Center for a Sustainable Coast
Using science, media, and the law to protect coastal Georgia’s environment and quality of life.
July 24, 2026
Jill Andrews, Chief of Coastal Management
Coastal Resources Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
One Conservation Way
Brunswick, Georgia 31520
Via email: crd.comments@dnr.ga.gov
Re: Comment on Proposed Amendments to Rule 391-2-1
Private Docks Located Over State-Owned Tidal Water Bottoms
Dear Ms. Andrews:
The Center for a Sustainable Coast submits these comments on the Department’s proposed amendments to Rule 391-2-1, which would establish standards for issuing revocable licenses for private docks over state-owned tidal water bottoms. The Center supports the Department’s decision to codify clear and consistent standards and appreciates the extensive stakeholder process that produced this package.
These comments raise two matters. First, we strongly advise transparency, rigorous evaluation, and accountability regarding the enlarged footprint of access walkways authorized under the proposed rules (Part I). Second, and as the principal subject of our comments, we identify a procedural gap that allows a single-family dock to be converted to multi-lot use without timely review and recommend amendments to close it (Parts II–V).
I. The proposed standards would enlarge the authorized footprint over public-trust lands without stated justification.
Before presenting comments seeking to remedy a loophole in CRD’s current procedures regulating private docks, we want to emphasize our general concern about the proposed size of access structures (boardwalks across the marsh and tidal water bottoms). This concern is directed at the fixed walkways that carry a private dock across the marsh and tidal water bottoms — not at the terminal dock components (fixed decks, floating docks, hoists), whose dimensions the proposed rules address separately.
Under proposed Rule 391-2-1-.04(4), a single-family private dock may include a fixed walkway up to 1,000 linear feet long and six feet wide, with a variance for an additional 100 feet available under Rule 391-2-1-.07(1). These dimensions would roughly double the walkway coverage the Department previously allowed and equal the length the Department allows for a Tier Three community dock, a commercial dock, or a marina, and exceeds the 750-foot limit for a Tier Two community dock serving an entire neighborhood. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-2-3-.03(4)(a)5, (5)(a)1, (6)(a)2. Yet unlike each of those facilities, the proposed private-dock standard contains no cap on effective shading impact — the 3,000-square-foot ceiling that constrains community, commercial, and marina walkways has no counterpart here.
Separately, the area maxima that appear to limit the terminal structures understate actual coverage, because gangways "do not count toward the maximum area" (Rule .04(8)) and floating watercraft lifts do not count toward the floating-dock maximum (Rule .04(9)).
These standards would enlarge the private occupation of public-trust lands that the General Assembly has declared a “vital natural resource system,” “costly, if not impossible, to reconstruct or rehabilitate once adversely affected,” and held by each generation as “public trustees … for succeeding generations.” O.C.G.A. § 12-5-281. We therefore recommend that the Board:
1.
Require,
before adopting any enlarged dimensional standard, a written resource
justification supported by science-based analysis of trade-offs, including
cumulative and life-cycle impacts;
2.
Adopt
an effective-shading-impact ceiling for private-dock walkways comparable to the
3,000-square-foot limit applied to community, commercial, and marina walkways,
and count gangways and floating watercraft lifts toward authorized area;
3.
If
enlarged standards are adopted, require monitoring and assessment of their
effects for not less than three years after the effective date — measuring at
minimum shading, vegetation loss, and cumulative authorized walkway footprint
by waterway — using methods meeting or exceeding accepted marsh-ecology
standards, with a report to the Board and an opportunity to revisit the
standards (one such methodology is in the attached article, A Rapid Method
to Assess Salt Marsh Condition and Guide Management Decisions, 138
Ecological Indicators 108841 (2022); and
4. Require mandatory mitigation offsets for projects exceeding the maximum footprint, which we urge be reduced from the level proposed once the analysis above is completed.
II. General revocation authority does not adequately address a post-authorization subdivision proposal.
Georgia law draws a deliberate line among single-family, multi-family, and community docks. The single-family exemption, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-295(7), exempts from Coastal Marshlands Protection Act (“CMPA”) permitting a private dock built “exclusively for the noncommercial use of the owner or his or her invitees” by the owner of a lot on which a detached single-family residence is located, or a comparable lot suitable for one. Because such a dock is exempt, it does not undergo the CMPA permitting and public-review process applicable to nonexempt marshlands projects.
The multi-family exemption, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-295(7.1), exempts a single shared dock serving up to four adjoining riparian lots, but only if each owner records “a binding covenant that runs with the land, in favor of the state,” prohibiting any future private dock on the lot unless the shared dock is removed or converted to a single-family dock. A dock that instead serves as a subdivision or community recreational amenity is a “community dock” under Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-2-3-.03(2)(e) and is subject to CMPA permitting, public notice, and the review procedures applicable to that type of facility.
The proposed rules include several provisions relevant to this distinction. Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.02(20) defines a private dock as one meeting either the single-family or multi-family statutory exemption. Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.03(2)(b) provides that a license may be issued only to the owners of the riparian parcels to be served. Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.08(9) makes the application and supporting documents conditions of the license and prohibits a change or deviation without prior notice and written CRD approval or a new license. Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.09 authorizes CRD to revoke, suspend, modify, or deny a license for failure to comply with the rules or license conditions.
