Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act 

Implementation

High Level Summary

A Report of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee

April 2023
NGAC Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3

2.0 Aspirational Outcomes ..................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Progress Towards the Aspirational Outcomes................................................................... 5

4.0 Need for Improved NSDI Governance................................................................................ 5

5.0 Need for Improved Data Management .............................................................................. 8

6.0 Need for Reporting Improvements....................................................................................10

6.1 Summary and Next Steps..................................................................................................11

Acknowledgments: ............................................................................................................11
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 3

1.0 Introduction

October 2022 marked the 4-year anniversary of the enactment of the Geospatial Data Act 

(GDA). Progress has been made in terms of implementation of the specific statutory 

requirements of the law. Several activities are intended to measure implementation of the 

statutory requirements. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) reviewed the 

implementation of the GDA by the geospatial community to date with a focus on evaluating the 

aspirational outcomes from the GDA, as opposed to an evaluation of progress by each covered 

Federal agency toward the specific GDA requirements. To accomplish this additional evaluation 

approach, the NGAC identified a discrete number of aspirational outcomes of the GDA and 

reviewed progress toward accomplishing those outcomes.

To develop this paper, the NGAC established a GDA Implementation Subcommittee to review 

the implementation of the GDA since 2018, assess progress toward the identified aspirational 

outcomes of the GDA, and develop recommendations for improvement. The NGAC, to meet 

other GDA directives, has previously established a GDA Reporting Subcommittee to gather and 

aggregate comments from NGAC members on the Federal Geographic Data Committee’s 

(FGDC) annual summaries of the performance of the covered agencies and lead covered 

agencies toward meeting GDA requirements. The GDA Reporting Subcommittee develops 

annual reports that are included by statute in the biennial FGDC GDA Report to Congress. The 

latest NGAC report for FY 2022 is located at [https://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/april2023/ngac-paper-ngac-comments-on-fy-2022-fgdc-summary-of-gda-annual-report-april2023.pdf]. The GDA Implementation Subcommittee was formed to evaluate whether the GDA 

implementation is achieving desired outcomes, rather than simply determining if the specific 

requirements of the GDA are being met. This report is the first phase of the subcommittee’s 

effort.

2.0 Aspirational Outcomes

While the GDA does not specify intended outcomes of the legislation, to some extent the 

intentions behind the legislation are clear. In the Findings, Sec. 751, the statute says open and 

publicly available data is essential and lays out the benefits of greater access and use of 

Government data. This intent is amplified in Sec. 755, including that free and open access for 

the public to geospatial data is an NSDI goal. The NGAC believes the FAIR data principles 

(Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) represent well the intent of the GDA 

regarding geospatial data. 

In Sec. 753, the statute indicates that the FGDC is the “lead entity in the executive branch for the 

development, implementation, and review of policies, practices, and standards relating to 

geospatial data”. The statute further indicates that the FGDC will promote cooperation and 

coordination among all stakeholders, which it identifies as Federal agencies, State, tribal, and 

local governments, institutions of higher education, and the private sector in collecting, 

producing, sharing, and using geospatial data, and the implementation of the NSDI. This is the 
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 4

first of four instances where such cross-sector partnerships are called out in service of shared 

use and management of geospatial data.

In Sec. 752, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is defined as “the technology, policies, 

criteria, standards, and employees necessary to promote geospatial data sharing throughout the 

Federal Government, State, tribal, and local governments, and the private sector (including 

nonprofit organizations and institutions of higher education)”. The geospatial infrastructure is 

often erroneously thought of simply as geospatial data, even though the definition in the Act 

explicitly includes all the elements to acquire and use the data. In order to make the data 

findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable (FAIR) and to maintain it over time in a way that 

fully realizes the value of the infrastructure investment, the other aspects of the infrastructure 

identified in the GDA must be taken into account.

In Sec. 755, the statute specifies that geospatial data from multiple sources is to be available 

and easily integrated via the NSDI to enhance the understanding of the physical and cultural 

world. This section also indicates that Federal information is to be interoperable and easily 

shared to enable resources from agencies to be fully leveraged. And Sec. 755 says that a goal of 

the NSDI is to support the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure. Further text in Sec. 756 and Sec.

757 emphasizes data standards development and compliance, which will further ensure that 

geospatial data is interoperable and easily shared. Commitment to this enables leveraging of 

resources across agencies and organizations. 

