Historically, the federal government has been a primary provider of authoritative geospatial information, but some argue that consumer demand for spatial information has triggered a major shift toward local government and commercial providers. The federal government has shifted, with some important exceptions, to consuming rather than providing geospatial information from a variety of sources. As a result, the federal government's role has shifted as well toward coordinating and managing geospatial data and facilitating partnerships among the producers and consumers of geospatial information in government, the private sector, and academia. The challenges to coordinating how geospatial data are acquired and used—collecting duplicative data sets, for example—at the local, state, and federal levels, in collaboration with the private sector, are long-standing and not yet resolved. In 2003 and 2004 the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Census, part of the House Committee on Government Reform, held two hearings on the nation's geospatial information infrastructure. A common theme to both hearings was the challenge of coordinating and sharing geospatial data between the local, county, state, and national levels. Quantifying the cost of geospatial information to the federal government has also been an ongoing concern for Congress. At the hearing in 2003, Representative Adam Putnam stated: We need to understand what programs exist across the government, how much we're spending on those programs, where we're spending that money, how efficiently, or perhaps inefficiently, we share data across Federal agency boundaries, how we separate security-sensitive geospatial data from those open for public use, and how we efficiently, or perhaps inefficiently, coordinate with State and local governments and tribes. The explosion of geospatial data acquired at the local and state levels, for their own purposes and in conjunction with the private sector, underscores the long-recognized need for better coordination between the federal government and local and state authorities. At the same time, coordinating, managing, and facilitating the production and use of geospatial information from different sources, of different quality, and which was collected with specific objectives in mind has been a challenge. The federal government has recognized this challenge since at least 1990, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16 to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. Executive Order 12906, issued in 1994, was intended to "strengthen and enhance" the general policies in Circular A-16. Executive Order 12906 specified that the FGDC shall coordinate the federal government's development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). Further, EO12906 called for the establishment of a National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse to address data standardization, make geospatial data publically available, and address redundancy and incompatibility of geospatial information. Circular A-16 was itself revised in 2002, adding the Deputy Director of Management at OMB as the vice-chair of the FGDC to serve with the Secretary of the Interior, who chairs the committee. The high-level leadership and broad membership of the FGDC—10 cabinet-level departments and 9 other federal agencies—highlights the importance of geospatial information to the federal government. In fact, supplemental guidance to Circular A-16, issued by Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra on November 10, 2010, referred to federal geospatial data as a capital asset . Questions remain, however, about how effectively the FGDC is fulfilling its mission. Has this organizational structure worked? Can the federal government account for the costs of acquiring, coordinating, and managing geospatial information? How well is the federal government coordinating with state and local entities that increasingly rely on geospatial information? What is the role of the private sector? In its oversight capacity, the 112 th Congress may consider these questions from the viewpoint of reducing duplication and costs to the federal government. This report discusses issues that may be of interest to Congress—managing, sharing, and coordinating geospatial information—and includes examples of legislation. This report also summarizes a diverse set of recommendations and proposals from different non-governmental organizations for how to improve the coordination and management of geospatial information at the federal and state levels. A separate report, CRS Report R41825, Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): An Overview for Congress , discusses geospatial information and GIS; provides several examples of their use; and describes the FGDC, NSDI, and their various activities and programs. This report is limited to discussions of non-classified geospatial information. Producing floodplain maps; conducting the Census; planning ecosystem restoration; and assessing vulnerability and responding to natural hazards such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tsunamis are examples of how federal agencies use GIS and geospatial information to meet national needs. Some view federal government data as inherently geospatial. According to the Department of the Interior, the amount of government information that has a geospatial component—such as address or other reference to a physical location—is as much as 80%. Given the ubiquity of geospatial information throughout the federal government, and despite the long history of efforts to manage and coordinate such data articulated in OMB Circular A-16 and its antecedents (see Appendix for a history of Circular A-16 and its federal policy lineage), ongoing challenges to handling federal geospatial information can generally be divided into three overarching questions: What is the best way to organize and manage the vast array of geospatial information that is acquired at many levels and that has a variety of potential uses? What is the best way to share data, particularly among local, state, and federal stakeholders, each of whom may have a need for the same or similar data? What is the best way to coordinate among federal agencies, such as the administration and management by different agencies of all the federal lands in the United States? It could be argued that some level of duplication of effort, and