This is the third summary of comments regarding wording of Georgia’s HB 201 which restricts anchoring in Georgia’s coastal waters. See also GAMBA Statement and Save Georgia’s Anchorages.

These comments pertaining to the Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating
Regulations are respectfully submitted on behalf of a coalition of boating associations formed several
years ago to protect cruisers’ anchoring rights. Our coalition includes America’s Great Loop Cruisers’
Association (AGLCA), Defever Cruisers Group, Marine Trawler Owners’ Association (MTOA) and Seven
Seas Cruising Association (SSCA). Collectively, our coalition represents approximately 12,000 active
boaters.
We strongly believe that derelict and abandoned vessels, and vessels left unattended at anchor, are
major problems and that a solution to rid our waterways of these vessels is needed. They present
hazards to navigation, cause damage to property, and clog anchorages that would otherwise be useable
for responsible, active cruisers. However, the proposal to require a permit for short-term anchoring in
Georgia is unduly burdensome and creates a hindrance for boaters who want or need to “drop the
hook” in Georgia’s pristine anchorages.
While some of our members question the constitutionality of the law, we recognize DNR’s responsibility
is to implement the law as it stands. However, we believe the existing law and proposed rules are
fraught with potential problems on implementation. Below are questions and concerns brought forth by
our members related only to implementation, and the challenges inherent in the rules as proposed:
• Transient boaters entering Georgia may not be informed about the requirement to obtain a
permit and may inadvertently be in violation
• Weather, mechanical issues, and other factors beyond the boater’s control may prevent them
from planning enough in advance to obtain a permit (i.e., they may be forced to anchor when
and where they did not intend to)
• With some mobile service providers, service may not be available everywhere in the estuarine
areas of Georgia, leaving a boater unable to obtain a permit
• Local boaters object to needing a permit to spend a weekend at anchor in their “backyard”.
• Will DNR have the man-power to enforce the permit regulations?
• How will boaters know where they can anchor under the exclusionary approach that all
waterways are closed to anchoring except those that DNR designates as anchoring areas?
To address the permit issues, we suggest that a permit not be needed when anchoring in one location
for less than 60 days. Accordingly, we propose the language in 391-4-5-.23 (1) and (2) be amended as
follows:
(1) Anchoring or Docking Vessels at Night.
No person shall anchor or dock a vessel at night in the estuarine area of the state unless it is at an
eligible facility, as defined in O.C.G.A. 52-7-8.4, or in an anchorage area established by the Department
as outlined in paragraph (3), below. No boat may be left unattended at anchor for more than seven days.
If anchored for more than 60 days in one location, an anchorage permit as outlined in paragraph (2),
below, is required. This rule does not apply to the following:
A vessel docked at a private recreational dock or a non-eligible facility so long as such vessel is not
utilized as a live-aboard vessel, as defined in O.C.G.A. 52-7-8.4;
(2) Anchorage Permits.
(a) Vessels may not be anchored for more than 180 days in one location. Persons anchoring a vessel
for more than 60 days in one place in the estuarine area and within an anchorage area established by
the Department, must purchase and be in possession of an anchorage permit, except as provided
herein.
(b) Permit Fee.
1. A monthly anchorage permit is valid for 30 days and is available at a cost of $40.00.
2. Senior citizens (65 years of age or older), active duty military and veterans may purchase a
monthly anchorage permit at a fifty percent discount.
(c) Anchorage permits shall be available at all sites that sell hunting and fishing licenses, by phone and
online.
(d) Anchorage permits may be printed or held electronically, but must be onboard the vessel at all
times and available for inspection upon request. When a vessel is unoccupied at night, any monthly
anchorage permit must be prominently displayed and visible from the water.
(e) Any person applying for an anchorage permit for a live-aboard vessel must certify to no discharge of
sewage, treated or untreated, into the estuarine area of the state.
(f) Exemptions to this rule may be granted by the Department for unique circumstances. Conditional
permission must be requested in writing to the Commissioner.
This solution eases the burden on, and the concerns of, the cruising community.
We recognize that, one reason to support the need for the permits is to give additional authority for law
enforcement to impound derelict, abandoned, and long-term stored vessels, as they are unlikely to have
a permit. Removing the obligation to obtain a permit for short-term stays does not interfere with the
goal of giving law enforcement additional leverage to deal with this very real issue.
With a permit not required for short-term anchoring, should DNR deem it necessary, our coalition would
support fees for monthly anchoring permits that are higher than those proposed.
Regarding the approved anchorage areas, we proposed a more inclusive approach where all areas are
open to anchoring with a few exceptions. We suggest that the language in 391-4-5-.23 (3) be amended
to specifically state that anchorage areas include all waterways, with restrictions only where anchoring
can create a hazard or cause environmental damage. The State of Florida has a statute in place that
establishes setbacks from marine infrastructure in which anchoring is not permitted. We propose
modeling the Georgia regulations on Florida’s statute, as follows:
(3) Public Notice. Anchorage areas shall be all of Georgia coastal waters except shellfish beds,
navigation channels, and within 150 feet of marine infrastructure including marinas, boat ramps,
boatyards, or other vessel launching or loading facilities.
(b) This subsection does not apply to:
1. A vessel owned or operated by a governmental entity.
2. A construction or dredging vessel on an active job site.
3. A commercial fishing vessel actively engaged in commercial fishing.
4. A vessel actively engaged in recreational fishing if the persons onboard are actively tending
hook and line fishing gear or nets.
5. A vessel suffering a mechanical failure that requires immediate securing of the vessel to
avoid grounding, drifting into area of greater hazard, and/or to allow the operator to attempt repairs or
wait for a tow.
6. Imminent or existing weather conditions in the vicinity of the vessel pose a risk of harm to the
vessel or the persons aboard.
Our coalition thanks you for the opportunity to share our comments as part of the proceeding.
Respectfully,
Kimberly Russo
On behalf of
America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association
Defever Cruisers Group
Marine Trawler Owners’ Association
Seven Seas Cruising Association

