GEOSPATIAL 

INFORMATION 

OMB and Agencies Can Reduce Duplication by 

Making Coordination a 

Priority 

Statement of David A. Powner, Director

Information Technology Management Issues

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST

Thursday, December 5, 2013

GAO-14-226T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-226T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Mineral Resources, Committee on Natural 

Resources, House of Representatives

December 5, 2013

GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION 

OMB and Agencies Can Reduce Duplication by 

Making Coordination a Priority

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 estimated that the federal 

government was investing billions of 

dollars on geospatial data annually, 

and that duplication was common.

In November 2012, GAO reported on 

efforts to reduce duplicative 

investments in geospatial data, 

focusing on OMB, FGDC, and three 

agencies: the Departments of 

Commerce, the Interior, and 

Transportation. 

This statement summarizes the results

of that November 2012 report on 

progress and challenges in 

coordinating geospatial information 

and includes updates on the

implementation of recommendations

made in that report. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making no new 

recommendations in this statement. 

In November 2012, GAO 

recommended that to improve 

coordination and reduce duplication, 

FGDC develop a national strategy for 

coordinating geospatial investments; 

federal agencies follow federal 

guidance for managing geospatial

investments; and OMB develop a 

mechanism to identify and report on 

geospatial investments. Since that 

time, FGDC and several agencies 

have taken some steps to implement 

the recommendations. However, 

additional actions are still needed.

What GAO Found

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

established policies and procedures for coordinating investments in geospatial 

data, however, in November 2012, GAO reported that governmentwide 

committees and federal departments and agencies had not effectively 

implemented them. The committee that was established to promote the 

coordination of geospatial data nationwide—the Federal Geographic Data 

Committee (FGDC)—had developed and endorsed key standards and had 

established a clearinghouse of metadata. GAO found that the clearinghouse was

not being used by agencies to identify planned geospatial investments to 

promote coordination and reduce duplication. In addition, the committee had not 

yet fully planned for 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 was missing key elements. 

Other shortfalls have impaired progress in coordinating geospatial data. 

Specifically, none of the three federal departments in GAO's review had fully 

implemented important activities such as preparing and implementing a strategy 

for advancing geospatial activities within their respective departments (see table).

Moreover, the agencies in GAO's review responsible for governmentwide 

management of specific geospatial data had implemented some but not all key 

activities for coordinating the national coverage of specific geospatial data. 

Status of Federal Departments’ Implementation of Geospatial Activities, as of November 2012

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 

clearinghouse ○ ○ ○

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

Source: GAO analysis of agency documentation.

While OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data, GAO reported in 

November 2012 that according to OMB staff, the agency did not have complete 

and reliable information to identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments. 

GAO also reported that FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and OMB had

not yet fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial 

investments because these efforts had not been a priority. As a result, efforts to 

acquire data were uncoordinated and the federal government acquired 

duplicative geospatial data. For example, a National Geospatial Advisory 

Committee representative stated that a commercial provider leases the same 

proprietary parcel data to six federal agencies. GAO concluded that unless the 

key entities determined that coordinating geospatial investments was a priority,

the federal government would continue to acquire duplicative geospatial 

information and waste taxpayer dollars. 

View GAO-14-226T. For more information, 

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

pownerd@gao.gov. 
 

Page 1 GAO-14-226T 

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the importance of coordinating 

federal investments in geospatial information—information linked to 

specific geographic locations—in order to avoid duplication. The federal 

government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial information to 

support many functions, including national security and disaster 

response. In 2012, the Department of the Interior estimated that the 

federal government was investing billions of dollars on geospatial data 

annually, and that duplication was common.

In November 2012, we reported that while the President and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) had established policies and procedures 

for coordinating investments in geospatial data, governmentwide 

committees and selected federal departments and agencies had not 

effectively implemented them.1

The work on which my statement is based was conducted from 

November 2011 to November 2012 and was 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, the report 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 

In that report, we made multiple 

recommendations to OMB and federal agencies to improve coordination 

and reduce duplication among geospatial data investments. My testimony 

today will summarize the results of that report. Specifically, I will cover (1) 

progress and challenges in coordinating geospatial data, and (2) the 

current status of agencies implementation of GAO’s recommendations.

 

1 GAO, Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make Coordination a Priority 

to Reduce Duplication, GAO-13-94 (Washington, D.C.: November 26, 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-226T 

managing data themes:2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics. Further details on the scope and methodology 

for the previously issued report are available within that published 

product. In addition, we analyzed documentation from the agencies on 

the status of their efforts to address our recommendations. All work on 

which this testimony is based was performed 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 objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

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 Budget3 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 Federal Geospatial 

Data Committee (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 and incompatibility of 

geospatial information, and assigned FGDC the responsibility to 

coordinate the development of NSDI.4 In 2002, OMB again revised 

Circular A-16 to further describe the components of NSDI; clearly define 

agency responsibilities for acquiring, maintaining, distributing, using, and 

preserving geospatial data; and to reaffirm FGDC’s role as the 

interagency coordinating body for NSDI-related activities.5

 

2

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).

The circular 

3

The Bureau of the Budget became OMB in 1970.

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

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 

1994).

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

Data Activities, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 19, 2002).

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-226T 

established the following five components of NSDI and described how 

these components were to be implemented.

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

as cadastre, which includes rights and interests in real property and 

surveys and land use/land cover, which includes land surface features 

and use. 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 a dataset. Of the 34 themes, 9 are identified as a 

“framework” theme6

• Standards. Geospatial standards provide common and repeatable 

rules or guidelines for the development, documentation, and 

exchange of geospatial datasets.

 —that is, a theme identified in Circular A-16 as 

being critical for any geospatial application.

• 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 

and planned geospatial investments in the clearinghouse, and search 

the clearinghouse for cost-saving opportunities before acquiring 

geospatial data. In 2003, 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 OneStop was retired, and FGDC initiated a pilot project, known as the 

Geospatial Platform, which was envisioned to provide shared and 

trusted geospatial data, services, and applications for use by 

government agencies, their partners, and the public.7

 

6

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

having two parts.

According to 

7

http://www.geoplatform.gov. 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-226T 

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.

• Partnerships. Partnerships are efforts aimed at involving all 

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

academic institutions) in the development of NSDI.

In November 2010, OMB issued supplemental guidance specifically 

regarding how agencies are to manage data themes.8

To fulfill its responsibilities, FGDC is governed by a steering committee—

an interagency decision making body that provides leadership and policy 

direction in support of the development of NSDI. The Secretary of the 

Interior chairs the committee; the Vice-Chair is the Chief Architect of the 

Office of E-Government and Information Technology of OMB.

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.

9 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 FGDC. Thirty-two agencies10

 

8

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

are 

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

9

The 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. 

10The 32 agency members of the Steering Committee are: Interior, OMB, U. S. 

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

Page 5 GAO-14-226T 

senior agency officials for geospatial information.11

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. FGDC is supported by the Office of the Secretariat, which 

consists of about 10 people located in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

who do the day-to-day work of supporting, managing, and coordinating 

the activities of FGDC.

12 to provide the department and 

FGDC with advice and recommendations related to the management of 

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

implementation of related federal guidance. Members of the 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 geographic 

information systems—to help ensure their efficient and effective use. Two 

key laws that outline these responsibilities are the Clinger-Cohen Act of 

199613 and the E-Government Act of 2002.14

• The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 requires, among other things, 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 establishes an e-government initiative 

that encourages the use of web-based Internet applications to 

enhance the access to and delivery of government information and 

 

11OMB, 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.

12The Secretary created the committee as a federal advisory committee under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act. 

1340 U.S.C § 11101 et seq.

14Pub. L. No. 107-347 (Dec. 17, 2002).

OMB’s Roles and 

Responsibilities for 

Overseeing IT Investments
 

Page 6 GAO-14-226T 

services 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 e-government 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) 

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.
 

Page 7 GAO-14-226T 

Over the past few years, we have issued a series of reports that have 

identified federal programs and functional areas where unnecessary 

duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists;15 the actions needed to 

address such conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of 

doing so.16 In particular, we identified opportunities to reduce duplication 

and the cost of government operations in several critical IT areas. In our 

most recent duplication report, we reported that better coordination 

among federal agencies that collect, maintain, and use geospatial 

information could help reduce duplication of geospatial investments and 

provide the opportunity for potential savings of millions of dollars. The 

duplication report reiterated the need for action among several federal 

agencies, FGDC, and OMB.

While the FGDC had made progress in some areas to improve 

coordination in geospatial activities, our November 2012 report identified 

a number of areas in which little progress had been made. For example, 

FGDC had developed a metadata standard that included descriptive 

information about a dataset—such as the framework theme to which it 

relates, the time frame of when the data was collected, and who to 

contact for more information that facilitates the sharing of geospatial 

 

15Fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or 

more than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of 

national need and opportunities exist to improve service delivery. Overlap occurs when 

multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies 

to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Duplication occurs when two or more 

agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to 

the same beneficiaries. 

16GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap and 

Duplication, and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 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).

Geospatial Investments 

Were Included in GAO’s 

Duplication Series

Progress and 

Challenges in 

Coordinating 

Geospatial Data

FGDC Had Not Made Fully 

Implementing Key 

Activities for Coordinating 

Geospatial Data a Priority
 

Page 8 GAO-14-226T 

data.17 FGDC had also established a clearinghouse that allowed users to 

determine whether the geospatial data (including planned data) they are 

seeking exist. As noted previously, the clearinghouse consists of a 

centralized repository that contains geospatial metadata18

However, despite this progress, we found that FGDC had not fully 

implemented key aspects of activities needed for coordinating 

investments in geospatial data. First, although the clearinghouse was 

reported to have been modified in May 2012 to allow agencies to identify 

their planned investments, as of September 2012, there were no federal 

agencies using this function because FGDC had not yet completed and 

shared guidance with agencies on how to do so.

records from 

federal agencies, state and local governments, academic and privatesector organizations; and multiple web-based portals from which the 

metadata can be searched.

Second, FGDC had not fully planned for or implemented a portfolio 

management approach per OMB guidance.19 Specifically, we found that 

FGDC had 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; FGDC Secretariat officials subsequently stated that FGDC 

agencies were proposing to eliminate one more theme for a total of 16.20

 

17FGDC, FGDC-STD-001-1998: Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata

(Washington, D.C.:1998). 

We reported that officials further stated that, as of August 2012, lead 

agencies had been identified for each of the 16 themes. However, at the 

time, the data themes, lead agencies, and datasets had neither been 

finalized nor approved, and FGDC had 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, when we issued our November 

18As previously noted, metadata are information about datasets, such as content, source, 

accuracy, method of collection, and point of contact.

19OMB, M-11-03, Issuance of OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 10, 2010).

20One of the 16 themes is Land Use/Land Cover, which refers to natural and man-made 

surface features and how the land is used. Examples of Land Cover are grass, asphalt, 

trees, bare ground, and water. Examples of Land Use are urban, agricultural, and forest 

areas. A complete list of the 16 data themes are found in appendix I.
 

Page 9 GAO-14-226T 

2012 report, the plan had not been finalized or approved, and FGDC 

Secretariat officials were unable, on behalf of FGDC agencies, to provide 

a time frame for doing so.

Third, FGDC’s strategic plan was missing key components and had not 

been kept up-to-date. Specifically, we found that FGDC’s current plan had 

been issued in 2004 and included OMB-required components such as (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 were to be achieved. 

However, the plan did not include components such as needed 

resources, performance measures for 9 of the 13 objectives, or external

factors that could affect the achievement of the plan’s goals and 

objectives. Further, the plan did not reflect significant initiatives that the 

FGDC Steering Committee had engaged in—such as the Geospatial 

Platform—and the time frames for the goals were outdated.

As we reported in November 2012, according to FGDC officials, they had 

not yet fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating 

geospatial investments because these efforts had not been made a 

priority. Instead, FGDC officials had been primarily focused on the 

development of the Geospatial Platform. As a result, we determined in 

2012 that efforts to acquire data were uncoordinated and the federal 

government acquired duplicative geospatial data. For example, a National 

Geospatial Advisory Committee representative told us that, at that time, a 

commercial provider was leasing 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. We concluded that 

unless FGDC decides that coordinating geospatial investments was a 

priority, this situation would likely continue.
 

Page 10 GAO-14-226T 

Our November 2012 report also showed that none of the three federal 

departments in our review—the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, 

and Transportation—had fully implemented activities needed for 

effectively coordinating and managing geospatial activities within their 

respective departments. According to OMB guidance and the executive 

order,21

• designate a senior agency official for geospatial information that has 

departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority for 

geospatial information issues;

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 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.

However, while all three of the departments had made their metadata 

available on the clearinghouse, none of the three federal departments in 

our review had fully implemented all of the other important activities (see 

table 1).

 

21OMB, M-06-07, Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information, 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2006); OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic 

Information and Related Spatial Data Activities, (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 19, 2002); and 

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

National Spatial Data Infrastructure, 59 Fed. Reg. 17,671 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 

1994).

Departments Had Not 

Fully Implemented 

Important Activities for 

Coordinating and 

Managing Geospatial Data
 

Page 11 GAO-14-226T 

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

of November 2012

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.

Department officials stated that the lack of progress in these activities 

was due, in part, to a lack in designating priorities. This lack of priority had 

contributed to the acquisition of duplicative geospatial data. For example, 

three separate federal agencies were independently acquiring road 

centerline data.22 We concluded in November 2012 that unless the 

federal departments decided that completing activities to better 

coordinate geospatial investments was a priority, this situation would 

likely continue.

 

22Road centerlines are vector line data that represent the geographic center of road rightsof-way on transportation networks.
 

Page 12 GAO-14-226T 

The three theme-lead agencies in our review—the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USGS, and the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) had implemented some but not all of the 

geospatial activities necessary to ensure the national coverage and 

stewardship of specific geospatial data themes in our review.23 According 

to OMB,24

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

maintenance, coordination, and dissemination of data using the 

clearinghouse;

theme-lead 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 

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

theme; and

• create a plan to develop and implement theme standards.

However, we found that while all three of the theme-lead agencies had 

made some progress, none of them had implemented all of these 

important activities (see table 2).

 

23The three data themes in our review were 1) geodetic control (NOAA), which is data 

used to establish the precise location of other types of geospatial data; 2) hydrography 

(USGS), which includes data on surface water features such as lakes, ponds, streams, 

rivers, canals, oceans, and coastlines, and 3) transportation (BTS), which includes both 

physical and nonphysical components representing all modes of travel that allow the 

movement of goods and people between locations.

24OMB, Circular No. A-16, Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial 

Data Activities, (Washington, D.C.: Aug.19, 2002).

Theme-lead Agencies Had 

Not Fully Implemented 

Important Activities for 

Coordinating and 

Managing Geospatial Data
 

Page 13 GAO-14-226T 

Table 2: Status of Theme-lead Agencies’ Implementation of Geospatial Activities, as 

of November 2012

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.

Theme-lead agency officials attributed the lack of progress in 

implementing these activities to competing priorities, among other things. 

As a result, efforts to acquire data were uncoordinated and the federal 

government acquired duplicative geospatial data. For example, according 

to a National Geospatial Advisory Committee official, several federal 

agencies collected, purchased, or leased address information in a 

noncoordinated fashion. We concluded in November 2012 that unless the 

federal agencies were to decide that completing activities to coordinate 

geospatial investments was a priority, the potential for duplication would 

continue to exist.
 

Page 14 GAO-14-226T 

OMB has oversight responsibilities for federal IT systems and acquisition 

activities—including geographic information systems—to help ensure 

their efficient and effective use. According to OMB Office of EGovernment staff members, OMB relies primarily on the annual budget 

process to identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments. 

Specifically, OMB requires federal departments and agencies to provide 

information related to their IT investments (called exhibit 53s25) and 

capital asset plans and business cases (called exhibit 300s26

However, as we reported in November 2012, OMB’s Office of EGovernment 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, according to these staff members 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 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 

datasets—1 of NOAA’s 6 geodetic control datasets and 4 of USGS’s 7 

hydrography datasets—were included in the departments’ exhibit 53s. 

Further, only 1 of these investments was identified with the geospatial 

 

25The 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).

26The 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.

OMB Did Not Have 

Complete and Reliable 

Information to Identify 

Duplicative Geospatial 

Investments 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-226T 

services code, as required by OMB’s fiscal year 2013 budget formulation 

guidance.

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, we determined that OMB would have difficulties in 

identifying the geospatial component, and the associated dollars, without 

having a detailed discussion with individuals responsible for each 

investment.

OMB staff members stated that, as a result, they did not have a complete 

picture of how much money is being spent on geospatial investments 

across the federal government because, as noted, what was being 

reported may not have captured all geospatial spending, and the data had 

not been reliable. We also reported in November 2012 that according to 

OMB, although eliminating duplication in geospatial investments was 

important, OMB’s recent efforts had focused on other commodity IT areas 

with higher spending and cyber security ramifications. As a result, OMB 

had not yet established a way to collect complete and reliable information 

about geospatial investments because this had not been a priority. We 

concluded that, unless OMB decides that coordinating geospatial 

investments is designated as a priority, duplicative investments would 

likely continue.

Our November 2012 report made numerous recommendations aimed at 

improving coordination and reducing duplication of geospatial data. 

Interior and Commerce generally agreed with our recommendations; 

Transportation neither agreed nor disagreed.

First, we recommended that the Secretary of the Interior, as FGDC Chair, 

direct the FGDC Steering Committee to:

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

implementation of OMB’s November 2010 management guidance, 

and develop and implement the plan within the established time 

frame;

• develop and implement guidance for identifying planned geospatial 

investments in the Geospatial Platform, and establish a time frame for 

doing so; and

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

improve coordination and reduce duplication, and create and 

Implementing GAO 

Recommendations 

Can Reduce 

Duplication and 

Provide Cost Savings
 

Page 16 GAO-14-226T 

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 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.

In addition, we recommended that the Secretaries of Commerce, the 

Interior, and Transportation implement the relevant executive order 

requirements and OMB guidance that apply to their departments and 

agencies:

• designate a senior agency official with departmentwide accountability, 

authority, and responsibility for geospatial information issues;

• 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 the 

department 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;

• prepare goals relating to all datasets within the relevant theme that 

support the NSDI;

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

relevant 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; and

• create and implement a plan to develop and implement relevant 

theme standards.

Further, we recommended that the Director of OMB develop a 

mechanism, or modify existing mechanisms, to identify and report 
 

Page 17 GAO-14-226T 

annually on all geospatial-related investments, including dollars invested 

and the nature of the investment.

In the year since our report was issued, FGDC, OMB, and selected 

agencies have made some progress in addressing recommendations. For 

example, in September 2013, FGDC issued guidance directing all FGDC 

departments to identify planned geospatial investments using the 

Geospatial Platform. In May 2013, OMB issued guidance to agencies on 

how to document information on the nature of investments, such as using 

common standards, specifications, and formats developed by the 

geospatial community, which would allow others to determine the fitness 

of the data for their needs. However, because the implementation of this 

new guidance is still dependent on the use of exhibit 53s and 300s for 

reporting past, present, and future costs, it is unclear the extent to which 

federal agencies, OMB, or others will effectively be able to identify how 

much federal funding is being spent on geospatial systems and data.

In addition, the federal departments we reviewed have taken some steps 

to implement our recommendations. For example, the Departments of 

Commerce, the Interior, and Transportation have all begun preparing, 

maintaining, publishing, and implementing strategies for advancing 

geographic information and related geospatial data activities appropriate 

to their missions.

In addition, the three agencies with theme-lead responsibilities that we 

reviewed have begun implementing our recommendations. For example, 

NOAA, USGS, and BTS have all taken some steps to create a plan to 

develop and implement relevant theme standards. However, until a 

comprehensive national strategy is put in place and federal departments 

and agencies establish and implement the policies, procedures, and 

plans to coordinate their geospatial activities as we recommended, 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 as we recommended, 

OMB will not be able to readily identify potentially duplicative geospatial 

investments.

In summary, it was slightly over a year ago that we reported that the key 

players in ensuring coordination on geospatial data investments—FGDC, 

federal departments and agencies, and OMB—had not fully implemented 

policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments because 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-226T 

these efforts were not made a priority. As a result, efforts to acquire data 

were uncoordinated and the federal government was acquiring duplicative 

geospatial data. At that time, we noted that unless OMB, FGDC, and 

federal departments and agencies decide that coordinating geospatial 

investments is a priority, this situation would likely continue.

Now, a year later, there has been some progress in improving policies 

and procedures for coordinating the geospatial investments. However, 

much remains to be done to implement and enforce the policies and to 

achieve cost savings to the federal government. Until FGDC, federal 

departments and agencies, and OMB decide that investments in 

geospatial information are a priority, these investments will remain 

uncoordinated, and the federal government will continue to acquire 

duplicative geospatial information and waste taxpayer dollars.

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this testimony, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9286 or at pownerd@gao.gov. Individuals who 

made key contributions to this testimony are Colleen Phillips (assistant 

director), Kaelin Kuhn, Nancy Glover, Jamelyn Payan, and Jessica 

Waselkow.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Appendix I: Proposed Data Themes,

as of November 2012

Page 1 GAO-14-226T 

Proposed Theme Description

Biota Pertain to, or describe, the dynamic processes, interactions, distributions, and relationships 

between and among organisms and their environments.

Cadastre 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. Does not include federal government or military facilities.

Climate and Weather 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.

Cultural Resources Features and characteristics of a collection of places of significance in history, architecture, 

engineering, or society. Includes national monuments and icons.

Elevation 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 three-dimensional 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.

Geodetic Control Collection of control points that provide a common reference system for establishing coordinates 

for geographic data.

Geology Geographically-referenced data pertaining to the origin, history, composition, structure, features,

and processes of the solid Earth, both onshore and offshore.

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. Does not include soils.

Governmental Units Political, governmental, and administrative (management) type boundaries that are used to 

manage people and resources. Includes geopolitical boundaries (county, parish, state, city, etc), 

tribal boundaries, federal land boundaries and federal regions, international boundaries, 

governmental administrative units such as congressional districts, international lines of separation, 

limits, zones, enclaves/exclaves and special areas between States and dependencies as well as 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.

Imagery Georeferenced images of the Earth’s surface, which have been collected via 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, allowing 

their use as base maps for digital mapping and analyses in a geographic information system. 

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. 

Land Use/Land Cover 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, water, etc. Examples of Land Use may be urban, 

agricultural, ranges, and forest areas.

Appendix I: Proposed Data Themes,

as of November 2012
Appendix I: Proposed Data Themes,

as of November 2012

Page 2 GAO-14-226T 

Proposed Theme Description

Real Property 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 (aka “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.

Soils Depicts 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.

Transportation Means and aids for conveying persons and/or goods. The transportation system includes both 

physical and non-physical components related to all modes of travel that allow the movement of 

goods and people between locations.

Utilities Means, aids, and usage of facilities for producing, conveying, distributing, processing or disposing 

of public and private commodities including power, energy, communications, natural gas, and 

water. Includes subthemes for Energy and Communications.

Water – Inland Interior hydrologic features and characteristics, including classification, measurements, location, 

and extent. Includes aquifers, watersheds, wetlands, navigation, water quality, water quantity, and 

groundwater information.

Water – Oceans and Coasts Features and characteristics of salt water bodies (i.e. tides, tidal waves, coastal information, reefs) 

and features and characteristics that represent the intersection of the land with the water surface 

(i.e. shorelines), the lines from which the territorial sea and other maritime zones are measured 

(i.e. baseline maritime) and lands covered by water at any stage of the tide (i.e. outer continental 

shelf ), as distinguished from tidelands, which are attached to the mainland or an island and cover 

and uncover with the tide.

Source: GAO analysis of OMB and FGDC documentation

(311297)
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.
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.