of inefficiency in the management and sharing of geospatial information, will always exist across a vast federal bureaucracy in which a majority of government information has some geospatial component. It could also be argued that the size of the federal bureaucracy is only one contributing factor. Surveying and mapping activities themselves are prone to duplication of effort among the different missions and goals of the executive branch. The need to organize and manage geospatial data among federal agencies and among the federal government, local and state authorities, the private sector, and academia is a recurring theme. It recurs, in part, because it is widely recognized that collecting data multiple times for the same purpose is wasteful and inefficient, yet it continues to occur. Alternatively, geospatial data could be collected once to meet the requirements of several users. For example, geospatial data gathered by a local government could be made useful to the state or federal government if the data meet a set of basic and consistent guidelines and protocols. Organizational structures exist at the federal and state levels to identify and promulgate the efficient sharing, transfer, and use of geospatial information, but arguably they have not fully achieved the goal of seamlessly coordinating disparate types of geospatial data. Ideally, these efforts would produce a national spatial data infrastructure, or NSDI, and that appears to have been the intent of EO12906 and the subsequent revisions to Circular A-16 in 2002. In one sense, the FGDC exists to foster development and implementation of the NSDI. The NSDI includes the processes and relationships that facilitate data sharing across all levels of government, academia, and the private sector. Ultimately, it is intended to be the base resource and structure among geospatial data providers and users at the national, state, and local level. Yet, some members of the geospatial community have indicated that the past efforts to create a national spatial data infrastructure have not met expectations, and have called for a new effort to build a "national GIS" or a "NSDI 2.0." (See section below: " A National GIS? ") In addition to promoting the efficiency and interoperability of such a national system, some promote NSDI as "digital infrastructure" on par with other parts of the nation's critical infrastructure—such as roads, pipelines, and telecommunications—and underscore its role in the national economy and in national security. When Circular A-16 was issued in 1953, it aimed to avoid duplication of effort, and included details about coordinating federal mapping activities. As digital geospatial data became more widespread, revisions to Circular A-16 in 1990 and 2002 extended coordination of federal efforts to include digital data, and broadened the mandate to coordinate federal geospatial activities. These efforts to improve management and coordination continue: on March 3, 2006, OMB issued a memorandum asking selected departments and agencies to each designate a senior agency official to take authority and responsibility for geospatial information issues. The memorandum emphasized that "through further coordination, we will maximize our buying and maintaining of geospatial investments instead of independently investing in potentially duplicative and costly data and capabilities." The March 3, 2006, memorandum identified 15 departments and 12 independent agencies that should designate an official at the Assistant Secretary or equivalent level. Most recently, OMB issued supplementary guidance to Circular A-16 on November 10, 2010 (discussed in the next section). On November 10, 2010, the Obama Administration issued a memorandum providing supplemental guidance to the implementation of OMB Circular A-16. The supplemental guidance labels geospatial data as a capital asset, and refers to its acquisition and management in terms analogous to financial assets. Specifically, it refers to geospatial information as part of a National Geospatial Data Asset (NGDA) Portfolio. The supplemental guidance states that federal investments in geospatial data "were largely uncoordinated and often lacked transparency, and sometimes resulted in data deficiencies, lack of standardization, inefficient use of resources, lack of interoperability, or inability to share data." To address those issues, the supplemental guidance sets forth its goal of a portfolio-centric model that "cures the single agency, stovepipe model by applying consistent policy, improved organization, better governance, and understanding of the electorate to deliver outstanding results." The supplemental guidance appears to echo the same concerns regarding management, coordination, and sharing previously identified. However, it casts the solution to these challenges in terms of managing a portfolio of investments, described as "the process of tracking, maintaining, expanding, and aligning assets to address and solve the business needs of an enterprise." The document notes that a key goal of the portfolio management approach is to enable the FGDC, through its Steering Committee, to make "informed decisions" about short- and long-term priorities for NGDA themes and datasets as well as for "collaboration targets" across agencies for dataset development and funding. The approach to NGDA portfolio management would consist of "[t]he inventory, selection, organization, management, evaluation, monitoring, and setting of Federal geospatial dataset priorities to ensure that NGDA Datasets are available to support the mission needs of the Federal Government and its partners, as determined by Federal agencies and their partners and as recommended to OMB." It is not clear yet whether this "new" approach to organizing and managing federal geospatial information is significantly different from the current approach. Perhaps a financial asset portfolio management approach could provide a more internally consistent way of identifying, classifying, and managing diverse geospatial assets across multiple departments and agencies. Whether this approach will be put into practice by each individual department and agency, and how consistently the "capital asset" approach will be applied across the federal government, remains to be seen. In the executive branch, OMB is the most likely entity capable of assessing the government-wide implementation of the geospatial-information-as-financial-assets approach. Congress in its oversight capacity could choose to ask whether the approach has been implemented and, if so, whether it produced the desired results. The supplemental guidance also lays out a process for managing geospatial assets within the annual budget cycle, calling it an annual investment review process. This process could give the agencies with geospatial assets a potentially more visible role in obtaining funding to acquire and manage geospatial data. The supplemental guidance notes that this process could increase the geospatial community's effectiveness by addressing a "disconnect" between agency Chief Financial Officers and managers responsible for an agency's geospatial assets: The players traditionally active in the Federal agency budget formation process, most notably the agency CFO community, rarely have expertise in geospatial management or issues. At the same time, those with significant geospatial expertise rarely have a distinct role in the budget process. The fact that so much Federal geospatial spending is subsumed unidentifiably within other program budgets, and therefore opaque to the CFO community, is one reason for the disconnect. Whether and how the new guidance will affect FGDC management will likely be borne out in the budget priorities for agencies in the annual budget requests, the level of funding for those priorities through the annual appropriations cycle, and in program implementation. The 112 th Congress might compare and contrast the broad portfolio management approach outlined in the supplemental guidance against funding requests by agencies that invest in and manage geospatial information. The National Research Council (NRC) has reported that the value of geospatial data is better understood at the county level than it was in the past, especially land parcel, or cadastral, data. The benefits of sharing geospatial data so that what is produced locally can be used for national needs, however, are not as widely acknowledged. In the case of land parcel data specifically, many local governments create data for their own use and do not see how a national effort would bring local benefits. The NRC notes, however, that the need for complete national land parcel data has become urgent particularly for at least one application—emergency response. During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, some critical land parcel data that were needed by emergency responders, public officials, and even insurance companies were not readily available or did not exist. Further, the NRC report asserts that many of the property fraud cases associated with the hurricanes of 2005 were the direct result of poor or nonexistent geospatial data, specifically land parcel data. Several efforts to coordinate geospatial data among federal agencies have proven difficult to achieve. The National Map is an example of a work-in-progress attempting to integrate data from a variety of sources and produce a product that is widely available and useful to many users. In an example cited by the GAO in its 2003 testimony, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) tried to create a national-level GIS for the forest ecosystem, but had to reconcile data from a variety of incompatible locally developed systems, which used a variety of standards for each forest and district. Most of the USFS effort went into reconciling the different data sets. Ultimately the USFS had to adopt the lowest-resolution format to maintain full coverage of all the forests, and could not use the higher-resolution local data. The National Integrated Land System (NILS) is another example of an ongoing effort to coordinate and integrate disparate federal land data among several agencies. The federal government owns approximately 650 million acres, about 29% of all land in the United States. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the designated custodian for federal land parcel information and ownership status. Three federal agencies in addition to the BLM administer most federal lands: the USFS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. In an effort to develop a single representation of federal lands, the BLM and USFS launched NILS, billed as a partnership among the federal agencies and states, counties, and private industry, to provide a single solution to managing federal land parcel information in a GIS environment. A limited amount of federal land data is available through NILS, which is currently in a project or prototype phase, and the project makes current information and tools available through its GeoCommunicator component. Both The National Map and NILS represent federal efforts to foster interagency sharing of data into a single product providing national coverage of topography and federal land holdings respectively. The utility of both efforts is limited by the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the underlying geospatial data. The National Map, as currently envisioned, will provide topographic information at the 1:24,000 scale, meaning that roughly one inch on the map equals 2,000 feet. That scale will likely limit The National Map's usefulness for depicting, for example, floodplain boundaries to meet the requirements for FEMA floodplain maps. Also, at some point in the future NILS presumably could provide one-stop shopping for an accurate assessment of the amount of federal land currently administered by each land management agency in the Department of the Interior and for the USFS. Currently, however, the best method for obtaining an accurate tally of federal lands is to contact each land management agency directly for their most up-to-date data. (Even then, data from individual agencies do not always sum to totals reported by the General Services Administration.) Both NILS and The National Map are test cases for whether and how the agencies implement the OMB-issued supplemental guidance (discussed above) for managing geospatial assets as a portfolio of investments. For example, under the new guidance presumably both projects would receive some indication of where they stand in comparison to other geospatial dataset priorities. Further, it would be expected that under the new OMB guidance those priorities would be reflected in annual budget requests from the relevant agencies, which OMB would review and approve prior to their submission to Congress. One bill introduced in the 112 th Congress on March 15, 2011, attempts to address some of the challenges to data coordination discussed above. The Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform Act of 2011 ( H.R. 1620 ) would establish a national cadastre. The legislation has been referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, House Natural Resources Committee, but has not been acted upon. A companion bill, S. 1153 , was introduced on June 7, 2011, in the Senate and referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It also has not been acted upon. H.R. 1620 would require the Secretary of the Interior to develop a multipurpose cadastre of federal "real property." The legislation defines cadastre as an inventory, and defines federal "real property" as land, buildings, crops, forests, or other resources still attached to or within the land or improvements or fixtures permanently attached to the land or structures on it. The bill would require the Secretary to coordinate with the FGDC pursuant to OMB Circular A-16, to integrate the activities under the legislation with similar cadastral activities of state and local governments, and to participate in establishing standards and protocols that are necessary to ensure interoperability of the geospatial information of the cadastre for all users. Supporters of the legislation claim that a national cadastre would improve federal land management, resource conservation, environmental protection, and the use of federal real property. As noted above, the BLM currently has responsibility for maintaining federal land parcel information and ownership status, and it is not clear if H.R. 1620 would expand the current geospatial activities at BLM, shift the custodial responsibilities to another agency, or result in a different approach or program. Beginning with versions of these bills first introduced in the 110 th Congress, supporters indicated that existing inventories of federal real property are old, outdated, and inaccurate, and updates to these inventories could improve management of the federal lands. Observers also noted that the federal government lacks one central inventory that coordinates all the inventories into one usable database. On March 21, 2012, Representative Lamborn introduced H.R. 4233 , the Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act. In Title I, the bill would establish a National Geospatial Technology Administration in the Department of the Interior (DOI) that would create a National Geospatial Database of all U.S.-owned or -managed lands, Indian trust lands, and nonfederal lands. Funding for the database would be at the discretion of the administrator, who would develop and implement a funding strategy using appropriated funds, user fees, a revolving fund, partnerships with other government agencies, public-private partnerships, or some combination of some or all of the funding options. The administrator of the new organization would assume all geospatial functions currently vested by law in the DOI, the National Forest System within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and NOAA, including all functions of the National Geodetic Survey. All federal agencies would make their geospatial data available for inclusion in the National Geospatial Database, and the database would be available to the public. Further, Section 108(a)(3) of the bill would require that the Director of the Bureau of the Census make available, for inclusion in the database, all building addresses and geographical coordinates collected by the Census Bureau. Currently the Census Bureau is forbidden to publish any private information—such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers. (Privacy issues are discussed below under the section entitled " Some Privacy Issues: Census, Farm Bill, Internet .") H.R. 4233 would also create a National Geospatial Policy Commission. The commission would produce a National Geospatial Data Plan, and the National Geospatial Technology Administration would be required to carry out the recommendations in the plan. The commission would be charged with coordinating federal agencies, state and local governments, and private entities to "eliminate redundancy in the performance of geospatial activities." The bill also calls on the commission to direct geospatial activities to private-sector firms when possible. Two of the five titles in H.R. 4233 deal with moving geospatial activities to private-sector firms and encouraging federal use of private geospatial firms generally. Title III lays out requirements for contractor performance of geospatial activities, and Title IV calls for developing a strategy to encourage and enhance the use of private geospatial firms by federal agencies and by other organizations that receive federal funds. Title V of the bill contains provisions for encouraging geospatial research and development. The Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act, introduced as S. 174 and H.R. 365 in the 111 th Congress, was enacted into law as Subtitle B of Title XII of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 ( P.L. 111-11 ). The act established a federal program to develop a coordinated and comprehensive mapping plan for the coastal waters including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, and the Great Lakes. Programs established by the act are intended to address issues of data sharing and cost-effectiveness by fostering cooperative mapping efforts, developing appropriate data standards, and facilitating the interoperability of data systems. Further, the program established under the act would develop these standards to be consistent with the requirements of the FGDC, so that the data collected in support of mapping are useful not only to the federal government, but also to coastal states and other entities. The theme of coordinating activities is underscored in several places in the act, specifically with other federal efforts such as the Digital Coast, Geospatial One-Stop, and the FGDC, as well as international mapping activities, coastal state activities, user groups, and nongovernmental entities. Subtitle B of Title XII of P.L. 111-11 called for a plan for an integrated ocean and coastal mapping initiative within NOAA. The agency submitted the plan to Congress on May 24, 2010. A biennial progress report on implementing the subtitle, also called for in P.L. 111-11 , from the Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping is undergoing interagency review and is not available. The challenge to collect and manage the geospatial data needed to meet the requirements of the act is daunting, given the array of federal agencies, affected states, local communities, businesses, and other stakeholders who have an interest in coastal mapping. Moreover, the stakeholders require wide and disparate types of data—such as living and nonliving coastal and marine resources, coastal ecosystems, sensitive habitats, submerged cultural resources, undersea cables, aquaculture projects, offshore energy projects, and others. Congress could view the development of the ocean and coastal mapping plan and its implementation as a test case: how to manage a large data collection effort—cost-effectively and cooperatively—that reaches across all levels of government and includes interest groups, businesses, NGOs, and even international partners. Nonfederal organizations and institutions have increasingly participated with federal agencies in communicating their concerns regarding geospatial information management, data sharing, and coordination. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee directly advises the FGDC. The National States Geographic Information Council and private sector geospatial organizations, such as the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors, provide views of state geospatial organizations and the private sector respectively. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) was formed in early 2008 to provide advice and recommendations to the FGDC on management of federal geospatial programs, development of the NSDI, and implementation of the OMB Circular A-16. The committee members represent the private sector, nonprofits, academia, and governmental agencies. As part of its charter, NGAC provides a forum to convey views representative of nonfederal stakeholders in the geospatial community. In its January 2009 report, The Changing Geospatial Landscape , NGAC noted that as geospatial data production has shifted from the federal government to the private sector and state and local governments, new partnerships for data sharing and coordination are needed. Specifically: the hodgepodge of existing data sharing agreements are stifling productivity and are a serious impediment to use even in times of emergency.... When the federal government was the primary data provider, regulations required data to be placed in the public domain. This policy jump-started a new marketplace and led to the adoptions of GIS capabilities across public and commercial sectors. However, these arrangements are very different when data assets are controlled by private companies or local governments. NGAC observed further that the federal government's need for land parcel (cadastral) data, which is also emphasized by the National Research Council, is missing an arrangement for acquiring the detailed property-related data necessary to make decisions during times of emergency. The report suggests that detailed land parcel data—their use, value, and ownership—are needed by FEMA, the USFS, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for emergency preparedness, response to hurricanes and wildfires, or to monitor the current foreclosure problems. In October 2008, NGAC sent recommendations to the 2008-2009 Presidential Transition Team for improving the federal role in coordinating geospatial activities, for making changes to the U.S. C ode pertaining to non-sensitive address data, and for enhancing geospatial workforce education. Most recommendations pertained to how the federal government could better coordinate geospatial partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments; the private sector; and the academic community. Recommendations included: establish a geospatial leadership and coordination function immediately within the Executive Office of the President; the geospatial coordination function should be included in the reauthorization of the E-Government Act; require OMB and FGDC to strengthen their enforcement of OMB Circular A-16 and EO 12906; establish/designate Geographic Information Officers with each department or agency with responsibilities stipulated within OMB Circular A-16; establish and oversee an Urgent Path forward for implementation of geospatial programs necessary to support current national priorities and essential government services underpinning the NSDI; and continue NGAC. Arguably, the supplemental guidance to OMB Circular A-16, issued on November 10, 2010, and the appointment of Vivek Kundra as the Federal Chief Information Officer at OMB address aspects of the first two bullets. OMB's memorandum issued on March 3, 2006, arguably should have addressed the third bullet; however, NGAC apparently felt that OMB's guidance had not been implemented. Of the final two bullets, NGAC has continued to exist, and it is not clear what progress has been made in implementing NGAC's Urgent Path forward (one aspect of the Urgent Path, Imagery for the Nation, is discussed below). At the national level, the FGDC exists to promote the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data. At the state level, NSGIC exists to promote the coordination of statewide geospatial activities in all states, and to advocate for the states in national geospatial policy initiatives to help enable the NSDI. NSGIC ties its activities to the NSDI by promoting the development of Statewide Spatial Data Infrastructures (SSDI), under a partnership called the 50-States Initiative, which is intended to lead to the creation of an SSDI for each state. In this vision, each state's SSDI would enable coordination between geospatial data producers and consumers at all levels within the state, and allow the state to share geospatial data with the national geospatial structure envisioned as the NSDI. The emphasis on organization and coordination of geospatial data and activities is seen as critical to reducing costs to states and the federal government by eliminating data redundancy—collecting the data once, using it many times—and by setting standards that allow different users to share geospatial data regardless of who collects it. NSGIC identified 10 criteria that define a "model" state program necessary to develop effectively coordinated statewide GIS activities, and thus reduce inefficiency and waste. These include: 1. strategic and business plans; 