Our thanks to Ted Arisaka and Save Georgia’s Anchorages for this interactive map of select Georgia anchoring waters. After opening the map, zoom in on one of the red dots. The red circles shown indicate 150 feet from structures near waters appropriate for anchoring. The setback distance has been a major issue for a number of cruisers.

Map of Georgia Anchoring Sites with 150ft setback

This response to Georgia’s HB 201 legislation which restricts anchoring on Georgia’s coast has been formulated by a number of very experienced cruisers and a representative of the Georgia Marine Business Association, GAMBA, all of whom worked many hours through extensive discussion to put together a cohesive statement regarding the wording of HB 201. There is still time before Monday’s GA DNR meeting for each of you to submit your own comment, see HB 201 for addresses.

Rules Wording – GAMBA Statement 13 June 2019

Roger Long is an experienced cruiser who, along with several others, has submitted comments to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources in response to HB 201. Cruisers Net invites you to make your own response to the addresses shown in Georgia’s HB 201 before Monday, June 17.

Comments to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources on Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations.

As the former Harbormaster of Cape Elizabeth, Maine I was charged with supervising anchoring and mooring in that town. Since retirement, I have cruised over 40,000 miles between Halifax, Nova Scotia and the Florida Everglades with a dozen transits of the ICW and extensive exploration of Georgia’s waters. I have thus had the opportunity to view the anchoring question from both sides and followed the decades long controversy and legal actions over anchoring in Florida. I have been asked to advise other commenters on the proposed Georgia regulations.

I strongly endorse the position, widely expressed in social media, and in the drafts of comments to your agency which I have been permitted to review, that the proposed rules as published
would be damaging to the overall interests of Georgia. Rather than comment on specifics of the proposed rules, which I think will be adequately covered by many others, I would like to offer a background analysis of anchoring issues to help the DNR reach a clarity that was lacking in the Florida processes as well as in discussions since the issue arose in your state.

Anchoring is a protected activity under well established common law as part of navigation. Restrictions must show an over riding public interest such as safety, not impeding other’s navigational rights, and (increasingly) environmental concerns. The long standing and court upheld status of anchoring has been often cited in relation to issues of vessels being abandoned or stored long term in navigable waters. The point that has seldom surfaced is that the most essential element of a vessel engaged in navigation is a crew. If there are no people aboard, the vessel can not be considered to be navigating and the state has greater latitude in regulating the craft’s use of a public resource.

A state could probably prevail in court on challenges to a rule that required that vessels at anchor always have a crew aboard capable of handling and moving the vessel if the anchor drags. I am only pointing out that the state has this option and a not advocating it. The fact that the state could do this does not mean that it should. There would be a huge backlash from boaters and it would be a very damaging to businesses along Georgia’s waterway. There are places in the state where people anchor to go ashore, spend money in local businesses, and hike in state parks and the National Sea Shore. These activities benefit the state economically and increase public support for protecting the unique and special environment of Georgia. Many cruisers already avoid the state by taking the outside route due to its navigational challenges. Any general restrictions on anchoring, paperwork (even if free), or even just the perception that interaction with law enforcement may be needed to justify a routine navigational operation, will increase this avoidance with resulting economic harm.

