Anchor Wars come to Georgia

[GH41]

I don't see it quite the same way.

Through the years, many wrecks have added character to some places.

How many seafood restaurants place old wrecks in their front yard to "add charachter"?

Sure..... not exactly the same either......

Give me your home address. I will arrange to have some character parked in front of your house. You guys kill me.

 

[Dougcole]

It's not about dumping wrecks behind people's houses. That's already illegal and it should be.

It's about using this premise to restrict or prohibit ALL boats from anchoring near their property.

Please don't be so gullible. We need you to help us in the fight to protect our rights to public domain, not work against your own interests.

 

[psneeld]

Give me your home address. I will arrange to have some character parked in front of your house. You guys kill me.

I live on a boat and have for many years and times through the decades, often with sunk boats nearby... FT Pierce City Marina so bring it on.

I live on boats because to me "character" is better to view (to me) than over fertilized green lawns destroying watersheds and mcmansions.

I don't begrudge them their lifestyle, well except for the fertilizer , so why should they control mine?

I am with Doug in the sense they are lumping all boats together in some of these laws.the towns that have true derelicts figured out aren't the problem..

 

[O C Diver]

I doubt you will see many new mooring ball areas. Any areas that boarder the AICW will require federal approval and the rest will require state approval. For businesses moorings aren't inexpensive, require insurance which generally requires annual or semiannual maintenance. In short, if there isn't an expectation of making money with them, permitting and building mooring fields is expensive.

If you want to be compliant with the distance from a building, you can get a pretty good estimate of distance either with a sweep of the radar, or estimating the structure's location on a chart plotter.

I really doubt the distance from structures is going to be an issue. IMO, this is going to be an intent thing versus the letter of the law. If anchoring off Cumberland Island near the federal park, they aren't going to complain, as they want you to visit and pay the entry fee. If you anchor to close to the docks or stay a month, that might be an issue.

Of the 8 anchorages areas I've used in Georgia, only 1 is likely to be within 1,000' of homes. At 600 to 800' away I would likely still use it and see what happens. My impression is that if you only overnight, are quite, keep light pollution to a minimum, and don't walk your dogs on their property, most people aren't going to the trouble to call the law on you.

After thinking about this for a while, my view of the rules is similar to the speed limit on the highway. I really don't think they're going to hassle most transient boaters within the minimum distance unless you're being a problem or really close to a structure. Most people don't get a speeding ticket for 5 MPH over the limit. My guess is that the liveaboards staying in the same spot for more than a week are going to be the ones feeling the heat.

On my trip North this spring, I'm going to try to remember to pause at each of the anchorages Ive used and see what the real distances to structures are with my radar or plotter. For me, I think this is going to be a non issue unless they come back with the permits


Ted

 

[twistedtree]

Having never been in that area of the country, I'm curious about the real impacts. The administrative order restricts anchoring in estuarine areas which it defines as being less than "5.6 ft above the mean tide level." That seems like pretty shallow water to me.

Does this represent a large amount of available anchorages? Is that the type of depth area you seek/is available in Georgia for prime anchoring?

This seems a very important point that might be overlooked in this discussion. The regulation only applies in areas where the depth at MLW is 5.6 feet or less. I haven't been through George in a number of years, but doesn't this exclude quite a bit of the actively traveled areas?

 

[mvweebles]

Madeira Beach near St Petersburg just passed an ordinance to restrict anchoring. Limits to 3-days of any 30, and must purchase a $5 permit at the local marina. Complaints from nearby condos drove the action - around 100 people showed up at one of the meetings to support the proposal.

Sure, you can argue they toss the baby with the bathwater and sweep legitimate cruisers with the derelict. Problem is the legitimate boating interests aren't organized. When an elected official of a tiny town suddenly sees 100 people show up to their meeting, it gets their attention. What's ironic is the condos in question aren't even in madeira beach but just over the line in St Pete

https://www.passagemaker.com/trawler-news/madeira-beach-anchoring

 

[psneeld]

Is the 5.6 feet "mean tide level" or MLW ?

With an 8 foot tidal range that wouldn't that mean anchoring in water 10 feet deep at high tide or near 2 ft at low tide?

If so, not really great anchoring except for sdcc smaller boats or unusually shoal draft transients.

