Federal Geospatial Information Coordination and Consolidation

Nathan Lowry, Colorado Springs, 24 February 2015

Note: The views expressed in this paper are mine alone and do not intentionally represent those of my
employer, academic institutions that I attend or professional associations in which I am involved.

Since 1990, the United States Federal Government has instituted a policy of managing
geospatial (digital mapping) information across agencies under a coordinated stewardship
model between departments. This National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) assumes
that federal agencies will steward and provide access to foundational nation-wide datasets
for the benefit and efficiency of the government as a whole. This concept was
encapsulated in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 (revised),
Executive Order 12906 (amended), and finally in Sec. 216 of the e-Government Act of
2002 (44 USC 3501). Further work this decade to clarify and enforce the concepts in
law and policy have developed OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance and a
National Geospatial Data Asset Management Plan. Nevertheless, progress towards the
objectives founded in circular A-16 has been irregular and slow to be fulfilled by the
various government agencies responsible.

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released reports criticizing
federal departments and agencies for their lack of progress and Congress has introduced
legislation suggesting that a more radical approach may be necessary to effectively
coordinate and/or consolidate the mapping activities of federal government agencies.
This paper will examine the proposals by the GAO, Senator James Rischs and
Congressman Doug Lamborns offices and alternatives, and provide a qualitative analysis
of the effectiveness of the proposed solutions and suggestions for areas of more research
or development activity.

Background
Mapping information has always been important to the U.S. government. Domestic
mapping programs were developed and maintained during the course of history from
early settlement, through the colonial period, and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
However, the geospatial information technologies envisioned and piloted in academic
settings in the 1960 began to be employed by federal agencies in the 1970s and 80s who
sought to use computers to help manage their burgeoning census, domestic mapping and
land management missions (Robinson 2008, Usery, Varanka and Finn 2009, US Census
2014, Hope 2003). The growth of these means of management spawned a fledgling
private industry that at first was designed to support these agencies. These organizations
began developing cartographic methods, database use, and computational software that
later in the 1990s and 2000s became a thriving commercial geospatial software and
consulting services industry not only to federal, state, local and international
government agencies but also to natural resource (timber, mining, oil and gas),
agriculture and engineering fields. When the federal government was the primary data
provider, regulations required data to be placed in the public domain. This policy jumpstarted a new marketplace and led to the adoptions of GIS capabilities across public and
commercial sectors. (NGAC 2009, 12)

Because of their position as early adopters of geospatial technologies in the last quarter of
the 20th century, US federal agencies began to realize earlier than most that the practice
of managing geospatial data and the shared use of that data required system independent
data standards in order for collaborative use to be effective. They also began to realize

that the data that they had developed at great expense would need to be reused to in order
to preserve and maximize that investment. Leveraging over a decade of experience and
lessons learned by federal land management other federal agencies, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-16 in 1990. OMB Circular A-16
(revised) established the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and introduced the
concept of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), digital shared geospatial map
data for the nation produced and maintained by national, state, local, private industry and
non-profit entities in the United States. These principles were endorsed in 1994 by the
President with Executive Order 12906, and by Congress in law through the eGovernment Act in 2002 (44 USC 3501).

During the first decade of the FGDC, the vision, productivity and role of the FGDC with
respect to the geospatial data industry was very influential. They created a descriptive
metadata standard, normative standards such as the National Standard for Spatial Data
Accuracy (NSSDA), thematic mapping content standards for land ownership boundaries
and soils, and classification standards for wetlands and vegetation.

The first decade of the 21st century was marked with incredible growth in the geospatial
technology and services industry. Geospatial intelligence and geospatial data supporting
homeland defense became a principle means for protecting citizens, infrastructure and the
environment after September 11, 2001. Large-scale natural disasters (eg. hurricane
Katrina, the Banda Aceh tsunami) and man-made events (NASAs Columbia tragedy,
Londons transit bombings) both foreign and domestic further increased demand to