Those provisions establish CRD’s general authority, but they do not identify when a subdivision proposal must be disclosed, whether dock construction may continue while the proposal is evaluated, or whether CRD must issue a written determination classifying the proposed use. Nor do they specify whether a license provision stating that a violation “will result in immediate revocation” is self-executing or instead requires further agency action.
The need for a clearer and more effective rule is illustrated by CRD’s authorization of a private dock on Cumberland Island. In 2015, CRD authorized Lumar, LLC to construct a private, single-family recreational dock to serve an undeveloped 87.5-acre parcel. CRD File No. PRD20150110. Condition 7 stated that use of the dock for any purpose other than a private, single-family recreational dock, without prior notice to and approval from CRD, “will result in immediate revocation” of the license and voiding of the authorization. After receiving the authorization—and before beginning construction—the applicant sought local approval to subdivide the upland parcel into ten lots. The dock was under construction when CRD was notified of the subdivision application and its potential implications for the authorized single-family use. CRD did not suspend or revoke the authorization, construction continued, and the dock was completed.
CRD plainly had the authority to act — the 2015 authorization reserved the power of "immediate revocation" for any non-single-family use. But by the time it could be invoked, the applicant had already applied to subdivide, and the dock was under construction, and it was completed without CRD suspending or revoking the license. CRD’s general revocation authority did not prevent construction from proceeding after CRD learned that the applicant was seeking approval to subdivide the property into ten lots. Condition 7 did not expressly establish whether the subdivision application itself triggered review, whether construction had to stop while CRD evaluated the matter, or whether revocation occurred automatically or required a written CRD decision. The proposed rules should resolve those issues.
III. Recommended amendments.
A CMPA-exempt private dock still requires the State’s permission to occupy state-owned tidal water bottoms. Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.02(22) provides that a revocable license may be conditioned and revoked, is not coupled with an interest, and is not transferable. Proposed Rules 391-2-1-.08(9) and (17) likewise authorize application-based and special conditions. CRD therefore has authority to require disclosure and review of events that may cause a dock to cease qualifying for the exemption under which its license was issued.
A. Require disclosure and suspend construction pending a written determination.
The Department should add a new subsection to Rule 391-2-1-.08, substantially as follows:
(18)(a) A revocable license for a single-family dock authorizes construction and use of the dock only in connection with the single riparian parcel and detached single-family residence, or qualifying lot suitable for one, identified in the application. Subdivision of the licensed parcel does not confer dock-access rights upon any newly created parcel.
(b) The licensee shall notify the department in writing no later than the date on which the licensee, or a person acting with the licensee’s authorization, files an application seeking approval to subdivide the licensed parcel. The licensee also shall notify the department before recording a subdivision plat affecting the licensed parcel; granting an easement, covenant, or other dock-access right to another parcel; or advertising, depicting, or designating the dock as an amenity for more than one residence or parcel.
(c) If an application to subdivide the licensed parcel is filed before construction of the dock is complete, authorization to begin or continue construction shall be suspended by operation of this rule until the department issues the written determination required by subparagraph (d). If the dock has been completed, no right of access may be granted, advertised, or exercised on behalf of another parcel or residence pending that determination.
(d) After receiving notice and any reasonably necessary supporting information, the department shall determine in writing whether the dock remains eligible for construction and use as a single-family dock; may be authorized as a multi-family dock under O.C.G.A. § 12-5-295(7.1); requires CMPA authorization as a community dock; or requires modification, suspension, or revocation of the existing license. The determination shall state whether and when construction may commence or resume and identify any additional authorization required.
(e) A single-family dock may not be granted, advertised, designated, or made available as providing water access to another parcel or residence unless the department has issued the authorization applicable to that use.
(f) Nothing in this subsection restricts use of a single-family dock by the owner’s bona fide social invitees in connection with the licensed residence.
A temporary suspension preserves the status quo while CRD determines whether the subdivision would affect the dock’s qualifying use, but it does not assume that every subdivision necessarily converts the dock to a multi-family or community use. The license might remain tied exclusively to one resulting riparian parcel. That determination should be made before construction is completed, not after the structure is already in place.
The rule also should establish a reasonable deadline for CRD’s written determination so that a temporary suspension does not continue indefinitely. A period such as 30 days after receipt of the required information would give CRD time to review the proposal while providing certainty to the licensee.
B. Require disclosure in the application and continuing supplementation.
Proposed Rule 391-2-1-.03(1) should require an applicant to disclose:
- Any pending or contemplated subdivision, rezoning, variance, or development application affecting the parcel to be served;
- The number and
identity of all existing or proposed parcels and residences intended to
receive dock access;
- Any proposed
subdivision plat, easement, covenant, homeowners-association right, sales
representation, or other arrangement concerning use of the dock; and
- Whether the dock will be depicted, advertised, or offered as a subdivision or community amenity.