 

[psneeld]

Madeira Beach near St Petersburg just passed an ordinance to restrict anchoring. Limits to 3-days of any 30, and must purchase a $5 permit at the local marina. Complaints from nearby condos drove the action - around 100 people showed up at one of the meetings to support the proposal.

Sure, you can argue they toss the baby with the bathwater and sweep legitimate cruisers with the derelict. Problem is the legitimate boating interests aren't organized. When an elected official of a tiny town suddenly sees 100 people show up to their meeting, it gets their attention. What's ironic is the condos in question aren't even in madeira beach but just over the line in St Pete

https://www.passagemaker.com/trawler-news/madeira-beach-anchoring

Actually boaters are organized and have hired a lobbyist for the last several years that has shaped anchoring laws in Florida.

The Great Loop Association is collecting money as we speak to hire the lobbyist again....one of several organizations that contributed. The same coalition met with Georgia officials that tore into and delayed or got several sections of the Law cancelled/altered. I personally was in touch with the head of the Loopi g Association.

This law has some well tuned wordingg in it right now that lawyers on both sides of the fence are debating whether it really can be applied to overnight anchoring of transient vessels because the definition of "liveaboard" is being used incorrectly.

 

[Roger Long]

The official GA DNR anchoring map has been posted. All of Brickhill Creek is excluded due to leased oyster areas not shown on the map I was working from in my earlier comments. There is now no well protected legal anchorage for visiting the northern part of Cumberland Island.
The southern part of the island is all shown as open. The DNR may be recognizing National Park Service control of those waters. However, other areas on the southern portion of the map are not excluded which would be if the same standards were used as farther north. I suspect the map is simply incomplete at this point and we will gradually see it filled in.


https://coastalgadnr.org/Liveaboards?fbclid=IwAR15h6pkZipdYI6nggrCZBT4Y8AdnX3V264fHSE3ZGOcG5NBgDIYuMpO-tI

 

[twistedtree]

Is the 5.6 feet "mean tide level" or MLW ?

With an 8 foot tidal range that wouldn't that mean anchoring in water 10 feet deep at high tide or near 2 ft at low tide?

If so, not really great anchoring except for sdcc smaller boats or unusually shoal draft transients.

I guess I really don't know what the language means. Maybe you can help interpret it. It says:


"waters...lying within a tide-elevation range from 5.6 feet above mean tide level and below"


I think mean tide elevation would be the same as mean tide depth in any given location?


So the affected area would be any depth up to mean depth +5.6 feet?


I think that would cover everything with a tidal range of 11.2 feet or less?


What's your take?

 

[catalinajack]

Just took a look at the area where we anchored, Wahoo River, one night after going aground at the southern entrance to the Johnson River off Sapelo Sound. It was very late in the day before we got pulled off a bar by a tow boat. We needed an anchorage quickly as it was getting dark. We dropped anchor as the last light faded. The Wahoo River is a designated shellfish area and is now off limits. I would do the same if I ever were in the same situation and to hell with GAs new regulations, safety first. In any case, state or local LEOs won't be out in obscure, little used anchorages late in the day or at all. Most of these anchorages are far from LEO bases of operation. Practically speaking, there is little risk of being boarded late in the day. I am not a profilgate scofflaw but these regulations are not in accordance with the freedom of navigation laws that supercede local laws anyway and never mind their tortured definition of a live aboard. Yes, I might be cited.

And, as far as their establishment of new no discharge zones which is only new as to treated waste, they do not have the authority to do so without Federal approval. And, securing through hulls with wire ties, how ludicrous.

The official GA DNR anchoring map has been posted. All of Brickhill Creek is excluded due to leased oyster areas not shown on the map I was working from in my earlier comments. There is now no well protected legal anchorage for visiting the northern part of Cumberland Island.
The southern part of the island is all shown as open. The DNR may be recognizing National Park Service control of those waters. However, other areas on the southern portion of the map are not excluded which would be if the same standards were used as farther north. I suspect the map is simply incomplete at this point and we will gradually see it filled in.


https://coastalgadnr.org/Liveaboards?fbclid=IwAR15h6pkZipdYI6nggrCZBT4Y8AdnX3V264fHSE3ZGOcG5NBgDIYuMpO-tI

 

[angus99]

And, as far as their establishment of new no discharge zones which is only new as to treated waste, they do not have the authority to do so without Federal approval. And, securing through hulls with wire ties, how ludicrous.