account for and investigate means to secure people and property in their situations. In
consequence, during this time period outside influences began to dramatically influence
the FGDC. In 2004, a disruptive effort initially outside the FGDC but within the US
federal government known as Geospatial One-stop quickened federal geospatial data
access and standards adoption efforts; it established a single geospatial data portal for the
US (now data.gov) and prioritized 8 NSDI framework layers, publishing standards for
their implementation (FGDC 2005). To meet the objectives outlined in OMB Circular A119, the FGDC departed from taking lead roles in standards publication in 2005 and
demonstrated their commitment in 2010 by adopting 64 (sixty-four) International
Standards Organization Technical Committee for Geographic information and Geomatics
(ISO TC 211) as well as other outside standards (FGDC 2010). Several agencies and
individuals during this time period expressed that the FGDC was not responsive enough
to the needs and requirements of federal agencies and those served by them (D.
LaBranche, personal communication, January 2008). The National Geospatial Advisory
Committee (NGAC) was established in 2008 to make further recommendations to the
FGDC and chart its stated progress on goals and objectives (OMB 2008). This period was
more transformative and yet highly productive in comparison to the previous decade in
the number of work products produced the by FGDC.

This second decade of the 21st century, the third for the FGDC, in terms of geospatial
data and program management has the capacity for further change for the FGDC and
for the federal government at large. Culturally, we are in a different age with respect to
geospatial information than we were 25 years ago when the FGDC was created, or even

10 years ago when Google Earth launched an explosion in interest in geospatial data
among the public for that matter. The rise of commercial consumption of geospatial
information via the World-wide Web and its increasing consumption via mobile
applications has made the expectation of access to this information ubiquitous for most
public consumers. The political value of geospatial data to provide an understanding of
the land, infrastructure, and the environment has been non-partisan, especially in
response to large-scale disasters.

Current Structure, Authority, and Resources of the FGDC

Today, the FGDC is required by law (44 USC 3501), directed by Executive Order (EO,
12906 amended) and OMB circulars (esp. A-16 revised), and co-chaired between OMB
and the Department of Interior (DoI). This committee is inclusively representative of
many US federal government departments but disproportionately represented by federal
civil agencies that produce and maintain geospatial data. It underrepresents defense
agencies and especially federal agencies that are largely consumers of geospatial data.
This may be a matter of history as the committees origin was largely organized from
civil agencies charged with responsibilities for multi-purpose domestic mapping (USGS),
demography (US Census) and the management of public lands for example the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), the US Forest Service (USFS) and the National Parks
Service (NPS), etc.

The law, the EO and OMB circular grant the FGDC authority to set standards, plan
direction, and coordinate the activities of geospatial programs among federal agencies.
However, the FGDC holds neither the authority to enforce compliance nor to redirect or
cancel geospatial program efforts of any federal agency. Most importantly, it does not
exercise budgetary authority over any agency. OMB is supposed to exercise this
authority for the FGDC in the budgeting process, but OMB lacks the means and expertise
to be able to measure geospatial data acquisitions or the interest to do so (GAO 2013).
OMB admitted, 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 (2010, 28).

A key concept enshrined in EO 12906 and OMB Circular A-16 is the notion of a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), which within A-16 is broken down into nation-wide
themes (transportation, water, land ownership, jurisdictional boundaries, etc.) that are
stewarded by agencies that are explicitly listed by OMB in appendix A of A-16 as
responsible for them. In 2010, OMB published supplemental guidance for Circular A-16
which established a rubric for assuring the stewardship of the NSDI data themes,
definitions, and lead agencies and to update these in the Circular through a deliberative
process in response to changing goals and priorities for the federal government. More
recently, the FGDC has developed the National Geospatial Data Asset Management Plan,
which (among other reporting) requires a deliberate annual accounting per theme by
responsible department to the FGDC and OMB (FGDC 2014).

Criticism of the FGDC: The Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Formal criticism of the FGDC and its current scope and direction is limited. Those that
are most apt to criticize are also supported by or expected by others to provide support for
the FGDC. This includes the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC), the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the National Research Council (NRC). The
Management Association of Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS), as a
representative association of private industry, is sometimes quite vocal in its criticism of
the federal government and its civil geospatial programs (NRC 2014). Other sources of
criticism include that from academic institutions, editorials, and individuals blogs.

