GEOSPATIAL 

INFORMATION

OMB and Agencies 

Need to Make 

Coordination a 

Priority to Reduce 

Duplication

Report to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

November 2012

GAO-13-94

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-94, a report to the 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

November 2012

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION 

OMB and Agencies Need to Make Coordination a 

Priority to Reduce Duplication 

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government collects, 

maintains, and uses geospatial 

information—information linked to 

specific geographic locations—to 

support many functions, including 

national security and disaster 

response. In 2012, the Department of 

the Interior (Interior) estimated that the 

federal government invests billions of 

dollars on geospatial data annually, 

and that duplication is common. GAO 

was asked to determine the extent to 

which the federal government has 

established and effectively 

implemented policies and procedures 

for coordinating its geospatial 

investments and avoiding duplication.

To do so, GAO focused on FGDC 

coordination activities; efforts within the 

departments of Commerce, the 

Interior, and Transportation; and OMB 

oversight. GAO reviewed FGDC and 

department documentation, such as 

policies, procedures, and strategic

plans; OMB guidance and an executive 

order; and reports concerning 

duplicative investments.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations 

aimed at improving coordination and 

reducing duplication, to include FGDC 

developing a national strategy for 

coordinating geospatial investments; 

federal agencies following federal 

guidance for managing geospatial 

investments; and OMB developing a 

mechanism to identify and report on 

geospatial investments. Two agencies 

and OMB generally agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations and one agency 

neither agreed nor disagreed.

What GAO Found

While the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have 

established policies and procedures for coordinating investments in geospatial 

data, governmentwide committees and federal departments and agencies have

not effectively implemented them. The committee that was established to 

promote the coordination of geospatial data nationwide—the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee (FGDC)—has developed and endorsed key standards—

including a metadata standard that includes descriptive information about a 

particular set of geospatial data—and established a clearinghouse of metadata; 

however, the clearinghouse is not being used by agencies to identify planned 

geospatial investments to promote coordination and reduce duplication. The 

FGDC has not yet planned or implemented an approach to manage geospatial 

data as related groups of investments to allow agencies to more effectively plan 

geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative investments; and its 

strategic plan is missing key elements, such as performance measures for many 

of its defined objectives. Further, none of the three federal departments in GAO’s 

review have fully implemented important activities for coordinating geospatial 

data, such as preparing and implementing a strategy for advancing geospatial 

activities within their respective departments (see table). 

Status of Federal Departments’ Implementation of Geospatial Activities

Activity Commerce Interior Transportation

Designate a senior official ◐ ● ◐

Prepare and implement a strategy ○ ○ ○

Develop a policy for metadata ◐ ○ ○

Make metadata available on 

clearinghouse ● ● ●

Adopt procedures for accessing 

clearinghouse ○ ○ ○

● = Fully met ◐ = Partially met ○ = Not met

Source: GAO analysis of department documentation.

Further, the three agencies in GAO’s review responsible for governmentwide 

management of specific geospatial data have implemented some but not all 

important activities for coordinating the national coverage of specific geospatial 

data. For example, only one agency has developed a plan for the nationwide 

population of the datasets under its responsibility, and none of the agencies have 

developed a plan to develop standards that facilitate the collection and sharing of 

geospatial data. Finally, while OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial 

data, OMB staff members acknowledged that OMB does not have complete and 

reliable information to identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments. 

FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and OMB have not yet fully 

implemented policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments 

because these efforts have not been a priority. As a result, efforts to acquire data 

are uncoordinated and the federal government is acquiring duplicative geospatial 

data. For example, three agencies are independently acquiring road data, which 

is reported to have resulted in millions of wasted taxpayers’ dollars. Unless OMB, 

the FGDC, and federal departments and agencies decide that coordinating 

geospatial investments is a priority, this situation will likely continue.

View GAO-13-94. For more information, 

contact David A. Powner at (202) 512-9286 or 

pownerd@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Letter 1 

Background 3

Implementing Established Policies Is Not a Federal Priority, 

Resulting in Duplicative Investments 14

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 41

Appendix II Comparison between Proposed Themes and Existing 

Themes 45

Appendix III Comments from the Department of the Interior 50

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Commerce 52

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 55

Tables

Table 1: Status of Federal Departments’ Implementation of 

Geospatial Activities 21

Table 2: Total Number of Federal Geospatial Metadata Records by 

Agency 23

Table 3: Percentage of Metadata Records with Range of Mandatory 

Fields Completed By Agency 23

Table 4: Status of Theme-lead Agencies’ Implementation of 

Geospatial Activities 25

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Figures

Figure 1: Visual Representation of Themes in a GIS 4

Figure 2: Monitoring Drought Conditions across the United States 5

Figure 3: Hurricane Leslie Wind Speed Predictions 6

Abbreviations 

BTS Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Commerce Department of Commerce

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee

GIS geographic information systems

Interior Department of the Interior

IT information technology

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSDI National Spatial Data Infrastructure

OMB Office of Management and Budget

TIGER Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

 Referencing 

Transportation Department of Transportation

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

November 26, 2012

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

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, environmental protection, and 

natural resources conservation. Among the many activities that can 

depend on critical analysis of geospatial information are maintaining 

roads and other critical transportation infrastructure and quickly 

responding to natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and fires.

Multiple federal agencies may 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 

investments in geospatial data are coordinated. Moreover, the 

Department of the Interior (Interior) has recently estimated that the federal 

government invests billions of dollars in geospatial data annually, and 

reported that duplication among investments is common.1

Over the past 2 years, we issued two comprehensive reports that 

identified federal programs or functional areas where duplication,2

 

1

Department of the Interior, Geospatial Line of Business Capital Asset Summary, Aug. 14, 

2012.

overlap, or fragmentation exists; the actions needed to address such 

2

Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same 

activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of doing so.3

To address our objective, we focused on governmentwide activities to 

implement the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)—an 

infrastructure to facilitate the efficient collection, sharing, and 

dissemination of geospatial data among all levels of government, and 

public and private sectors—as well as efforts of the Federal Geographic 

Data Committee (FGDC)—the federal committee established to promote 

the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data 

nationwide. Additionally, we focused on activities within three selected 

departments: Department of Commerce (Commerce), Department of the 

Interior (Interior), and Department of Transportation (Transportation); and 

within three selected agencies responsible for managing data themes:

For 

this review, you asked us to determine the extent to which the federal 

government has established and effectively implemented policies and 

procedures for coordinating its investments in geospatial data and 

avoiding duplication.

4

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

(BTS). The themes in our review are geodetic control5

—(NOAA), 

hydrography6

—(USGS), and transportation7

 

3

GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 

—(BTS). We reviewed and 

assessed FGDC and department documentation, such as policies, 

procedures, strategic plans, meeting minutes, and budget documentation; 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data call results and 

guidance; and recent reports discussing duplicative geospatial 

GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2011). 

4

Data themes are comprised of one or more sets of geospatial data that have national 

significance, as established by federal guidance, such as hydrography (i.e., surface water 

features, such as lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers). 

5

The data collected as part of the geodetic control theme are used to establish the precise 

location of geospatial data.

6

This theme includes surface water features, such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, 

canals, oceans, and coastlines.

7

This theme includes both physical and nonphysical components representing all modes 

of travel that allow the movement of goods and people between locations.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

investments; and interviewed FGDC and department officials, and staff 

members from the OMB Office of E-Government. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November 

2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective. Details of our objective, 

scope, and methodology are contained in appendix I.

Geospatial information describes entities or phenomena that can be 

referenced to specific locations relative to the Earth’s surface. For 

example, entities, such as buildings, 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.

Users can analyze that data in geographic information systems (GIS)—

systems of computer software, hardware, and data used to capture, store, 

manipulate, analyze, and graphically present a potentially wide array of 

geospatial information. The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple 

sets of geospatial data and display the combined information as maps 

with different layers of information. Assuming that all of the information is 

at the same scale and has been formatted according to the same 

geospatial standards, users can potentially overlay geospatial information 

about any number of specific topics to examine how the data in the 

various layers interrelate. Each layer of a GIS map typically represents a 

single theme comprised of one or more sets of data, each of which could 

be derived from a source completely different from the others. Figure 1 

portrays the concept of visual representation of geospatial data themes in 

a GIS.

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Figure 1: Visual Representation of Themes in a GIS

Examples of geospatial data applications are provided in figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 demonstrates the usefulness of GIS in showing the scope, 

severity, and duration of the effects of the recent drought in the United 

States, which could be used to make drought relief and agricultural 

support activities more effective.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Figure 2: Monitoring Drought Conditions across the United States

Another use for GIS is tracking and responding to natural disasters, such 

as wildfires and hurricanes. Figure 3 demonstrates the usefulness of GIS 

in tracking the direction and estimated strength of an impending 

hurricane. The timely delivery of these data can be used to provide for 

orderly evacuation of people from affected areas, and lessen the impact 

of the storm on facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, hospitals, and 

nursing homes.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Figure 3: Hurricane Leslie Wind Speed Predictions

For many years, the federal government has taken steps to coordinate 

geospatial activities both within and outside the federal government. In 

1953, the Bureau of the Budget8

 

8

The Bureau of the Budget became OMB in 1970.

first issued 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 the FGDC within Interior to 

promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial 

data nationwide. Building on that guidance, in 1994 the President issued 

Executive Order 12906 for the purpose of addressing wasteful duplication 

Coordination of Federal 

Geospatial Activities
 

Page 7 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

and incompatibility of geospatial information, and assigned the FGDC the 

responsibility to coordinate the development of the NSDI.9 In 2002, OMB 

again revised Circular A-16 to further describe the components of the 

NSDI; clearly define agency responsibilities for acquiring, maintaining, 

distributing, using, and preserving geospatial data; and to reaffirm the 

FGDC’s role as the interagency coordinating body for NSDI-related 

activities.10

• Data themes. Data themes are topics of national significance, such 

as transportation, which includes all modes of travel (e.g., road and 

rail data). OMB Circular A-16 currently identifies 34 data themes and 

identifies the “lead” agency or agencies for each theme. Each data 

theme is to be comprised of one or more electronic data records, 

known as datasets. Of the 34 themes, 9 are identified as “framework” 

themes

The circular established the following five components of the 

NSDI and described how these components were to be implemented.

11

• Standards. Geospatial standards provide common and repeatable 

rules or guidelines for the development, documentation, and 

exchange of geospatial datasets.

—that is, themes identified in Circular A-16 as critical for 

many geospatial applications.

• Metadata. Metadata are information about datasets, such as content, 

source, accuracy, method of collection, and point-of-contact. 

Metadata are used to facilitate the search of and access to datasets 

within a data library or clearinghouse, and enable potential users to 

determine the data’s applicability for their use.

• National Spatial Data Clearinghouse. The clearinghouse is intended 

to be a centralized geospatial metadata repository that contains 

geospatial metadata records from federal agencies, state and local 

governments, and academic and private sector organizations that can 

be searched to determine whether needed geospatial data exist and 

can be shared. Federal agencies are required to identify their existing 

 

9

Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Apr. 11, 1994). 

10OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug. 19, 2002.

11According to FGDC officials, there are seven framework themes, with two of the themes 

having two parts.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

and planned geospatial investments in the clearinghouse, and search 

the clearinghouse for cost-saving opportunities before acquiring 

geospatial data. In 2003, the FGDC created the Geospatial One-Stop 

to provide “one-stop” access to geospatial metadata from a 

centralized database and search function. In October 2011, the 

Geospatial One-Stop was retired, and the FGDC initiated a pilot 

project, known as the Geospatial Platform, which is envisioned to 

provide shared and trusted geospatial data, services, and applications 

for use by government agencies, their partners, and the public.12

According to Interior officials, Interior is the managing partner of the 

Geospatial Platform. As of August 2012, there were approximately 

835,000 geospatial metadata records in the central repository, of 

which about 373,000 were from federal sources. Users can search the 

metadata repository through two primary portals: geo.data.gov13 and 

the Geospatial Platform.14

• Partnerships. Partnerships are efforts aimed at involving all 

stakeholders (e.g., federal, tribal, state, local government, and 

academic institutions) in the development of the NSDI.

The General Services Administration is 

responsible for managing the clearinghouse database and the 

associated web portal geo.data.gov.

In November 2010, OMB issued supplemental guidance specifically 

regarding how agencies are to manage data themes.15

To fulfill its responsibilities, the FGDC is governed by a steering 

committee—an interagency decision making body that provides 

This supplemental 

guidance expands upon and clarifies some of the language and 

responsibilities contained in OMB Circular A-16 in order to facilitate the 

adoption and implementation of a geospatial asset management 

capability.

 

12http://www.geoplatform.gov. 

13http://geo.data.gov/geoportal/catalog/main/home.page.

14The repository can also be searched using data.gov; however, the site automatically 

redirects the user to geo.data.gov. Data.gov was initially launched in May 2009 to 

encourage open government by increasing access to official sources of federal data and 

facilitating the use and development of tools to manipulate the data by all levels of 

government as well as academia and the private sector.

15OMB, M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, Nov. 10, 2010.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

leadership and policy direction in support of the development of the NSDI. 

The Secretary of the Interior chairs the committee; the Vice-Chair is the 

Deputy Director for Management of OMB.16 All departments or agencies 

responsible for geospatial data themes or that have activities in 

geographic information or geospatial data collection or use are required to 

be members of the FGDC. Thirty-two agencies17 are currently members

of the Steering Committee and are to be represented by their senior 

agency officials for geospatial information.18

In addition, in December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior created the 

National Geospatial Advisory Committee

These senior agency officials 

are responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and facilitating their 

respective agency’s implementation of geospatial requirements, policies, 

and activities. The FGDC is supported by an Office of the Secretariat that 

consists of about 10 people located in USGS who do the day-to-day work 

of supporting, managing, and coordinating the activities of the FGDC.

19

 

16The chair and vice-chair may select designees to serve on their behalf. The Secretary of 

the Interior has delegated the committee chair responsibility to the Assistant Secretary for 

Water and Science. The Deputy Director for Management of OMB has delegated the 

committee vice-chair responsibility to the Federal Deputy Chief Information Officer.

to provide the department and 

the FGDC with advice and recommendations related to the management 

of federal and national geospatial programs, development of the NSDI, 

and the implementation of related federal guidance. Members of the 

17The 32 agency members of the Steering Committee are: Interior, OMB, U. S. 

Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Department of Defense, U.S. Army Corp of 

Engineers (non-voting member), Department of Education, Department of Energy, 

Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Justice, Department of 

Labor, Department of State, Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Communications Commission 

(non-voting member), General Services Administration, Library of Congress, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, 

National Capital Planning Commission (non-voting member), National Science 

Foundation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, 

Small Business Administration, Smithsonian Institution, Social Security Administration, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. Agency for International Development. 

18OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information, Mar. 

3, 2006, calls for select agencies to appoint to the Steering Committee policy-level 

officials—a chief information officer or a senior official at the assistant secretary level.

19The Secretary created the committee as a federal advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

committee include approximately 30 officials from federal, state, local, 

and tribal governments, the private sector, and academia.

OMB has specific oversight responsibilities for federal information 

technology (IT) systems and acquisition activities—including GIS—to help 

ensure their efficient and effective use. Two key laws that outline these 

responsibilities are the Clinger-Cohen Act of 199620 and the EGovernment Act of 2002.21

• The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996—The act requires OMB to establish 

processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of 

major capital investments in information systems made by federal 

agencies and report to Congress on the net program performance 

benefits achieved as a result of these investments.

• The E-Government Act of 2002—The act establishes an egovernment initiative, which encourages the use of web-based 

Internet applications to enhance the access to and delivery of 

government information and service to citizens, to business partners, 

to employees, and among all levels of government. The act also 

requires OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of egovernment initiatives. In these reports, OMB is to describe the 

administration’s use of e-government principles to improve 

government performance and the delivery of information and services 

to the public.

OMB subsequently began initiatives to fulfill the requirements established 

by these laws:

• In February 2002, OMB established the Federal Enterprise 

Architecture, which is intended to facilitate governmentwide 

improvement through cross-agency analysis and identification of 

duplicative investments, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration, 

interoperability, and integration within and across agency programs. 

The Federal Enterprise Architecture is composed of five “reference 

models” describing the federal government’s (1) business (or mission) 

 

2040 U.S.C § 11101 et seq.

21Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).

OMB’s Roles and 

Responsibilities for 

Overseeing IT Investments
 

Page 11 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

processes and functions, independent of the agencies that perform 

them; (2) performance goals and outcome measures; (3) means of 

service delivery; (4) information and data definitions; and (5) 

technology standards.

• In March 2004, OMB established multiple “lines of business” to 

consolidate redundant IT investments and business processes across 

the federal government. Later, in March 2006, OMB established the 

Geospatial Line of Business. Each line of business is led by an 

individual agency and supported by other relevant agencies. Interior is 

the managing partner for the Geospatial Line of Business and the 

FGDC Secretariat provides project management support. OMB 

reports to Congress each year on the costs and benefits of these 

initiatives.

In carrying out its responsibilities, OMB uses several data collection 

mechanisms to oversee federal IT spending during the annual budget 

formulation process. Specifically, OMB requires federal departments and 

agencies to provide information related to their IT investments (called 

exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans and business cases (called exhibit 

300s).

• Exhibit 53. The purpose of the exhibit 53 is to identify all IT 

investments—both major and nonmajor—and their associated costs 

within a federal organization. Information included in agency exhibit 

53s is designed, in part, to help OMB better understand agencies’ 

spending on IT investments. OMB guidance for the fiscal years 2013 

and 2014 budget formulation instructs agencies to identify their 

geospatial investments in the exhibit 53 using Federal Enterprise 

Architecture codes for specific functions (e.g., geospatial services, 

financial management, and acquisition management).

• Exhibit 300. The purpose of the exhibit 300 is to provide a business 

case for each major IT investment and to allow OMB to monitor IT 

investments once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide 

information on each major investment’s cost, schedule, and 

performance.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

In June 2004, we reported that OMB, individual federal agencies, and 

cross-government committees and initiatives, such as the FGDC and the 

Geospatial One-Stop project, had taken actions to coordinate the 

government’s geospatial investments across agencies and with state and 

local governments.22

• a complete and up-to-date strategic plan for doing so was not in 

place; 

However, we noted that these efforts had not been 

fully successful in reducing duplication in geospatial investments for 

several reasons:

• agencies had not consistently complied with OMB guidance that 

seeks to identify and reduce duplication; and

• OMB’s oversight of federal geospatial activities had not been effective 

because its methods—the annual budget review process, the federal 

enterprise architecture effort, and the FGDC’s reporting process—

were insufficiently developed and had not produced consistent and 

complete information.

We reported that, as a result of these shortcomings, federal agencies 

were still independently acquiring and maintaining potentially duplicative 

and costly datasets and systems. Accordingly, we recommended that the 

Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Interior direct the development 

of a national geospatial strategic plan, and recommended that the 

Director of OMB develop criteria for assessing interagency coordination 

on proposals for potential geospatial investments, and strengthen its 

oversight of geospatial projects. OMB and Interior generally agreed with 

our recommendations. In response, between 2004 and 2008, OMB, 

Interior, and the FGDC created a number of documents that addressed 

the development of a national geospatial strategic plan, including a 

strategic plan for NSDI development and a business case for the 

development of the Geospatial Line of Business. Furthermore, in 2004 

and 2006, OMB issued guidance designed to increase the amount of 

budget information available on geospatial investments, and improve 

oversight of agencies’ implementation of geospatial-related requirements, 

policies, and activities. 

 

22GAO, Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce 

Duplicative Investments, GAO-04-703 (Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2004). 

GAO Has Previously 

Recommended 

Improvements in the 

Management of Geospatial 

Information and OMB 

Guidance
 

Page 13 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

In September 2011, we reported that OMB’s guidance to agencies for 

reporting their IT investments did not ensure complete reporting or 

facilitate the identification of duplicative investments.23

Accordingly, we recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on reporting 

IT investments to specify whether certain types of systems—such as 

space systems—are to be included; allow agencies to place their IT 

investments into more than one Federal Enterprise Architecture functional 

code in order to reduce potentially duplicative investments; and direct 

agencies to report the overall steps that they take to ensure that their IT 

investments are not duplicative as part of their annual budget and IT 

investment submissions. OMB did not agree that further efforts were 

needed to clarify reporting in regard to the types of systems; but it agreed 

with our recommendations regarding the categorization of investments 

and reporting of steps taken to reduce duplication. OMB’s fiscal year 

2014 budget formulation guidance allows agencies to identify up to five 

Federal Enterprise Architecture functional codes with each investment.

Specifically, 

agencies differed on what investments they included as an IT investment. 

We further reported that OMB’s guidance to federal agencies to 

categorize IT investments did not go far enough to allow for the 

identification of potentially duplicative investments. In particular, OMB’s 

guidance required that each investment be mapped to a single Federal 

Enterprise Architecture functional code; however, IT investments could fit 

into more than one functional code.