2. a full-time, paid, GIS coordinator and staff; 3. clearly defined authority and responsibility for coordination; 4. a relationship with the state chief information officer; 5. a political or executive champion for coordinating GIS; 6. a tie to the national spatial data infrastructure and clearinghouse programs; 7. the ability to work with local governments, academia, and the private sector; 8. sustainable funding, especially for producing geospatial data; 9. the authority for the GIS coordinator to enter into contracts; and 10. the federal government working through the statewide coordinating body. Not all states have fully embraced the need for statewide coordination of GIS activities, and states differ in their structure and organization of geospatial data among and between state, county, and local entities. For example, some states such as Arkansas share geospatial data across agencies in a very open manner; other states such as New York require more formal agreements or have restrictions to sharing data that include critical infrastructure. Nonetheless, some level of data sharing does occur, even in the more restrictive states. A priority for NSGIC is a program under development, called Imagery for the Nation (IFTN), that would collect and disseminate aerial and satellite imagery in the form of digital orthoimagery. In its description of the program, NISGIC notes that digital orthoimagery is the foundation for most public and private GIS endeavors. Further, NSGIC states that as many as 1,300 different government entities across the nation are developing digital orthoimagery products, "leading to higher costs, varying quality, duplication of effort, and a patchwork of products." IFTN represents an effort to establish one coherent set of geospatial data—arguably one of the most important layers in a GIS, orthoimagery—that is organized for the benefit of many stakeholders at the federal, tribal, regional, state, and local levels. As proposed, IFTN would involve two federal programs: (1) the existing National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and (2) a companion program administered by the USGS. The NAIP imagery would be enhanced to provide annually updated one-meter resolution orthoimagery over all states except Hawaii and Alaska. The USGS program would also collect one-foot resolution imagery every three years for 50% of the U.S. land mass (except Alaska, which would get one-foot resolution imagery only over densely populated areas). The program would include an option for states to "buy up," or enhance, any or all of the remaining 50%. The program would also provide 50% matching funds for partnerships to acquire six-inch resolution imagery over urban areas with at least 1,000 people per square mile as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. NSGIC states that statewide GIS coordination councils would specify their requirements through business plans, and that all the data would remain in the public domain, which would address many of the data sharing issues discussed above. In addition, the program calls for appropriate national standards for all data, which is a goal of the FGDC, a partner to NSGIC in the development of IFTN. NSGIC estimates that the program would cost $1.38 billion during the first 10 years, and argues that this would save $120 million over the 10-year period by reducing the number of contracts, contracting for larger areas, reducing overhead, and reducing other costs associated with current efforts. NSGIC considers the 50-States Initiative as one of the crucial components needed to build the NSDI and to bring consistency of geospatial information and parity to each of the states. NSGIC also considers that IFTN is the first of several initiatives creating "core data layers," or baseline data programs, required to meet federal, state, and local needs. NSGIC suggests that the NGAC be an interim step in the governance structure for NSDI, and indicates that the national effort to govern and coordinate the geospatial enterprise should not stifle the states from customizing aspects of the NSDI to suit their own needs: the federal government must not dictate the actions of state and local governments, nor should state governments dictate those of local government. However, each level of government can exert a strong influence on subordinate levels by making funding contingent on compliance with the policies and standards it establishes. NSGIC further argues that federal funding for the NSDI could be modeled on the federal highway program, similarly contingent upon compliance with collaboratively established criteria and requirements. The Census Bureau is forbidden to publish any private information—such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers. This type of geospatial information is available in the public domain for some localities in the United States; however, it is not provided by the Census Bureau. In its recommendations, NGAC calls for revising "restrictive statutory language as it pertains to non-sensitive address data in Title 13 U.S. Code and to 'geospatial' data in Section 1619 of the 2008 farm bill." Title 13 contains provisions for not disclosing or publishing private information that identifies an individual or business (Sections 9 and 214). A proposal to amend portions of Title 13 and make geospatial data collected by the Census Bureau more accessible will likely raise issues about the privacy of personal data collected by the federal government; the value of such data for emergency management; disaster preparation; other local, regional, and national needs; and the various tradeoffs between privacy concerns and the accessibility to geospatial data. As discussed above, legislation introduced in the 112 th Congress— H.R. 4233 —contains provisions to make geospatial Census data publicly available, notwithstanding Title 13 of the U.S. Code . Section 1619 of the 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 ) prohibits disclosure of geospatial information about agricultural land or operations, when the information is provided by an agricultural producer or owner of agricultural land and maintained by the Secretary of Agriculture. Certain exceptions, contained in Section 1619 of the 2008 farm bill, apply to the prohibition. NGAC has taken the position that the statutory language could be revised to enhance the value of the geospatial data while not compromising