Even though vessels anchored so that the entire crew may go ashore are no longer navigating in the strictest sense of the word, it would be in the interest of Georgia to recognize the intermediate status of an “Attended Vessel”. The crews of vessels anchored in places like St. Marys may have left their vessel unoccupied but they are still generally in a position to monitor the weather and return within a short time period to deal with anchors dragging or other problems. If the crew of the vessel is far away, unable to return in a fairly short time period, and unable to be contacted, the vessel is neither navigating nor attended and the state has much greater latitude in regulating it. I would endorse a regulation that requires vessels anchored and unoccupied to post a phone number on a portlight or window where the owner may be contacted. Even if law enforcement is not involved, the ability of a nearby vessel to contact the owner could prevent or mitigate damage to the vessel, other vessels, shore structures, and the environment in the event of the anchor(s) dragging.

As both a former harbormaster and life long cruiser, I do not believe that unoccupied or unattended vessels should be left at anchor for more than very short periods. Anchors are most prone to breaking out and dragging when the current reverses. This is especially true in Georgia with its high tides and fast currents. Monitoring and returning to a vessel is more difficult in the dark and any “attending” crew ashore are likely to be asleep. It would be legally supportable to require that any vessel anchored overnight be occupied by a crew capable of handing the anchors and moving the vessel. In order to avoid economic damage to the state by denying cruisers the ability to dine or visit ashore while anchored, and the resultant avoidance of the state by many, I would propose that “overnight” be defined as between the hours of midnight and dawn. Establishing that unoccupied vessels may not be anchored between those hours would have little impact on either transient or local cruisers and would give the state an immediate handle for dealing with improperly stored and abandoned boats that are at risk of becoming derelicts.

Vessels anchored but neither occupied nor attended should be in a marina, tied to a dock, or on a mooring. Moorings are rare in Georgia and most of the discussions I have seen in both states have lacked clarity on the important distinctions between anchors and moorings. It is much more than just a difference in the kind of gear used to secure the vessel to the bottom.

Anchors are designed and intended to be deployed and retrieved by a vessel and carried aboard as an essential part of navigation. As such, compromises need to be made with their weight and holding power so that they may be handled. Moorings are heavier, semi-permanent installations that must normally be installed by a larger vessel dedicated to the purpose. Moorings are significantly less prone to dragging, generally immune to the effects of current shifts, and capable of securing the vessel against more severe weather events.

I have seen comments and opinions in both states that waterfront property owners will want to “anchor” their boats in front of their houses and that anchoring restrictions would prevent that. However, most property owners will actually want to have a mooring. It is much more convenient to pick up or drop the rope on a mooring buoy than to haul up and deploy an anchor. The mooring will also reserve their spot so they will be sure of it being available when they return. The vessel will be much more secure if the owner leaves for an extended period.

Anchors further differ from moorings in that a vessel takes its gear with it when it leaves whereas a mooring continues to occupy and restrict the use of a portion of a public resource when the vessel is absent. Since a mooring can not be considered a part of a vessel’s navigational equipment, a vessel on one is not navigating. Mooring are closer in the legal and regulatory scheme to docks than they are to anchors. Moorings appropriate a portion of a public resource for private use (or commercial in the case of a marina) so can and should be regulated by the state. There are recognized standards for mooring gear specifying the size of anchors, chain, and other components relative to vessel size.

A vessel which simply drops an anchor, intended for navigational use and to be carried aboard the craft, and is then left unattended for long periods is not navigating. It would be more accurate to think of it as being moored but with inadequate securing tackle that presents a risk to the vessel, other vessels, shore side structures, and the environment. One approach for the state would be a requirement that any vessel left unoccupied in the water for more than some short time period, say seven days, be either secured to a dock or on a permitted mooring. Insuring that the mooring gear met the recognized standard selected by the state would be part of the permitting process. The regulation could reasonably exempt boats below a certain size, perhaps 18 feet . This approach would increase the safety of all vessels, shore structures, and the environment. It would clearly distinguish boats that are in use from boats that are being stored or abandoned without infringing on the navigational rights of legitimate cruisers. The mooring permit could require vessel owners to agree to removal of their vessel and mooring without notice if the permit was allowed to elapse.