 

23GAO, Information Technology: OMB Needs to Improve Its Guidance on IT Investments, 

GAO-11-826 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2011).
 

Page 14 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

While the President and OMB have established policies and procedures 

for managing and coordinating investments in geospatial data, the FGDC, 

federal departments and theme-lead agencies, and OMB itself have not 

effectively implemented them. This has resulted in uncoordinated and 

duplicative investments in areas of national interest, such as road and 

address data.

• While the FGDC has developed and endorsed several standards, it 

has not yet planned for or implemented an approach to manage data 

themes and their associated key datasets24

• None of the three federal departments in our review have fully 

implemented important activities for coordinating geospatial data and 

assets, such as developing and implementing a strategy for 

advancing geospatial activities within the department.

as related groups of 

investments designed to allow agencies to more effectively plan 

geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative 

investments. Additionally, planned geospatial data acquisitions are not 

identified in the clearinghouse and the FGDC does not have a current 

strategic plan to guide its efforts.

• The three theme-lead agencies in our review have implemented some 

but not all important activities to ensure the national coverage and 

stewardship of geospatial data themes.

• OMB’s annual budget reporting mechanisms have not provided 

complete and reliable information to identify duplicative geospatial 

investments.

The primary cause for why the FGDC, federal departments and themelead agencies, and OMB have not yet fully implemented established 

policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments is 

because, according to OMB staff members and agency officials, they 

have been focusing on other priorities. Because federal agencies have 

yet to fully implement important activities and practices for coordinating 

and managing geospatial data and facilitating the development of the 

 

24According to OMB, a key geospatial dataset is (1) used by multiple agencies or with 

agency partners such as state, tribal, and local governments; (2) applied to achieve 

presidential priorities as expressed by OMB; (3) needed to meet shared mission goals of 

multiple federal agencies; or (4) expressly required by statutory mandate.

Implementing 

Established Policies 

Is Not a Federal 

Priority, Resulting in 

Duplicative 

Investments 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

NSDI, and OMB is limited in its ability to oversee agencies’ geospatial 

investments, agencies continue to acquire duplicative geospatial data.

According to federal guidance,25

To its credit, the FGDC has developed and endorsed several standards. 

In particular, it developed a metadata standard that includes descriptive 

information about a dataset—such as who created and published it, the 

related theme keyword, and the geographic coordinates that bound the 

dataset—and facilitates the identification and sharing of geospatial data.

the FGDC is to serve as the lead federal 

executive body charged with the leadership, development, 

implementation, and review of geospatial data standards.

26

The FGDC has also developed standards associated with each of the 

framework themes and endorsed several other standards developed by 

external standards bodies, such as the International Organization for 

Standardization’s tracking and navigation standard for web services.27

OMB guidance28

 

25OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug. 19, 2002; and Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic 

Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 

17,671 (Apr. 11, 1994). 

from November 2010 calls for the immediate use of an 

approach to manage the NSDI data themes and their associated key 

datasets as related groups of investments, known as portfolio 

management. A portfolio management approach establishes a framework 

for governmentwide management of themes and datasets to allow 

agencies to more effectively plan geospatial data collection efforts and 

minimize duplicative investments. It includes establishing goals and 

performance measures, as well as processes for reviewing the health and 

status of datasets across the government in order to maximize the value 

of the data. OMB further directs the FGDC to provide guidance, within a 

year of issuance, about how to implement the portfolio management 

approach.

26FGDC, FGDC-STD-001-1998: Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, 1998. 

27The International Organization for Standardization is an international standards body 

that develops voluntary standards through global consensus. 

28OMB, M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, Nov. 10, 2010.

FGDC Has Developed 

Geospatial Standards, but 

Has Not Fully 

Implemented Key 

Activities for Coordinating 

Geospatial Data

FGDC Has Not Yet Fully 

Planned or Implemented a 

Portfolio Management 

Approach
 

Page 16 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

While the FGDC has initiated activities that Secretariat officials say are 

first needed to establish a portfolio of datasets, it has not yet fully planned 

for or implemented a portfolio management approach. Specifically, the 

FGDC evaluated the 34 data themes identified in OMB Circular A-16 to 

determine whether any changes were needed; in August 2011, the 

Steering Committee proposed consolidating the 34 data themes into 17 

themes; Secretariat officials subsequently stated that the FGDC agencies

are proposing to eliminate 1 more theme for a total of 16. (See app. II for 

a comparison of the 34 themes and the newly proposed 16 themes.) 

These officials further stated that, as of August 2012, lead agencies have 

been identified for each of the 16 themes and said that they plan to 

discuss the revised lists of themes and lead agencies at the Steering 

Committee’s September 2012 meeting. Once the Steering Committee 

approves the revised themes and lead agencies, the FGDC plans to send 

them to OMB for its approval. Additionally, the FGDC has identified 221 

key datasets associated with the proposed data themes.29

However, the data themes, lead agencies, and datasets have neither 

been finalized nor approved, and the FGDC has yet to provide guidance 

to agencies about how to implement the portfolio management approach. 

While Secretariat officials stated that they had developed a draft 

implementation plan in November 2011, it has not been finalized or 

approved, and FGDC Secretariat officials were unable, on behalf of 

FGDC agencies, to provide a time frame for doing so.

FGDC Secretariat officials stated that completion of the activities needed 

to fully implement the portfolio management approach has not been 

accomplished due to competing priorities, such as the Geospatial 

Platform. Until the implementation plan is completed; and the themes, 

lead agencies, and associated datasets are identified and approved, the 

agencies cannot effectively begin to implement a coordinated geospatial 

asset management capability that was, according to the OMB guidance, 

designed to provide a mechanism for agencies to plan more effectively in 

advance of data collection efforts to identify partnership opportunities, and 

to minimize duplicative investments.

 

29According to Interior officials, the actual number of datasets varies over time based on, 

for example, new technologies, new data collection, data integration, and data disposition.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

According to federal guidance,30 the FGDC is to develop a clearinghouse 

with the functionality to allow federal departments and agencies to (1) 

determine whether the geospatial data they are seeking already exist and 

(2) identify planned acquisitions of geospatial data and opportunities to 

jointly acquire the data in order to improve efficiencies in geospatial data 

collection and to reduce potential redundancies and duplication. 

Additionally, federal guidance requires agencies to identify their planned 

investments in the clearinghouse.31

The FGDC has developed a clearinghouse that allows users to determine 

whether the data they are seeking exist. As noted previously, the 

clearinghouse consists of a centralized repository that contains geospatial 

metadata32

Although the clearinghouse allows agencies to identify their planned 

investments, federal agencies are not doing so. According to the 

Geospatial Platform managing partner representative, the platform was 

modified in May 2012 to include a site for agencies to identify their 

planned acquisitions and potential cooperative efforts to acquire data. 

However, as of September 2012, federal agencies have not identified any 

planned geospatial investments. The Geospatial Platform managing 

partner representative stated that agencies are not identifying their 

planned investments because the FGDC has not completed and shared 

guidance with federal agencies that describes what information is to be 

shared and how agencies are to identify the planned investments in the 

records from federal agencies, state and local governments, 

and academic and private-sector organizations; and multiple web-based 

portals from which the metadata can be searched. The two primary 

portals are geo.data.gov and the Geospatial Platform. As of August 2012, 

there were approximately 835,000 geospatial metadata records in the 

centralized repository, of which about 373,000 were from federal sources.

 

30OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug. 19, 2002; and Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic 

Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 

17,671 (Apr. 11, 1994). 

31OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, section 

25, Aug. 3, 2012; and Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data 

Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671

(Apr. 11, 1994). 

32As previously noted, metadata are information about datasets, such as content, source, 

accuracy, method of collection, and point of contact.

FGDC Has Established a 

Clearinghouse, but Planned 

Acquisitions Are Not Identified 

and Shared 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

platform. This official acknowledged that until the guidance is completed 

and implemented, agencies are not likely to add their planned 

acquisitions to the platform and identify potential cooperative efforts to 

acquire geospatial data and minimize potential redundancies and 

duplicative efforts.33

According to Secretariat officials, they have not yet finalized the guidance 

for placing planned acquisitions on the platform because the primary 

focus of the FGDC has been on the development of the Geospatial 

Platform’s Business Plan and the initial release of the Geospatial 

Platform’s core capabilities, applications, and tools. However, without the 

ability to identify planned geospatial data acquisitions, agencies will likely 

miss opportunities to reuse or cooperatively acquire geospatial data, thus 

resulting in the acquisition of potentially duplicative geospatial data and 

needless expenditure of limited resources.

OMB requires FGDC to prepare and maintain a strategic plan for the 

development and implementation of the NSDI.34 Foundational elements of 

strategic planning, as recognized by federal legislation35 and OMB 

guidance,36

 

33According to an FGDC Secretariat official, the Geospatial One-Stop had previously 

included the ability for agencies to identify their planned acquisitions. This official told us 

that during the time the Geospatial One-Stop was available, there were approximately 

4,000 instances of organizations notifying the geospatial community, through the OneStop, of planned data acquisitions.

include, among other things, (1) a vision statement; (2) 

outcome-oriented goals and objectives; (3) a description of how the goals 

and objectives are to be achieved—including the resources needed and a 

description of the working relationships with other agencies; (4) a 

description of how performance goals contribute to the general goals and 

objectives of the strategic plan; and (5) the identification of external 

factors that could significantly affect the achievement of the general goals 

and objectives. Such a plan could help to facilitate coordination among 

the many geospatial activities that are underway within the federal 

government and with other stakeholders, and provide a mechanism to 

34OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug.19, 2002.

355 U.S.C. § 306(a)(1), (2), (4), (6), and (7). 

36OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, section 

210, Aug. 3, 2012.

FGDC Lacks an Up-to-Date and 

Complete Strategic Plan to 

Coordinate Its Activities
 

Page 19 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

measure progress in coordinating geospatial activities and reducing 

duplication. 

FGDC has prepared a strategic plan; however, it is missing key 

components and has not been kept up-to-date. FGDC’s current strategic 

plan was issued in 2004 and includes (1) a vision statement, (2) three 

outcome-oriented goals and 13 objectives to be accomplished between 

2005 and 2008, and (3) a high-level description of how all but 1 of the 13 

objectives are to be achieved. However, its high-level description of the 

objectives does not include a description of the resources needed to 

achieve the goals and objectives, or explicitly how the FGDC agencies 

are to work together to achieve the goals. In addition, the plan does not 

identify performance measures (such as the percent of the nation for 

which a given type and standard of data is available) for 9 of the 13 

objectives and it does not describe external factors that could affect the 

achievement of the general goals and objectives, such as the risk of 

theme-lead agencies not meeting their NSDI development milestones, or 

limited funding for geospatial investments.

