Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Need to Make Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication
Released: 2012-11-26T00:00:00


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 (Interior) estimated that the federal government invests billions of dollars on geospatial data annually, and that duplication is common. GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the federal government has established and effectively implemented policies and procedures for coordinating its geospatial investments and avoiding duplication. To do so, GAO focused on FGDC coordination activities; efforts within the departments of Commerce, the Interior, and Transportation; and OMB oversight. GAO reviewed FGDC and department documentation, such as policies, procedures, and strategic plans; OMB guidance and an executive order; and reports concerning duplicative investments.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have established policies and procedures for coordinating investments in geospatial data, governmentwide committees and federal departments and agencies have not effectively implemented them. The committee that was established to promote the coordination of geospatial data nationwide--the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)--has developed and endorsed key standards-- including a metadata standard that includes descriptive information about a particular set of geospatial data--and established a clearinghouse of metadata; however, the clearinghouse is not being used by agencies to identify planned geospatial investments to promote coordination and reduce duplication. The FGDC has not yet planned or implemented an approach to manage geospatial data as related groups of investments to allow agencies to more effectively plan geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative investments; and its strategic plan is missing key elements, such as performance measures for many of its defined objectives. Further, none of the three federal departments in GAO's review have fully implemented important activities for coordinating geospatial data, such as preparing and implementing a strategy for advancing geospatial activities within their respective departments.

Further, the three agencies in GAO's review responsible for governmentwide management of specific geospatial data have implemented some but not all important activities for coordinating the national coverage of specific geospatial data. For example, only one agency has developed a plan for the nationwide population of the datasets under its responsibility, and none of the agencies have developed a plan to develop standards that facilitate the collection and sharing of geospatial data. Finally, while OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data, OMB staff members acknowledged that OMB does not have complete and reliable information to identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments.

FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and OMB have not yet fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments because these efforts have not been a priority. As a result, efforts to acquire data are uncoordinated and the federal government is acquiring duplicative geospatial data. For example, three agencies are independently acquiring road data, which is reported to have resulted in millions of wasted taxpayers' dollars. Unless OMB, the FGDC, and federal departments and agencies decide that coordinating geospatial investments is a priority, this situation will likely continue.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making recommendations aimed at improving coordination and reducing duplication, to include FGDC developing a national strategy for coordinating geospatial investments; federal agencies following federal guidance for managing geospatial investments; and OMB developing a mechanism to identify and report on geospatial investments. Two agencies and OMB generally agreed with GAO's recommendations and one agency neither agreed nor disagreed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government collects, maintains, and uses geospatial  information—information linked to specific geographic locations—to help  in decision making and to support many functions, including national  security, law enforcement, health care, environmental protection, and  natural resources conservation. Among the many activities that can  depend on critical analysis of geospatial information are maintaining  roads and other critical transportation infrastructure and quickly  responding to natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, and fires.

Multiple federal agencies may provide services at the same geographic  locations and may independently collect similar geospatial information  about those locations, thus raising the question of how well the nation’s  investments in geospatial data are coordinated. Moreover, the  Department of the Interior (Interior) has recently estimated that the federal  government invests billions of dollars in geospatial data annually, and  reported that duplication among investments is common.

Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same  activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. conditions; and the potential financial and other benefits of doing so.this review, you asked us to determine the extent to which the federal  government has established and effectively implemented policies and  procedures for coordinating its investments in geospatial data and  avoiding duplication.

To address our objective, we focused on governmentwide activities to  implement the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)—an  infrastructure to facilitate the efficient collection, sharing, and  dissemination of geospatial data among all levels of government, and  public and private sectors—as well as efforts of the Federal Geographic  Data Committee (FGDC)—the federal committee established to promote  the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data  nationwide. Additionally, we focused on activities within three selected  departments: Department of Commerce (Commerce), Department of the  Interior (Interior), and Department of Transportation (Transportation); and    within three selected agencies responsible for managing data themes: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S.  Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics  (BTS). The themes in our review are geodetic control—(NOAA),  hydrography—(USGS), and transportationassessed FGDC and department documentation, such as policies,  procedures, strategic plans, meeting minutes, and budget documentation;  the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data call results and  guidance; and recent reports discussing duplicative geospatial  —(BTS). We reviewed and  investments; and interviewed FGDC and department officials, and staff  members from the OMB Office of E-Government.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November  2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objective. Details of our objective,  scope, and methodology are contained in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Geospatial information describes entities or phenomena that can be  referenced to specific locations relative to the Earth’s surface. For  example, entities, such as buildings, rivers, road intersections, power  plants, and national parks can all be identified by their locations. In  addition, phenomena, such as wildfires, the spread of the West Nile virus,  and the thinning of trees due to acid rain can also be identified by their  geographic locations.

Users can analyze that data in geographic information systems (GIS)— systems of computer software, hardware, and data used to capture, store,  manipulate, analyze, and graphically present a potentially wide array of  geospatial information. The primary function of a GIS is to link multiple  sets of geospatial data and display the combined information as maps  with different layers of information. Assuming that all of the information is  at the same scale and has been formatted according to the same  geospatial standards, users can potentially overlay geospatial information  about any number of specific topics to examine how the data in the  various layers interrelate. Each layer of a GIS map typically represents a  single theme comprised of one or more sets of data, each of which could  be derived from a source completely different from the others. Figure 1  portrays the concept of visual representation of geospatial data themes in  a GIS.

Examples of geospatial data applications are provided in figures 2 and 3.  Figure 2 demonstrates the usefulness of GIS in showing the scope,  severity, and duration of the effects of the recent drought in the United  States, which could be used to make drought relief and agricultural  support activities more effective.

Another use for GIS is tracking and responding to natural disasters, such  as wildfires and hurricanes. Figure 3 demonstrates the usefulness of GIS  in tracking the direction and estimated strength of an impending  hurricane. The timely delivery of these data can be used to provide for  orderly evacuation of people from affected areas, and lessen the impact  of the storm on facilities, such as sewage treatment plants, hospitals, and  nursing homes.

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 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 the FGDC the  responsibility to coordinate the development of the NSDI. In 2002, OMB  again revised Circular A-16 to further describe the components of the  NSDI; clearly define agency responsibilities for acquiring, maintaining,  distributing, using, and preserving geospatial data; and to reaffirm the  FGDC’s role as the interagency coordinating body for NSDI-related  activities. The circular established the following five components of the  NSDI and described how these components were to be implemented.

Data themes. Data themes are topics of national significance, such  as transportation, which includes all modes of travel (e.g., road and  rail data). OMB Circular A-16 currently identifies 34 data themes and  identifies the “lead” agency or agencies for each theme. Each data  theme is to be comprised of one or more electronic data records,  known as datasets. Of the 34 themes, 9 are identified as “framework”  themes—that is, themes identified in Circular A-16 as critical for many geospatial applications.

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, the FGDC created the Geospatial One-Stop  to provide “one-stop” access to geospatial metadata from a  centralized database and search function. In October 2011, the  Geospatial One-Stop was retired, and the FGDC initiated a pilot  project, known as the Geospatial Platform, which is envisioned to  provide shared and trusted geospatial data, services, and applications  for use by government agencies, their partners, and the public.  According to Interior officials, Interior is the managing partner of the  Geospatial Platform. As of August 2012, there were approximately  835,000 geospatial metadata records in the central repository, of  which about 373,000 were from federal sources. Users can search the  metadata repository through two primary portals: geo.data.gov and  the Geospatial Platform. The General Services Administration is  responsible for managing the clearinghouse database and the  associated web portal geo.data.gov.

Partnerships. Partnerships are efforts aimed at involving all  stakeholders (e.g., federal, tribal, state, local government, and  academic institutions) in the development of the NSDI.

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, the FGDC is governed by a steering  committee—an interagency decision making body that provides  leadership and policy direction in support of the development of the NSDI.  The Secretary of the Interior chairs the committee; the Vice-Chair is the  Deputy Director for Management of OMB. All departments or agencies  responsible for geospatial data themes or that have activities in  geographic information or geospatial data collection or use are required to  be members of the FGDC. Thirty-two agencies are currently members  of the Steering Committee and are to be represented by their senior  agency officials for geospatial information. These senior agency officials  are responsible for overseeing, coordinating, and facilitating their  respective agency’s implementation of geospatial requirements, policies,  and activities. The FGDC is supported by an Office of the Secretariat that  consists of about 10 people located in USGS who do the day-to-day work  of supporting, managing, and coordinating the activities of the FGDC.

In addition, in December 2007, the Secretary of the Interior created the  National Geospatial Advisory Committee to provide the department and  the FGDC with advice and recommendations related to the management  of federal and national geospatial programs, development of the NSDI,  and the implementation of related federal guidance. Members of the  committee include approximately 30 officials from federal, state, local,  and tribal governments, the private sector, and academia.
subsections: section_title: OMB’s Roles and Responsibilities for Overseeing IT Investments
paragraphs: OMB has specific oversight responsibilities for federal information  technology (IT) systems and acquisition activities—including GIS—to help  ensure their efficient and effective use. Two key laws that outline these  responsibilities are the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the E- Government Act of 2002.

The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996—The act requires OMB to establish  processes to analyze, track, and evaluate the risks and results of  major capital investments in information systems made by federal  agencies and report to Congress on the net program performance  benefits achieved as a result of these investments.

The E-Government Act of 2002—The act establishes an e- government initiative, which encourages the use of web-based  Internet applications to enhance the access to and delivery of  government information and service to citizens, to business partners,  to employees, and among all levels of government. The act also  requires OMB to report annually to Congress on the status of 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.

In carrying out its responsibilities, OMB uses several data collection  mechanisms to oversee federal IT spending during the annual budget  formulation process. Specifically, OMB requires federal departments and  agencies to provide information related to their IT investments (called  exhibit 53s) and capital asset plans and business cases (called exhibit  300s).

Exhibit 53. The purpose of the exhibit 53 is to identify all IT  investments—both major and nonmajor—and their associated costs  within a federal organization. Information included in agency exhibit  53s is designed, in part, to help OMB better understand agencies’  spending on IT investments. OMB guidance for the fiscal years 2013  and 2014 budget formulation instructs agencies to identify their  geospatial investments in the exhibit 53 using Federal Enterprise  Architecture codes for specific functions (e.g., geospatial services,  financial management, and acquisition management).

Exhibit 300. The purpose of the exhibit 300 is to provide a business  case for each major IT investment and to allow OMB to monitor IT  investments once they are funded. Agencies are required to provide  information on each major investment’s cost, schedule, and  performance.

section_title: GAO Has Previously Recommended Improvements in the Management of Geospatial Information and OMB Guidance
paragraphs: In June 2004, we reported that OMB, individual federal agencies, and  cross-government committees and initiatives, such as the FGDC and the  Geospatial One-Stop project, had taken actions to coordinate the  government’s geospatial investments across agencies and with state and  local governments. However, we noted that these efforts had not been  fully successful in reducing duplication in geospatial investments for  several reasons: a complete and up-to-date strategic plan for doing so was not in agencies had not consistently complied with OMB guidance that  seeks to identify and reduce duplication; and

OMB’s oversight of federal geospatial activities had not been effective  because its methods—the annual budget review process, the federal  enterprise architecture effort, and the FGDC’s reporting process— were insufficiently developed and had not produced consistent and  complete information.

We reported that, as a result of these shortcomings, federal agencies  were still independently acquiring and maintaining potentially duplicative  and costly datasets and systems. Accordingly, we recommended that the  Director of OMB and the Secretary of the Interior direct the development  of a national geospatial strategic plan, and recommended that the  Director of OMB develop criteria for assessing interagency coordination  on proposals for potential geospatial investments, and strengthen its  oversight of geospatial projects. OMB and Interior generally agreed with  our recommendations. In response, between 2004 and 2008, OMB,  Interior, and the FGDC created a number of documents that addressed  the development of a national geospatial strategic plan, including a  strategic plan for NSDI development and a business case for the  development of the Geospatial Line of Business. Furthermore, in 2004  and 2006, OMB issued guidance designed to increase the amount of  budget information available on geospatial investments, and improve  oversight of agencies’ implementation of geospatial-related requirements,  policies, and activities.

In September 2011, we reported that OMB’s guidance to agencies for  reporting their IT investments did not ensure complete reporting or  facilitate the identification of duplicative investments. Specifically,  agencies differed on what investments they included as an IT investment.  We further reported that OMB’s guidance to federal agencies to  categorize IT investments did not go far enough to allow for the  identification of potentially duplicative investments. In particular, OMB’s  guidance required that each investment be mapped to a single Federal  Enterprise Architecture functional code; however, IT investments could fit  into more than one functional code.

Accordingly, we recommended that OMB clarify its guidance on reporting  IT investments to specify whether certain types of systems—such as  space systems—are to be included; allow agencies to place their IT  investments into more than one Federal Enterprise Architecture functional  code in order to reduce potentially duplicative investments; and direct  agencies to report the overall steps that they take to ensure that their IT  investments are not duplicative as part of their annual budget and IT  investment submissions. OMB did not agree that further efforts were  needed to clarify reporting in regard to the types of systems; but it agreed  with our recommendations regarding the categorization of investments  and reporting of steps taken to reduce duplication. OMB’s fiscal year  2014 budget formulation guidance allows agencies to identify up to five  Federal Enterprise Architecture functional codes with each investment.

section_title: Implementing Established Policies Is Not a Federal Priority, Resulting in Duplicative Investments
paragraphs: While the President and OMB have established policies and procedures  for managing and coordinating investments in geospatial data, the FGDC,  federal departments and theme-lead agencies, and OMB itself have not  effectively implemented them. This has resulted in uncoordinated and  duplicative investments in areas of national interest, such as road and  address data.

While the FGDC has developed and endorsed several standards, it  has not yet planned for or implemented an approach to manage data   as related groups of  themes and their associated key datasetsinvestments designed to allow agencies to more effectively plan  geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative  investments. Additionally, planned geospatial data acquisitions are not  identified in the clearinghouse and the FGDC does not have a current  strategic plan to guide its efforts.

None of the three federal departments in our review have fully  implemented important activities for coordinating geospatial data and  assets, such as developing and implementing a strategy for  advancing geospatial activities within the department.

The three theme-lead agencies in our review have implemented some  but not all important activities to ensure the national coverage and  stewardship of geospatial data themes.

OMB’s annual budget reporting mechanisms have not provided  complete and reliable information to identify duplicative geospatial  investments.

The primary cause for why the FGDC, federal departments and theme- lead agencies, and OMB have not yet fully implemented established  policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments is  because, according to OMB staff members and agency officials, they  have been focusing on other priorities. Because federal agencies have  yet to fully implement important activities and practices for coordinating  and managing geospatial data and facilitating the development of the  NSDI, and OMB is limited in its ability to oversee agencies’ geospatial  investments, agencies continue to acquire duplicative geospatial data.
subsections: section_title: FGDC Has Developed Geospatial Standards, but Has Not Fully Implemented Key Activities for Coordinating Geospatial Data
paragraphs: According to federal guidance,executive body charged with the leadership, development,  implementation, and review of geospatial data standards. the FGDC is to serve as the lead federal  To its credit, the FGDC has developed and endorsed several standards.  In particular, it developed a metadata standard that includes descriptive  information about a dataset—such as who created and published it, the  related theme keyword, and the geographic coordinates that bound the  dataset—and facilitates the identification and sharing of geospatial data. The FGDC has also developed standards associated with each of the  framework themes and endorsed several other standards developed by  external standards bodies, such as the International Organization for  Standardization’s tracking and navigation standard for web services.

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

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

While the FGDC has initiated activities that Secretariat officials say are  first needed to establish a portfolio of datasets, it has not yet fully planned  for or implemented a portfolio management approach. Specifically, the  FGDC evaluated the 34 data themes identified in OMB Circular A-16 to  determine whether any changes were needed; in August 2011, the  Steering Committee proposed consolidating the 34 data themes into 17  themes; Secretariat officials subsequently stated that the FGDC agencies  are proposing to eliminate 1 more theme for a total of 16. (See app. II for  a comparison of the 34 themes and the newly proposed 16 themes.)  These officials further stated that, as of August 2012, lead agencies have  been identified for each of the 16 themes and said that they plan to  discuss the revised lists of themes and lead agencies at the Steering  Committee’s September 2012 meeting. Once the Steering Committee  approves the revised themes and lead agencies, the FGDC plans to send  them to OMB for its approval. Additionally, the FGDC has identified 221  key datasets associated with the proposed data themes.

However, the data themes, lead agencies, and datasets have neither  been finalized nor approved, and the FGDC has yet to provide guidance  to agencies about how to implement the portfolio management approach.  While Secretariat officials stated that they had developed a draft  implementation plan in November 2011, it has not been finalized or  approved, and FGDC Secretariat officials were unable, on behalf of  FGDC agencies, to provide a time frame for doing so.