Hope you’re right, John. I’ve written the DNR asking for the scientific basis for the entire state being an NDZ. I can transit Georgia fairly quickly and hang on to any money I might have spent there, but as someone who spent $$$ installing an MSD, I worry about other states jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[psneeld]

Here is a link to an interactive map showing all the different zones.

https://coastalgadnr.org/CoastalBoating

 

[O C Diver]

I can't complain, all the anchorages I would use again, are ok on the map.

Ted

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

And, as far as their establishment of new no discharge zones which is only new as to treated waste, they do not have the authority to do so without Federal approval. And, securing through hulls with wire ties, how ludicrous.

Hope you’re right, John. I’ve written the DNR asking for the scientific basis for the entire state being an NDZ. I can transit Georgia fairly quickly and hang on to any money I might have spent there, but as someone who spent $$$ installing an MSD, I worry about other states jumping on the bandwagon.

The State can not establish a NDZ without Federal EPA approval. Thus according to the "A Boater's Guide to the Federal Requirements for Recreational Boats" page 35, Marine Sanitation(33CFR 159), there is no need to secure your "Y" valve or circuit breaker unless you are in a NDZ.

 

[Njlarry]

BandB, the history is that the bill was passed and they were finalizing implementation. They didn't expect the response (push back) that they received which has forced them to reconsider parts.

While the liveaboard section is a separate issue, transient anchoring was the majority of the push back. The main issue from several groups on permits was less about cost and more about availability. Ideally it should be online 24/7. Someone not being able to reach a marina for the night, shouldn't have to try and find a permit office to be legal before anchoring.

The pumpout log requirement is pointless as many can transit the state without needing to. Also, as long as it's still legal offshore, the state can't require your compliance when out of their jurisdiction (maybe if a resident of the state they can).

As one of the people who wrote to the state during the comment period, it was quite clear that the law was quite shortsighted with regard to transients which likely outnumbered the liveaboards by 100 to 1. I'm sure the rule making committee wasn't expecting the pushback from local businesses and transients who might choose to skip the state.

Ted

Thank you!!

 

[fryedaze]

This is really bad. In one quick implementation GA has accomplished what Florida land owners could not. If this spreads to other states it will suck for anchoring cruisers. I looked at the boundary maps. 1000 feet from any structure will be a big deal in other states. Waterfront home owners who don't want to look at anchored boats will seize the GA regulations as precedence and implement to stop boats from anchoring in open waters.

 

[BandB]

I'm going to attempt to clarify what I understand the current state of affairs and anyone with better solid information please correct.

All that has happened fully at this point is the state of GA passed a law, HB 201, giving the Board of Natural Resources the authority to create rules and regulations regarding anchoring in the state.

The law allows anchoring restrictions. However, it doesn't specify what they should be other than saying it should be illegal to anchor in estuarine areas unless designated as anchorage areas (doesn't prevent the entire state from being so designated), that a live-aboard vessel can not discharge treated or untreated sewage in estuarine areas, that a live-aboard vessel must have discharge locked off much as in other NDZ areas. It does not define live-aboard vessel as they tried and removed that portion. It doesn't establish time limits as they tried and removed that portion. It doesn't say anything about 1000 feet from structures.

Not unusual in nature, it does very little on it's own, passing the buck to the Board of Natural Resources. Now, they've been drafting regulations for months on end, but have lined through huge sections including the same parts mentioned above. The only part they seemed to be firm on was the permit fees but, of course, that's with no method of obtaining them.

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on and sending correspondence, but they're a long way from implementation, in my opinion, and likely even when they try to implement to have to reverse course.

As of today, I can't tell anything has effectively changed. I can't even speculate as to when rules or regulations will be finalized and even then as to how they'll be enforced, how one will get permits, and how long before they're repealed in part or whole. As of today, there's no plan and I can't even tell if there's a plan for a plan.

Will someone please tell me where the 1000 ft from structures appears as I haven't seen that anywhere I've looked.

 

[twistedtree]

I'm going to attempt to clarify what I understand the current state of affairs and anyone with better solid information please correct.
.....