Moreover, the plan does not reflect significant initiatives that the FGDC 

Steering Committee has engaged in—such as the Geospatial Platform, 

which did not exist in 2004—and the time frames for FGDC’s goals are 

outdated. For example, the latest time frame associated with the goals in 

the plan is the year 2007. According to the FGDC Office of the Secretariat 

Executive Director, the plan needs to be updated; however, he could not 

provide a time frame, on behalf of the FGDC agencies, for doing so.

The FGDC Office of the Secretariat Executive Director stated that the 

FGDC has created other strategic planning documents, such as a 

technical architecture document from 2006 and, more recently, 

Geospatial Platform planning documents from 2011 and 2012. 

Individually, these documents contain several foundational elements of 

strategic planning (e.g., a vision statement, goals and objectives, and 

discussion of external risks). However, cumulatively they do not represent 

a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses all aspects of the NSDI for 

the same unified future time frame.

The Executive Director attributed the lack of a comprehensive strategic 

plan to competing priorities set by OMB and the FGDC’s Steering 

Committee. Until a comprehensive strategic plan, with meaningful and 

measurable performance goals, is in place to guide the federal 

government’s geospatial efforts, it is more difficult to achieve the NSDI 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

vision and to hold the FGDC and federal agencies accountable for its 

development.

OMB has issued guidance, which was followed by an executive order, to 

federal departments and agencies for effectively coordinating and 

managing geospatial data to help ensure that they wisely use federal 

resources in developing the NSDI.37

• designate a senior agency official for geospatial information that has 

departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority for 

geospatial information issues;

According to OMB guidance and the 

executive order, federal departments and agencies that handle geospatial 

data are to:

• prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing 

geographic information and related geospatial data activities 

appropriate to their mission, and in support of the NSDI strategy;

• develop a policy that requires them to make their geospatial metadata 

available on the clearinghouse;

• make all metadata associated with geospatial data available on the 

clearinghouse, and use the metadata standard; and

• adopt internal procedures to ensure that they access the NSDI 

clearinghouse before they expend funds to collect or produce new 

geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has already 

been collected by others, or (2) whether cooperative efforts to obtain 

the data are possible.

As shown in table 1, none of the three federal departments in our review 

have fully implemented the important activities needed for effectively 

coordinating and managing geospatial activities within their respective 

departments.

 

37OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information, Mar. 

3, 2006; OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related 

Spatial Data Activities, Aug.19, 2002; and Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating 

Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 

Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Apr. 11, 1994). 

Departments and Themelead Agencies Have Not 

Fully Implemented 

Important Activities for 

Coordinating and 

Managing Geospatial Data
 

Page 21 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Table 1: Status of Federal Departments’ Implementation of Geospatial Activities 

Activity Commerce Interior Transportation

Designate a senior official with

departmentwide responsibility ◐ ● ◐

Prepare and implement a strategy ○ ○ ○

Develop a policy for metadata ◐ ○ ○

Make metadata available on 

clearinghouse ● ● ●

Adopt procedures for accessing the 

clearinghouse ○ ○ ○

Key

●=Fully met—the department provided evidence that addressed the criteria.

◐=Partially met—the department provided evidence that addressed about half or a large portion of 

the criteria.

○=Not met—the department did not provide evidence that addressed the criteria or provided 

evidence that minimally addressed the criteria.

Source: GAO analysis of department documentation.

• Designate a senior official with departmentwide responsibility.

Only one department—Interior—has designated a senior official with 

departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority. 

Specifically, in a memo issued in August 2012, the Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget designated a senior 

official with departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and 

authority for geospatial information investments, and for overseeing, 

coordinating, and facilitating implementation of the department’s 

geospatial-related requirements, policies, activities, and issues. 

According to NOAA’s Chief Information Officer, he has been 

designated as Commerce’s senior official for geospatial information, 

but acknowledged that he does not have responsibility and authority 

for other Commerce geospatial investments, such as those of the 

Census Bureau. Finally, Transportation has designated a senior 

official for geospatial information, but this individual does not have 

departmentwide responsibility, accountability, or authority for 

geospatial information, as she does not have any insight into, or 

control over, geospatial activities conducted by the Federal Aviation 

Administration, one of Transportation’s major agencies.

• Prepare and implement a strategy. None of the departments have 

prepared and implemented a strategy for advancing geographic 

information and related geospatial data activities appropriate to their 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

mission. According to Interior’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Technology, Information, and Business Services, the Geospatial 

Modernization Blueprint Recommendations and Architectures from 

2007 is the department’s internal geospatial strategy;

38

• Develop a policy for metadata. None of the departments in our 

review have established a departmentwide clearinghouse metadata 

policy. In lieu of a departmentwide policy, two of Commerce’s 

agencies, NOAA and the Census Bureau, have developed policies. 

Specifically, NOAA’s Data Documentation Procedural Directive

requires metadata for NOAA environmental data, information, and 

services to be published to certain national and international 

clearinghouse portals, and references data.gov.

however, it 

has not been approved or implemented.

39 The Census 

Bureau’s metadata policy also mentions the importance of posting 

metadata to the clearinghouse.40

• Make metadata available on the clearinghouse. All three

departments have made their metadata available on the 

clearinghouse. 

Most metadata records in the clearinghouse are owned by three 

federal agencies. Specifically, our analysis of the 441,343 federal 

records in the centralized geospatial metadata repository, as of 

February 2012,41

 

38Department of the Interior, Geospatial Modernization Blueprint Recommendations and 

Architectures, Version 1.0, December 2007.

showed that over 99 percent of these records were 

populated by three agencies: Census Bureau, USGS, and NOAA. See 

table 2 for the total number of geospatial metadata records by agency.

39National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Management 

Committee, Data Documentation Procedural Directive, Oct. 28, 2011.

40Census Bureau, National State Geographic Partnerships Branch, Geospatial Product 

Metadata Standard, Version 5.0, Jan. 28, 2010.

41The number of federal records in the clearinghouse as of February 2012 (441,343) is 

higher than the total number of federal records in the clearinghouse as of August 2012 

(372,986) because, according to the General Services Administration, who is responsible 

for managing the clearinghouse database, it has taken steps to remove duplicative 

records or records no longer owned by federal agencies.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Table 2: Total Number of Federal Geospatial Metadata Records by Agency

Agency Number of records Percentage of total records

Census Bureau 283,855 64.3%

USGS 132,792 30.1

NOAA 23,904 5.4

Other 792 0.2

Total 441,343 100

Source: GAO analysis of General Services Administration data.

Our analysis of the 29 mandatory fields42

Table 3: Percentage of Metadata Records with Range of Mandatory Fields 

Completed By Agency

in the 441,343 federal 

metadata records shows that the metadata records from the three 

agencies with the majority of geospatial metadata records are largely 

complete, as shown in table 3. Specifically, nearly all of Census 

Bureau records had between 24 and 27 mandatory fields completed. 

In addition, over 95 percent of USGS’s and NOAA’s records had 28 or 

29 of the mandatory fields completed. Finally, the small number of 

records associated with all other agencies had between 24 and 29 of 

the mandatory fields completed for virtually all of the records.

Range of mandatory 

fields All agencies

Census 

Bureau USGS NOAA Other agencies

0 – 18 0% 0% 0% 0.3% 0.1%

19 – 23 0.9 0a 2.9 0 0.1

24 – 27 64.9 100 1.2 2.0 49.2

28 – 29 34.2 0 95.9 97.7 50.6

Total 100 100 100 100 100

Source: GAO analysis of General Services Administration data.

a

Our table is rounded to the nearest tenth of a percent. We found that of the 283,855 Census Bureau 

records, only 50 records, approximately .018 percent, had fewer than 24 of the mandatory fields 

completed.

 

42According to the FGDC, Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Workbook, 

May 1, 2000, there are 29 mandatory fields that are to be completed for all metadata 

records. 
 

Page 24 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

• Adopt procedures for accessing the clearinghouse. None of the 

departments have established procedures for searching the 

clearinghouse before expending funds to acquire or produce 

geospatial data. While Interior does not have procedures for 

accessing the clearinghouse, the department’s Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Technology, Information, and Business Services said 

that it is commonly practiced and noted that the department usually 

confers internally with its committees on elevation and orthoimagery43

Department officials attribute the lack of progress in implementing 

important coordination and management activities to a lack of priority, 

competing department resources, and in some cases, a lack of 

awareness. Until the departments implement these activities, they risk 

acquiring potentially duplicative and costly geospatial data, resulting in 

the inefficient use of already limited resources.

prior to acquiring geospatial data.

According to OMB,44

• designate a point of contact who is responsible for the development, 

maintenance, coordination, and dissemination of data using the 

clearinghouse;

in order to effectively manage geospatial data and 

provide the leadership necessary to ensure the national coverage and 

stewardship of specific geospatial data themes, NSDI-designated themelead agencies are to:

• prepare goals relating to the theme that support the NSDI strategy, 

and as needed, collect and analyze information from user needs and 

include those needs in the theme-related goals;

• develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the 

data theme that includes (1) the development of partnership programs 

with states, tribes, academia, the private sector, other federal 

agencies, and localities that meet the needs of users; (2) human and 

financial resource needs; (3) standards, metadata, and the 

 

43Elevation data provide three-dimensional models of the Earth’s surface. Orthoimagery 

data provide images of the Earth’s surface collected by aerial photography or satellites. 

44OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug.19, 2002.

Theme-lead Agencies Are Not 

Effectively Managing Data 

Themes 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

clearinghouse needs; and (4) a timetable for the development for the 

theme; and

• create a plan to develop and implement theme standards.

As shown in table 4, the three theme-lead agencies in our review have 

implemented some but not all important geospatial activities.

Table 4: Status of Theme-lead Agencies’ Implementation of Geospatial Activities 

Activity NOAA USGS BTS

Designate a theme point of contact ● ● ●

Prepare goals and analyze user needs ● ◐ ◐

Develop a plan for theme population ● ◐ ◐

Develop a standards plan ○ ○ ○

Key

●=Fully met—the agency provided evidence that addressed the criteria.

◐=Partially met—the agency provided evidence that addressed about half or a large portion of the 

criteria.

○=Not met—the agency did not provide evidence that addressed the criteria or provided evidence 

that minimally addressed the criteria.

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.

• Designate a theme point of contact. All three agencies have 

designated a point of contact.