FGDC Secretariat officials stated that completion of the activities needed  to fully implement the portfolio management approach has not been  accomplished due to competing priorities, such as the Geospatial  Platform. Until the implementation plan is completed; and the themes,  lead agencies, and associated datasets are identified and approved, the  agencies cannot effectively begin to implement a coordinated geospatial  asset management capability that was, according to the OMB guidance,  designed to provide a mechanism for agencies to plan more effectively in  advance of data collection efforts to identify partnership opportunities, and  to minimize duplicative investments.

According to federal guidance, the FGDC is to develop a clearinghouse  with the functionality to allow federal departments and agencies to (1)  determine whether the geospatial data they are seeking already exist and  (2) identify planned acquisitions of geospatial data and opportunities to  jointly acquire the data in order to improve efficiencies in geospatial data  collection and to reduce potential redundancies and duplication.  Additionally, federal guidance requires agencies to identify their planned  investments in the clearinghouse.

The FGDC has developed a clearinghouse that allows users to determine  whether the data they are seeking exist. As noted previously, the  clearinghouse consists of a centralized repository that contains geospatial  metadata  records from federal agencies, state and local governments,  and academic and private-sector organizations; and multiple web-based  portals from which the metadata can be searched. The two primary  portals are geo.data.gov and the Geospatial Platform. As of August 2012,  there were approximately 835,000 geospatial metadata records in the  centralized repository, of which about 373,000 were from federal sources.

As previously noted, metadata are information about datasets, such as content, source,  accuracy, method of collection, and point of contact. platform. This official acknowledged that until the guidance is completed  and implemented, agencies are not likely to add their planned  acquisitions to the platform and identify potential cooperative efforts to  acquire geospatial data and minimize potential redundancies and  duplicative efforts.

According to Secretariat officials, they have not yet finalized the guidance  for placing planned acquisitions on the platform because the primary  focus of the FGDC has been on the development of the Geospatial  Platform’s Business Plan and the initial release of the Geospatial  Platform’s core capabilities, applications, and tools. However, without the  ability to identify planned geospatial data acquisitions, agencies will likely  miss opportunities to reuse or cooperatively acquire geospatial data, thus  resulting in the acquisition of potentially duplicative geospatial data and  needless expenditure of limited resources.

OMB requires FGDC to prepare and maintain a strategic plan for the  development and implementation of the NSDI. Foundational elements of  strategic planning, as recognized by federal legislation and OMB  guidance, include, among other things, (1) a vision statement; (2)  outcome-oriented goals and objectives; (3) a description of how the goals  and objectives are to be achieved—including the resources needed and a  description of the working relationships with other agencies; (4) a  description of how performance goals contribute to the general goals and  objectives of the strategic plan; and (5) the identification of external  factors that could significantly affect the achievement of the general goals  and objectives. Such a plan could help to facilitate coordination among  the many geospatial activities that are underway within the federal  government and with other stakeholders, and provide a mechanism to  measure progress in coordinating geospatial activities and reducing  duplication.

FGDC has prepared a strategic plan; however, it is missing key  components and has not been kept up-to-date. FGDC’s current strategic  plan was issued in 2004 and includes (1) a vision statement, (2) three  outcome-oriented goals and 13 objectives to be accomplished between  2005 and 2008, and (3) a high-level description of how all but 1 of the 13  objectives are to be achieved. However, its high-level description of the  objectives does not include a description of the resources needed to  achieve the goals and objectives, or explicitly how the FGDC agencies  are to work together to achieve the goals. In addition, the plan does not  identify performance measures (such as the percent of the nation for  which a given type and standard of data is available) for 9 of the 13  objectives and it does not describe external factors that could affect the  achievement of the general goals and objectives, such as the risk of  theme-lead agencies not meeting their NSDI development milestones, or  limited funding for geospatial investments.

Moreover, the plan does not reflect significant initiatives that the FGDC  Steering Committee has engaged in—such as the Geospatial Platform,  which did not exist in 2004—and the time frames for FGDC’s goals are  outdated. For example, the latest time frame associated with the goals in  the plan is the year 2007. According to the FGDC Office of the Secretariat  Executive Director, the plan needs to be updated; however, he could not  provide a time frame, on behalf of the FGDC agencies, for doing so.

The FGDC Office of the Secretariat Executive Director stated that the  FGDC has created other strategic planning documents, such as a  technical architecture document from 2006 and, more recently,  Geospatial Platform planning documents from 2011 and 2012.  Individually, these documents contain several foundational elements of  strategic planning (e.g., a vision statement, goals and objectives, and  discussion of external risks). However, cumulatively they do not represent  a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses all aspects of the NSDI for  the same unified future time frame.

The Executive Director attributed the lack of a comprehensive strategic  plan to competing priorities set by OMB and the FGDC’s Steering  Committee. Until a comprehensive strategic plan, with meaningful and  measurable performance goals, is in place to guide the federal  government’s geospatial efforts, it is more difficult to achieve the NSDI  vision and to hold the FGDC and federal agencies accountable for its  development.

section_title: Departments and Theme- lead Agencies Have Not Fully Implemented Important Activities for Coordinating and Managing Geospatial Data
paragraphs: OMB has issued guidance, which was followed by an executive order, to  federal departments and agencies for effectively coordinating and  managing geospatial data to help ensure that they wisely use federal  resources in developing the NSDI. 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 the NSDI strategy; develop a policy that requires them to make their geospatial metadata  available on the clearinghouse; make all metadata associated with geospatial data available on the  clearinghouse, and use the metadata standard; and adopt internal procedures to ensure that they access the NSDI  clearinghouse before they expend funds to collect or produce new  geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has already  been collected by others, or (2) whether cooperative efforts to obtain  the data are possible.

As shown in table 1, none of the three federal departments in our review  have fully implemented the important activities needed for effectively  coordinating and managing geospatial activities within their respective  departments.

Designate a senior official with departmentwide responsibility.

Only one department—Interior—has designated a senior official with  departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and authority.  Specifically, in a memo issued in August 2012, the Assistant  Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget designated a senior  official with departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and  authority for geospatial information investments, and for overseeing,  coordinating, and facilitating implementation of the department’s  geospatial-related requirements, policies, activities, and issues.  According to NOAA’s Chief Information Officer, he has been  designated as Commerce’s senior official for geospatial information,  but acknowledged that he does not have responsibility and authority  for other Commerce geospatial investments, such as those of the  Census Bureau. Finally, Transportation has designated a senior  official for geospatial information, but this individual does not have  departmentwide responsibility, accountability, or authority for  geospatial information, as she does not have any insight into, or  control over, geospatial activities conducted by the Federal Aviation  Administration, one of Transportation’s major agencies.

Prepare and implement a strategy. None of the departments have  prepared and implemented a strategy for advancing geographic  information and related geospatial data activities appropriate to their  mission. According to Interior’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for  Technology, Information, and Business Services, the Geospatial  Modernization Blueprint Recommendations and Architectures from   however, it  2007 is the department’s internal geospatial strategy;has not been approved or implemented.

Develop a policy for metadata. None of the departments in our  review have established a departmentwide clearinghouse metadata  policy. In lieu of a departmentwide policy, two of Commerce’s  agencies, NOAA and the Census Bureau, have developed policies.  Specifically, NOAA’s Data Documentation Procedural Directive  requires metadata for NOAA environmental data, information, and  services to be published to certain national and international  clearinghouse portals, and references data.gov. Bureau’s metadata policy also mentions the importance of posting  metadata to the clearinghouse.

Make metadata available on the clearinghouse. All three  departments have made their metadata available on the  clearinghouse.

Most metadata records in the clearinghouse are owned by three  federal agencies. Specifically, our analysis of the 441,343 federal  records in the centralized geospatial metadata repository, as of  February 2012, showed that over 99 percent of these records were  populated by three agencies: Census Bureau, USGS, and NOAA. See  table 2 for the total number of geospatial metadata records by agency.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Environmental Data Management  Committee, Data Documentation Procedural Directive, Oct. 28, 2011.

Our analysis of the 29 mandatory fieldsmetadata records shows that the metadata records from the three  agencies with the majority of geospatial metadata records are largely  complete, as shown in table 3. Specifically, nearly all of Census  Bureau records had between 24 and 27 mandatory fields completed.  In addition, over 95 percent of USGS’s and NOAA’s records had 28 or  29 of the mandatory fields completed. Finally, the small number of  records associated with all other agencies had between 24 and 29 of  the mandatory fields completed for virtually all of the records.

Adopt procedures for accessing the clearinghouse. None of the  departments have established procedures for searching the  clearinghouse before expending funds to acquire or produce  geospatial data. While Interior does not have procedures for  accessing the clearinghouse, the department’s Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Technology, Information, and Business Services said  that it is commonly practiced and noted that the department usually  confers internally with its committees on elevation and orthoimageryprior to acquiring geospatial data.

Department officials attribute the lack of progress in implementing  important coordination and management activities to a lack of priority,  competing department resources, and in some cases, a lack of  awareness. Until the departments implement these activities, they risk  acquiring potentially duplicative and costly geospatial data, resulting in  the inefficient use of already limited resources.

According to OMB,provide the leadership necessary to ensure the national coverage and  stewardship of specific geospatial data themes, NSDI-designated theme- lead agencies are to:   in order to effectively manage geospatial data and 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.

As shown in table 4, the three theme-lead agencies in our review have  implemented some but not all important geospatial activities.

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

Prepare goals and analyze user needs. One agency has developed  goals that recognize and consider user needs for all key datasets in  its theme and two agencies have developed goals based on user  needs for the major datasets that comprise their themes. Specifically,  NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey Ten-Year Plan includes goals for  furthering all of the key datasets in the geodetic control theme. For  example, the plan highlights the goals to modernize geometric  (horizontal) datum and to modernize the geopotential (vertical)  datum, and identifies user needs and why they are important. NOAA  has also developed other short-term goals, such as continue  education, outreach, development of transition tools and applications,  and capacity-building activities to prepare users for the transition to  new geometric and geopotential datum; and identify common  objectives and find opportunities for cooperative projects and tasks  related to standardization and updates to vertical datum. USGS has  developed goals for the maintenance of the National Hydrography  Dataset and for the Watershed Boundaries Dataset, such as ensuring  that datasets continue to meet user needs; however, these two  datasets do not include all datasets within the hydrography theme.  Similarly, BTS has developed goals for the development of a  comprehensive road centerlineaddress all other modes of transportation covered by the data theme,  such as railroads, waterways, and virtual airways. The goals  recognize differences in user needs for road centerline data, such as  basic geometry and naming, support for addressing, and enhanced  cartographic displays.  dataset; however, the goals do not

Develop a plan for theme population. One agency has developed a  plan that addresses all of the key elements for developing a  nationwide plan; one has taken actions consistent with most of the  key elements for some of the datasets associated with the theme, but  has not integrated all the activities into a single plan that covers the  entire theme; and one has developed a plan that addresses some of  the key elements, but for only one of the major datasets in the theme.  NOAA has developed a plan, its National Geodetic Survey Ten-Year  Plan, which provides a strategy for how NOAA intends to modernize  and populate its data theme. The plan includes the development of  partnership programs with states, academia, federal agencies, and  other stakeholders; identifies the need to address human and financial  resource needs; identifies needs for standards, metadata, and the  clearinghouse; and advances a timetable for the development of the  theme. In contrast, USGS does not have a plan for the population of  the hydrography theme; however, it has taken actions to (1) develop  partnerships; (2) address human and financial resources; and (3)  identify needs for standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse for the  National Hydrography Dataset, which is one dataset within the  hydrography theme. BTS has developed a strategic plan for the  development of a nationwide road centerline dataset. However, this  plan does not address all other modes of transportation covered by  the data theme, such as railroads, waterways, and virtual airways.  These officials stated that a strategic plan for connecting all of the  transportation datasets in an intermodal manner is needed; however,  there are no plans to create such a plan in the immediate future.

Develop a standards plan. None of the agencies have developed a  plan to develop and implement standards; while NOAA recognized the  need for a plan, both USGS and BTS stated that such a plan was not  needed for their themes—USGS because of the maturity of their  existing datasets, and BTS because they collect data from states and  counties in various formats, and then standardize the data  themselves. However, without a plan to maintain existing standards or  anticipate new standards, these agencies risk potential future  difficulties exchanging and sharing geospatial datasets.

Theme-lead agency officials attribute the lack of progress in implementing  these activities to competing priorities, limited resources, and the  perceived lack of need for some plans. Until agencies implement these  activities, they will be challenged to effectively manage important  geospatial activities, wisely use limited resources, and risk engaging in  potential duplicative geospatial acquisition efforts.

section_title: OMB Does Not Have Complete and Reliable Information to Identify Duplicative Geospatial Investments
paragraphs: OMB has oversight responsibilities for federal IT systems and acquisition  activities—including GIS—to help ensure their efficient and effective use.  According to OMB Office of E-Government staff members, OMB relies  primarily on the annual budget process to identify potentially duplicative  geospatial investments; specifically, the exhibit 53s and 300s.

However, OMB’s Office of E-Government staff members acknowledged  that these two sources may not in all cases provide the necessary  information to allow OMB to identify potentially duplicative investments or  accurately quantify the amount of federal dollars spent on geospatial  datasets for three primary reasons. First, these staff members stated that  some federal agencies may not classify investments in geospatial data as  “information technology” (such as satellites), meaning that they would not  be captured in exhibit 53s. OMB staff members stated that agencies are  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, 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 they do not have a complete picture of  how much money is being spent on geospatial investments across the  federal government because, as noted above, what is being reported may  not capture all geospatial spending, and the data have not been reliable.  In 2006 and 2007, OMB made two data calls directly to federal agencies  to determine federal agencies’ spending on geospatial investments.  However, according to OMB, neither of these data calls provided the  agency with complete and reliable information—largely because agencies  either provided incomplete information, or did not respond at all. Although  the data may not be complete, those agencies that did respond reported  that they planned to spend about $1.89 billion in geospatial data and  services between fiscal years 2007 and 2009, of which about $1.53  billion, or about 81 percent, was to be on geospatial data. OMB staff  members stated that OMB has not made any additional data collections  outside of the IT reporting process (i.e., exhibit 53s and 300s) for  geospatial data investments since 2007, and as of September 2012, has  no current plans for any new collections.

OMB staff members stated that, although eliminating duplication in  geospatial investments is important, OMB’s recent efforts have focused  on other commodity IT areas with higher spending and cyber security  ramifications, such as reducing the numbers of federal data centers and  internet connections maintained by the government. However, without  complete and reliable information on the federal government’s  investments in geospatial data, including the amount of federal dollars  spent, OMB does not have the necessary information to make a fact- based decision about the potential priority of geospatial information in  relation to other activities.

section_title: Federal Agencies Have Coordinated Specific Investments, but Duplicative Geospatial Data Exists
paragraphs: According to FGDC Secretariat officials, departments and agencies have  taken steps to coordinate geospatial data related to their respective data  themes.

Interior participates in several efforts aimed at coordinating one of its  themes, orthoimagery. For example, in conjunction with the U.S.  Department of Agriculture, Interior participates in the National  Agricultural Imagery Program, which was developed to obtain one- meter resolution, “leaf-on” imagery for the 48 continental states on a  3-year cycle. In addition, Interior, in conjunction with the Department  of Defense, participates in the Urban Area Imagery Program. The goal  of this program is to acquire one-foot resolution, “leaf-off” imagery  for 133 of the nation’s largest or most important urban areas (such as  state capitals) on a 2-to-4-year cycle. According to FGDC Secretariat  officials, for both of these programs, members acquire the imagery,  assure the quality of the imagery, and distribute it to the participants in  the program. Each participant in these programs benefits from the  imagery acquired, as do all other federal, state, and local agencies,  the private sector (such as companies that provide mapping services  on the Internet), nonprofit organizations, and members of the public  interested in this type of imagery.

Interior also participates in a program for another theme, elevation.  Specifically, in conjunction with other departments, Interior  participates in the National Digital Elevation Program, which is  intended to acquire detailed elevation data using advanced  technologies to support various programmatic needs, such as USGS’s  Coastal and Marine Geology program, the U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (which  supports precision farming), and the Department of Homeland  Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Risk Mapping,  Assessment, and Planning program. The participating agencies seek  other federal agency and state and local government participation in  elevation acquisition projects as part of their program design.  According to Secretariat officials, agencies generally coordinate their  plans and funding, and execute the projects independently. In  addition, the data acquired by projects are available to others.

USGS further coordinated the elevation theme when, in conjunction  with its partners, it sponsored the National Enhanced Elevation  Assessment. According to USGS officials, the assessment was  conducted to investigate the potential to obtain greater benefits and  efficiencies from the growing interest in using data from advanced  technologies, and concluded that moving to a coordinated national  program has the potential to produce new benefits in excess of $1  billion annually. USGS and its federal partners intend to use the  recommendations from the assessment to improve on the current  coordination-based approach among federal agencies and nonfederal  organizations.

As the theme-lead agency of the hydrography theme, USGS has led  efforts to coordinate the population of the hydrography theme.  According to USGS officials, it created a partnership for the  development of two separate datasets associated with hydrography:  the National Hydrography Dataset and the Watershed Boundaries  Dataset. These datasets were created by pooling funding and  resources from several federal, state, and local agencies into a single  effort. This partnership supports the missions of several federal  agencies: USGS and the U.S. Forest Service for mapping and  analysis projects, the Environmental Protection Agency and the  Department of Homeland Security for analysis projects, and the  Census Bureau for mapping. Numerous state agencies also  participate in order to meet reporting requirements of the Federal  Water Pollution Control Act. This partnership also has data  stewardship agreements in place between USGS and 35 states. This  data stewardship activity is based on the input of local organizations  knowledgeable about hydrography in their immediate area.

While agencies have taken actions to coordinate geospatial data  investments, recent reports, as well as officials from state and local  associations and the FGDC Advisory Committee have all stated that  duplicative geospatial data investments continue across all levels of  government. For example, according to Transportation’s Transportation  for the Nation Strategic Plan, dated May 2011, duplication exists in the  acquisition of nationwide road centerline data across federal agencies  and other levels of government, resulting in millions of wasted taxpayer  dollars.independently acquiring road centerline data:   The report identified several initiatives that are currently

Census Bureau’s Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and  Referencing (TIGER) system, which uses data procured from local  sources for census enumeration and demographic applications.  These data were built and are maintained by the Census Bureau.

USGS’s National Map website, which uses licensed data from a  commercial provider to create viewable maps on the National Map.  These data are managed by USGS.

The Department of Defense’s Homeland Security Infrastructure  Program, which uses licensed commercial data procured by the  National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency for emergency management.

In addition, a subcommittee of the National Geospatial Advisory  Committee has, at the request of the FGDC, been evaluating the need for  a national address database, assessing potential concerns with such a  database, and identifying possible approaches for its development.  According to a National Geospatial Advisory Committee official, several  federal agencies collect, purchase, or lease address information in a  noncoordinated fashion. This subcommittee is in the process of finalizing  a report for the full committee that would assess, among other things,  the benefits, potential savings, and efficiencies that could be realized from  the development of a national address database.

Further, in a report on land parcel data, the National Academy of  Sciences  stated that the lack of nationally integrated land parcel data  has led to duplication of effort among various levels of government and  between the public and private sector, such as the Department of  Housing and Urban Development, the U. S. Forest Service, insurance  companies, and private companies that list home values and sell parcel  maps. In addition, a National Geospatial Advisory Committee  representative stated that a commercial provider leases the same  proprietary parcel data to six federal agencies: the Department of  Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Homeland Security,  the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Small Business Administration,  the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Federal Reserve. In  recent reports, the Congressional Research Service found that a  coordinated approach to federally managed parcel data still did not exist  and that the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of federal lands is  to contact each land management agency directly.

The National States Geographic Information Council has two missions: (1) to promote  the coordination of statewide geospatial activities in all states and (2) to advocate for the  states in national geospatial policy initiatives to help enable the NSDI. Members of the  council include senior state GIS managers and coordinators as well as others from all  levels of government, academia, and the private sector. See http://www.nsgic.org/. be procured in such areas as imagery, elevation, road centerlines, and  address points.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The long-standing problem of effectively coordinating federal geospatial  investments to reduce redundancies has yet to be resolved. In particular,  the FGDC has not established a framework for governmentwide  management of themes and datasets; provided geospatial information  users with the means to identify planned data acquisitions; and developed  and maintained a national strategy to guide the development of the NSDI,  with associated metrics to measure progress and ensure accountability.  Similarly, federal departments and agencies have not yet implemented  long-standing OMB guidance intended to ensure the efficient use of  limited federal resources and the effective stewardship of geospatial data  themes, including developing and implementing a strategy for advancing  geospatial activities related to their mission; and implementing policies,  procedures, and plans for effectively coordinating and managing  geospatial data, standards, and the clearinghouse. Moreover, OMB has  not established an effective mechanism to identify the amount of the  federal budget being spent on geospatial investments as well as  potentially duplicative geospatial investments.

The FGDC, federal agencies, and OMB have each indicated that the lack  of progress in implementing these important coordination activities is  because they have been focusing on other priorities. However, while the  extent of duplication in geospatial investments is unknown, it is estimated  that billions of dollars are being spent across the federal government on  geospatial investments. Further, many mission-critical applications, such  as those used to respond to natural disasters—floods, hurricanes, and  fires—depend on geospatial information to protect lives and property.  Thus, it is important that the data acquired to support these critical  functions be done in a timely and coordinated manner, with minimal  duplication.

Until a comprehensive national strategy is in place, the FGDC develops  and implements guidance and tools to effectively coordinate  governmentwide geospatial activities, and federal agencies establish and  implement the policies, procedures, and plans to coordinate their  geospatial activities, the vision of the NSDI to improve the coordination  and use of geospatial information will likely not be fully realized and  duplicative investments will likely continue. Further, until OMB establishes  a way to obtain reliable information about federal geospatial investments,  OMB will not be able to identify potentially duplicative geospatial  investments. Unless the FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and  OMB decide that investments in geospatial information are a priority,  these investments will remain uncoordinated, and although the extent of  duplication is unknown, the federal government will continue to acquire  duplicative geospatial information and waste taxpayer dollars.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better facilitate the coordination of—and accountability for—the  estimated billions of dollars in federal geospatial investments, and to  reduce duplication, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior, as  the FGDC Chair, direct the FGDC Steering Committee to take the  following three actions.

Establish a time frame for completing a plan to facilitate the  implementation of OMB’s portfolio management guidance, and  develop and implement the plan within the established time frame.  The plan, at a minimum, should include goals and performance  measures, and the FGDC should report annually to OMB on the  progress made on efforts to improve coordination and reduce  duplication among themes.

Develop and implement guidance for identifying planned geospatial  investments using the Geospatial Platform, and establish a time frame  for doing so.

Establish a time frame for creating and updating a strategic plan to  improve coordination and reduce duplication, and create and  implement the plan within the established time frame. The plan, at a  minimum, should include (1) a vision statement for the NSDI; (2)  outcome-oriented goals and objectives that address all aspects of the  NSDI; (3) a description of how the goals and objectives are to be  achieved, including a description of the resources needed to achieve  the goals and objectives and how the FGDC is to work with other  agencies to achieve them; (4) performance measures for achieving  the stated goals; and (5) external factors that could affect the  achievement of the goals and objectives.

To help ensure the success of department’s efforts to improve geospatial  coordination and reduce duplication, we recommend that the Secretary of  Commerce designate a senior agency official who has departmentwide  responsibility, accountability, and authority for geospatial information  issues. We further recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the  designated senior official for geospatial information to take the following  three actions.

Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing  geographic information and related geospatial data activities  appropriate to its mission.

Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial  metadata available on the clearinghouse.

Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses  the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce  new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has  already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts  to obtain the data are possible.

Further, to improve the department’s management of its geodetic control  theme, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the  geodetic control theme point of contact to create and implement a plan to  develop and implement geodetic control theme standards.

We recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the designated  senior official for geospatial information to take the following three  actions.

Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing  geographic information and related geospatial data activities  appropriate to its mission.

Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial  metadata available on the clearinghouse.

Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses  the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce  new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has  already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts  to obtain the data are possible.

We further recommend that the Secretary of the Interior direct the  hydrography theme point of contact to take the following three actions.

Prepare goals relating to all datasets within the hydrography theme  that support the NSDI, and as needed, collect and analyze information  from user needs and include those needs in the theme-related goals.

Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the  hydrography theme that addresses all datasets within the theme; and  that includes (1) the development of partnership programs with states,  tribes, academia, the private sector, other federal agencies, and  localities that meet the needs of users; (2) human and financial  resource needs; (3) standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse  needs; and (4) a timetable for the development for the theme.

Create and implement a plan to develop and implement hydrography  theme standards.

We recommend that the Secretary of Transportation designate a senior  agency official who has departmentwide responsibility, accountability, and  authority for geospatial information issues. We further recommend that  the Secretary of Transportation direct the designated senior official for  geospatial information to take the following three actions.

Prepare, maintain, publish, and implement a strategy for advancing  geographic information and related geospatial data activities  appropriate to its mission.

Develop a policy that requires the department to make its geospatial  metadata available on the clearinghouse.

Develop and implement internal procedures to ensure that it accesses  the NSDI clearinghouse before it expends funds to collect or produce  new geospatial data to determine (1) whether the information has  already been collected by others and (2) whether cooperative efforts  to obtain the data are possible.

We further recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct the  transportation theme point of contact to take the following three actions.

Prepare goals relating to all datasets within the transportation theme  that support the NSDI, and as needed, collect and analyze information  from user needs and include those needs in the theme-related goals.

