The ecological, economic and recreational impacts from the sinking of the 128' derelict vessel Deep Sea in Penn Cove are significant. Species resident and migratory to Penn Cove have been impacted. All shellfish operations in Penn Cove have been closed by the Department of Health. Recreational harvesting of shellfish and enjoyment of the water has been curtailed.
Could DNR have prevented this from happening? It is unlikely given how restrictive state laws are (see RCW 79.100.040). Added to the complexity is the Port of Seattle having been the initial lead agency overseeing Deep Sea's sale and removal from Fisherman's Wharf.
The risks of not acting on removal of derelict vessels in a timely manner are clearly defined in the Derelict Vessel Removal Program brochure (see brochure here). The reality of not acting in a timely manner is now unfolding in Penn Cove.
To help prevent another similar event there are important questions which DNR's Aquatics Division and the Port of Seattle should be asked:
1. DNR's December 7, 2011 "Vessels Not Yet Completed" report, generated by the Derelict Vessel Removal Program notes, on page 8, the Port of Seattle being the entity working on removing the Deep Sea from Fisherman's Terminal (see here for report). If it was already known the Deep Sea was derelict and a risk to Puget Sound's waters, should closer tracking of where this vessel went been triggered? Articles imply DNR was contacted by Penn Cove Shellfish about where the Deep Sea was anchored, not that DNR or the Port of Seattle was following where the ship went.
2. DNR's March 5, 2012 "Vessels Removed by Authorized Entities" report notes, on page 15, the Deep Sea as being a derelict vessel removed by the Port of Seattle, yet it still notes the "general location" as being the Fisherman's Terminal (see here for report). If it was already known this was a derelict vessel, and if DNR had been working diligently since January to remove it from Penn Cove, why was its location noted as still being at Fisherman's Wharf and not at Penn Cove? (see here for DNR's press release on actions it had been taking)
3. The Deep Sea was initially reported by the owner to have "50 to 100 gallons" of fuel on board. Instead, over 3,000 gallons have been reported removed or leaked, with an unknown amount remaining. Should determining the amount of fuel a derelict vessel contains when it is declared a derelict vessel be part of the process?
4. Related to #3, the Port of Seattle had been the owner of the Deep Sea since 2010. In 2012 it sold the Deep Sea to the current owner for $2,500 as "scrap" after failing to sell it at auction. Was the Port of Seattle aware of what appears to be over $10,000 in fuel on board when it posted the ship for sale on Craigslist? Would the current owner have been more diligent if he had known the potential risk?
5. There is continued fog obscuring what, beyond fuel, is on board the ship. Was it old enough to have asbestos used for insulation? Were there secondary storage compartments containing other fuels divers are currently unaware of? Is there a risk of lead paint leaching into the water of Penn Cove? Whether DNR, the Port of Seattle or the current owner should know these answers will help determine how to respond if a similar sinking occurs in the future.
Ecological events are unfortunate and, in most cases preventable. How significant this event is remains to be seen. What should happen now is to learn from it in order to prevent a repeat in the future.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
DNR, the Port of Seattle, and the Deep Sea Sinking in Penn Cove
Labels:
department of health,
dnr,
mussel farm,
oil spill,
penn cove
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment