and 
instructs agencies on budget justification and reporting requirements 
for major IT investments. It requires agencies to submit business cases 
to OMB for planned or ongoing major IT investments[Footnote 21] and to 
answer questions to help OMB determine if the investment should be 
funded.

OMB Circular A-16: Coordination of Geographic Information and Related 
Spatial Data Activities. This circular calls for a coordinated approach 
to developing the NSDI, establishes FGDC and identifies its roles and 
responsibilities, and assigns agency roles and responsibilities for 
development of the NSDI. The document states that "implementation of 
this Circular is essential to help federal agencies eliminate 
duplication, avoid redundant expenditures, reduce resources spent on 
unfunded mandates, accelerate the development of electronic government 
to meet the needs and expectations of citizens and agency programmatic 
mandates, and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public 
management." 

OMB Circular A-130: Management of Federal Information Resources. This 
circular requires agencies to ensure that improvements to existing 
information systems and the development of planned information systems 
do not unnecessarily duplicate IT capabilities within the same agency, 
at other agencies, or in the private sector. The OMB Director is 
designated to provide overall leadership and coordination of federal 
information resources management within the executive branch: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: OMB Circular A-16 Data Themes, Descriptions, and Lead 
Agencies: 

Table 4: OMB Circular A-16 Data Themes, Descriptions, and Lead 
Agencies: 

Data theme: Baseline (maritime); 
Description: Baseline represents the line from which maritime zones 
and limits are measured. Examples of these limits include the 
territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/NOAA, DOI/ MMS[C]; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Biological resources; 
Description: This data set includes data pertaining to or descriptive 
of (nonhuman) biological resources and their distributions and 
habitats, including data at the suborganismal (genetics, physiology, 
anatomy, etc.), organismal (subspecies, species, systematics), and 
ecological (populations, communities, ecosystems, biomes, etc.) levels; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Buildings and facilities; 
Description: Includes federal sites or entities with a geospatial 
location deliberately established for designated activities; 
a facility database might describe a factory, military base, college, 
hospital, power plant, fishery, national park, office building, space 
command center, or prison; 
Lead department or agency[A]: GSA[C]; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Cadastral; 
Description: Describes the geographic extent of past, current, and 
future right, title, and interest in real property, and the framework 
to support the description of that geographic extent; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/BLM; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Cadastral (offshore); 
Description: Offshore Cadastre is the land management system used on 
the Outer Continental Shelf. It extends from the baseline to the 
extent of U.S. jurisdiction; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/MMS; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Climate; 
Description: Climate data describe the spatial and temporal 
characteristics of the Earth's atmosphere/hydrosphere/land surface 
system. These data represent both model-generated and observed 
environmental information, which can be summarized to describe 
surface, near surface and atmospheric conditions over a range of 
scales; 
Lead department or agency[A]: USDA/NRCS, DOC/NOAA; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Cultural and demographic statistics; 
Description: These geospatially referenced data describe the 
characteristics of people, the nature of the structures in which they 
live and work; the economic and other activities they pursue; the 
facilities they use to support their health, recreational, and other 
needs; the environmental consequences of their presence; and the 
boundaries, names, and numeric codes of geographic entities used to 
report the information collected; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/USCB[C]; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Cultural resources; 
Description: The cultural resources theme includes historic places 
such as districts, sites, buildings, and structures of significance in 
history, architecture, engineering, or culture. Cultural resources 
also encompass prehistoric features as well as historic landscapes; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/NPS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Digital orthoimagery; 
Description: Georeferenced images of the Earth's surface, where image 
object displacement has been removed for sensor distortions, 
orientation, and terrain relief; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Earth cover; 
Description: The Earth Cover theme uses a hierarchical classification 
system based on observable form and structure, instead of function or 
use. This system transitions from generalized to more specific and 
detailed class divisions, and provides a framework within which 
multiple land cover and land use classification systems can be cross-
referenced. This system is applicable everywhere on the surface of the 
Earth. This theme differs from the vegetation and wetlands themes, 
which provide additional detail; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Elevation bathymetric; 
Description: Highly accurate bathymetric (i.e., the measurement of 
water depths) sounding information; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/NOAA, DOD/USACE[C]; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Elevation terrestrial; 
Description: Georeferenced digital representations of terrestrial 
surfaces, natural or manmade, that describe vertical position above or 
below a datum surface; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Federal land ownership status; 
Description: Federal land ownership status includes information 
describing all title, estate, or interest of the federal government in 
a parcel of real and mineral property; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/BLM; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Flood hazards; 
Description: The National Flood Insurance Program has prepared flood 
hazard data for approximately 18,000 communities. The primary 
information prepared for these communities is for the 1 percent annual 
chance (100-year) flood and includes documentation of the boundaries 
and elevations of that flood; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DHS/FEMA; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Geodedic control; 
Description: Geodetic control provides a common reference system for 
establishing coordinates for all geographic data; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/NOAA; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Geographic names; 
Description: This data set contains data or information on geographic 
place names deemed official for federal use by the U.S. Board on 
Geographic Names as pursuant to Public Law 80- 242. Geographic names 
information includes both the official place name (current, 
historical, and aliases) and direct (i.e., geographic coordinates) and 
indirect (i.e., state and county where place is located) geospatial 
identifiers. This information is categorized as populated places, 
schools, reservoirs, parks, streams, valleys, and ridges; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Geologic; 
Description: The geologic spatial data theme includes all geologic 
mapping information and related geoscience spatial data (including 
associated geophysical, geochemical, geochronologic, and paleontologic 
data) that can contribute to the National Geologic Map Database as 
pursuant to Public Law 106-148; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Governmental units; 
Description: These data describe, by a consistent set of rules and 
semantic definitions, the official boundary of federal, state, local, 
and tribal governments as reported to the Census Bureau by responsible 
officials of each government for purposes of reporting the nation's 
official statistics; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/USCB; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Housing; 
Description: Geographic data on homeownership rates, including many 
attributes such as HUD revitalization zones, location of various forms 
of housing assistance, first-time home buyers, underserved areas, and 
race; 
Lead department or agency[A]: HUD; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Hydrography; 
Description: Includes surface water features such as lakes, ponds, 
streams and rivers, canals, oceans, and coastlines; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: International boundaries; 
Description: Includes both textual information to describe, and GIS 
digital cartographic data to depict, both land and maritime 
international boundaries, other lines of separation, limits, zones, 
enclaves/exclaves, and special areas between states and dependencies; 
Lead department or agency[A]: Department of State; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Law enforcement statistics; 
Description: Describes the occurrence of events (including incidences, 
offenses, and arrests) geospatially located, related to ordinance and 
statutory violations and the individuals involved in those 
occurrences. Also included are data related to deployment of law 
enforcement resources and performance measures; 
Lead department or agency[A]: Department of Justice; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Marine boundaries; 
Description: Marine boundaries depict offshore waters and seabeds over 
which the United States has sovereignty and jurisdiction; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/NOAA, DOI/MMS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Offshore minerals; 
Description: Includes minerals occurring in submerged lands. Examples 
of marine minerals include oil, gas, sulfur, gold, sand and gravel, and 
manganese; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/MMS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Outer Continental Shelf submerged lands; 
Description: Includes lands covered by water at any stage of the tide--
as distinguished from tidelands, which are attached to the mainland or 
an island and cover and uncover with the tide. Tidelands presuppose a 
high-water line as the upper boundary, whereas submerged lands do not; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/MMS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Public health; 
Description: Public health themes relate to the protection, 
improvement and promotion of the health and safety of all people. For 
example, public health databases include spatial data on deaths and 
births, infectious and notifiable diseases, incident cancer cases, 
behavioral risk factor and tuberculosis surveillance, hazardous 
substance releases and health effects, hospital statistics, and other 
similar data; 
Lead department or agency[A]: HHS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Public land conveyance (patent) records; 
Description: The records that describe all past, current, and future 
rights, titles, and interest in real property; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/BLM; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Shoreline; 
Description: Represents the intersection of the land with the water 
surface. The shoreline shown on NOAA charts represents the line of 
contact between the land and a selected water elevation; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOC/NOAA; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Soils; 
Description: Consists of georeferenced map data, describing the 
spatial distribution of the various soils that cover the Earth's 
surface, and attribute data, describing the proportionate extent of the 
various soils as well as the physical and chemical characteristics of 
those soils. The physical and chemical properties are based on 
observed and measured values, as well as model-generated values. Also 
included are model-generated assessments of the suitability or 
limitations of the soils to various land uses; 
Lead department or agency[A]: USDA/NRCS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Transportation; 
Description: Transportation data are used to model the geographic 
locations, interconnectedness, and characteristics of the 
transportation system within the United States. The transportation 
system includes both physical and nonphysical components representing 
all modes of travel that allow the movement of goods and people 
between locations; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOT/ BTS; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Transportation (marine); 
Description: The Navigation Channel Framework consists of highly 
accurate dimensions (geographic coordinates for channel sides, 
centerlines, wideners, turning basins, and river mile markers) for 
every federal navigation channel maintained by the Army Corps of 
Engineers. The navigation framework will provide the basis for the 
marine transportation theme of the geospatial data framework; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOD/USACE; 
Framework theme[B]: Yes.

Data theme: Vegetation; 
Description: Describes a collection of plants or plant communities 
with distinguishable characteristics that occupy an area of interest; 
Lead department or agency[A]: USDA/USFS[C]; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Watershed boundaries; 
Description: This data theme encodes hydrologic watershed boundaries 
into topographically defined sets of drainage areas, organized in a 
nested hierarchy by size and based on a standard hydrologic unit 
coding system; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/USGS, USDA/NRCS; 
Framework theme[B]: No.