privacy. Concerns about access to geospatial information arose following the release of a draft Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on Internet privacy. The report focused on "behavioral advertising," whereby advertisements are tailored to web users based on data collected about them across the web. The report proposed that Internet companies create a "do-not-track" mechanism that would allow Internet users to opt out of online data collection. Although the thrust of the report was not focused on geospatial information, some private-sector interests raised concerns about how access to geospatial information might be affected under a "do-not-track" mechanism. The Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS), an association of private geospatial firms, expressed its concern with the term "precise geolocation data," which MAPPS noted was undefined in the FTC report. In a letter to the FTC, MAPPS wrote: "The use of the term 'geolocation' or other geospatial relevant terminology, as it is used in this or possible future FTC regulation, could thwart legitimate and desirable business activities; deny consumers the products, technologies and services they are demanding in the marketplace; and impose a significant new liability on our members." In its letter, MAPPS requested that the FTC either remove any reference to the term "precise geolocation data," define the term, or exempt firms from having to obtain consent from consumers before collecting the geospatial data. MAPPS added that "it would be impractical, if not impossible, for our member firms to obtain prior approval or consent from individual citizens prior to acquiring or applying data such as satellite imagery, aerial photography, or parcel, address, or transportation data." On March 26, 2012, FTC issued the final report. The report included a footnote that provided some clarification over the issue of collecting geolocation data for the purposes of mapping: "With respect to use of geolocation data for mapping, surveying, or similar purposes, if the data cannot reasonably be linked to a specific consumer, computer, or device, a company collecting or using the data would not need to provide a consumer choice mechanism." Although the footnote seems to address the issue raised by MAPPS (as discussed above), its interpretation likely hinges on how the term "reasonably" is applied. In early 2009, several proposals were released calling for efforts to create a national GIS, or for renewed investment in the national spatial data infrastructure, or even to create a "NSDI 2.0." The language in the proposals attempted to make the case for considering such investments part of the national investment in critical infrastructure, both by directly supporting these national GIS and geospatial efforts, but also via secondary effects. For example, one proposal indicated that organizations rebuilding roads, bridges, and schools need updated online information networks "to rebuild in a smart, efficient, environmentally conscious and sustainable way." Another proposal touted a national GIS as a tool to speed economic recovery, which could also "leave the country with a public utility, a modern geospatial information system, that itself can become a foundation for new generations of industries and technologies in the future." Their call for efforts to build a "national" GIS, or a new version of the NSDI, or for an investment in a national spatial data infrastructure, raises questions about the current efforts to build the NSDI. Efforts to construct the NSDI began in 1994 with Executive Order 12906, or even earlier when OMB revised Circular A-16 in 1990 to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee. The recent proposals imply that efforts which began 20 years ago and continue today are not sufficiently national in scope, planning, coordination, sharing, or implementation, despite the existence of the FGDC, NSGIC, or other entities such as the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations or MAPPS that are forums for organizations concerned with national geospatial issues. Congress may consider how a national GIS or geospatial infrastructure would be conceived, perhaps drawing on proposals for these national efforts as described above, and how they would be similar to or differ from current efforts. Congress may also examine its oversight role in the implementation of OMB Circular A-16, particularly in how federal agencies are coordinating their programs that have geospatial components. In 2004, GAO acknowledged that the federal government, through the FGDC and Geospatial One-Stop project, had taken actions to coordinate the government's geospatial investments, but that those efforts had not been fully successful in eliminating redundancies among agencies. As a result, federal agencies were acquiring and maintaining potentially duplicative data sets and systems. Since then, it is not clear whether federal agencies are successfully coordinating among themselves and measurably eliminating unnecessary duplication of effort. Were Congress to take a more active oversight role overseeing the federal geospatial enterprise, it could evaluate whether specific recommendations from nonfederal stakeholders have been addressed. For example, the National Geospatial Advisory Committee recommended that OMB and FGDC strengthen their enforcement of Circular A-16 and Executive Order 12906. However, enforcement alone may not be sufficient to meet the current challenges of management, coordination, and data sharing. The issuance of supplemental guidance to Circular A-16 by OMB in November 2010 may instigate new activity among and between agencies, which could spill over into better coordination with the state and local governments and the private sector. It will likely take some time, and several budget cycles, to track whether agencies are adhering to the "portfolio-centric model" of geospatial data management outlined in the supplemental guidance. It may also take time to evaluate whether the "portfolio-centric model" is the best available model for managing the federal geospatial assets. This Circular was originally issued in 1953, revised in 1967, and revised again in 1990. The Bureau of the Budget (now the OMB) issued Circular No. A-16 on January 16, 1953. Appended to this Circular were Exhibits, occasionally revised, that dealt with procedures for programming and coordinating of federal Topographic Mapping Activities, National Atlas, Geodetic Control Surveys and International Boundaries. The purpose of the 1953 Circular was "to insure (sic) that surveying and mapping activities may be directed toward meeting the needs of federal and state agencies and the general public, and will be performed expeditiously, without duplication of effort." The original Circular references Executive Order No. 9094, dated March 10, 1942. This Executive Order directs the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to coordinate and promote the improvement of surveying and mapping activities of the Government. Furthermore, it passes on functions carried out by the Federal Board of Surveys and Maps, established by Executive Order No. 3206, dated December 30, 1919. Thus, the OMB is directed to make recommendations to agencies and to the President regarding the coordination of all governmental map making and surveying. Executive Order No. 3206 superseded an Executive Order, dated August 10, 1906, that granted advisory power to the United States Geographic Board to review mapping projects to avoid duplication and to facilitate standardized mapping. A revised Circular A-16 was issued on May 6, 1967. The most significant change in this revision is the addition of a new section on Responsibility for Coordination. This section outlines the responsibilities of three federal departments (Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Commerce (DOC) and Department of State (DOS)). Both the original and the 1967 revision of the Circular focus on providing a guide for the development of annual programs of the individual agencies and, through the Exhibits, established extensive reporting requirements. A second revised Circular A-16 was issued on October 19, 1990. This revision expanded the Circular to include not only surveying and mapping, but also the related spatial data activities. Specifically, it included geographically referenced computer-readable (digital) data. In addition, the Exhibits are no longer referenced and a short reporting requirements section is added. The 2002 updated Circular calls for continued improvements in spatial data coordination and the use of geographical data. Objectives for this revision are to reflect the changes that have taken place in geographic information management and technology, and to clearly define agency and FGDC responsibilities. The proposed revision displays an integrated infrastructure system approach to support multiple government services and electronic government.

Summary: Congress has recognized the challenge of coordinating and sharing geospatial data from the local, county, and state level to the national level, and vice versa. The cost to the federal government of gathering and coordinating geospatial information has also been an ongoing concern. As much as 80% of government information has a geospatial component, according to various sources. The federal government's role has changed from being a primary provider of authoritative geospatial information to coordinating and managing geospatial data and facilitating partnerships. Congress explored issues of cost, duplication of effort, and coordination of geospatial information in hearings during the 108th Congress. However, challenges to coordinating how geospatial data are acquired and used—collecting duplicative data sets, for example—at the local, state, and federal levels, in collaboration with the private sector, are not yet resolved. Two bills introduced in the 112th Congress, H.R. 1620 and H.R. 4322, would address aspects of duplication and coordination of geospatial information. The federal government has recognized the need to organize and coordinate the collection and management of geospatial data since at least 1990, when the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16 to establish the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and to promote the coordinated use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data nationwide. OMB Circular A-16 also called for development of a national digital spatial information resource to enable the sharing and transfer of spatial data between users and producers, linked by criteria and standards. Executive Order 12906, issued in 1994, strengthened and enhanced Circular A-16, and specified that FGDC shall coordinate development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). On November 10, 2010, OMB issued supplemental guidance to Circular A-16 that labels geospatial data as a "capital asset," and refers to its acquisition and management in terms analogous to financial assets to be managed as a National Geospatial Data Asset Portfolio. It will likely take some time, and several budget cycles, to track whether agencies are adhering to the "portfolio-centric model" of geospatial data management outlined in the supplemental guidance. The 112th Congress may examine its oversight role in the implementation of OMB Circular A-16, particularly in how federal agencies are coordinating their programs that have geospatial assets. The high-level leadership and broad membership of the FGDC—10 cabinet-level departments and 9 other federal agencies—highlights the importance of geospatial information to the federal government. Questions remain, however, about how effectively the FGDC is fulfilling its mission. Has this organizational structure worked? Can the federal government account for the costs of acquiring, coordinating, and managing geospatial information? How well is the federal government coordinating with the state and local entities that have an increasing stake in geospatial information? What is the role of the private sector? State-level geospatial entities, through the National State Geographic Information Council, also embrace the need for better coordination. However, the states are sensitive to possible federal encroachment on their prerogatives to customize NSDI to meet the needs of the states. In early 2009, several proposals were released calling for efforts to create a national Geospatial Information System (GIS). Language in the proposals attempted to make the case for considering such efforts part of the national investment in critical infrastructure. Congress may consider how a national GIS or geospatial infrastructure would be conceived, perhaps drawing on proposals for these national efforts and how they would be similar to or differ from current efforts.