After a review of the GDA language and discussions of the likely intent of the legislation, the 

NGAC identified the following aspirational outcomes of the GDA upon which to base its 

evaluation of GDA implementation:

1. Make NSDI data available to all stakeholders, including Congress, to improve and support 

policy making and operations, respond to national priorities and circumstances, and 

support the national economy. The return on the Federal investment in the NSDI must be 

realized in a substantial way to justify continued investment, principally through improved 

Federal agency operations. Similarly, the return on investment for all stakeholders, including 

Congress, must be substantially realized to justify continued investment, meaning that 

improvements to operations and policy making by all stakeholders must be shown. As such, 

the technology, policies, and standards to promote geospatial data sharing must be 

recognized as a key part of the necessary investment.

2. Develop and foster meaningful partnerships with all NSDI stakeholders. Specific 

stakeholder communities are identified several times in the GDA. Partnerships among and 

between all stakeholder communities are intended to increase collaboration in development 

and maintenance of the NSDI across the entire country. These partnerships must be 

mutually beneficial to all parties involved. Related to this outcome and the first noted above, 

FGDC could work with the stakeholder community to develop examples (climate, 

infrastructure, business opportunities, government programs, etc.) that show the value of 

ready-for-use data and demonstrate the value of greater collaboration across agencies and 

among national geospatial stakeholders.
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 5

3. Complete and maintain NSDI data content nationwide. The usefulness of the NSDI is 

severely diminished if the content is not complete and maintained nationwide. It is critical 

going forward to understand how to define and measure completeness of NSDI data 

content. It is likely that the content does not need to be of the same accuracy nationwide for 

all data sets. It is also likely that the periodicity (temporal timeframe) of all data sets 

nationwide does not need to be the same.

4. Improve management of NSDI data. NSDI data is derived from multiple sources that include 

all stakeholders identified in the GDA. If the NSDI data is to be properly managed, it must be 

collaboratively managed.

5. Improve accessibility and availability of NSDI data. This means the FAIR principles must be 

realized to optimize the openness and reuse of the NSDI data. In combination with a focus 

on standardization, maintenance and interoperability, FAIR principles will significantly 

improve the usefulness of the NSDI.

6. Ensure NSDI compliance to established data standards. This is called out directly in the GDA 

now and will result in reusability of the NSDI data, following the FAIR data principles. 

Content and exchange standards and criteria should be developed and maintained for each 

NSDI data set.

The outcomes above would lead to improved impact, such as accelerating planning, response, 

and recovery to better mitigate risk and reinforce resilience to disaster; strengthening the 

national and local economies; cost savings in national, State, and local infrastructure projects; 

equitable and consistent provision of government services to all residents, etc.

3.0 Progress Towards the Aspirational Outcomes

The Federal geospatial community and its partners and stakeholders, particularly the NGAC, 

continue to learn about the progress made and the impacts caused by the GDA over the past 

four years. In using their expansive sector experience, members of the NGAC conducted a 

preliminary GDA implementation assessment based on these aspirational outcomes and 

identified three main categories of impediment to continued advancement: governance, data 

management, and reporting. The NGAC proposes eight recommendations to make progress 

toward achieving the legislation’s expected aspirational outcomes, to more effectively 

implement the GDA directives, and to support any agency in its geospatial responsibilities to all 

stakeholders. These barriers and proposed recommendations for improvement are explored 

more deeply in the following sections.

4.0 Need for Improved NSDI Governance

One of the great challenges of the 21st century is the crisis caused by the increase in frequency, 

intensity, and impact of weather-related disasters. Last year in the U.S. alone, twenty $1-billion 

natural disasters led to at least 688 deaths and cost approximately $145 billion in damage. This 

is just the cost of the most extreme events. There have been hundreds if not thousands of 
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 6

smaller events. More alarming is that this is the seventh consecutive year in which ten or more 

separate $1-billion disasters occurred in the U.S.1

A number of causes are behind this disturbing trend, including increased exposure (more 

construction in “at-risk” areas), greater vulnerability (how much damage a hazard can cause at 

specific locations), and the fact that climate change is supercharging the frequency and intensity 

of extreme events.2 In many States, emergency managers and government officials never truly 

recover from one disaster before being hit with another. This was certainly the case in 2020 

when, amidst the COVID pandemic, communities around the U.S. confronted a record number 

of extreme weather events. The new reality is more affected communities and more upended 

lives, hitting those with fewer resources the hardest.