Will someone please tell me where the 1000 ft from structures appears as I haven't seen that anywhere I've looked.

Check out this thread, especially the fist post which includes photos of the bill. It's a bit hard to read, but most of it is discernible.


http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/georgia-anchoring-regulations-released-48383.html


The administrative order was signed on Decembner 30th and establishes the 1000' rules. There is no mention or distinction between transients and live-aboards.

 

[Roger Long]

I can't complain, all the anchorages I would use again, are ok on the map.

Ted

Not us. There is no longer a legal protected anchorage for visiting the north end of Cumberland Island overnight.



The map was obviously rushed out in response to the outcry. The wording of the administrative order makes almost any man made object a "structure". If you study it closely, you will learn a lot. There is a place where a half circle is drawn around a single house on the shore of a marsh. The farther south you go on the map, the fewer structures have similar prohibited areas. This is a dynamic map and will certainly be added to. The map shows anchoring permitted in marked channels so the wording of the order clearly controls. Just being anchored in an area the map shows as clear will still be a violation if there is a house or dock that the mapmakre looking at Google Earth didn't see but the LEO who just pulled up alongside does.

Every time a new house gets built or a new oyster lease is issued, another prohibited area will be added.

 

[O C Diver]

Not us. There is no longer a legal protected anchorage for visiting the north end of Cumberland Island overnight.



The map was obviously rushed out in response to the outcry. The wording of the administrative order makes almost any man made object a "structure". If you study it closely, you will learn a lot. There is a place where a half circle is drawn around a single house on the shore of a marsh. The farther south you go on the map, the fewer structures have similar prohibited areas. This is a dynamic map and will certainly be added to. The map shows anchoring permitted in marked channels so the wording of the order clearly controls. Just being anchored in an area the map shows as clear will still be a violation if there is a house or dock that the mapmakre looking at Google Earth didn't see but the LEO who just pulled up alongside does.

Every time a new house gets built or a new oyster lease is issued, another prohibited area will be added.

I am sorry you lost the places you like to anchor. That said, I'm a big proponent of aquaculture. It's a fairly non invasive form of farming, that provides jobs, and helps to improve water quality. If places like Chesapeake bay were more proactive with leased bottom, the water quality would greatly improve.

It is interesting to note how they selectively exclude anchoring within 1,000 feet of some structures and not others. I have an anchorage below Skidaway Island with room for 2 or 3 boats, that's about 800' from homes. No restriction to anchor there, but then no oyster beds nearby either.

Ted

 

[High Wire]

I guess I really don't know what the language means. Maybe you can help interpret it. It says:


"waters...lying within a tide-elevation range from 5.6 feet above mean tide level and below"

What's your take?

In my mind, for example, if the chart says 5 ft or less = no go. If it says 6 ft+ =ok. They have to make it enforceable for the average water cop. That would be easily determined on a chart because they are already marked.

 

[twistedtree]

In my mind, for example, if the chart says 5 ft or less = no go. If it says 6 ft+ =ok. They have to make it enforceable for the average water cop. That would be easily determined on a chart because they are already marked.

That's what I originally thought too. But the language is about elevation levels, not water depth. So it's based on land survey measuring concepts, not waterway measuring concepts.


So as I read it, the baseline is the elevation of mead tide. That's the elevation of the water surface at mean water depth. But the actual depth could be anything at that point.


And the affected area is any water in a plane at an elevation 5.6 feet above that baseline elevation.



If the tidal range happens to be 11.2' (5.6' x 2) or lower, then the limit of the affected waters is the same as MHW. But if the tidal range is something different, I don't think you could pick the affected are off a navigation chart.


Now that 5.6' came from somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the average tide in George, or something like that. Although 11.2' seems a bit high. Actually, maybe it's the max tide in George, thereby placing all tidal waters within the affected area.



Anyone interpreting this differently?

 

[High Wire]

Yes, making the law easy to interpret would be a stretch for most lawmakers.

 

[fryedaze]

I'm going to attempt to clarify what I understand the current state of affairs and anyone with better solid information please correct.

All that has happened fully at this point is the state of GA passed a law, HB 201, giving the Board of Natural Resources the authority to create rules and regulations regarding anchoring in the state.