Develop and implement a plan for the nationwide population of the  transportation theme that addresses all datasets within the theme;  and that includes (1) the development of partnership programs with  states, tribes, academia, the private sector, other federal agencies,  and localities that meet the needs of users; (2) human and financial  resource needs; (3) standards, metadata, and the clearinghouse  needs; and (4) a timetable for the development for the theme.

Create and implement a plan to develop and implement transportation  theme standards.

Further, to improve OMB oversight of geospatial information and assets,  and minimize duplication of federal geospatial investments, we  recommend that the Director of OMB develop a mechanism, or modify  existing mechanisms, to identify and report annually on all geospatial- related investments, including dollars invested and the nature of the  investment.

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We received written, e-mail, or oral responses on a draft of this report  from Interior, Commerce, Transportation, as well as OMB and the  General Services Administration. These responses are summarized  below.

In written comments, signed by the Assistant Secretary for Policy,  Management and Budget, and reprinted in appendix III, Interior generally  agreed with our recommendations. The department stated that it  recognizes the need to more fully implement the portfolio management  requirements described in the OMB Circular A-16 supplemental guidance  and is already actively working to develop tools that will help agencies  identify planned geospatial investments in the Geospatial Platform. With  respect to our recommendations aimed at improving Interior’s  management of its geospatial investments, the department stated that it is  beginning to take actions to implement our recommendations, including  developing an Geospatial Advisory Committee for the department—which  is intended to provide leadership and direction for the development of a  comprehensive geospatial technical strategy for the department—as well  as developing procedures for making metadata available on the  clearinghouse. The department further stated that it is committed to  working with OMB and its partner agencies to address our  recommendations in a timely manner.

In addition, the department stated that its efforts to lead and coordinate  activities of the FGDC and the Geospatial Platform continue to accrue  great benefits to the federal community and U.S. citizens. In particular,  Interior stated that through these efforts, it will be able to implement the  supplemental guidance to OMB Circular A-16, and realize the  tremendous potential of the Geospatial Platform. We support the  department’s efforts as evidenced by our recommendations to the  department aimed at furthering agencies’ implementation of the  supplemental guidance and use of the Geospatial Platform to identify  planned geospatial investments. Interior also provided technical  comments, which we have incorporated in the report as appropriate.

In written comments, signed by the Acting Secretary of Commerce, and  reprinted in appendix IV, Commerce stated that the department and  NOAA agree with our recommendations, and described actions planned  to implement them. Commerce also stated that it appreciates the work  that we have done to improve coordination in managing geospatial  investments.

In oral comments, Transportation officials, including the department’s  Geospatial Information Officer/BTS Director of Geospatial Information  Systems, neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations, and  provided two comments on our draft report. First, Transportation officials  stated that, as of October 2012, the department’s metadata files are  available on the geoplatform.gov and the geo.data.gov sites, and  provided supporting evidence. As a result, we revised our report to  acknowledge that the department has made its metadata associated with  geospatial data available on the clearinghouse, and removed the  recommendation that it does so. Second, Transportation officials stated  that they believed that the department should have received partial credit  for having prepared, maintained, published, and implemented a strategy  for advancing geographic information and related geospatial data  activities appropriate to the department’s mission, and in support of the  NSDI strategy. Specifically, Transportation officials stated that the  department’s Transportation for the Nation Strategic Plan partially  satisfies these criteria because it includes a strategy for collecting and  maintaining road centerline data, which represents the vast majority of  travel in terms of both passengers and freight. We agree that  transportation by road is a major component of the transportation data  theme. In fact, our assessment of this plan was the basis for the partial  rating for two of the criteria related to BTS’s (the theme-lead agency)  management of the transportation data theme: “prepared goals and  analyzed user needs,” and “developed a plan for theme population.”  However, the strategic plan does not include a strategy for advancing all  the department’s geographic information and related geospatial data  activities, nor does it describe how the department and its agencies are to  coordinate their geospatial efforts to support the department’s mission. In  particular, the plan does not address geospatial themes other than  transportation—including elevation and imagery—in which Federal  Aviation Administration officials stated that their agency also makes  investments. Therefore, we believe that the department’s Transportation  for the Nation Strategic Plan does not constitute a departmentwide  geospatial plan. In addition, Transportation officials provided a technical  comment, which we incorporated into the draft.

In comments provided via e-mail, a paralegal specialist in OMB’s Office of  General Counsel, on behalf of OMB, stated that OMB concurs with the  need for improved collection of geospatial-related investments, but  believes that it should only be achieved through improvements to broader  reporting mechanisms for IT investments and data assets, and not by  developing new and separate mechanisms specifically for geospatial- related assets. OMB further noted that it would be helpful if we clarified  our recommendation to acknowledge that a new process is not required  or expected. The decision as to whether OMB should develop a new  mechanism, or improve an existing mechanism, should be made based  on whichever option will be most successful in collecting the necessary  information. We modified our recommendation to reflect this. OMB also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

In e-mail comments provided by a Management and Program Analyst in  the GAO/IG (Inspector General) Response Audit Division, the General  Services Administration stated that it had no formal comments on the  draft report.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees; the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Federal Geographic Data  Committee; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the  Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce, the Interior, and  Transportation; and the Administrator of the General Services  Administration. This report will also be available at no charge on our  website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions on matters discussed in this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-9286 or pownerd@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made  major contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

section_title: Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objective was to determine the extent to which the federal  government has established and effectively implemented policies and  procedures for coordinating its investments in geospatial data and  avoiding duplication. To address this objective, we focused on  governmentwide activities to implement the National Spatial Data  Infrastructure (NSDI), including efforts of the Federal Geographic Data  Committee (FGDC), as well as those within selected departments.

To evaluate federal departments’ efforts to implement the NSDI, we first  identified the nine framework themes, as identified in Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16. These framework themes  are cadastral, cadastral (offshore), digital orthoimagery, elevation  bathymetric, elevation terrestrial, geodetic control, government units,  hydrography, and transportation; and are described in appendix II. From  those nine themes, we then randomly selected three themes and  identified the federal departments and agencies responsible for managing  the themes. The three departments, theme-lead agencies, and selected  themes are:

Department of Commerce (Commerce)—National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—Geodetic Control;

Department of the Interior (Interior)—U. S. Geological Survey  (USGS)—Hydrography; and

Department of Transportation (Transportation)—Bureau of  Transportation Statistics (BTS)—Transportation.

We then reviewed FGDC and federal department documentation, such as  policies, procedures, strategic plans, implementation plans, technical  documentation of standards and metadata, committee charters and  meeting minutes, and budget documentation. We assessed this  information against responsibilities identified in Executive Order 12906,  OMB Circular A-16, OMB M-06-07, and OMB M-11-03;discrepancies, and discussed them with the relevant agency officials.

To determine the completeness of the federal agency metadata records  in the clearinghouse and to determine which agencies contributed records  to geo.data.gov, we obtained an extract of the contents of geo.data.gov  as of February 22, 2012. We then recreated a database of the metadata  records. We reviewed FGDC guidancebe the mandatory data elements, which total 29. For each record in the  database, we determined if the metadata value for each of the 29  mandatory data fields had information or was blank. In addition, we used  the metadata records to determine what agencies contributed records by  examining the data fields that indicated the origin and publisher of the  data.   to identify what are considered to  In order to assess the reliability of the clearinghouse data that we  analyzed, we reviewed FGDC documentation, the General Services  Administration’s written responses to questions, and interviewed officials  familiar with the clearinghouse data in order to gain an understanding of  the controls around the creation and maintenance of the clearinghouse  data. We determined that our recreation of the database had no material  effect on our analysis and that the database, as recreated, was  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

To determine whether OMB had complete and reliable information to  identify duplicative geospatial investments, we reviewed OMB’s most  recent data calls for geospatial data from 2006 and 2007, OMB Circular   and department budget submissions. We compared the list of key  A-11,datasets for the themes in our sample to budget documentation available  in OMB’s fiscal year 2013 exhibit 53 to determine the extent to which the  agencies identified these datasets as investments in information  technology (IT) and geospatial services. To determine the reliability of the  data on the IT Dashboard, we reviewed recent GAO reports that identified  issues with the accuracy and reliability of agency data on the IT  Dashboard. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purpose of this report, which is to determine the extent to which  departments’ key datasets were included as IT investments and coded as  geospatial services in the departments’ respective exhibit 53s for fiscal  year 2013.

To identify potential duplicative geospatial investments, we reviewed  recent reports from the FGDC, Transportation, the Congressional  Research Service, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee, and the  National Academy of Sciences, and spoke with FGDC and the National  States Geographic Information Council officials.

We also interviewed FGDC officials, including the Chair and Vice-Chair of  the FGDC; the Executive Director of the FGDC Office of the Secretariat;  the representative for the Managing Partner of the Geospatial Platform;  OMB Office of E-Government staff members; department and agency  officials responsible for coordinating geospatial investments within their  respective agencies as well as theme-lead points of contact within those  agencies; General Services Administration officials responsible for  managing the geospatial clearinghouse; the Chair of the National  Geospatial Advisory Committee; and the President and Washington  Liaison of the National States Geographic Information Council.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to November  2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objective.

section_title: Appendix II: Comparison between Proposed Themes and Existing Themes
paragraphs: FGDC proposed theme and description  Biota—Biota pertain to, or describe the dynamic  processes, interactions, distributions, and  relationships between and among organisms and  their environments.

Cadastre—This theme describes past, current,  and future rights and interests in real property,  including the spatial information necessary to  describe geographic extents. Rights and  interests are benefits or enjoyment in real  property that can be conveyed, transferred, or  otherwise allocated to another for economic  remuneration. Rights and interests are recorded  in land record documents.  The spatial information necessary to describe  geographic extents includes surveys and legal  description frameworks, such as the Public Land  Survey System, as well as parcel-by-parcel  surveys and descriptions. This theme does not  include federal government or military facilities.

Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description  Biological Resources—This dataset includes data pertaining to or descriptive of  (nonhuman) biological resources and their distributions and habitats, including data  at the suborganismal (genetics, physiology, anatomy, etc.), organismal  (subspecies, species, systematics), and ecological (populations, communities,  ecosystems, biomes, etc.) levels.  Vegetation—Vegetation data describe a collection of plants or plant communities  with distinguishable characteristics that occupy an area of interest.   Cadastral—Cadastral data describe the geographic extent of past, current, and  future rights, title, and interests in real property, and the framework to support the  description of that geographic extent. The geographic extent includes survey and  description frameworks, such as the Public Land Survey System, as well as parcel- by-parcel surveys and descriptions.  Cadastral (Offshore)

Climate and Weather—Climate and weather  describes meteorological conditions, including  temperature, precipitation, and wind, that  characteristically prevail in a particular region  over a long period of time. Weather is the state of  the atmosphere at a given time and place, with  respect to variables, such as temperature,  moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure.  Cultural Resources—This theme describes  features and characteristics of a collection of  places of significance in history, architecture,  engineering, or society. It includes national  monuments and icons.

Cultural Resources—The cultural resources theme includes historic places, such  as districts, sites, buildings, and structures of significance in history, architecture,  engineering, or culture. Cultural resources also encompass prehistoric features as  well as historic landscapes.  Geographic Names—This dataset contains data or information on geographic  place names deemed official for federal use by the U.S. Board on Geographic  Names as pursuant to 80 Cong. Ch. 330. Geographic Names information includes  both the official place name (current, historical, and aliases) and direct (i.e.,  geographic coordinates) and indirect (i.e., state and county where place is located)  geospatial identifiers. This information is categorized as populated places, schools,  reservoirs, parks, streams, valleys, and ridges.

FGDC proposed theme and description  Elevation—Elevation is the measured vertical  position of the Earth surface and other landscape  or bathymetric features relative to a reference  datum typically related to sea level. These points  normally describe bare Earth positions but may  also describe the top surface of buildings and  other objects, vegetation structure, or submerged  objects.  Elevation data can be stored as a 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—This theme includes a  collection of control points that provide a  common reference system for establishing  coordinates for geographic data.

Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description  Elevation Bathymetric—The bathymetric data for Inland and Intercoastal  waterways is highly accurate bathymetric (i.e., the measurement of water depths)  sounding information collected to ensure that federal navigation channels are  maintained to their authorized depths. Bathymetric survey activities support the  nation’s critical nautical charting program. These data are also used to create  Electronic Navigational Charts.  Elevation Terrestrial—These data contain georeferenced digital representations  of terrestrial surfaces, natural or manmade, that describe vertical position above or  below a datum surface.

Geodetic Control—Geodetic control provides a common reference system for  establishing coordinates for all geographic data. All NSDI framework data and  users’ applications data require geodetic control to accurately register spatial data.  The National Spatial Reference System is the fundamental geodetic control for the  United States.

Geology—Geology is geographically-referenced  data pertaining to the origin, history, composition,  structure, features, and processes of the solid  Earth, both onshore and offshore.  It includes geologic, geophysical, and  geochemical maps, stratigraphy, paleontology,  geochronology, mineral and energy resources,  and natural hazards, such as earthquakes,  volcanic eruptions, coastal erosion, and  landslides. The theme does not include soils.  Governmental Units—This theme includes data  that describe political, governmental, and  administrative (management) type boundaries  that are used to manage people and resources. It  includes geopolitical boundaries (county, parish,  state, city, etc.), tribal boundaries, federal land  boundaries, federal regions, international  boundaries, and governmental administrative  units, such as congressional districts,  international lines of separation, limits, zones,  enclaves, exclaves, special areas between states  and dependencies, and all jurisdictional offshore  limits within U.S. sovereignty. Boundaries  associated with natural resources, demography,  and cultural entities are excluded and can be  found in the appropriate subject themes.

Geologic—The geologic spatial data theme includes all geologic mapping  information and related geoscience spatial data (including associated geophysical,  geochemical, geochronologic, and paleontologic data) that can contribute to the  National Geologic Map Database as pursuant to Public Law 106-148.  Offshore Minerals—Offshore minerals include minerals occurring in submerged  lands. Examples of marine minerals include oil, gas, sulfur, gold, sand and gravel,  and manganese.

Governmental Units—These data describe, by a consistent set of rules and  semantic definitions, the official boundaries of federal, state, local, and tribal  governments as reported/certified to the U.S. Census Bureau by responsible  officials of each government for purposes of reporting the nation’s official statistics.  International Boundaries—International boundary data include both textual  information to describe, and geographic information system (GIS) digital  cartographic data to depict, both land and maritime international boundaries, other  lines of separation, limits, zones, enclaves, exclaves, and special areas between  states and dependencies.  Marine Boundaries—Marine boundaries depict offshore waters and seabeds over  which the United States has sovereignty and jurisdiction.

FGDC proposed theme and description  Imagery—The imagery theme includes  georeferenced images of the Earth’s surface that  have been collected using aerial photography or  satellite data. Orthoimagery is prepared through  a geometric correction process known as  orthorectification to remove image displacements  due to relief and sensor characteristics. This  process allows for their use as base maps for  digital mapping and analyses in a GIS. Specific  imagery data sets created through image  interpretation and classification, such as a land  cover image, can be found under themes specific  to the subject matter. This theme includes  imagery, such as Landsat, National Agriculture  Imagery Program, and Digital Orthophoto  Quarter Quadrangle.

Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description  Digital Ortho Imagery—This dataset contains georeferenced images of the  Earth’s surface where object displacement has been removed for sensor  distortions and orientation, and terrain relief. Digital orthoimages have the  geometric characteristics of a map and image qualities of a photograph.

Land Use/Land Cover—This theme refers  collectively to natural and man-made surface  features that cover the land (Land Cover) and to  the primary ways in which land cover is used by  humans (Land Use). Examples of Land Cover  may be grass, asphalt, trees, bare ground, and  water. Examples of Land Use may be urban,  agricultural, ranges, and forest areas.  Real Property—The real property theme  includes data that describes the spatial  representation (location) of real property entities,  typically consisting of one or more of the  following: unimproved land, a building, a  structure, site improvements, and the underlying  land. Complex real property entities (i.e.,  facilities) are used for a broad spectrum of  functions or missions. This theme focuses on  spatial representation of real property assets only  and does not seek to describe special purpose  functions of real property, such as those found in  the Cultural Resources, Transportation, or  Utilities themes.  Soils—This theme includes data that depict the  geography and attributes of the many kinds of  soils found in the landscape at both large and  small map scales. A living dynamic resource  providing a natural medium for plant growth and  habitat for living organisms, soil recycles  nutrients and wastes, stores carbon, and purifies  water supplies. Soil has distinct layers (called  “horizons”) that, in contrast to underlying  geologic material, are altered by the interactions  of climate, landscape features, and living  organisms over time.

Earth Cover—The Earth cover theme uses a hierarchical classification system  based on observable form and structure, as opposed to function or use. This  system transitions from generalized to more specific and detailed class divisions,  and provides a framework within which multiple land cover and land use  classification systems can be cross-referenced. This system is applicable  everywhere on the surface of the Earth. This theme differs from the Vegetation and  Wetlands themes, which provide additional detail.