• Prepare goals and analyze user needs. One agency has developed 

goals that recognize and consider user needs for all key datasets in 

its theme and two agencies have developed goals based on user 

needs for the major datasets that comprise their themes. Specifically, 

NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Ten-Year Plan includes goals for 

furthering all of the key datasets in the geodetic control theme.45 For 

example, the plan highlights the goals to modernize geometric 

(horizontal) datum46

 

45Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The 

National Geodetic Survey Ten-Year Plan: Mission, Vision, and Strategy 2008-2018, 2008.

and to modernize the geopotential (vertical) 

46The geometric datum, also known as the horizontal datum, is the horizontal frame of 

reference used by all civilian agencies. It is essentially the x and y axis on a horizontal 

plane, similar to longitude and latitude.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

datum,47 and identifies user needs and why they are important. NOAA 

has also developed other short-term goals, such as continue 

education, outreach, development of transition tools and applications, 

and capacity-building activities to prepare users for the transition to 

new geometric and geopotential datum; and identify common 

objectives and find opportunities for cooperative projects and tasks 

related to standardization and updates to vertical datum. USGS has 

developed goals for the maintenance of the National Hydrography 

Dataset and for the Watershed Boundaries Dataset, such as ensuring 

that datasets continue to meet user needs; however, these two 

datasets do not include all datasets within the hydrography theme. 

Similarly, BTS has developed goals for the development of a 

comprehensive road centerline48

• Develop a plan for theme population. One agency has developed a 

plan that addresses all of the key elements for developing a 

nationwide plan; one has taken actions consistent with most of the 

key elements for some of the datasets associated with the theme, but 

has not integrated all the activities into a single plan that covers the 

entire theme; and one has developed a plan that addresses some of 

the key elements, but for only one of the major datasets in the theme. 

NOAA has developed a plan, its National Geodetic Survey Ten-Year 

Plan, which provides a strategy for how NOAA intends to modernize 

and populate its data theme. The plan includes the development of 

partnership programs with states, academia, federal agencies, and 

other stakeholders; identifies the need to address human and financial 

resource needs; identifies needs for standards, metadata, and the 

clearinghouse; and advances a timetable for the development of the 

theme. In contrast, USGS does not have a plan for the population of 

the hydrography theme; however, it has taken actions to (1) develop 

dataset; however, the goals do not 

address all other modes of transportation covered by the data theme, 

such as railroads, waterways, and virtual airways. The goals 

recognize differences in user needs for road centerline data, such as 

basic geometry and naming, support for addressing, and enhanced 

cartographic displays.

 

47The geopotential datum, also known as the vertical datum, is the vertical frame of 

reference used by all civilian agencies. It is essentially the z axis in a three-dimensional 

model, similar to altitude.

48Road centerlines are vector line data that represent the geographic center of road rightsof-way on transportation networks.
 

Page 27 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

partnerships; (2) address human and financial resources; and (3) 

identify needs for standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse for the 

National Hydrography Dataset, which is one dataset within the 

hydrography theme. BTS has developed a strategic plan for the 

development of a nationwide road centerline dataset. However, this 

plan does not address all other modes of transportation covered by 

the data theme, such as railroads, waterways, and virtual airways. 

These officials stated that a strategic plan for connecting all of the 

transportation datasets in an intermodal manner is needed; however, 

there are no plans to create such a plan in the immediate future.

• Develop a standards plan. None of the agencies have developed a 

plan to develop and implement standards; while NOAA recognized the 

need for a plan, both USGS and BTS stated that such a plan was not 

needed for their themes—USGS because of the maturity of their 

existing datasets, and BTS because they collect data from states and 

counties in various formats, and then standardize the data 

themselves. However, without a plan to maintain existing standards or 

anticipate new standards, these agencies risk potential future 

difficulties exchanging and sharing geospatial datasets.

Theme-lead agency officials attribute the lack of progress in implementing 

these activities to competing priorities, limited resources, and the 

perceived lack of need for some plans. Until agencies implement these 

activities, they will be challenged to effectively manage important 

geospatial activities, wisely use limited resources, and risk engaging in 

potential duplicative geospatial acquisition efforts.

OMB has oversight responsibilities for federal IT systems and acquisition 

activities—including GIS—to help ensure their efficient and effective use. 

According to OMB Office of E-Government staff members, OMB relies 

primarily on the annual budget process to identify potentially duplicative 

geospatial investments; specifically, the exhibit 53s and 300s.

However, OMB’s Office of E-Government staff members acknowledged 

that these two sources may not in all cases provide the necessary 

information to allow OMB to identify potentially duplicative investments or 

accurately quantify the amount of federal dollars spent on geospatial 

datasets for three primary reasons. First, these staff members stated that 

some federal agencies may not classify investments in geospatial data as 

“information technology” (such as satellites), meaning that they would not 

be captured in exhibit 53s. OMB staff members stated that agencies are 

OMB Does Not Have 

Complete and Reliable 

Information to Identify 

Duplicative Geospatial 

Investments 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

to determine what qualifies as an IT investment and stated that there are 

variations in the way that agencies interpret the definition of IT. Second, 

agencies do not always appropriately classify geospatial investments as 

“geospatial services” using the Federal Enterprise Architecture codes. 

Our analysis of the fiscal year 2013 exhibit 53s for the three departments 

that we reviewed showed that only 5 of their 24 key datasets49—1 of 

NOAA’s 6 geodetic control datasets,50 and 4 of USGS’s 7 hydrography 

datasets51—were included in the departments’ exhibit 53s. Further, only 1 

of these investments52 was identified with the geospatial services code, 

as required by OMB’s fiscal year 2013 budget formulation guidance.53

OMB staff members stated that they do not have a complete picture of

how much money is being spent on geospatial investments across the 

federal government because, as noted above, what is being reported may 

not capture all geospatial spending, and the data have not been reliable. 

In 2006 and 2007, OMB made two data calls directly to federal agencies 

to determine federal agencies’ spending on geospatial investments. 

However, according to OMB, neither of these data calls provided the 

agency with complete and reliable information—largely because agencies 

either provided incomplete information, or did not respond at all. Although 

the data may not be complete, those agencies that did respond reported 

that they planned to spend about $1.89 billion in geospatial data and 

services between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, of which about $1.53 

billion, or about 81 percent, was to be on geospatial data. OMB staff 

Third, given that the geospatial data may be only one component of an IT 

investment or capital asset, even if it were included in the agencies’ 

exhibit 53s or 300s, OMB would have difficulties in identifying the 

geospatial component, and the associated dollars, without having a 

detailed discussion with individuals responsible for each investment.

 

49The FGDC Secretariat provided a list of key datasets associated with the three themes 

in our sample as of August 2012. 

50The key dataset was the Continuously Operating Reference Stations.

51The key datasets were National Hydrography Dataset, National Water Information 

System-Stream Gage Locations, National Water Information System-Water Quality 

Monitoring Stations Locations, and National Wetlands Inventory.

52The key dataset was the National Hydrography Dataset.

53As of August 2012, NOAA officials stated that they had requested a modification to its 

exhibit 53 to identify the Continuously Operating Reference Stations dataset as geospatial 

services. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

members stated that OMB has not made any additional data collections 

outside of the IT reporting process (i.e., exhibit 53s and 300s) for 

geospatial data investments since 2007, and as of September 2012, has 

no current plans for any new collections.

OMB staff members stated that, although eliminating duplication in 

geospatial investments is important, OMB’s recent efforts have focused 

on other commodity IT areas with higher spending and cyber security 

ramifications, such as reducing the numbers of federal data centers and 

internet connections maintained by the government. However, without 

complete and reliable information on the federal government’s 

investments in geospatial data, including the amount of federal dollars 

spent, OMB does not have the necessary information to make a factbased decision about the potential priority of geospatial information in 

relation to other activities.

According to FGDC Secretariat officials, departments and agencies have 

taken steps to coordinate geospatial data related to their respective data 

themes.

• Interior participates in several efforts aimed at coordinating one of its 

themes, orthoimagery. For example, in conjunction with the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Interior participates in the National 

Agricultural Imagery Program, which was developed to obtain onemeter resolution, “leaf-on” imagery54 for the 48 continental states on a 

3-year cycle. In addition, Interior, in conjunction with the Department 

of Defense, participates in the Urban Area Imagery Program. The goal 

of this program is to acquire one-foot resolution, “leaf-off” imagery55

 

54“Leaf-on” imagery refers to the time of year in which imagery data are being acquired 

during which there is foliage on certain tree and shrub species.

for 133 of the nation’s largest or most important urban areas (such as 

state capitals) on a 2-to-4-year cycle. According to FGDC Secretariat 

officials, for both of these programs, members acquire the imagery, 

assure the quality of the imagery, and distribute it to the participants in 

the program. Each participant in these programs benefits from the 

imagery acquired, as do all other federal, state, and local agencies, 

55“Leaf-off” imagery refers to the time of year in which imagery data are being acquired 

during which there is no foliage or a reduced amount of foliage on certain tree and shrub 

species.

Federal Agencies Have 

Coordinated Specific 

Investments, but 

Duplicative Geospatial 

Data Exists
 

Page 30 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

the private sector (such as companies that provide mapping services 

on the Internet), nonprofit organizations, and members of the public 

interested in this type of imagery.

• Interior also participates in a program for another theme, elevation. 

Specifically, in conjunction with other departments, Interior 

participates in the National Digital Elevation Program, which is 

intended to acquire detailed elevation data using advanced 

technologies to support various programmatic needs, such as USGS’s 

Coastal and Marine Geology program, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (which 

supports precision farming), and the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Risk Mapping, 

Assessment, and Planning program. The participating agencies seek 

other federal agency and state and local government participation in 

elevation acquisition projects as part of their program design. 

According to Secretariat officials, agencies generally coordinate their 

plans and funding, and execute the projects independently. In 

addition, the data acquired by projects are available to others.

• USGS further coordinated the elevation theme when, in conjunction 

with its partners, it sponsored the National Enhanced Elevation 

Assessment. According to USGS officials, the assessment was 

conducted to investigate the potential to obtain greater benefits and 

efficiencies from the growing interest in using data from advanced 

technologies, and concluded that moving to a coordinated national 

program has the potential to produce new benefits in excess of $1 

billion annually. USGS and its federal partners intend to use the 

recommendations from the assessment to improve on the current 

coordination-based approach among federal agencies and nonfederal 

organizations.

• As the theme-lead agency of the hydrography theme, USGS has led 

efforts to coordinate the population of the hydrography theme. 

According to USGS officials, it created a partnership for the 

development of two separate datasets associated with hydrography: 

the National Hydrography Dataset and the Watershed Boundaries 

Dataset. These datasets were created by pooling funding and 

resources from several federal, state, and local agencies into a single 

effort. This partnership supports the missions of several federal 

agencies: USGS and the U.S. Forest Service for mapping and 

analysis projects, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 

Department of Homeland Security for analysis projects, and the 

Census Bureau for mapping. Numerous state agencies also 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

participate in order to meet reporting requirements of the Federal 

Water Pollution Control Act. This partnership also has data 

stewardship agreements in place between USGS and 35 states. This 

data stewardship activity is based on the input of local organizations 

knowledgeable about hydrography in their immediate area.

