TESTIMONY OF
CHARLES CHALLSTROM
ACTING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY
NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 29, 1999

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Charles Challstrom, and I am the Acting Director of the National Geodetic Survey, an agency of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the Department of Commerce. I thank you for this opportunity to testify today on NOAA's technical role in the boundary change between the States of Georgia and South Carolina from Savannah, Georgia to the seaward boundary. I would like to commend all of the parties involved in this undertaking on their successful efforts to resolve this issue, particularly their astute attention to the sometimes complex geodetic aspects of correctly implementing such a change. I view this as a good example of how NOAA works with the states, local communities and other entities to ensure that the necessary geodetic technical services and expertise that NOAA can provide are available to support a wide variety of applications.
However, before I testify on NOAA's role in this undertaking, I would like to present our credentials, if you will. NOAA's National Geodetic Survey (NGS) is the lead federal agency responsible for providing a highly accurate and standardized positioning reference framework for the nation. In plain English, this framework enables everyone to know where they are and where other things are...anytime, anyplace. It connects everyone and everyplace in our country through a common basis. NGS is committed to meeting the current and anticipated positioning needs of the American public by developing the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS). The NSRS provides the reference base for position, height, distance, direction, and gravity values, and how these values change with time. This information is essential for ensuring the reliability of transportation, communication and defense systems, land records, mapping and charting, public utilities, coastal zone management, natural resource mapping, and a multitude of scientific and engineering applications. NGS also provides federal leadership in developing specifications and standards for conducting geodetic surveys, coordinates the development and application of new surveying instrumentation and procedures, and assists state, county, and municipal agencies through a variety of cooperative programs.

It is through just such a cooperative program that NOAA became involved in 1991 with the states of Georgia and South Carolina in helping both parties accurately identify the boundary agreed upon by both states and in accordance with decisions rendered by the Special Master. As you know, the parties initially adopted the Special Master's decision that the main thread of the Savannah River as it existed on charts produced in 1855 would be used to define the boundary. NOAA then provided operational guidance and technical expertise, flew new aerial surveys of the river, performed a ground survey to establish geodetic control, and plotted the 1855 thread of the river on the new surveys. Upon completion of this work by NOAA, the states realized that the course of the river had changed significantly since 1855 and instead agreed to use the northern edge of the navigational shipping channel as maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 1994 the Georgia General Assembly adopted the agreed upon boundary in their legislation and described the boundary line using the Georgia Plane Coordinate System. In 1996 the South Carolina General Assembly adopted the agreed upon boundary in their legislation and described the boundary line using coordinates converted from the Georgia Plane Coordinate System by NOAA.

Most recently, NOAA has analyzed and reviewed all materials related to this cooperative effort. This analysis and review involved comparing coordinate data in each state's legislation to ensure consistent values for the boundary points. NOAA has confirmed that the data used to identify the northern edge of the navigational channel originated from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District; however I should note that NOAA is not able to confirm the positional accuracy of these coordinates.

The data for Georgia are cited in an amendment to Article 1 of Chapter 2 of Title 50 of the official Code of Georgia Annotated, and the data for South Carolina are cited in an act to amend Section 1-1-10, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976. The results of our comparison of the two sets of data are attached to this testimony, but here is a brief summary. We note that the South Carolina legislation includes a point SR-17 that does not appear in the Georgia legislation. This is not problematic. While the comparison of coordinates for all cited boundary points is not exact, the differences do not exceed 0.002 seconds of latitude or longitude which translates to a maximum positional difference of approximately 0.06 meter (0.2 feet). It has been our experience with other state boundary determinations that this difference is considered to be inconsequential for any practical purpose, and it is our understanding that both Georgia and South Carolina are also of this view. However, this is a matter for the states to decide.

Turning now to House Joint Resolution 62 (HJRES 62), I would like to offer the following observations. I note that HJRES 62 affords the states with four options on how to establish the new boundary. Implementation of the first option would result in the boundary descriptions in both state bills being accepted, despite any minor differences between them. The Georgia Assembly bill, requires that the boundary be depicted on a NOAA chart. Any discrepancy between the two state bill descriptions would then be superceded by the NOAA chart depiction, and the NOAA chart depiction would become the legal definition of the boundary. Although this option is the states' perogative to exercise, NOAA does not recommend that this option be pursued for several reasons.

First, NOAA as a matter of standard procedure only displays state land boundaries on its nautical charts. State boundaries over water are not generally displayed as they are not needed for purposes of navigation. NOAA's policies and procedures are documented in its Nautical Chart Manual.

Second, and more importantly, the use of a graphical depiction as a legal definition for a state water boundary is not recommended, nor customary, due to accuracy issues. For example, the NOAA chart for the Savannah River And Wassaw Sound is published at a scale of 1:40,000. Based on the United States National Map Accuracy Standards, a point on this chart would have an accuracy of approximately 70 feet. It would be very easy for someone to misidentify their coordinate position by utilizing a chart depiction by at least this amount. NOAA instead recommends that a coordinate-based description be used to legally define the boundary. This is a more common practice. With currently available Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, users on the water can determine the location of the boundary fairly easily to within 5-10 foot accuracy. NOAA would be pleased to assist the states in this coordinate-based approach.

The remaining options allow the states to either adopt one or the other's boundary, or to adopt a different boundary description through new state legislation. HJRES 62 provides 5 years to do so, which NOAA believes offers adequate time to work through any technical differences or issues.

I hope our comments on HJRES 62, as well as NOAA's past and ongoing technical assistance to the states, will help facilitate final implementation of the boundary agreement between Georgia and South Carolina. We look forward to continuing working cooperatively with both states, as well as any assistance the Committee may require, as this matter progresses.

That concludes my testimony Mr. Chairman, and I would once again like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on how NOAA can work cooperatively with the states and provide technical assistance. I would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the Committee may have at this time.