A key to addressing these challenges is to have an accessible, accurate, up-to-date NSDI to 

provide authoritative information to the public while improving decision making from the local 

to national level. While the U.S. has made strides since the inception of the NSDI concept in the 

1990s and the enactment of the GDA, national leadership has yet to make the critical 

commitment to fully develop the NSDI. As a result, communities and community leaders across 

the country still suffer from a lack of the data, tools, and capabilities needed to better 

understand their risks and vulnerabilities, to identify the most effective resilience strategies, and 

to respond rapidly and reliably to unpredicted events. In summary, geospatial data providers 

and users need a more encompassing national framework for overall coordination of policies, 

data, technologies, and resources necessary to support geospatial data sharing, its 

interdisciplinary integration with other sources, and its successful application to the obvious 

need. Such action will ensure implementation of consistent nationwide data coverage and 

capabilities to meet our Nation's growing challenges, not only the drastic increase in weatherrelated disasters but the many other problems faced globally.3 

While progress toward implementing the NSDI nationwide continues, government efforts to 

develop a national, consistent spatial data infrastructure remains a significant challenge. The 

current vision and directive for the NSDI, as defined in the NSDI Strategic Plan, is focused 

predominantly on the creation and sharing of data, but an increased emphasis on the 

application of shared data toward solutions should be included in the revised version of the 

Plan. A lot of work takes place every day at all levels of government to develop and use data 

aimed at addressing our shared needs, including creation of community resilience and 

1 NOAA. 2020 U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in historical context | NOAA Climate.gov. NOAA.gov. Published 2021. 

Accessed December 30, 2021. https://www.climate.gov/disasters2020 2 https://www.edf.org/climate/how-climate-change-makes-hurricanes-more-destructive?gclsrc=ds&gclsrc=ds

3 The United Nations Global Geospatial Information Management Committee of Experts, representing UN member nations, builds 

on SDI concepts - many of which originated in the US - by encouraging alignment to an Integrated Geospatial Information 

Framework (IGIF) to achieve globally compatible national level geospatial information management policies and programs. 

http://ggim.un.org
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 7

mitigation of disasters, urban planning, digital agriculture, water management, invasive species 

control, homelessness, food insecurity, etc., but the significant and immediate challenge of 

having consistent local to national geospatial data coverage continues to be an elusive and 

unrealized target.

The 3D Elevation Program led by USGS is one of several examples of the success of the Federal 

government’s coordination initiated under Presidential Executive Order 12906 and legislatively 

reinforced in the GDA. This program unites Federal, State, local, and Tribal government, and the 

private sector in advancing a nationwide, detailed elevation model of critical importance to 

addressing issues such as flooding and landslides, with a host of other potential benefits. The 

success of this program is dependent upon cooperative resourcing among the partners/users, 

with well-supported Federal leadership. Another good example comes from the Census Bureau 

which, through its annual engagement with all levels of government, collects changes to legal 

boundaries so that statistics collected each year accurately reflect the state of the people and 

economy. 

Meanwhile, much other spatial data remain scattered and critical gaps in data coverage go 

unfulfilled in many areas of the nation. In some cases, the data is misaligned and can’t answer 

the pressing questions we have to solve. Common operating pictures are left fragmented, 

incomplete, and overlapping in places. Today, it often takes longer than necessary to acquire 

and align data on an as-needed basis, which costs valuable time and money, not to mention 

lives. Thus, even though authoritative data providers are everywhere — across government and 

private sectors — these data authorities are often not working together coherently and 

collaboratively toward a common objective.

To optimize a shared, next-generation NSDI, substantially improved national and international

organizational structures with collaborative agreements, integrated infrastructure for collection, 

access and distribution, and governance with designated cooperative leadership are needed to 

facilitate greater collaboration and coordination, with all sectors having representation in 

decision making to create a trusted data and technology environment. These structures must be 

designed to be persistent as a unified, connected whole rather than overly reliant on individual, 

sometimes-siloed parts.

Through the efforts of the FGDC and its stakeholders, and as outlined in the GDA, a set of 

National Geospatial Data Assets (NGDAs) commonly needed across a multitude of use cases has 

been identified. These foundational, or “framework,” data can be maintained across all levels of 

government and the private sector, where maintenance responsibility is dictated by the type 

and resolution of data, collection methods, jurisdictional authority, and activities that trigger 

data updates, such as land ownership transactions. However, the process for identifying NGDAs 

resulted in a number of data sets that are not truly foundational and cannot be maintained 

across all stakeholders. Many of the currently identified NGDAs are not needed across all 

stakeholders and lack a multitude of use cases.

The current federally led NSDI governance and coordination process still does not reflect the full 

breadth of partners and stakeholder groups necessary to achieve a truly national SDI. Federal 
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 8

agencies and key stakeholders representing regional, Tribal, State, local and private sector 

interests participate in NSDI governance under oversight by the FGDC. They are – in many cases 

– producers of critically important data that is aggregated to the national level by the Federal 

government and private sector. Too often, only the Federal government has a voting position on 

decisions made about such things as retention, integration into a larger data set, distribution, 

evaluation, standardization, etc. Non-Federal government stakeholders participate in an 

advisory capacity on the NGAC, as noted earlier. Still other stakeholder groups that stand to 

benefit from and contribute to the NSDI are not yet fully represented in the current Federal 

advisory process. 

Well-functioning SDIs at local, regional, and State levels are too often based on fragile 

arrangements, reliant on individual champions rather than institutionalized processes. When 

leadership changes, geospatial coordination can deteriorate. New collaborative, shared SDI 

structures have potential to build upon and fundamentally improve the way government, 

businesses and nonprofits operate in challenging geopolitical and geo-economic environments. 

The efforts of government agencies at all levels in conjunction with the FGDC and its 

stakeholders to advance the NSDI have had measurable success toward achieving its goals. The 

GDA serves to further stimulate forward momentum. However, establishing consistent 

nationwide data coverage and equitable access to technical capability and capacity is a far 

reach. The work-to-date provides the foundation on which to build and expand to a more 

inclusive, multi-sector, national governance and coordination approach. Improved collaboration 

will advance the NSDI through significant expansion of stakeholder representation, engagement, 

coordination, and resource commitment.

Recommendations

1. The FGDC should participate in ongoing efforts to design a national organizational 

framework that will facilitate greater collaboration and coordination on the NSDI. All 

stakeholders would be represented in the design process and in the national organizational 

framework. The design process should be informed by the results of previous FGDC NSDI 

governance studies and activities.

2. The FGDC should re-examine the process for identifying NGDAs. NGAC recommends a tiered 

approach that would identify NGDAs based on priority, scope, and value of the data.

5.0 Need for Improved Data Management 

The geospatial ecosystem has evolved considerably in the last five years. No one can deny the 

explosion of data from the perspective of volume, variety, velocity, and veracity of the national 

geospatial data holdings. Additionally, the recognition of the unique benefits of geospatial data 

and its uptake in creating value for its originators and users has significantly grown. There has 

been an increasing focus on making Federal data open and equitably accessible through 

legislation including the Geospatial Data Act and the Evidenced-Based Policymaking Act, both of 

which were enacted in 2018. The separation and specialization of general data management 

best practices from geospatial data management best practices requires review. Deliberate 

efforts should be made by the geospatial and standard data management communities to align 
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 9

and share best practices for standard data governance and management functions, while at the 

same time highlighting the unique aspects and requirements of geospatial data management 

where necessary. The geospatial community should demonstrate leadership where its expertise 

exists – geospatial standards, technologies, and methodologies – and educate the broader data 

management community on the integration opportunities and benefits of geospatial data and 

programs with other data types. It would benefit the geospatial data management community 

to become more closely aligned with the overall data management community to share limited 

resources, highlight common data management approaches and seek shared solutions for 

shared requirements (e.g., metadata and catalog standards). A positive example of this type of 

integration is the inclusion of an Ex Officio member from the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee on the Federal Chief Data Officers (CDO) Council to ensure collaboration on areas of 

mutual interest.

To achieve the maximum return on investment and impact from U.S. Federal geospatial 

programs, including the creation of value from derivative uses of geospatial data, the data and 

services must be easily accessible to all users. This can be accomplished by complying with the 

established data management principles of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable 

(FAIR). Following these principles allows data users to proceed straightforwardly from raw data 

discovery to analysis-ready data to decision-ready information in a reproducible, trusted fashion. 

This kind of routine is critical in emergency situations where data needs to be discovered, 

trusted, integrated, analyzed, visualized, and shared usually with little notice—to save lives, to 

preserve the environment, and to expend money wisely. FAIR data and services must be 

attentively embedded in a reliable and well-resourced NSDI that can be leveraged by any entity 

from any sector, at the local, regional, national, or global scale.

Recommendations

3. FGDC member agencies should define and agree on comprehensive best practices and 

capabilities required to establish, enable, and sustain mature data governance and 

management programs for geospatial data.

4. FGDC member agencies should comply with all applicable international, national, sector, and 

voluntary standards and best practices for making geospatial data, information, and assets 

Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR), to ensure maximum use and value 

from agency geospatial programs, and work with the rest of the community to develop and 

advance relevant standards, specifications, community standards, profiles, good practices, 

and de facto standards. 

5. NGAC and FGDC leadership should institute a comprehensive review and evaluation of the 

business case and existing governance and management practices of the GeoPlatform to 

ensure alignment with GDA requirements and benefit to the national geospatial community 

of users and the larger user community dependent on geospatial information.
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 10

6.0 Need for Reporting Improvements

In 2020, the NGAC recommended techniques to streamline the reporting process required for 

Federal agencies so that focused, efficient, and consistent reporting is ensured across 

government. 

Steps were taken that incorporated new reporting tools and improved reporting processes that 

made it easier and took less time for agencies to comply with the reporting requirements, but 

not all the NGAC recommendations were fully realized. There have been some improvements 

over time since the GDA was implemented, partly based on mandated reporting and resulting 

recognition of the need for changes. While the FGDC and the Office of Management and Budget 

have engaged on the need for adequate resources to perform the necessary reporting directives 

specified in the GDA, specific steps in providing resources have not yet been identified, pursued, 

or fulfilled.

The GDA levies a progress-reporting responsibility on the participating agencies but provides 

little guidance except for the reporting intervals. The FGDC consolidates and summarizes those 

reports. From the outset, the FGDC recognized the need to facilitate a streamlined and, to the 

extent possible, standardized approach to that reporting process. But the outcome of such 

progress reporting is not simply to recognize progress or lack of progress. The outcome should 

be to improve various aspects of the NSDI (technology, data, policies, funding, people) that will 

benefit the Nation. As noted earlier, governance and data management improvements are 

essential to realize the benefits of the NSDI. Reporting on NSDI progress has led to the need for 

governance and data management improvements.

Geospatial data, used by any agency, may or may not be explicit in the mission of that agency. 

As a result, any likely investment of budgeted resources may not be sufficiently understood 

since the agency may discount its benefits and ignore making a shared investment commitment. 

Greater collaboration across agencies, as well as collaboration between and among the national 

geospatial stakeholders (Tribal, Federal, State, local, private, academic, etc.) is needed. The 

challenge is how to make the case that is understood and compelling for action. Having 

geospatial and geospatially referenced data that supports ready-for-use services, applications, 

etc., is one way to make this case: show what is needed and the deficiencies preventing 

implementation.

Recommendations

6. The FGDC should work with Congress to modify the GDA reporting requirements to include 

criteria for collaboration, governance, benefits, and outcomes, shifting the focus from 

reporting about general process-oriented compliance to an outcome-oriented reporting 

process that identifies and encourages collaboration among geospatial data providers, data 

managers, disseminators, and users of geospatial data. This kind of reporting would require 

explaining how an agency has coordinated with non-Federal entities, with the NGDA 

elevation theme annual reports used as an example.
Evaluation of Geospatial Data Act Implementation

April 2023

National Geospatial Advisory Committee (www.fgdc.gov/ngac) 11

7. The FGDC should require agencies to conduct full baseline reports every 2 years, with any 

change to particular datasets reported annually, working with Congress to modify the GDA 

for this purpose if necessary. Significant changes by an agency in collecting, managing, and 

disseminating geospatial information rarely occurs during a single reporting period. 

Establishing a baseline often reflects a similar state of progress with negligible changes from 

year to year. Having agencies report on annual changes within a timeframe that the agency 

specifies for particular data sets and activities before requiring a subsequent baseline full 

report adds to efficiency in reporting.

8. The FGDC should work with Congress to change GDA requirements to have each respective 

Inspector General conduct program evaluations of an agency’s performance every two years 

rather than full audits. Full audits should be only done every four years, not every two years 

as currently required. While external reviews of geospatial data responsibility of an agency 

are beneficial, the extent to which the review occurs will have an impact on limited agency 

resources. This change will meet the intent of external reviews while potentially reducing 

resource requirements for both the agency and its Inspector General’s Office.

6.1 Summary and Next Steps

Through this evaluation process, the subcommittee recognized that to fully understand the 

impacts of the GDA, further exploration would be beneficial. The NGAC will undertake a more 

in-depth review of GDA implementation, again with a focus on outcomes, in the coming year to 

include an evaluation of NGAC’s role as authorized in the GDA.

Acknowledgments:

This paper was developed by an NGAC subcommittee consisting of Cy Smith (Chair), Maggie 

Cawley (Vice Chair), Nadine Alameh, Byron Bluehorse, Garet Couch, Tony LaVoi, and Tim 

Trainor.