While agencies have taken actions to coordinate geospatial data 

investments, recent reports, as well as officials from state and local 

associations and the FGDC Advisory Committee have all stated that 

duplicative geospatial data investments continue across all levels of 

government. For example, according to Transportation’s Transportation 

for the Nation Strategic Plan, dated May 2011, duplication exists in the 

acquisition of nationwide road centerline data across federal agencies 

and other levels of government, resulting in millions of wasted taxpayer 

dollars.56

• Census Bureau’s Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER) system, which uses data procured from local 

sources for census enumeration and demographic applications. 

These data were built and are maintained by the Census Bureau.

The report identified several initiatives that are currently 

independently acquiring road centerline data:

• USGS’s National Map website, which uses licensed data from a 

commercial provider to create viewable maps on the National Map. 

These data are managed by USGS.57

• The Department of Defense’s Homeland Security Infrastructure 

Program, which uses licensed commercial data procured by the 

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for emergency management.

In addition, a subcommittee of the National Geospatial Advisory 

Committee has, at the request of the FGDC, been evaluating the need for 

a national address database, assessing potential concerns with such a 

database, and identifying possible approaches for its development. 

According to a National Geospatial Advisory Committee official, several 

federal agencies collect, purchase, or lease address information in a 

 

56Department of Transportation, Transportation for the Nation Strategic Plan, May 2011.

57According to Interior officials, the Census Bureau and USGS have formed a working 

group to determine if the accuracy of the TIGER data can be improved sufficiently to allow 

them to be used on the National Map website, as opposed to the licensed data.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

noncoordinated fashion. This subcommittee is in the process of finalizing 

a report58

Further, in a report on land parcel data, the National Academy of 

Sciences

for the full committee that would assess, among other things, 

the benefits, potential savings, and efficiencies that could be realized from 

the development of a national address database.

59 stated that the lack of nationally integrated land parcel data 

has led to duplication of effort among various levels of government and 

between the public and private sector, such as the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, the U. S. Forest Service, insurance 

companies, and private companies that list home values and sell parcel 

maps.60 In addition, a National Geospatial Advisory Committee 

representative stated that a commercial provider leases the same 

proprietary parcel data to six federal agencies: the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Homeland Security, 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Small Business Administration, 

the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve. In 

recent reports, the Congressional Research Service found that a 

coordinated approach to federally managed parcel data still did not exist 

and that the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of federal lands is 

to contact each land management agency directly.61

Representatives from the National States Geographic Information 

Council62

 

58The report is tentatively scheduled for approval by the National Geospatial Advisory 

Committee by December 2012. 

stated that federal agencies are investing in geospatial data that 

exist at the state and local level, noting that duplicative data continue to 

59Founded by congressional charter, the National Academy of the Sciences is a private, 

nonprofit organization that serves as advisors to the nation on issues of science and 

technology that frequently affect policy decisions.

60National Academy of Sciences, National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future,

2007.

61Congressional Research Service, Issues and Challenges for Federal Geospatial 

Information, Apr. 27, 2012; and Issues Regarding a National Land Parcel Database, May 

13, 2011.

62The National States Geographic Information Council has two missions: (1) to promote 

the coordination of statewide geospatial activities in all states and (2) to advocate for the 

states in national geospatial policy initiatives to help enable the NSDI. Members of the 

council include senior state GIS managers and coordinators as well as others from all 

levels of government, academia, and the private sector. See http://www.nsgic.org/.
 

Page 33 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

be procured in such areas as imagery, elevation, road centerlines, and 

address points.

The long-standing problem of effectively coordinating federal geospatial 

investments to reduce redundancies has yet to be resolved. In particular, 

the FGDC has not established a framework for governmentwide 

management of themes and datasets; provided geospatial information 

users with the means to identify planned data acquisitions; and developed 

and maintained a national strategy to guide the development of the NSDI, 

with associated metrics to measure progress and ensure accountability.

Similarly, federal departments and agencies have not yet implemented 

long-standing OMB guidance intended to ensure the efficient use of 

limited federal resources and the effective stewardship of geospatial data 

themes, including developing and implementing a strategy for advancing 

geospatial activities related to their mission; and implementing policies, 

procedures, and plans for effectively coordinating and managing 

geospatial data, standards, and the clearinghouse. Moreover, OMB has 

not established an effective mechanism to identify the amount of the 

federal budget being spent on geospatial investments as well as 

potentially duplicative geospatial investments.

The FGDC, federal agencies, and OMB have each indicated that the lack 

of progress in implementing these important coordination activities is 

because they have been focusing on other priorities. However, while the 

extent of duplication in geospatial investments is unknown, it is estimated 

that billions of dollars are being spent across the federal government on 

geospatial investments. Further, many mission-critical applications, such 

as those used to respond to natural disasters—floods, hurricanes, and 

fires—depend on geospatial information to protect lives and property. 

Thus, it is important that the data acquired to support these critical 

functions be done in a timely and coordinated manner, with minimal 

duplication.

Until a comprehensive national strategy is in place, the FGDC develops 

and implements guidance and tools to effectively coordinate 

governmentwide geospatial activities, and federal agencies establish and 

implement the policies, procedures, and plans to coordinate their 

geospatial activities, the vision of the NSDI to improve the coordination 

and use of geospatial information will likely not be fully realized and 

duplicative investments will likely continue. Further, until OMB establishes 

a way to obtain reliable information about federal geospatial investments, 

OMB will not be able to identify potentially duplicative geospatial 

Conclusions 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

investments. Unless the FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and 

OMB decide that investments in geospatial information are a priority, 

these investments will remain uncoordinated, and although the extent of 

duplication is unknown, the federal government will continue to acquire 

duplicative geospatial information and waste taxpayer dollars.

To better facilitate the coordination of—and accountability for—the 

estimated billions of dollars in federal geospatial investments, and to 

reduce duplication, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior, as 

the FGDC Chair, direct the FGDC Steering Committee to take the 

following three actions.

• Establish a time frame for completing a plan to facilitate the 

implementation of OMB’s portfolio management guidance, and 

develop and implement the plan within the established time frame. 

The plan, at a minimum, should include goals and performance 

measures, and the FGDC should report annually to OMB on the 

progress made on efforts to improve coordination and reduce 

duplication among themes.

• Develop and implement guidance for identifying planned geospatial

investments using the Geospatial Platform, and establish a time frame 

for doing so.

• Establish a time frame for creating and updating a strategic plan to 

improve coordination and reduce duplication, and create and 

implement the plan within the established time frame. The plan, at a 

minimum, should include (1) a vision statement for the NSDI; (2) 

outcome-oriented goals and objectives that address all aspects of the 

NSDI; (3) a description of how the goals and objectives are to be 

achieved, including a description of the resources needed to achieve 

the goals and objectives and how the FGDC is to work with other 

agencies to achieve them; (4) performance measures for achieving 

the stated goals; and (5) external factors that could affect the 

achievement of the goals and objectives. 

To help ensure the success of department’s efforts to improve geospatial 

coordination and reduce duplication, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Commerce designate a senior agency official who has departmentwide 

responsibility, accountability, and authority for geospatial information 

issues. We further recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 35 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

designated senior official for geospatial information to take the following 

three actions.

• Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing 

geographic information and related geospatial data activities 

appropriate to its mission.

• Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial 

metadata available on the clearinghouse.

• Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses 

the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce 

new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has 

already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts 

to obtain the data are possible.

Further, to improve the department’s management of its geodetic control 

theme, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the 

geodetic control theme point of contact to create and implement a plan to 

develop and implement geodetic control theme standards.

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the designated 

senior official for geospatial information to take the following three 

actions.

• Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing 

geographic information and related geospatial data activities 

appropriate to its mission.

• Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial 

metadata available on the clearinghouse.

• Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses 

the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce 

new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has 

already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts 

to obtain the data are possible.

We further recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the 

hydrography theme point of contact to take the following three actions.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

• Prepare goals relating to all datasets within the hydrography theme 

that support the NSDI, and as needed, collect and analyze information 

from user needs and include those needs in the theme-related goals.

• Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the 

hydrography theme that addresses all datasets within the theme; and 

that includes (1) the development of partnership programs with states, 

tribes, academia, the private sector, other federal agencies, and 

localities that meet the needs of users; (2) human and financial 

resource needs; (3) standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse 

needs; and (4) a timetable for the development for the theme.

• Create and implement a plan to develop and implement hydrography 

theme standards.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation designate a senior 

agency official who has departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and 

authority for geospatial information issues. We further recommend that 

the Secretary of Transportation direct the designated senior official for 

geospatial information to take the following three actions.

• Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing 

geographic information and related geospatial data activities 

appropriate to its mission.

• Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial 

metadata available on the clearinghouse.

• Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses 

the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce 

new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has 

already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts 

to obtain the data are possible.

We further recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the 

transportation theme point of contact to take the following three actions.

• Prepare goals relating to all datasets within the transportation theme 

that support the NSDI, and as needed, collect and analyze information 

from user needs and include those needs in the theme-related goals.

• Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the 

transportation theme that addresses all datasets within the theme; 

and that includes (1) the development of partnership programs with 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

states, tribes, academia, the private sector, other federal agencies, 

and localities that meet the needs of users; (2) human and financial 

resource needs; (3) standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse 

needs; and (4) a timetable for the development for the theme.

• Create and implement a plan to develop and implement transportation 

theme standards.

Further, to improve OMB oversight of geospatial information and assets, 

and minimize duplication of federal geospatial investments, we 

recommend that the Director of OMB develop a mechanism, or modify 

existing mechanisms, to identify and report annually on all geospatialrelated investments, including dollars invested and the nature of the 

investment.

We received written, e-mail, or oral responses on a draft of this report 

from Interior, Commerce, Transportation, as well as OMB and the 

General Services Administration. These responses are summarized 

below. 

In written comments, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget, and reprinted in appendix III, Interior generally 

agreed with our recommendations. The department stated that it 

recognizes the need to more fully implement the portfolio management 

requirements described in the OMB Circular A-16 supplemental guidance

and is already actively working to develop tools that will help agencies 

identify planned geospatial investments in the Geospatial Platform. With 

respect to our recommendations aimed at improving Interior’s 

management of its geospatial investments, the department stated that it is 

beginning to take actions to implement our recommendations, including 

developing an Geospatial Advisory Committee for the department—which 

is intended to provide leadership and direction for the development of a 

comprehensive geospatial technical strategy for the department—as well 

as developing procedures for making metadata available on the 

clearinghouse. The department further stated that it is committed to 

working with OMB and its partner agencies to address our 

recommendations in a timely manner. 