A more difficult issue is the occupied vessel that remains anchored in the same spot for long periods. Since the vessel is occupied, it can claim that it is navigating so long as it has a means of propulsion. At some point however, it becomes clear that the vessel is not engaged in navigation but is residing and being used as a habitation. I believe it would be reasonable, and legally defensible, for the state to require that any vessel remaining in the same location over 60 days obtain a mooring permit. I would define “location” as anchoring within the same anchor circle (radius of seven times the water depth around the original anchor location) and require an absence of seven days with relocation at least a mile away to restart the 60 day period. The exact numbers can be explored.

Finally, I commend Georgia for attempting to clean up and protect the waters which comprise one of the most beautiful areas on the whole east coast. However, I must point out that the huge brouhaha that has erupted over this was the result of failure at both the legislative and rule draft writing level to fully research the issues and understand the constituency effected by them. I urge your agency to issue a second draft of proposed rules followed by an additional comment period and to obtain further advice on the issues I raise above. I was part of a very productive and successful rule making process to create new Coast Guard regulations in which an industry/USCG task force was set up to draft the rules. We educated the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard educated us, and the result was a very workable set of regulations. I would highly recommend such an approach to the Department of Natural Resources.

Roger Long

Here is a link to HB 201 from the Georgia Assembly regarding anchoring:

Click here for 2019-2020 Regular Session – HB 201
Board of Natural Resources; promulgate rules and regulations regarding anchoring certain vessels within estuarine areas

Another Georgian and experienced yachtsman and Waterway cruiser, James Newsome, shares his thoughts on Georgia’s new restrictive anchoring legislation. See Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia?

Reply to Bob Keller and my thoughts on the anchoring debate in Georgia,

You wrote, “As a 30+ year resident of Georgia this law is the most outrageous I have seen. This is a classic case of legislators voting on bills proposed that they have no idea about and no knowledge of what they are doing. Just trying to cast their vote so they can go on summer break and don’t have a clue what they are voting about. Disgusting really. Would like to know who sponsored and introduced this bill? Then who voted on it. They had no lobbying pushback so they voted Yea on a bill they had no clue about. Sickening. This is an embarrassment to the residents and voters of Georgia. Georgia is an afterthought on the east coast ICW and this nonsense will ensure that GA is nonexistent.”

A Senator and Representative from St. Simon’s Island and Brunswick sponsored the bill. And apparently the only lobbying group was the GA Marine Business Association or GAMBA. It’s interesting that (apparently) none of the normal waterway associations or groups knew about this legislation in last month. This includes Brad Pickel with the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Association, Waterway Guide, or Cruisers Net. To say that this bill flew under the radar is an understatement, and I don’t think this was by accident.

The bill pretends to address concerns about liveaboards, anchoring, and possibly derelict vessels, but I believe these are simply a ruse for the real purpose. What we need to know is the nexus for this law. We know that the Georgia DNR Coastal Resource Division and GAMBA were involved, but whose interests were being represented?

Let’s look at the public record so far from Doug Haymans of the Coastal Resource Division of DNR. In addition to removing the term “liveaboard” from all rules “the proposed amendments would create rules for over-night and long-term anchoring in the estuarine area of the state and establish an anchorage permit.” Hayman goes on to state that current law “doesn’t allow a live-aboard outside of an eligible marina.”

So now with the already passes amendments to HB201, DNR states that the main purpose is to establish rules for “for overnight or long-term anchoring in the estuarine areas of the state” by creating a new boating regulation.

Fortunately, GA law requires assessment of the economic impact on small businesses as part of any rule change. Here’s what Hayman has presented. “All the businesses possibly affected by this rule employ less than 100 persons. There are no additional costs to businesses, such as marinas, and if anything, these rules may direct additional customers to eligible facilities. For many years, Georgia has been viewed by transient boaters as unfriendly to their activities. The proposed amended rules should have the added benefit of opening Georgia estuarine waters to more transient boaters and therefore more business for coastal marinas.”

I think the phrase “these rules may direct additional customers to eligible facilities” is the real purpose of this amendment to HB201, and also why GAMBA is so involved. Does anyone with any sense really think that creating a permitting process, telling boaters where they can and cannot anchor, and charging boaters for anchoring is going to add benefit of opening Georgia waters to more transient boaters? At least we now understand how this is going to direct customers to eligible facilities (commercial marinas).
There is nothing about this change to HB201 that is friendly to Georgia boaters or transient boaters. It is heavy handed overreach of government and a thinly veiled effort to drive transient boaters to commercial marinas.
I have defended and advocated for cruisers to not bypass Georgia on their semiannual migrations. I’ve written many articles about Georgia’s wonderful cruising destinations and debated on social media platforms against folks who blatantly said to skip Georgia when asked for cruising advice. But I cannot defend this action by our state’s DNR and I am embarrassed that this has happened to us.

In the coming days and weeks, I think we will learn more about the changes to this law and I think the hand will be pointed to a few folks who are greedily trying to use their influential positions to line their pockets. I hope I’m wrong, I really do.

James Newsome

Is anchoring in Georgia under attack as it is in Florida? Note carefully the proposed changes to terms for live-aboard, long term anchoring and the establishment of an anchoring permit. The first public hearing is June 17 in Brunswick. Written public comments may be submitted through July 15.
See response below from Executive Director of Georgia Marine Business. See also Kim Russo on New Anchoring Restrictions and  Jim Healy Comments

Public Notice: Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations

NOTICE OF PROPOSED REGULATION CHANGES TO:                  All Interested Persons and Parties FROM:             Doug Haymans​ SUBJECT:        Notice of Rule Making for Coastal Marshland Protection and Boating Regulations Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to authority set forth below, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources proposes an amendment to the Rules of Georgia Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resources Division, Chapter 391-2-3, Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations and Wildlife Resources Division, Chapter 391-4-5, Boating Regulations.  This is a notice of proposed amendments to the rules to reflect the deliberations of the Coastal Committee of the Board of Natural Resources at its May 21, 2019 meeting. These amendments are being promulgated under the authority of Title 52, Section 52-7-8.4 of the Official Code of Georgia, Annotated.  In addition to the removal of the term ‘live-aboard’ and all associated rules from the Coastal Marshlands Protection Regulations, the proposed amendments would create rules for over-night and long-term anchoring in the estuarine area of the state and establish an anchorage permit. A public hearing on the proposed amendments will be held in Brunswick, Georgia on Monday, June 17, 2019, 5:30p.m. at the Coastal Regional Headquarters of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Written public comment will be received through Monday July 15, 2019. Comments should be legible, concise and limited to the proposed rule change. Following the comment period, the Board of Natural Resources will consider the proposed rule on August 27, 2019 at 9:00 AM at its Board Room located at 2 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SE, Suite 1252, Atlanta, Georgia. Mail or email comments to: Kelly Hill, Coastal Resources Division, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31520. Kelly.Hill@dnr.ga.gov Additional information is available at www.CoastalGaDNR.org. Click on the “News and Notices” tab or click this link: https://coastalgadnr.org/notice-rule-making-coastal-marshland-protection-and-boating-regulations

20 years of Sustaining, Protecting,Enhancing, and Conserving Support marine habitates by upgrading your license plate!

STAY CONNECTED with Coastal Resources Division

Roger Long is an experienced yachtsman and Waterway cruiser. His passion for the freedom offered by the ICW is very evident in his writing. Anchoring restrictions in Florida have dampened the enthusiasm cruisers once had for that state. Georgia appears to be on the same “boating is only for the wealthy” path. Thank you for sharing Roger. See also Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia? and Kim Russo on New Anchoring Restrictions in Georgia.

Larry,
I was shocked to click into Cruisers Net this morning and see NOTHING about the new Georgia anchoring law that was snuck in under the radar. There was a small, easily overlooked item yesterday but it has aged down to page two. Do you not realize that, if this stands, we are looking at the beginning of the end of ICW snowbirding for everyone not wealthy enough or inclined to stay in a marina every night? This will be the formula that FL uses to finally shut down the state. It will likely spread to the Carolinas. There is a comment and rule making process in play. There should be an all stop call for emergency action.

I posted on some social media sites yesterday and am almost as shocked by the reaction of many in our community as the idiocy of Georgia government, comments generally along the lines of:

We always go outside so this doesn’t effect us.

We always stay in a marina so this doesn’t effect us.

If $5.00 a night is a problem for you, you can’t afford boating.

I’m in favor of keeping sewage out of the water.

We can afford one marina stop and get through Georgia in two days so what’s the big deal?

I find this fragmentation of interest disturbing. Do boaters only care about people who cruise exactly as they do? We are a small enough community as it is and such narrow perspectives will leave us powerless.

For us personally, exploring the remote corners of Georgia and anchoring in the many creeks and unspoiled spots is major reason for all the expenditure of time and money to maintain a large boat and take it south. If anchoring in the state is restricted to a few designated areas, which will certainly be only near places convenient for law enforcement to patrol to check for permits, and crowded, we will not be taking our boat south of Norfolk again. I know that we are probably a minority as most of your readers view the ICW as just a speed bump on the way to the Bahamas and Florida but, if our community fragments like this, there won’t be a Cruisers Net or need for it in a few years.
Roger Long

Our thanks to Kim Russo, Director of America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association for this summary of Georgia’s new anchoring laws. See also Anchoring Under Attack in Georgia?

The State of Georgia has passed a bill that restricts anchoring and adds some requirements for boaters regarding their marine sanitation systems.

It appears this will mean some new requirements for Loopers, such as keeping logs of pumps outs in Georgia and securing the black water discharge valves, similar to what is currently required in the Great Lakes and Canada. It will also restrict where you can anchor and require you to obtain a permit in order to anchor overnight. Please read below or view the attached bill for more specifics.

At this point in the process, Georgia DNR has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to start the process of implementing this new law. Details can be found here. They are suggesting a nominal fee for anchoring permits, with permits obtained in a number of ways including online. No information is included on what areas will be designated as anchoring areas, other than a notice that those area will be posted on the DNR website.

This is the most restrictive anchoring law I’ve seen pass. Thankfully, the AICW through Georgia is less than 150 miles. AGLCA will participate in the process for the notice of proposed rulemaking as DNR works on implementation. We will let members know what assistance is needed as we continue analyzing the new law and it’s proposed implementation. In the meantime, if anyone has followed the evolution of this bill or has any additional information, please contact me.

The highlights of the bill are:

-The Board of Natural Resources is authorized to adopt and promulgate rules and regulations relating to
overnight or long-term anchoring within the estuarine areas of this state to include the establishment of an anchorage permit.

-The Department of Natural Resources is authorized to establish anchorage areas within the estuarine areas of this state as well as areas where anchoring is not allowed.

-It shall be unlawful for any person to dock or anchor at night any vessel within the estuarine areas of this state unless it is in an anchorage area established by the department and in compliance with all rules and regulations adopted by the board pursuant to this Code section or at an eligible facility. Nothing in this Code section shall prohibit short-term anchoring for fishing or similar activities, nor shall it prohibit the owner of a vessel from docking at a private recreational dock or noneligible facility so long as such vessel is not utilized as a live-aboard vessel.

-It shall be unlawful to operate or float any live-aboard vessel within the estuarine areas of this state, whether anchored in an anchorage area or at an eligible facility, which has located within or on such vessel a Type I, Type II, or Type III Marine Sanitation Device, as defined in 33 C.F.R. 159, unless such device has a secured mechanism which is constructed and installed in such a manner that it can be emptied only by pumping out to prevent discharge of treated and untreated sewage or is equipped with a holding tank, as
such term is defined in Code Section 52-7-3. Examples of secured mechanisms considered to be effective at preventing discharges include, but are not limited to, closing the seacock and padlocking, using a non-releasable wire tie, or removing the seacock handle with the seacock in the closed position.

-Persons operating or floating live-aboard vessels with marine toilets and subject to the requirements of this Code section shall create and maintain for at least one year after creation records which indicate the name and location of pump-out facilities used and the dates of such use. Persons who own or operate pump-out facilities shall also create a record and maintain, for at least one year after creation, records which indicate the name and vessel registration number, the date of pump-out, and verification of pump-out for each vessel for which pump-out services are performed.

Kim Russo
Director
America’s Great Loop Cruisers’ Association

Georgia’s 105 mile coast has been given an A- for this year, the highest grade since the grading began in 2014. This is good news for everyone. See links below for the full story.

CRD: Coastal report card shows improved environmental health

The Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources today announces the release of the 2018 Coastal Georgia Ecosystem Report Card. This annual snapshot of Georgia’s 105-mile coastline examines key indicators in human health, fisheries and wildlife.

This year, the report card’s metrics scored our coast at an “A-“, which is the highest score for the report card since its inception in 2014.

Here is a link to a press release, and the report can be downloaded directly by visiting https://coastalgadnr.org/sites/default/files/crd/PressRelease/Report%20Card%202018.pdf or clicking the link above.

Have a great day,

Tyler Jones
Communication Specialist 
Coastal Resources Division 
(912) 262-3140 | M: (912) 230-9709
Facebook • Twitter • Instagram
Buy a hunting or fishing license today!
—————————————————