Perhaps the most substantial and credible criticism to date may be from the Coalition of
Geospatial Organizations who most recently published the Report Card on the US NSDI
(COGO 2015). Although they represent geospatial data practitioners who have financial
interests that may benefit from continued or increased federal government spending in
geospatial data, the breadth of their representation by public service, private business and
professional association member organizations and the fact that any statement from
COGO requires unanimous consensus by these organizations adds considerable
credibility to their claims.

The GAO has recently taken special interest in reviewing the law, policy, and practices
that currently defines the actions of the federal government for geospatial data program
management and coordination, and is holding the FGDC and federal agencies

accountable to comply with existing policy. In 2012, the GAO published OMB and
Agencies Need to Make Coordination a Priority to Reduce Duplication (GAO-13-94), a
follow-up statement Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Can Reduce
Duplication by Making Coordination a Priority (GAO-14-226T) in 2013, and is
continuing its active review of the geospatial program activities of the FGDC and federal
government agencies this fiscal year (FY 2015). The GAO is likely to keep the heat on
as many of the conditions in 2012 had not significantly changed since their 2004 review
(GAO 2004).

Leading recommendations from GAO-13-94 were to establish persons of responsibility

(e.g. in departments and for themes), deliberatively plan and establish milestones,
measure performance to assure timelines, and share forecasts of geospatial data
acquisitions. While these efforts are noble, and accountability for departments executing
geospatial programs and the OMB were sorely needed, it is difficult to say that an
organized, coordinated and fiscally responsible federal government with respect to
geospatial program investments will be achieved through compliance to existing law and
policy: enforcement alone may not be sufficient to meet the current challenges of
management, coordination, and data sharing (Folger 2011, 16). A persistent focus by the
GAO on three large civil data producers the USGS, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the US Department of Transportations Bureau
of Transportation Statistics (BTS) may indicate some systematic issues, but will never
redirect the redundant efforts of the federal government as a whole because the scope is
too small. For example, the appetite for largely consuming agencies to redundantly

purchase, land ownership or address location data by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve, will not be abated as
none of these are within the departments under current review (GAO 2013, 9). Success in
implementation cannot solely be attributed to planning, goals and performance measures
but depend foremost on the commitment and will of those agencies that have
responsibilities to manage geospatial themes under Circular A-16. GAOs assumption
that the FGDC (primarily the DoI with support from OMB) would be able to successfully
communicate and coordinate among agencies that may have neither interest nor
motivation to attend and participate with the Committee to prevent redundant investments
among them is lofty. GAOs focus in their reports is only on compliance with existing
law and policy and not on any relevant needs to change these. The GAO should be
motivated to do more; change to law is the primary domain of Congress, whom the GAO
serves. The NGAC, in contrast, has been much bolder: establish a geospatial leadership
and coordination function immediately within the Executive Office of the President.
(NGAC 2008, 2).

Congressional Legislation
Congressman Doug Lamberts (R-CO) Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act (MIOUIMTA) is not the first bill introduced in Congress that has attempted to significantly
change federal government geospatial management in the age of the FGDC. The
National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, for example, established the Office of

Geospatial Management within the Office of the Chief Information Officer in DHS (6
USC 343). The E-Government Act of 2002 (44 USC 3501) has previously been
cited. However, Rep. Lamberts MIO-UIMTA is the first bill introduced that intends to
radically change the organization of civil geospatial portfolio management in the federal
government since 1990.

Introduced to the 112th Congress in 2012, and reintroduced in the 113th Congress, MIOUIMTA has several things going for it. One of the most effective means for GIS
coordination offices in government is a short chain of command (J. Robillard, personal
communication, 2006). The Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act certainly meets that
objective: The Administrator shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Senate. (11). The Administrator answers directly to the Secretary of
the Interior and manages her own agency, the National Geospatial Technology Agency
(NGTA) within the department (10). It establishes a National Geospatial Database
(NGD) to include seven NSDI (fundamental) framework layers and data for utilities
(power, fuel, communication, water, sewer), recommendations for real property
management and other geospatial data [as] determined by the Administrator (11-13).
The content of the NGD is comprehensive in nature. It is to be public yet with broad
exclusions for National Security (14). It even tries to resolve Title 13 protection of the
US Census National Address Database (NAD) by declaring address data from the Census
public so long as the privacy of individuals is preserved (20). It requires return on
investment analysis as well as a reasonably comprehensive research agenda (37-41).