In addition, the department stated that its efforts to lead and coordinate 

activities of the FGDC and the Geospatial Platform continue to accrue 

great benefits to the federal community and U.S. citizens. In particular, 

Interior stated that through these efforts, it will be able to implement the 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 38 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

supplemental guidance to OMB Circular A-16, and realize the 

tremendous potential of the Geospatial Platform. We support the 

department’s efforts as evidenced by our recommendations to the 

department aimed at furthering agencies’ implementation of the 

supplemental guidance and use of the Geospatial Platform to identify 

planned geospatial investments. Interior also provided technical 

comments, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate.

In written comments, signed by the Acting Secretary of Commerce, and 

reprinted in appendix IV, Commerce stated that the department and 

NOAA agree with our recommendations, and described actions planned 

to implement them. Commerce also stated that it appreciates the work 

that we have done to improve coordination in managing geospatial 

investments.

In oral comments, Transportation officials, including the department’s 

Geospatial Information Officer/BTS Director of Geospatial Information 

Systems, neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, and

provided two comments on our draft report. First, Transportation officials 

stated that, as of October 2012, the department’s metadata files are 

available on the geoplatform.gov and the geo.data.gov sites, and 

provided supporting evidence. As a result, we revised our report to 

acknowledge that the department has made its metadata associated with 

geospatial data available on the clearinghouse, and removed the 

recommendation that it does so. Second, Transportation officials stated 

that they believed that the department should have received partial credit 

for having prepared, maintained, published, and implemented a strategy 

for advancing geographic information and related geospatial data 

activities appropriate to the department’s mission, and in support of the 

NSDI strategy. Specifically, Transportation officials stated that the 

department’s Transportation for the Nation Strategic Plan partially 

satisfies these criteria because it includes a strategy for collecting and 

maintaining road centerline data, which represents the vast majority of 

travel in terms of both passengers and freight. We agree that 

transportation by road is a major component of the transportation data 

theme. In fact, our assessment of this plan was the basis for the partial 

rating for two of the criteria related to BTS’s (the theme-lead agency) 

management of the transportation data theme: “prepared goals and 

analyzed user needs,” and “developed a plan for theme population.” 

However, the strategic plan does not include a strategy for advancing all 

the department’s geographic information and related geospatial data 

activities, nor does it describe how the department and its agencies are to 

coordinate their geospatial efforts to support the department’s mission. In 
 

Page 39 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

particular, the plan does not address geospatial themes other than 

transportation—including elevation and imagery—in which Federal 

Aviation Administration officials stated that their agency also makes 

investments. Therefore, we believe that the department’s Transportation 

for the Nation Strategic Plan does not constitute a departmentwide 

geospatial plan. In addition, Transportation officials provided a technical 

comment, which we incorporated into the draft.

In comments provided via e-mail, a paralegal specialist in OMB’s Office of 

General Counsel, on behalf of OMB, stated that OMB concurs with the 

need for improved collection of geospatial-related investments, but 

believes that it should only be achieved through improvements to broader 

reporting mechanisms for IT investments and data assets, and not by 

developing new and separate mechanisms specifically for geospatialrelated assets. OMB further noted that it would be helpful if we clarified 

our recommendation to acknowledge that a new process is not required 

or expected. The decision as to whether OMB should develop a new 

mechanism, or improve an existing mechanism, should be made based 

on whichever option will be most successful in collecting the necessary 

information. We modified our recommendation to reflect this. OMB also 

provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In e-mail comments provided by a Management and Program Analyst in 

the GAO/IG (Inspector General) Response Audit Division, the General 

Services Administration stated that it had no formal comments on the 

draft report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the 

Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and 

Transportation; and the Administrator of the General Services 

Administration. This report will also be available at no charge on our 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 40 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

David A. Powner

Director

Information Technology Management Issues
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Our objective was to determine the extent to which the federal 

government has established and effectively implemented policies and 

procedures for coordinating its investments in geospatial data and 

avoiding duplication. To address this objective, we focused on 

governmentwide activities to implement the National Spatial Data 

Infrastructure (NSDI), including efforts of the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (FGDC), as well as those within selected departments.

To evaluate federal departments’ efforts to implement the NSDI, we first 

identified the nine framework themes,1

• Department of Commerce (Commerce)—National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—Geodetic Control;

as identified in Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. These framework themes 

are cadastral, cadastral (offshore), digital orthoimagery, elevation 

bathymetric, elevation terrestrial, geodetic control, government units, 

hydrography, and transportation; and are described in appendix II. From 

those nine themes, we then randomly selected three themes and 

identified the federal departments and agencies responsible for managing 

the themes. The three departments, theme-lead agencies, and selected 

themes are:

• Department of the Interior (Interior)—U. S. Geological Survey 

(USGS)—Hydrography; and

• Department of Transportation (Transportation)—Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS)—Transportation.

We then reviewed FGDC and federal department documentation, such as 

policies, procedures, strategic plans, implementation plans, technical 

documentation of standards and metadata, committee charters and 

meeting minutes, and budget documentation. We assessed this 

information against responsibilities identified in Executive Order 12906,2

 

1

The FGDC considers there to be seven framework themes, with two of the themes 

having two parts. Specifically, FGDC considers cadastral and cadastral (offshore) to be 

one theme and elevation bathymetric and elevation terrestrial to be one theme. 

2

Executive Order No. 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The 

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Apr. 11, 1994). 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

OMB Circular A-16,3 OMB M-06-07,4 and OMB M-11-03;5

To determine the completeness of the federal agency metadata records 

in the clearinghouse and to determine which agencies contributed records 

to geo.data.gov, we obtained an extract of the contents of geo.data.gov 

as of February 22, 2012. We then recreated a database of the metadata 

records. We reviewed FGDC guidance

identified any 

discrepancies, and discussed them with the relevant agency officials.

6

In order to assess the reliability of the clearinghouse data that we 

analyzed, we reviewed FGDC documentation, the General Services 

Administration’s written responses to questions, and interviewed officials 

familiar with the clearinghouse data in order to gain an understanding of 

the controls around the creation and maintenance of the clearinghouse 

data. We determined that our recreation of the database had no material 

effect on our analysis and that the database, as recreated, was 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

to identify what are considered to 

be the mandatory data elements, which total 29. For each record in the 

database, we determined if the metadata value for each of the 29 

mandatory data fields had information or was blank. In addition, we used 

the metadata records to determine what agencies contributed records by 

examining the data fields that indicated the origin and publisher of the 

data.

To determine whether OMB had complete and reliable information to 

identify duplicative geospatial investments, we reviewed OMB’s most 

recent data calls for geospatial data from 2006 and 2007, OMB Circular 

A-11,7

 

3

OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, Aug. 19, 2002.

and department budget submissions. We compared the list of key 

datasets for the themes in our sample to budget documentation available 

4

OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information, Mar. 

3, 2006.

5

OMB, M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, Nov. 10, 2010. 

6

FGDC, FGDC-STD-001-1998: Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata, 1998; 

and Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata Workbook, May 1, 2000.

7

OMB, Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, August 

2011; and Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, 

August 2012.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

in OMB’s fiscal year 2013 exhibit 53 to determine the extent to which the 

agencies identified these datasets as investments in information 

technology (IT) and geospatial services. To determine the reliability of the 

data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent GAO reports that identified 

issues with the accuracy and reliability of agency data on the IT 

Dashboard. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of this report, which is to determine the extent to which 

departments’ key datasets were included as IT investments and coded as 

geospatial services in the departments’ respective exhibit 53s for fiscal 

year 2013.

To identify potential duplicative geospatial investments, we reviewed 

recent reports8 from the FGDC, Transportation, the Congressional 

Research Service, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee,9 and the 

National Academy of Sciences,10 and spoke with FGDC and the National 

States Geographic Information Council officials.11

We also interviewed FGDC officials, including the Chair and Vice-Chair of 

the FGDC; the Executive Director of the FGDC Office of the Secretariat; 

the representative for the Managing Partner of the Geospatial Platform; 

OMB Office of E-Government staff members; department and agency 

officials responsible for coordinating geospatial investments within their 

respective agencies as well as theme-lead points of contact within those 

agencies; General Services Administration officials responsible for 

managing the geospatial clearinghouse; the Chair of the National 

 

8

See, for example: Department of Transportation, Transportation for the Nation Strategic 

Plan, May 2011; National Geospatial Advisory Committee, National Addresses Databases 

Background Paper - DRAFT, prepared by Gene Trobia, Apr. 3, 2012; National Academy 

of Sciences, National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future, 2007; Congressional 

Research Service, Issues and Challenges for Federal Geospatial Information, Apr. 27, 

2012; and Congressional Research Service, Issues Regarding a National Land Parcel 

Database, May 13, 2011. 

9

The committee is a federal advisory committee sponsored by Interior under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. It reports to the Chair of the FGDC.

10Established by congressional charter, the National Academy of Sciences is a private, 

nonprofit organization that serves as advisors to the nation on issues of science and 

technology that frequently affect policy decisions.

11The National States Geographic Information Council is made up of senior state

geographic information system managers and coordinators. Other members include 

representatives from federal agencies, local government, the private sector, academia, 

and other professional organizations.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Geospatial Advisory Committee; and the President and Washington 

Liaison of the National States Geographic Information Council.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objective.
Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes

Page 45 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

FGDC proposed theme and description Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description

Biota—Biota pertain to, or describe the dynamic 

processes, interactions, distributions, and 

relationships between and among organisms and 

their environments.

Biological Resources—This dataset 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.

Vegetation—Vegetation data describe a collection of plants or plant communities 

with distinguishable characteristics that occupy an area of interest. 

Cadastre—This theme describes past, current, 

and future rights and interests in real property, 

including the spatial information necessary to 

describe geographic extents. Rights and 

interests are benefits or enjoyment in real 

property that can be conveyed, transferred, or 

otherwise allocated to another for economic 

remuneration. Rights and interests are recorded 

in land record documents.

The spatial information necessary to describe 

geographic extents includes surveys and legal 

description frameworks, such as the Public Land 

Survey System, as well as parcel-by-parcel 

surveys and descriptions. This theme does not 

include federal government or military facilities.

Cadastrala—Cadastral data describe the geographic extent of past, current, and 

future rights, title, and interests in real property, and the framework to support the 

description of that geographic extent. The geographic extent includes survey and 

description frameworks, such as the Public Land Survey System, as well as parcelby-parcel surveys and descriptions.