- The application should include a certification that the dock is not intended to serve any undisclosed parcel or residence. It should also impose a continuing duty to supplement the application if that information changes before or during construction. Rule 391-2-1-.08(9) can function effectively only if an applicant must disclose material changes occurring after the original application was approved.
C. Require recorded notice of the single-family limitation.
The Department should require the applicant to record a memorandum of the license in the county real-property records. The memorandum should state that:
- The license authorizes construction and use of the dock only in connection with the qualifying single-family parcel and residence identified in the application;
- Subdivision of the property does not confer dock-access rights upon newly created parcels;
- The license is not transferable upon a change in ownership without issuance of a new license; and
- Additional-lot, multi-family, subdivision, or community use requires prior CRD authorization and, where applicable, a CMPA permit.
D. Clarify the effect of suspension and revocation under Rule 391-2-1-.09.
Rule 391-2-1-.09 should expressly provide that:
- Failure to provide the required subdivision or change-in-use notice is a violation;
- Beginning or continuing construction during the temporary suspension is a violation;
- Granting, advertising, or exercising additional-lot access without the required authorization is a violation;
- CRD shall promptly provide written confirmation when a temporary suspension arises and direct that construction cease;
- Any final modification or revocation must be stated in a written order identifying its effective date and any required removal, restoration, or corrective action; and
- CRD shall act before construction resumes when the information before it presents a reasonable question whether the dock remains eligible as a single-family dock.
These provisions would eliminate the uncertainty created by a condition stating that an unauthorized use “will result in immediate revocation” without explaining whether revocation occurs automatically, whether CRD must issue an order, or whether construction may continue in the meantime. The rule should make the temporary suspension self-executing, while requiring a written CRD decision before final revocation, modification, or reclassification.
IV. The rules should identify the review path applicable to each proposed use.
Continued single-family use. A subdivision does not require revocation if the dock remains exclusively associated with one qualifying riparian parcel and residence and no rights of access are created for other parcels. CRD should confirm that conclusion in writing before construction begins or resumes.
Multi-family use. If the proposed use would qualify under O.C.G.A. § 12-5-295(7.1) as a shared dock serving no more than four adjoining riparian lots, the owners should be required to obtain a new revocable license and record the covenant required by that exemption.
Community use. If the dock would serve as a subdivision or community recreational amenity, it should be processed as a community dock under the CMPA and Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-2-3-.03, including the applicable public notice, Committee consideration, and hearing procedures. The rules should require the same process that would have applied had the proposed community use been disclosed before the single-family authorization was issued.
Definitions and coordination. The Department should add a definition of “single-family dock” tying the term to the single riparian parcel and qualifying detached residence or lot served. The rules also should state that a private dock licensed under Subject 391-2-1 may not be used as the subdivision or community recreational amenity regulated by Rule 391-2-3-.03 without the authorization required by that rule.
V. The requested provisions would not regulate upland development.
The recommended amendments would not regulate zoning, prohibit subdivision, or determine how an owner may develop upland property. They would govern only the continued validity and exercise of the State’s permission to construct and maintain a structure over state-owned tidal water bottoms.
An owner would remain free to seek subdivision approval under applicable local law. But the filing of that proposal may materially affect the factual basis upon which CRD authorized construction of a single-family dock. CRD may therefore require notice, suspend construction over state property while it reviews the proposal, and determine whether the proposed dock use remains eligible for the original license.
The rulemaking package states that the Commissioner or the Commissioner’s designee has authority to grant, deny, modify, and revoke revocable licenses for the use of state-owned tidal water bottoms. The proposed rules themselves provide that a license may be conditioned and revoked and that the application materials become conditions of the license. Requiring timely disclosure and review is therefore an exercise of CRD’s licensing authority over state property, not an attempt to exercise local zoning jurisdiction.
VI. Conclusion.
Lumar, LLC’s dock on Cumberland Island demonstrates that recognizing CRD’s authority to revoke a license after an unauthorized change is not enough. Although the 2015 authorization expressly threatened immediate revocation for non-single-family use, construction proceeded to completion after CRD received notice that the applicant was seeking approval to subdivide the served property into ten lots. The authorization did not establish that a subdivision application would trigger CRD review, require construction to stop while that review was pending, or obligate CRD to issue a written determination before construction resumed.
The proposed rules should close that procedural gap. They should require disclosure when subdivision or shared use is proposed, temporarily suspend incomplete construction, require CRD to issue a written classification decision, and prohibit the creation or exercise of additional-lot access rights until the authorization applicable to the actual proposed use has been obtained. Those protections would preserve the integrity of the single-family exemption without restricting legitimate subdivision or ordinary use of a dock by an owner and the owner’s social invitees.
We urge the Board to adopt the provisions stated above and to defer any enlargement of authorized walkway dimensions until the resource justification, shading limits, and monitoring described in Part I are prepared, publicly reviewed for comment, and implemented accordingly.
We appreciate your diligent consideration of these comments.
For the Future of Georgia’s Coast,
David C. Kyler, Director
Center for a Sustainable Coast
Text & Voice: 912.689.4471