The law allows anchoring restrictions. However, it doesn't specify what they should be other than saying it should be illegal to anchor in estuarine areas unless designated as anchorage areas (doesn't prevent the entire state from being so designated), that a live-aboard vessel can not discharge treated or untreated sewage in estuarine areas, that a live-aboard vessel must have discharge locked off much as in other NDZ areas. It does not define live-aboard vessel as they tried and removed that portion. It doesn't establish time limits as they tried and removed that portion. It doesn't say anything about 1000 feet from structures.

Not unusual in nature, it does very little on it's own, passing the buck to the Board of Natural Resources. Now, they've been drafting regulations for months on end, but have lined through huge sections including the same parts mentioned above. The only part they seemed to be firm on was the permit fees but, of course, that's with no method of obtaining them.

It's certainly worth keeping an eye on and sending correspondence, but they're a long way from implementation, in my opinion, and likely even when they try to implement to have to reverse course.

As of today, I can't tell anything has effectively changed. I can't even speculate as to when rules or regulations will be finalized and even then as to how they'll be enforced, how one will get permits, and how long before they're repealed in part or whole. As of today, there's no plan and I can't even tell if there's a plan for a plan.

Will someone please tell me where the 1000 ft from structures appears as I haven't seen that anywhere I've looked.

BB, here is a link to the GA DNR news release. It has embedded links to the actual legislation.
https://coastalgadnr.org/new-coastal-boating-laws-take-effect-georgia

 

[O C Diver]

That's what I originally thought too. But the language is about elevation levels, not water depth. So it's based on land survey measuring concepts, not waterway measuring concepts.


So as I read it, the baseline is the elevation of mead tide. That's the elevation of the water surface at mean water depth. But the actual depth could be anything at that point.


And the affected area is any water in a plane at an elevation 5.6 feet above that baseline elevation.



If the tidal range happens to be 11.2' (5.6' x 2) or lower, then the limit of the affected waters is the same as MHW. But if the tidal range is something different, I don't think you could pick the affected are off a navigation chart.


Now that 5.6' came from somewhere, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the average tide in George, or something like that. Although 11.2' seems a bit high. Actually, maybe it's the max tide in George, thereby placing all tidal waters within the affected area.



Anyone interpreting this differently?

I'm not sue what it means, but as far as charts are concerned, water depth is low or extreme low tide. I would assume that tidal change is irrelevant as it's all about the minimum water.

Wondering if anyone saw what the violation fines were for the different offenses?

Ted

 

[O C Diver]

As of today, I can't tell anything has effectively changed. I can't even speculate as to when rules or regulations will be finalized and even then as to how they'll be enforced, how one will get permits, and how long before they're repealed in part or whole. As of today, there's no plan and I can't even tell if there's a plan for a plan.

Both the August announcement and the current state website indicate no permits are required. Don't know if that will change, but that's the current status.

Ted

 

[stubones99]

Honestly, do really expect people to randomly dial businesses in Georgia waterfront towns as they go past without stopping? Really? How many do YOU intend to dial?

I think business owners are capable of doing the math and seeing if receipts are off over the next year. If so, then they will call the people that really matter: their local state representative. If not, and I suspect that will be the case for 99.9% of them, then the rule will stand. Who has the loudest voice, the folks who initiated this or those who will maybe be affected financially (don’t forget that campaign contributions are speech)?

Campaign contributions are probably what started these regulations, and those with money (power) encouraged candidates to go their way and regulate the waterways as they have. I suspect that what out-of state boaters spend in Georgia probably are nowhere near what the contributions would amount to...

 

[BandB]

Check out this thread, especially the fist post which includes photos of the bill. It's a bit hard to read, but most of it is discernible.


http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/georgia-anchoring-regulations-released-48383.html


The administrative order was signed on Decembner 30th and establishes the 1000' rules. There is no mention or distinction between transients and live-aboards.

Thanks for that. I'd not read that photo carefully.

I'm working from the actual bill, not a photo of it. As to the administrative order, it is missing quite a bit including definitions, permits, penalties and enforcement. While it may be signed, I don't see it as being in effect at this point and really no sign it ever will be. I see it signed at the last minute in sort of a CYA. Also, it's not been published anywhere I can tell.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

So where does the GA recreation boater associations and yacht clubs feel about this?

Any of them filing or threatening law suits?