Meeting Minutes, June 14,
2001 (Draft)
Minutes
The Federal Geographic Data Committee's (FGDC) Marine Boundary Working Group (MBWG) met at Department of Interior Headquarters Washington, DC on June 14, 2001. An agenda is included at the end of the minutes, as is a list of items that were distributed at the meeting. Individuals who wish to request copies of these items should contact David Stein at Dave.Stein@noaa.gov.
Highlights
Cindy Fowler, co-chair of the working group, called the meeting to order and participant introductions were made. This was the second meeting of the Marine Boundary Working Group. The objectives of the meeting were to reach consensus on what to focus the Group's attention; gain an understanding of the boundary issues we face; and identify work items to address.
Agenda Items
- Cindy Fowler (NOAA CSC) recapped the first meeting and presented the objectives of the working group.
- David Stein (NOAA CSC) presented the web page to the working group for review. Several comments were made during the demo. It was suggested that the meeting minutes not be posted to the public version of the web site. They should either be password protected, served through an Intranet site, or delivered via email. Also, the legality of the marine boundary definition was discussed. If the definition developed by the working group is to be used as the official Federal definition, it needs to go through the proper legal channels. If the definition's purpose is to serve as a working definition for the MBWG, then it can stay as is. Other comments centered around what to do with the bulletin board - whether to open it up to the public or turn it into a listserve. Andrew Hulin and David Stein (NOAA CSC) will make necessary revisions and address comments.
- Tim Goodspeed from the NOAA Special Projects Office facilitated the meeting. He explained the objectives of the meeting and ground rules. This meeting was designed to focus on a specific case study - the boundaries derived from the baseline on the West Coast of the U.S. Tim went over the pros and cons of using the case study approach for the meetings. The pros of focusing on a case study are that the group can show results sooner; state and local interests are engaged more directly; and the group can learn practical problems of implementation. The cons were that some agencies may loose interest, and we may miss systemic problems and fixes. While the goal of this meeting was to focus on a specific case study, the priority issues, developed at the last meeting, took center stage.
- Next on the agenda was a presentation from Lee Thormahlen (MMS), Bob Smith (State Dept.), and Curt Loy (NOAA OCS) on the development of the U.S. baseline and derived limits. Some key points from the presentation are as follows.
- NOAA has responsibility to create the baseline.
- MMS and NOAA have a MOU to develop the baseline.
- NOAA is responsible for the 3 nautical mile natural resource limit, the 12 mile territorial sea limit, the 24 mile contiguous zone; the 200 mile EEZ, and potential Article 76 claims.
- MMS has responsibility for mapping the Submerged Lands Act boundary.
- Part of the MOU between MMS and NOAA is to use new charting data for baseline and derived boundary updates.
- Any boundary data derived from the US baseline has to go through the Ad Hoc Committee on the Baseline.
- NOAA OCS is developing two new products: Vector Chart and Shoreline (vector) and Coastal Map (raster). These are nautical chart products without the navigational component. The focus will be maritime limits.
- Next, Tim Goodspeed walked the group through a marine boundary issue prioritization exercise. The four priority issues established at the last meeting were:
- Who is responsible for keeping, developing, sharing marine boundaries in the government;
- Problems and issues with defining the absolute legal documentation of the boundary and timing of issues;
- Standardization, or lack thereof; and
- Ability to enforce digital marine boundaries.
It was the intent to discuss each of these issues in the context of maritime limits of the West Coast (this meeting's case study); however, the group decided it would be more effective to broaden the scope and discuss the issues in the context of marine boundaries in general. A list of possible solutions for the four priority issues were identified at the last meeting. During this group exercise, each of the solutions were ranked. The ones that were ranked high were given special consideration and assigned to people in the working group for further development. The issues and assignments are as follows.
Issue one- Who is responsible for keeping, developing, sharing marine boundaries in the government
- Build a database of working group contacts and boundary responsibilities. Mitchell Tartt (NOAA NMS)
- Identify opportunities for cooperative funding, triggers/drivers. Lee Thormahlen (MMS MBB) and Mike Aslasken (NOAA NGS)
- Communicate with interest groups.
- One pager, web site, training, presentations. Andrew Hulin (NOAA CSC)
- Plan for boundary dissemination via the Internet. David Stein (NOAA CSC)
- Compile and coordinate agency specific boundary review protocols. Cindy Fowler (NOAA CSC)
- Agency notification of upcoming boundary situation/events. Donald Cambell (FCC)
Issue two - Problems and issues with defining the absolute legal documentation of the boundary and timing of issues
- Explore the issues surrounding using digital boundaries as the "legal" representation. Doug Vandegraph (FWS) and Milo Mason (DOI MMS)
Issue three- Standardization, or lack thereof
- Standards Workshop. David Stein (NOAA CSC)
Issue four- Ability to enforce digital marine
- Protocol for dealing with member issues. Frank Sannino and Melia Lane-Kamahele (NPS)
Each person listed by the issues is responsible for coordinating and developing a strategy or action plan using the "strategy template" provided. The strategy coordinators will provide a status report at the next meeting. The completed strategy templates will provide the basis for the working group's action plan and will be the driver of MBWG activities.
- The next meeting will be held at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, VA, on Thursday, September 13, 2001. More information will follow.
Items Distributed at Meeting
- Agenda
- Marine Boundary issues and potential solutions
- Strategy Template
- Handout for workshop on "Technical Aspects of Marine Boundary Delimitation"
Attendees
Agenda
Meeting Outcomes:
- Reach Consensus on what to focus the Group's Attention on
- Gain an Understanding of the Boundary Issues we face;
- Identify Work Items to address the Priority Issues identified by the group
Thursday, June 14
8:00 Continental Breakfast
8:30 Welcome and Introductions
- Welcome from co-chairs and short introductions from working group
8:45 Recap of kick-off meeting - Cindy Fowler
- Purpose of working group
- Priority issues
9:15 Review of Web page - David Stein/Andrew Hulin
9:30 How can we focus our efforts? - Tim Goodspeed
- Pros and cons of a place/boundary focus
10:00 Snack Break
10:20 Setting Maritime Limits in the U.S.-Lee Thormahlen and others
- General presentation on how maritime limits are developed, the status of digital maritime limit creation, and future directions
- Analysis of issues and potential actions for these boundaries on the U.S. West Coast
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Setting Maritime Limits in the U.S (Continued)
- Prioritizing the Group's actions
- Assigning work items for write-up
3:00 Case Study illustrating another U.S. West Coast boundary issue* - TBD
4:00 Next steps/action items - Tim Goodspeed
4:30 Meeting adjourned
*Time permitting and with group agreement we will start a second case.
Minutes Submitted by
David Stein, NOAA Coastal Services Center
Executive Secretary/Working Group Coordinator
FGDC Marine Boundary Working Group
![[Skip Navigation]](/images/pixel.gif){kind=tracking}