The most defining features of the legislation is 1) the consolidation of all geospatial
management for the DoI, the US Forest Service, and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (17-19) and 2) explicit favoritism towards
privatization of federal government geospatial data production (28-36). The FGDC and
NGAC in the legislation are replaced by the similarly constituted (but separately
mandated) National Geospatial Policy Commission that advises the NGTA (22-28).
This Commission and the NGTA Administrator oversee all activities of the consolidated
agency (10-11, 14-15, 22-24). The Commission also makes recommendations to expand
the NGTA to other agencies and departments and explicitly makes recommendations for
privatization activities (23-24).

There are a few issues with this legislation. First, centralization never seems to work out
the way its planned. State and local governments, for example, who consolidate their
geospatial professional staff into a single agency often (but not always) find stiff cultural
resistance from those functions who use geospatial technologies to support their
respective agency missions (B. Goodack, personal communication, July 2013 regarding
City of Colorado Springs consolidations). Resentment and resistance can persist for years
yielding decreased productivity (J. Gottsegen, personal communication, January 2012
regarding prior State of Colorado consolidation efforts). Second, this seems to be a very
partial centralization. Does the legislature intend for the NGTA to grow? The potential
for growing the NGTA by absorbing geospatial functions of other agencies is suggested
(24) but not proscribed. If further changes are deemed necessary of the Executive branch
including studies by the Commission and the NGTA, will it take another act of

Congress to enact? Most important: why not look at all geospatial functions of the
federal government for any prospective reorganization? If the problem is that the US
federal government wastes money by duplicating expenditure for geospatial data
(and hardware, software and personnel) required across many agencies and
underfunds activities that could most effectively and efficiently meet those needs
(my assertion), then more time needs to be spent understanding the problem culturally,
procedurally, organizationally and comprehensively in order to craft the right solution.

Funding for the NGTA through this legislation could be a real problem, as it is left open
ended (14). The legislation includes the possibility of operating by general appropriations
but it also suggests the establishment of user fees to fund the NGD (14). This is creative,
but not consistent with the intent to make the data public as requiring fees for access is
(by definition) not public access. Other suggestions for funding expressed in (but none of
which are required by) the bill include cost sharing with state and local government and
public-private partnerships (14).

The privatization language is over the top. The bill spends over half of its text describing
the privatization activities of the NGTA and the Commission. This language includes
expressed ideology, detailed contracting processes, and a clear preference for
privatization without regard to aspects of quality, efficiency, or effectiveness among
those functions performed by public service or private industry (28-36). Most of this
language is just overkill; at the very least, it is unnecessary language for a statute, but at
worst, it is a deliberate and explicit effort to create almost a welfare state with a

government cash cow dedicated to a small branch of private industry. Stranger still is the
provision the Administrator shall provide data to heads of other Federal agencies for the
determination as to whether any property owned or managed by the United States may be
better managed through ownership by a non-Federal entity, including a State or local
government, a tribal government, a nonprofit organization, or a private entity. (15) The
Administrator will suggest lands that could be better managed by non-Federal agencies to
the heads of those agencies? The Administrator may have access to data, but data alone
does not constitute expertise for good land management practice. Further, why would
these agencies want to receive, let alone act on any of these recommendations? (Timoney
2013)

Congressman Lamborns legislation is well publicized. He appeared on the cover and

wrote the View From The Hill article for March 2013 edition of US Geospatial
Intelligence Forums magazine Trajectory (Lamborn 2013). Digital news media reported
the intentions of the MIO-UIMTA. (Korte 2013) The publicity might have been in part
an effort to attract a co-sponsor from the Senate; to date, he does not have one.

Senator James Risch (ID), a Republican himself, is putting forward a separate proposal.
A discussion draft entitled the Geospatial Data Act is in closed circulation from his
office. It proposes that the OMB become the chair and the DoI the vice-chair for the
FGDC (5-6). The duties and responsibilities currently being carried out by the FGDC
and the NGAC would be assured in law, with greater investigative powers for NGAC to
review the geospatial program management activities of departments and individual

agencies of the federal government (6-7, 14-15). Allowing the NGAC investigatory
powers for management by walking around in the legislation could be very helpful.
Ideology for the NSDI is also expressed to include respect for privacy and for proprietary
interests of commercially licensed products (17-18). However, the language does not
state that any data access controls are needed to protect national security. The legislation
expresses many of the requirements for managing National Geospatial Data Assets (i.e.
mapping themes) that are currently found in the OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental
Guidance, essentially converting these requirements for goals, plans, and performance
measurement from policy to law (18-24). It also enacts into law the system architecture
of the GeoPlatform to collect federal geospatial datasets from producing agencies and
provide them to consuming agencies and the public (24-25). This is unusual, as
legislation usually defines the need and responsibilities to create information systems, but
most often doesnt (yet still may) call out a specific system by name, especially without
these definitions.

The Geospatial Data Act (in its 2014 discussion draft form) would require each agency to
1) include geospatial data as a capital asset for purposes of preparing the budget
submission of the President (28), 2) disclose all geospatial data spending (28), and 3)
require biannual audits for the same (29). The most powerful piece of this legislation
requires geospatial data programs to meet performance requirements or funding for
these programs will be discontinued (30). Statutory budgetary control is the most
compelling aspect of this legislation, however it is hard to say that this and the conversion
of existing geospatial program management policy into law will be enough to implement

a comprehensive and cost-efficient geospatial program within the civil sector of the
federal government.

Ed Cox, legislative assistant for Senator Orrin Hatch, UT (R) reported at the NSGIC Midyear meeting (24 Feb 2015) that Senator Hatch would be introducing the Geospatial Data
Act to the 114th Congress.

Models for Geospatial Portfolio Management

One of the earliest concepts to take hold in the United States outside of the federal
government in the FGDC era was the concept of the Geographic Information Officer or
GIO. California was among the first states to adopt this concept in 2000, where a GIO
would have central responsibility to organize, manage, and control geospatial programs
of departments under the authority and direction of the State CIO (Esri 2002). Many
other states followed suit. The concept became even more common among local
governments. For example, by 2000 the City of Sacramento had established a core office
of responsibility for geospatial support and management. This office was responsible for
the management and maintenance of software, servers, and support personnel that would
enable practitioners with geospatial technologies within departments to maximize the
value of their time in using geospatial data and analysis to support their departments
missions, e.g. criminology for the police or tree management for parks and recreation
(Lowry 2000). Such hub-and-spoke models have become so common among states and
large local governments now that they are more likely the rule than the exception.

The USGS also recognized such a position in 2000 (Esri 2002). By 2006 the Department
of Defense had created geospatial program offices for each Service and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (LeBranche 2014), and by 2007 the United States Air Force
(USAF) established Geospatial Integration Offices (GIOs) for most major installations
(Lachman et al 2007). However, to date the federal government lacks central authority
and funding control to do the same across the US government enterprise. NSGIC went
further and looked carefully for the best management practices among state geospatial
programs and identified 10 criteria for a model state program (NSGIC 2004). Such
concepts could certainly be better entertained for the federal enterprise.

Another model to consider is that of the US intelligence community. Funding for many
intelligence activities, particularly the NSA, NRO, and NGA as part of the National
Intelligence Program (NIP) is centralized under the authorities of the Director of National
Intelligence (50 USC 3024). NIP operations range from the FBI in the Department of
Justice, the CIA in the Department of State, and the NGA, NRO, and NSA in the
Department of Defense. But regardless of the agency and its duties under its parent
departments, intelligence activities are funded separately. A funding model for
geospatial activities that controls resources but also allows these personnel to continue to
support their agency directly could be considered. Such a model also allows for the
aggregation of human resources to meet needs and agency tasks, prioritized with respect
to national goals (50 USC 3024).

It is surprising to think that the NSDI, envisioned as an organized activity of aggregating

geospatial data from local to state to national, isnt yet organized on common public
administration principles of intergovernmental relations (IGR). Since the 1960s, the
U.S. federal government has funded transportation, welfare, education and agriculture
programs through the states and local agencies that largely execute the work (Wright
1974). With a clear need for uniform consistency of data availability and quality, it is a
wonder why a federated approach like these hasnt taken hold with geospatial programs
of the US government. For example,
beginning in 1981 Congress amended the original [Community Development
Block Grant] CDBG to allow state governments, instead of officials in the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the opportunity to
administer the nonentitlement or discretionary funding portion of the CDBG
program. Cities with populations under 50,000 and counties with 200,00 or fewer
residents could receive grants based on funding priorities and award criteria
established by state governments. The funding under this part of the CDGB
program is not an entitlement, for the state governments have discretion in
choosing grant recipients. Small cities and counties are not required to match
grant funds with local funds in order to be eligible for these CDBG funds. As in
the enititlement program, however, states must ensure that maximum feasibility
priority goes to funding programs that benefit low-to-moderate-income persons
and that prevent or eliminate slums or blight. Currently, forty-nine state and
Puerto Rico participate in the state-administered, nonentitlement CDBG program,
for which the FY 2010 appropriation totaled about $1.2 billion. (England, 2012)
The efficiency and uniform quality of such a concept to execute the NSDI seems very
obvious. NSGIC observed, 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 2008). NGAC compares this possible relationship among government levels to
that of transportation, where the federal government largely appropriates (raises) the

funds to sustain roads, the states divide the funds among local governments, and the local
governments execute the maintenance of these roads (NGAC 2009). It is likely that such
uniform IGR systems havent developed to support the NSDI in the US because of the
top-down origination of geospatial data production. Some federal agencies persistently
produce national datasets at great expense (Weinberg 2011) while others abdicate (Snook
and Kirkpatrick 2014), recognizing that they just dont have the resources to develop or
sustain them on their own. Some federal agencies accustomed to producing geospatial
data have been slow to trust that sourcing through federated state and local governments
or private industry might meet their needs with consistency and efficiency.

Some federal agencies may have legitimate efficiency and accountability concerns in
execution through a middle management agency like state government, and local
governments may have equally legitimate concerns about state discretion that may not be
to their benefit and the lack of autonomous self-representation to advocate for such
federal funding directly. Nevertheless, these concerns should be weighed and mitigated
against the value of assured funding to develop and sustain local sources of common map
layers meeting national standards at potentially the least cost.

Another large area with room for greater consideration is the possible integration of
activities between federal civil agencies and the defense department. The National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the largest of all US government geospatial
program agencies, and the geospatial intelligence, warfighting, and installation
management programs within the armed services have great capacity to share software,

data, personnel, and even hardware and applications that could support sister civil
agencies in a meaningful and compatible way. With great capacity comes the economy
of scale for great efficiency. Yet legal and cultural constraints prevent taking advantage
of shared resources between civil and defense geospatial programs. Since
Reconstruction, service men and women are expressly forbidden in US law to be used as
local law enforcement (18 USC 1385). This principle of forbidding posse comitatus to
the military has been interpreted broadly with a thick, tall wall between civil and defense
authorities; yet it may not need to be in all cases. After September 11, 2011, DHS was
funded to collect imagery in 133 urban areas within the US. This new department largely
lacked the expertise manage the work so funding for the program went to NGA. NGA
managed the funds and defined the requirements but the USGS mobilized the work
through their contracts and organized public and private partnerships to defray cost
(USGS 2009). Such close cooperation between defense and civil agencies could be
extended for example, by allowing greater use of US Army Corps of Engineer contract
vehicles by civil agencies, greater cooperation in geodesy modeling between the NGA
and the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and in other areas where defense agencies are
clearly not performing law enforcement. If Congress is serious about controlling cost and
eliminating duplication and waste among agencies that use geospatial information, they
must look at the largest expender of such funds, the Department of Defense, and its
largest geospatial programs agency, NGA.

Some argue that geospatial data provided by the US government (or from any
subordinate state or local government in the US) is irrelevant in a day when there appears
to be a plethora of available map data from commercial sources (Timoney 2013). 2012
Republican presidential contender Gov. Tim Pawlenty suggested that government should
not perform any service ably provided by the private sector (CNN 2011). With respect to
geospatial data, some counter-argue that these commercial enterprises (e.g. Google)
would not have been able to be so easily successful without the abundance of public data
available from government agencies to the commercial sector from which most of the
data likely originated (Palatiello 2013). Nevertheless, the libertarian question about
whether governments should be collecting and maintaining mapping information when
the commercial sector may be able to do so requires serious consideration given the rise
and seeming independence of commercial companies to proliferate geospatial
information for the US and worldwide (Onsrud et al 2004). However, the level of
quality, documentation, and sustainment by the private market for licensed commercial
mapping information needs further investigation. Geospatial data produced for
government agencies by contract has a relatively strong history of industry standards for
quality and documentation, where the level of quality measurement and type and depth of
documentation among licensed products appears to vary widely (Boone et al 2007,
Baraclaugh 2010). And as some products and providers of licensed geospatial data are
quite new to the market, it is not yet clear how successfully these products may be able to
be provided over time.

Recommendations
While compliance to law and policy among federal agencies with geospatial investments
is warranted, the current scope of investigations by the GAO is too narrow. Not only
does the GAOs focus not include those federal agencies most prone to consume (and
therefore redundantly purchase) national geospatial datasets, but also excludes the vast
resources and expenditures of the Department of Defense (DoD). The inclusion of NGA
and other geospatial programs of the DoD will greatly aid in understanding the personnel,
software, and data of equal interest to the management of lands and missions within the
US homeland. The GAO should review the redundancy of work among levels of
government nationally and examine the value and effectiveness of programs that federate
data development and maintenance among state and local governments. GAO should
also compare private industry data sourcing options with current public means, including
contracted production, the use of licensed commercial data, and publically accessible
commercial or open source alternatives and examine both the risks and benefits of using
these options.

Congress in its legislative proposals should cast a wide net and include all federal
agencies that produce or consume geospatial data to perform core duties for any
cooperative or consolidated approach and establish an office of primary responsibility
that has authority across these agencies to assure compliance with law and policy and
control over the disbursement, redirection or cancellation of funds. This office must have
the technical expertise to measure the value of work proposed by federal agencies and the
ability of these agencies to carry out this work feasibly not only to accomplish the goals

and missions of their agencies but also to provide reusable and highly valued datasets for
all agencies across the federal enterprise to benefit the economy of, safety of, and protect
the environment for the American public.

References
6 United States Code (USC) 343(b) Department of Homeland Security Chief
Information Officer, (b) Chief Geospatial information functions, National Intelligence
Reform Act of 2004, December 17, 2004
18 USC 1385 Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus, September 19, 1994
44 USC 3501, Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services, Section 216, Common Protocols for Geographic Information Systems, August
21, 2002
50 USC 3024(b)(3) Responsibilities and authorities of the Director of National
Intelligence, National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, Dec. 17, 2004
Executive Order (EO) 12906 Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access:
The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, as amended by EO 13286, March 5, 2003
Bossler, Dr. John D., Dr. David J. Cowen, James E. Geringer, Susan Carson Lambert,
John J. Moeller, Thomas D. Rust, Robert T. Welch, Report Card on the U.S. National
Spatial Data Infrastructure, Compiled for the Coalition of Geospatial Organizations
(COGO), February 6, 2015
Baraclaugh, Craig, Homeland Security Infrastructure Program (HSIP) Structures Project
Report, Sangre de Cristo Resource Center, Sangre de Cristo Resource Conservation and
Development Council, 2010
Boone, Janne E., Gordon-Larsen, Penny, Stewart, James D., and Popkin, Barry M.,
Validation of a GIS Facilities Database: Quantification and Implications of Error,
Annals of Epidemiology, Volume 18, Issue 5, pages 371377, May 2008
England, Robert E., Pelissero, John P., and Morgan, David R., Managing Urban
America, Chapter 2 Intergovernmental Relations, page 45, May 28, 2012

Esri, A New Executive Position at Many Organizations: Geographic Information
Officer, ArcNews, Summer 2002

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), "National Geospatial Data Asset

Management Plan", March 2014
FGDC, "Historical Reflections Future Directions, an FGDC paper on the history of
the FGDC and NSDI, January 2004
Hope, Steven L., PLSS as a Spatial Framework: A History of GCDB, Esri International
Users Conference, July 2003
House of Representatives (H.R.) 1604 Map It Once, Use It Many Times Act, 113th
Congress, Apr 17, 2013
Korte, Travis, Map it Once, Use it Many Times Act, Center for Data Innovation,
August 30, 2013
Folger, Peter, Congressional Research Service (CRS) R41826 Issues and Challenges
for Federal Geospatial Information, May 18, 2011
Government Accountability Office (GAO)04703 Geospatial Information: Better
Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments, June 23, 2004
GAO04824T Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative
Investments, June 23, 2004
GAO-13-94GeospatialInformation: OMB and Agencies Need to Make Coordination a
Priority to Reduce Duplication, November 26, 2012
GAO-14-226T Geospatial Information: OMB and Agencies Can Reduce Duplication by
Making Coordination a Priority, December 5, 2013
LaBranche, David, GIS Engineer Using Geospatial Data to Manage DoDs Vast
Properties, Geospatial Intelligence Forum, Volume 12, Issue 1, pg. 16-19, February,
2014
Lachman, Beth E., Schirmer, Peter, Frelinger, David R., Greenfield, Victoria A., Tseng,
Michael S., and Nichols, Tiffany, Installation Mapping Enables Many Missions: The
Benefits of and Barriers to Sharing Geospatial Data Assets, The RAND Corporation,
2007
Lamborn, Representative Doug, View from the Hill, Geospatial Intelligence Forum
(GIF), Volume 11, Issue 2, March 2013
National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC), The Changing Geospatial
Landscape, January 2009

National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), State Model for

Coordination of Geographic Information Technology, May 22, 2004

NSGIC, The States Perspective on Advancing the National Spatial Data Infrastructure,
October 10, 2008
NSGIC, A Strategic Framework for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, May 1,
2009
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A16 Coordination of Geographic
Information and Related Spatial Data Activities, revised August 19, 2002
OMB Memo M1103 OMB Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, November 10,
2010
OMB, Secretary Kempthorne Names Members of National Geospatial Advisory
Committee, January 29, 2008
Onsrud, Harlan J., Adler, Prudence S., Archer, Hugh N., Besen, Stanley M., Frazier, John
W., Green, Kathleen (Kass), Holland, William S. et al, Licensing Geographic Data and
Services, National Research Council, 2004
Palatiello, John, Myth Busters: Whats the True Motivation for Geospatial
Coordination, Management Association Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS),
May 23, 2013
Riley, Charles, Pawlenty: If you can Google it, cut it, CNN Money, June 7, 2011
Risch, Senator James, HEN14635 Geospatial Data Act of 2014 (Discussion Draft),
Office of the Senator of Idaho, October 2014
Robinson, Mike, A History of Spatial Data Coordination, National Geospatial
Advisory Committee (NGAC), May 2008
Snook, Mike and Kirkpatrick, Stu, "MT CATSPAW Cadastral Administration through
Streamlined Parcel Adjustment Workflows" and "CadNSDI_MT and the MT
CATSPAW Project", 2014 Intermountain GIS Conference, September 19, 2014.
United States Census Bureau, "25th Anniversary of TIGER: TIGER Story Map",
November 19, 2014
United States Geological Survey, The National Map Orthoimagery, Fact Sheet
20093055, 2009

Usery, E. Lynn, Varanka, Dalia, and Finn, Michael P., "A 125 year history of
topographic mapping and GIS in the USGS - Part 2 1980-2009", ArcNews Volume 31,
Issue 4, Esri, 2009
Timoney, Brian, MapBrief, Geospatial Contractors Cynically Attempt to Take Over US
Federal Mapping, May 8, 2013
Weinberg, Daniel H., Management Challenges of the 2010 U.S. Census (CES 11-22), US
Census Bureau, August, 2011
Wright, Deil S., Intergovernmental Relations: An Analytical Overview, Annals of the
American Academy of Political & Social Science, Vol 416, pp 1-16, November 1974