Cadastral (Offshore)a—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. Existing coverage is currently limited to the conterminous United States 

and portions of Alaska.

Public Land Conveyance (patent) Records—Public land conveyance data are 

the records that describe all past, current, and future rights, title, and interests in 

real property. This is a system of storage, retrieval, and dissemination of 

documents describing the rights, title, and interests of parcels.

Federal Land Ownership Status—Federal land ownership status includes the 

establishment and maintenance of a system for the storage and dissemination of 

information describing all title, estates, or interests of the federal government 

parcels of real and mineral property. The ownership status system is the portrayal 

of title for all such federal estates or interests in land.

Climate and Weather—Climate and weather 

describes meteorological conditions, including 

temperature, precipitation, and wind, that 

characteristically prevail in a particular region

over a long period of time. Weather is the state of 

the atmosphere at a given time and place, with 

respect to variables, such as temperature, 

moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.

Climate—Climate data describe the spatial and temporal characteristics of the 

Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere, and 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.

Cultural Resources—This theme describes 

features and characteristics of a collection of 

places of significance in history, architecture, 

engineering, or society. It includes national 

monuments and icons.

Cultural Resources—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.

Geographic Names—This dataset contains data or information on geographic 

place names deemed official for federal use by the U.S. Board on Geographic 

Names as pursuant to 80 Cong. Ch. 330. 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.

Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes 
Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes

Page 46 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

FGDC proposed theme and description Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description

Elevation—Elevation is the measured vertical 

position of the Earth surface and other landscape 

or bathymetric features relative to a reference 

datum typically related to sea level. These points 

normally describe bare Earth positions but may 

also describe the top surface of buildings and 

other objects, vegetation structure, or submerged 

objects.

Elevation data can be stored as a threedimensional array or as a continuous surface, 

such as a raster, triangulated irregular network, 

or contours. Elevation data may also be 

represented in other derivative forms, such as 

slope, aspect, ridge and drainage lines, and 

shaded relief.

Elevation Bathymetrica—The bathymetric data for Inland and Intercoastal 

waterways is highly accurate bathymetric (i.e., the measurement of water depths) 

sounding information collected to ensure that federal navigation channels are 

maintained to their authorized depths. Bathymetric survey activities support the 

nation’s critical nautical charting program. These data are also used to create 

Electronic Navigational Charts.

Elevation Terrestriala—These data contain georeferenced digital representations 

of terrestrial surfaces, natural or manmade, that describe vertical position above or 

below a datum surface. 

Geodetic Control—This theme includes a 

collection of control points that provide a 

common reference system for establishing 

coordinates for geographic data.

Geodetic Controla—Geodetic control provides a common reference system for 

establishing coordinates for all geographic data. All NSDI framework data and 

users’ applications data require geodetic control to accurately register spatial data. 

The National Spatial Reference System is the fundamental geodetic control for the 

United States.

Geology—Geology is geographically-referenced 

data pertaining to the origin, history, composition, 

structure, features, and processes of the solid 

Earth, both onshore and offshore.

It includes geologic, geophysical, and 

geochemical maps, stratigraphy, paleontology, 

geochronology, mineral and energy resources, 

and natural hazards, such as earthquakes, 

volcanic eruptions, coastal erosion, and 

landslides. The theme does not include soils.

Geologic—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.

Offshore Minerals—Offshore minerals include minerals occurring in submerged

lands. Examples of marine minerals include oil, gas, sulfur, gold, sand and gravel, 

and manganese. 

Governmental Units—This theme includes data 

that describe political, governmental, and 

administrative (management) type boundaries 

that are used to manage people and resources. It 

includes geopolitical boundaries (county, parish, 

state, city, etc.), tribal boundaries, federal land 

boundaries, federal regions, international 

boundaries, and governmental administrative 

units, such as congressional districts, 

international lines of separation, limits, zones, 

enclaves, exclaves, special areas between states 

and dependencies, and all jurisdictional offshore 

limits within U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries 

associated with natural resources, demography, 

and cultural entities are excluded and can be 

found in the appropriate subject themes.

Governmental Unitsa—These data describe, by a consistent set of rules and 

semantic definitions, the official boundaries of federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments as reported/certified to the U.S. Census Bureau by responsible 

officials of each government for purposes of reporting the nation’s official statistics.

International Boundaries—International boundary data include both textual 

information to describe, and geographic information system (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.

Marine Boundaries—Marine boundaries depict offshore waters and seabeds over 

which the United States has sovereignty and jurisdiction.
Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes

Page 47 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

FGDC proposed theme and description Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description

Imagery—The imagery theme includes 

georeferenced images of the Earth’s surface that 

have been collected using aerial photography or 

satellite data. Orthoimagery is prepared through 

a geometric correction process known as 

orthorectification to remove image displacements 

due to relief and sensor characteristics. This 

process allows for their use as base maps for 

digital mapping and analyses in a GIS. Specific 

imagery data sets created through image 

interpretation and classification, such as a land 

cover image, can be found under themes specific 

to the subject matter. This theme includes 

imagery, such as Landsat, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, and Digital Orthophoto 

Quarter Quadrangle. 

Digital Ortho Imagerya—This dataset contains georeferenced images of the 

Earth’s surface where object displacement has been removed for sensor 

distortions and orientation, and terrain relief. Digital orthoimages have the 

geometric characteristics of a map and image qualities of a photograph.

Land Use/Land Cover—This theme refers 

collectively to natural and man-made surface 

features that cover the land (Land Cover) and to 

the primary ways in which land cover is used by 

humans (Land Use). Examples of Land Cover 

may be grass, asphalt, trees, bare ground, and 

water. Examples of Land Use may be urban, 

agricultural, ranges, and forest areas.

Earth Cover—The Earth cover theme uses a hierarchical classification system 

based on observable form and structure, as opposed to 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.

Real Property—The real property theme 

includes data that describes the spatial 

representation (location) of real property entities, 

typically consisting of one or more of the 

following: unimproved land, a building, a 

structure, site improvements, and the underlying 

land. Complex real property entities (i.e., 

facilities) are used for a broad spectrum of 

functions or missions. This theme focuses on 

spatial representation of real property assets only 

and does not seek to describe special purpose 

functions of real property, such as those found in 

the Cultural Resources, Transportation, or 

Utilities themes.

Buildings and Facilities—The facility theme 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.

Housing—This theme includes geographic data on homeownership rates, 

including many attributes such as the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development’s revitalization zones, location of various forms of housing 

assistance, first-time homebuyers, underserved areas, and race. 

Soils—This theme includes data that depict the 

geography and attributes of the many kinds of 

soils found in the landscape at both large and 

small map scales. A living dynamic resource 

providing a natural medium for plant growth and 

habitat for living organisms, soil recycles 

nutrients and wastes, stores carbon, and purifies 

water supplies. Soil has distinct layers (called 

“horizons”) that, in contrast to underlying 

geologic material, are altered by the interactions 

of climate, landscape features, and living 

organisms over time.

Soils—Soil data consist of georeferenced digital 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. This 

theme also includes model-generated assessments of the suitability or limitations 

of the soils to various land uses.
Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes

Page 48 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

FGDC proposed theme and description Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description

Transportation—Transportation data describe 

means and aids for conveying persons and 

goods. The transportation system includes both 

physical and nonphysical components related to 

all modes of travel that allow the movement of 

goods and people between locations.

Transportationa—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.

Transportation (Marine)—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 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The navigation 

framework will provide the basis for the marine transportation theme of the 

geospatial data framework.

Utilities—This theme includes the means, aids, 

and usage of facilities for producing, conveying, 

distributing, processing, and disposing of public 

and private commodities, including power, 

energy, communications, natural gas, and water. 

It includes subthemes for Energy and 

Communications.

There are not any corresponding existing themes. 

Water—Inland—The Water—Inland theme 

describes interior hydrologic features and 

characteristics, including classification, 

measurements, location, and extent. It includes 

aquifers, watersheds, wetlands, navigation, water 

quality, water quantity, and groundwater 

information.

Hydrographya—This data theme includes surface water features, such as lakes, 

ponds, streams and rivers, canals, oceans, and coastlines.

Watershed Boundaries—This data theme encodes hydrologic, watershed 

boundaries into topographically defined sets of drainage areas that are organized 

in a nested hierarchy by size, and based on a standard hydrologic unit coding 

system.

Flood Hazards/Flood Plain—This theme includes documentation of the 

boundaries and elevations of the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood for 

communities across the country. 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.

Wetlands—The wetlands data layer provides the classification, location, and 

extent of wetlands and deepwater habitats.

Water—Oceans and Coasts—This theme 

includes datasets that describe features and 

characteristics of salt water bodies (tides, tidal 

waves, coastal information, reefs) and features 

and characteristics that represent the intersection 

of the land with the water surface (shorelines), 

the lines from which the territorial sea and other 

maritime zones are measured (baseline 

maritime), and lands covered by water at any 

stage of the tide (outer continental shelf), as 

distinguished from tidelands, which are attached 

to the mainland or an island and cover and 

uncover with the tide.

Baseline/Maritime Zones—Baseline represents the line from which maritime 

zones and limits are measured. Examples of these limits include the territorial sea, 

contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone.

Outer Continental Shelf Submerged Lands—These data include 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.

Shoreline—Shorelines represent the intersection of the land with the water 

surface. The shoreline shown on NOAA’s charts represents the line of contact 

between the land and a selected water elevation. 
Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed 

Themes and Existing Themes

Page 49 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

FGDC proposed theme and description Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description

These existing themes are proposed to be 

removed because, according to the FGDC, the 

data associated with them are primarily 

statistical.

Cultural and Demographic Statistics—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. 

Law Enforcement Statistics—Law enforcement statistics describe the occurrence of 

events (including incidences, offenses, and arrests) geospatially located, related to 

ordinance and statutory violations and the individuals involved in those occurrences. 

This theme also includes data related to deployment of law enforcement resources 

and performance measures.

Public Health—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 mortality and natality events, 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.

Source: OMB and FGDC documentation.

a

Designates a framework theme identified in OMB Circular No. A-16 as critical for many geospatial 

applications. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 50 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of the Interior
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior

Page 51 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 52 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Commerce
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 53 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 54 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 55 GAO-13-94 Geospatial Information 

David A. Powner, (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact name above, individuals making contributions to 

this report included Deborah A. Davis (Assistant Director), Shaun T. 

Byrnes, Eric Costello, Rebecca Eyler, Kaelin P. Kuhn, John Mingus, 

Jamelyn Payan, Scott Pettis, and Andrew Stavisky. 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(311267)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.