Data theme: Wetlands; 
Description: Provides the classification, location, and extent of 
wetlands and deepwater habitats; 
Lead department or agency[A]: DOI/FWS; 
Framework theme[B]: No. 

Source: OMB Circular A-16.

[A] Certain federal agencies have lead responsibilities for 
coordinating the national coverage and stewardship of specific spatial 
data themes. According to OMB Circular A-16, lead federal agencies are 
responsible for (1) providing leadership and facilitating the 
development and implementation of needed FGDC standards, (2) providing 
leadership and facilitating the development and implementation of a 
plan for nationwide population of each data theme, and (3) preparing 
goals that support the NSDI strategy.

[B] According to OMB Circular A-16, framework themes are data themes 
that provide the core, most commonly used set of base geospatial data.

[C] General Services Administration (GSA); Minerals Management Service 
(MMS); U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE); U.S. Census Bureau (USCB); 
and U.S. Forest Service (USFS).

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix V: Glossary: 

Attribute: 

A characteristic of an object or feature on a map.

Base map: 

A map that shows the horizontal position of features on which 
additional information may be placed.

Bathymetry: 

The measurement and study of water depths.

Cadastral: 

Pertaining to extent, value, and ownership of land.

Cartography: 

The science and art of making maps and charts.

Digital elevation model: 

A digital file containing an array of regularly spaced elevations.

Digital orthoimagery: 

Georeferenced images of the Earth's surface, where image object 
displacement has been removed for sensor distortions, orientation, and 
terrain relief.

Ellipsoid: 

A geometric surface whose plane sections are either ellipses or 
circles.

Geodesy: 

The science of the measurement and mathematical depiction of the size 
and shape of the Earth and its gravitational field.

Geodetic control: 

A set of surveyed features with their locations referenced to 
particular survey monuments by latitude, longitude, and height above 
the ellipsoid.

Geospatial data: 

Information that pertains to the geographic location and character of 
natural or constructed features and boundaries on the Earth.

Geographic information system: 

A system of computer hardware, software, and data that collects, 
manages, manipulates, analyzes, and displays a potentially wide array 
of information associated with geographic locations.

Global Positioning System: 

A constellation of orbiting satellites that provides navigation data to 
military and civilian users around the world.

Hydrography: 

The science dealing with the physical features of oceans, lakes, 
rivers, and other surface waters often conducted in support of marine 
navigation and nautical charting.

Metadata: 

Data containing descriptive information about other data.

National Spatial Data Infrastructure: 

A national structure of policies, standards, technologies, and human 
resources that supports and facilitates the management and use of 
geographic information.

Orthophotograph: 

An image reproduction prepared from a perspective photograph in which 
the displacement of features due to sensor tilt and terrain relief has 
been removed.

Photogrammetry: 

The science of obtaining reliable measurements or information from 
images.

Raster data: 

A row of descriptive elements, such as pixels, represented as a regular 
two-dimensional arrangement of data values at discrete points, normally 
arrayed line by line across a given surface or area.

Remote sensing: 

Imaging or recording of physical phenomenon, at a distance, by 
detecting emitted or reflected energy.

Remote sensing systems: 

Remote sensing systems collect these data from a distance--such as from 
a satellite or an aerial platform--that are either emitted or reflected 
by the Earth and the atmospheres.

Rectification: 

The process of removing displacement in a photograph caused by the tilt 
of the recording device or variations in terrain relief.

Spatial data: 

Geographically referenced features that are described by geographic 
positions and attributes in an analog or computer-readable (digital) 
form.

Topography: 

The form of the physical features of a land surface or sea bottom; also 
called relief.

Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing: 

A database maintained by the Census Bureau that automates the mapping 
and related geographic activities required to support the decennial 
census and the bureau's sample survey programs.

(310391): 

FOOTNOTES

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

[2] Attributes describe the qualities or characteristics of an entity 
or phenomenon.

[3] For more information on remote sensing systems, see U.S. General 
Accounting Office, Geospatial Information: Technologies Hold Promise 
for Wildland Fire Management, but Challenges Remain, GAO-03-1047 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2003).

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

[5] The Bureau of the Budget became the Office of Management and Budget 
in 1970.

[6] P.L. 107-347, section 216.

[7] 40 U.S.C. § 11302(b).

[8] 44 U.S.C. § 3504(a)(1).

[9] 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; 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.

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

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

[12] Orthoimagery is imagery prepared from perspective photographs in 
which the displacement of features due to sensor tilt and terrain 
relief has been removed.

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

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

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

[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Electronic Government: Selection 
and Implementation of the Office of Management and Budget's 24 
Initiatives, GAO-03-229 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).

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

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

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

[20] National Research Council, A Geospatial Framework for the Coastal 
Zone: National Needs for Coastal Mapping and Charting (Washington, 
D.C., 2004).

[21] 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 the costs.

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

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

Order by Mail or Phone: 

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: