Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Can Reduce Duplication by Making Coordination a Priority
Published: 2013-12-05T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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 Budget 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. 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. The circular  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” theme —that is, a theme identified in Circular A-16 as  being critical for any geospatial application.
Standards. Geospatial standards provide common and repeatable  rules or guidelines for the development, documentation, and  exchange of geospatial datasets.
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 One- Stop 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. 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.
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.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.
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. 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 agencies are  members of the Steering Committee and are to be represented by their  senior agency officials for geospatial information.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.
subsections: section_title: OMB’s Roles and Responsibilities for Overseeing IT Investments
paragraphs: The Secretary created the committee as a federal advisory committee under the Federal  Advisory Committee Act. 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.
section_title: Geospatial Investments Were Included in GAO’s Duplication Series
paragraphs: 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; the actions needed to  address such conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of   In particular, we identified opportunities to reduce duplication  doing so.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.
section_title: Progress and Challenges in Coordinating Geospatial Data
subsections: section_title: FGDC Had Not Made Fully Implementing Key Activities for Coordinating Geospatial Data a Priority
paragraphs: 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  data. 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 metadatafederal agencies, state and local governments, academic and private- sector organizations; and multiple web-based portals from which the  metadata can be searched.
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.
Second, FGDC had not fully planned for or implemented a portfolio  management approach per OMB guidance. 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.  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  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.
section_title: Departments Had Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
paragraphs: 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, federal departments and agencies that handle geospatial data  are to: designate a senior agency official for geospatial information that has  departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority for  geospatial information issues; 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).
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. 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.
section_title: Theme-lead Agencies Had Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
paragraphs: 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. According  to OMB, theme-lead agencies are to: designate a point of contact who is responsible for the development,  maintenance, coordination, and dissemination of data using the  clearinghouse; 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).
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.
section_title: OMB Did Not Have Complete and Reliable Information to Identify Duplicative Geospatial Investments
paragraphs: 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 E- Government 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 53s) and  capital asset plans and business cases (called exhibit 300s).
However, as we reported in November 2012, 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, 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  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.
section_title: Implementing GAO Recommendations Can Reduce Duplication and Provide Cost Savings
paragraphs: 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  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 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  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  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.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: Proposed Data Themes, as of November 2012
subsections: section_title: Proposed Theme Biota
paragraphs: Description  Pertain to, or describe, the dynamic processes, interactions, distributions, and relationships  between and among organisms and their environments.
section_title: Cadastre
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Climate and Weather
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Cultural Resources
paragraphs: Features and characteristics of a collection of places of significance in history, architecture,  engineering, or society. Includes national monuments and icons.
section_title: Elevation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Geodetic Control
paragraphs: Collection of control points that provide a common reference system for establishing coordinates  for geographic data.
section_title: Geology
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Governmental Units
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Imagery
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Land Use/Land Cover
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Proposed Theme Real Property
paragraphs: Description  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.
section_title: Soils
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Transportation
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Utilities
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Water – Inland
paragraphs: Interior hydrologic features and characteristics, including classification, measurements, location,  and extent. Includes aquifers, watersheds, wetlands, navigation, water quality, water quantity, and  groundwater information.
section_title: Water – Oceans and Coasts
paragraphs: 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.
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.