Buildings and Facilities—The facility theme includes federal sites or entities with  a geospatial location deliberately established for designated activities; a facility  database might describe a factory, military base, college, hospital, power plant,  fishery, national park, office building, space command center, or prison.  Housing—This theme includes geographic data on homeownership rates,  including many attributes such as the Department of Housing and Urban  Development’s revitalization zones, location of various forms of housing  assistance, first-time homebuyers, underserved areas, and race.

Soils—Soil data consist of georeferenced digital map data describing the spatial  distribution of the various soils that cover the Earth’s surface, and attribute data  describing the proportionate extent of the various soils as well as the physical and  chemical characteristics of those soils. The physical and chemical properties are  based on observed and measured values, as well as model-generated values. This  theme also includes model-generated assessments of the suitability or limitations  of the soils to various land uses.

FGDC proposed theme and description  Transportation—Transportation data describe  means and aids for conveying persons and  goods. The transportation system includes both  physical and nonphysical components related to  all modes of travel that allow the movement of  goods and people between locations.

Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description  Transportation—Transportation data are used to model the geographic locations,  interconnectedness, and characteristics of the transportation system within the  United States. The transportation system includes both physical and nonphysical  components representing all modes of travel that allow the movement of goods and  people between locations.  Transportation (Marine)—The Navigation Channel Framework consists of highly  accurate dimensions (geographic coordinates for channel sides, centerlines,  wideners, turning basins, and river mile markers) for every federal navigation  channel maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The navigation  framework will provide the basis for the marine transportation theme of the  geospatial data framework.

Utilities—This theme includes the means, aids,  and usage of facilities for producing, conveying,  distributing, processing, and disposing of public  and private commodities, including power,  energy, communications, natural gas, and water.  It includes subthemes for Energy and  Communications.  Water—Inland—The Water—Inland theme  describes interior hydrologic features and  characteristics, including classification,  measurements, location, and extent. It includes  aquifers, watersheds, wetlands, navigation, water  quality, water quantity, and groundwater  information.

There are not any corresponding existing themes.

Water—Oceans and Coasts—This theme  includes datasets that describe features and  characteristics of salt water bodies (tides, tidal  waves, coastal information, reefs) and features  and characteristics that represent the intersection  of the land with the water surface (shorelines),  the lines from which the territorial sea and other  maritime zones are measured (baseline  maritime), and lands covered by water at any  stage of the tide (outer continental shelf), as  distinguished from tidelands, which are attached  to the mainland or an island and cover and  uncover with the tide.

Hydrography—This data theme includes surface water features, such as lakes,  ponds, streams and rivers, canals, oceans, and coastlines.  Watershed Boundaries—This data theme encodes hydrologic, watershed  boundaries into topographically defined sets of drainage areas that are organized  in a nested hierarchy by size, and based on a standard hydrologic unit coding  system.  Flood Hazards/Flood Plain—This theme includes documentation of the  boundaries and elevations of the 1 percent annual chance (100-year) flood for  communities across the country. The National Flood Insurance Program has  prepared flood hazard data for approximately 18,000 communities. The primary  information prepared for these communities is for the 1 percent annual chance  (100-year) flood, and includes documentation of the boundaries and elevations of  that flood.  Wetlands—The wetlands data layer provides the classification, location, and  extent of wetlands and deepwater habitats.  Baseline/Maritime Zones—Baseline represents the line from which maritime  zones and limits are measured. Examples of these limits include the territorial sea,  contiguous zone, and exclusive economic zone.  Outer Continental Shelf Submerged Lands—These data include lands covered  by water at any stage of the tide, as distinguished from tidelands, which are  attached to the mainland or an island and cover and uncover with the tide.  Tidelands presuppose a high-water line as the upper boundary, whereas  submerged lands do not.  Shoreline—Shorelines represent the intersection of the land with the water  surface. The shoreline shown on NOAA’s charts represents the line of contact  between the land and a selected water elevation.

FGDC proposed theme and description  These existing themes are proposed to be  removed because, according to the FGDC, the  data associated with them are primarily  statistical.

Corresponding A-16 existing theme and description  Cultural and Demographic Statistics—These geospatially referenced data describe  the characteristics of people, the nature of the structures in which they live and work;  the economic and other activities they pursue; the facilities they use to support their  health, recreational, and other needs; the environmental consequences of their  presence; and the boundaries, names, and numeric codes of geographic entities used  to report the information collected.   Law Enforcement Statistics—Law enforcement statistics describe the occurrence of  events (including incidences, offenses, and arrests) geospatially located, related to  ordinance and statutory violations and the individuals involved in those occurrences.  This theme also includes data related to deployment of law enforcement resources  and performance measures.  Public Health—Public health themes relate to the protection, improvement, and  promotion of the health and safety of all people. For example, public health databases  include spatial data on mortality and natality events, infectious and notifiable diseases,  incident cancer cases, behavioral risk factor and tuberculosis surveillance, hazardous  substance releases and health effects, hospital statistics, and other similar data.

section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior

section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Commerce

section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, individuals making contributions to  this report included Deborah A. Davis (Assistant Director), Shaun T.  Byrnes, Eric Costello, Rebecca Eyler, Kaelin P. Kuhn, John Mingus,  Jamelyn Payan, Scott Pettis, and Andrew Stavisky.


Question-summary annotations: questions: question: Have government committees and federal departments and agencies implemented the policies and procedures established by the President and the OMB?
answer: While the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have established policies and procedures for coordinating investments in geospatial data, governmentwide committees and federal departments and agencies have not effectively implemented them.

question: What has the Federal Geographic Data Committee developed and endorsed?
answer: The committee that was established to promote the coordination of geospatial data nationwide--the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)--has developed and endorsed key standards-- including a metadata standard that includes descriptive information about a particular set of geospatial data--and established a clearinghouse of metadata; however, the clearinghouse is not being used by agencies to identify planned geospatial investments to promote coordination and reduce duplication.
child_questions: question: What does the FGDC have yet to address?
answer: The FGDC has not yet planned or implemented an approach to manage geospatial data as related groups of investments to allow agencies to more effectively plan geospatial data collection efforts and minimize duplicative investments; and its strategic plan is missing key elements, such as performance measures for many of its defined objectives. Further, none of the three federal departments in GAO's review have fully implemented important activities for coordinating geospatial data, such as preparing and implementing a strategy for advancing geospatial activities within their respective departments.

questions: question: How much progress have the three agencies made in coordinating national coverage of geospatial data?
answer: Further, the three agencies in GAO's review responsible for governmentwide management of specific geospatial data have implemented some but not all important activities for coordinating the national coverage of specific geospatial data.
child_questions: question: What plans have the agencies developed to coordinate coverage?
answer: For example, only one agency has developed a plan for the nationwide population of the datasets under its responsibility, and none of the agencies have developed a plan to develop standards that facilitate the collection and sharing of geospatial data.

question: What have OMB staff members acknowledged about OMB's ability to identify duplicative investments?
answer: Finally, while OMB has oversight responsibilities for geospatial data, OMB staff members acknowledged that OMB does not have complete and reliable information to identify potentially duplicative geospatial investments.

questions: question: Why have FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and OMB not yet implemented policies for coordinating geospatial investments?
answer: FGDC, federal departments and agencies, and OMB have not yet fully implemented policies and procedures for coordinating geospatial investments because these efforts have not been a priority.
child_questions: question: What has resulted from this lack of coordination?
answer: As a result, efforts to acquire data are uncoordinated and the federal government is acquiring duplicative geospatial data.
child_questions: question: What is an example consequence of this lack of coordination?
answer: For example, three agencies are independently acquiring road data, which is reported to have resulted in millions of wasted taxpayers' dollars.

question: How long will this situation continue?
answer: Unless OMB, the FGDC, and federal departments and agencies decide that coordinating geospatial investments is a priority, this situation will likely continue.

questions: question: Why does the federal government collect, maintain, and use geospatial information?
answer: 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.

question: What did the Department of the Interior find in 2012?
answer: In 2012, the Department of the Interior (Interior) estimated that the federal government invests billions of dollars on geospatial data annually, and that duplication is common.

question: What was GAO asked to do?
answer: GAO was asked to determine the extent to which the federal government has established and effectively implemented policies and procedures for coordinating its geospatial investments and avoiding duplication.
child_questions: question: How did the GAO go about determining the extent to which federal departments have implemented policies to coordinate geospatial investments?
answer: To do so, GAO focused on FGDC coordination activities; efforts within the departments of Commerce, the Interior, and Transportation; and OMB oversight. GAO reviewed FGDC and department documentation, such as policies, procedures, and strategic plans; OMB guidance and an executive order; and reports concerning duplicative investments.