DNR Tideland Leasing - Who is managing who? Part 2: DNR negotiates geoduck tideland leases with an inactive/administratively dissolved LLC.

Kent Kingman, owner of Minterbrook Oyster

and the administratively dissolved (2012)

Case Cove LLC

Case Cove LLC, "inactive" since October 1, 2012 

"Administratively dissolved

for failure to file an annual report."

Secretary of State

Kent Kingman's 'Case Cove LLC' - "Inactive" since October 1, 2012, and administratively dissolved. But good enough for DNR to negotiate terms and new contracts with for geoduck tideland leases beginning in 2013.

DNR documents released (files are large) reveal how convenient the various players in the geoduck industry make it for each other, and how convenient the state's Department of Natural Resources makes things, including negotiations with Kent Kingman's non-existent LLC. In the requests for proposals, rights to a DNR parcel in front of Kent Kingman's unpermitted shellfish operation were won by Brian Allen in 2006. Mr Allen's offered 12% and a price per acre  of $1,250/acre/year. Mr Allen agreed to give up his winning proposal ("for a piece") and DNR, beginning in December 2013, started re-negotiating with Mr Kingman's non-existent LLC, ending up agreeing to terms lower than originally offered by Mr Allen. (See the Washington State's Secretary of State website  showing Mr Kingman's Case Cove LLC being inactive since October of 2012).

Brian Allen's 2006 winning proposal -

12% and $1,250/acre.

Terms from DNR offered 12/5/2013 

to Mr Kingman's "inactive" Case Cove LLC

"...and the base rent is offered at $1,000/acre/year..."

(20% lower - and Mr Kingman still complains  - 

see the end of this post)

Mr Kingman's "Inactive" Case Cove LLC,

represented as still active.

(received at DNR 12/20/2013)

Secretary of State? It's inactive and dissolved.

Mr Kingman's Inactive on Resolving

Shoreline Violations As Well 

Kent Kingman's unpermitted shellfish farm, 

bulkhead, deck, remodeled cabin, retaining wall, etc.

\

Inactive on violations

December 2013: Settlement agreement signed.

June 2015: Not resolved.

Perhaps too busy working on a permit 

for his "oyster bar" in Purdy to get around to it?

I'll hold the lease but Taylor Shellfish will do the permitting

In notes released to the public from DNR, in a conversation with Mr Kingman about what the relationship of his "inactive" Case Cove LLC is with Taylor Shellfish, it was written:

1-14-15 BHL- I spoke to Kent today and found out that he will be the leaseholder, and Taylor will do the permitting at this point but he is paying for that service. (DNR Notes related to the now inactive Case Cove LLC)

 - or not.
But in a letter to Pierce County dated June 10, 2015, Taylor Shellfish states it is now withdrawing its permitting efforts for geoduck farming on the Kingman parcels, adjacent to those those the "inactive" Case Cove LLC is in negotiations with DNR about. The letter from Taylor Shellfish states it would be best to get his unpermitted farm "...in good order." Good idea in 2013 and still a good idea in 2015.

Subtidal Management by DNR?

Seattle Shellfish Tidelands

Leased from Mason County

(outlined in red)

(from DNR)

Current geoduck "seed" being planted

by Seattle Shellfish

Meanwhile, subtidally, wild populations are stripped from DNR "managed" tidelands and not replanted
While DNR negotiates with non-existent LLC's whose "permitting partners" are no longer permitting geoduck farming on the "owner's" tidelands, it has been reported Chelsea Sea Farms and the Detiennes are appealing their permit denial, affirmed by the courts, for their subtidal farm. In addition, Seattle Shellfish reports to the Corps they will be planting with divers. DNR? Well, that's something they apparently can't do. Instead, the few public tidelands still available are being leased to geoduck farmers. And LLC's who do not exist and whose owner complains about their previously offered terms now being too high.

Kent Kingman: "Expressed the % wholesale state royalty

should be re-evaluated..." How about thrown out?

(click to enlarge)

Get involved - Commissioner Goldmark's email: CPL@dnr.wa.gov

Tell Peter Goldmark he was not elected - twice - as the Commissioner for Public Lands to allow the aquatics division to continue as it was before he was elected. It's time for DNR to first manage their subtidal tidelands like their forest lands and require replanting, then open more intertidal tidleands to the public.

DNR Tideland Leases: Who is managing who?

Arcadia Point Seafood: 2006 - Our offer is equal to 20%.
Arcadia Point Seafood: 2013 -We'll offer you 15% for a
far more convenient parcel, near home and existing farms.

DNR: 2015 - How about 10.25%?
Okay.

~1 acre of state owned tidelands

planted with geoduck and no lease.

Settlement in 2010: $192,000

Harvest value in 2014: ~$1,300,000

(click to enlarge)

I never promised you a shellfish garden, but thanks for the roses.
A recent document request has provided Arcadia Point Seafood's lease proposal from DNR for tidelands in Mason County it and Seattle Shellfish were found to have been trespassing on in 2009. According to statements in applications, it may have been going on since 1988 but because of how statutes in Washington are written, all the state could collect on was activity which had occurred in the prior three years. Growers kept revenues from perhaps as many 3 harvest cycles. For encroachment on 1.2 acres, Arcadia Point Seafood and Seattle Shellfish settled with the state for $192,000 (be patient - DNR's servers are slow). They were allowed to retain possession of their geoduck planted on a bit more than 1 acre, which with geoduck at or above $14/pound, resulted in an estimated $1,300,000 at harvest (see below for how APS estimates their harvest amounts from tidelands). A complete survey of the area having been trespassed on may be found here.

Tidelands Arcadia Point Seafood

was responsive to. 

Will you respond to my offer?

In 2006, prior to the discovery of trespassing on state tidelands, Arcadia Point Seafood participated in "requests for offers to lease" tidelands for growing geoduck from DNR. Responses to those requests included Taylor Shellfish with Kent Kingman, Discovery Bay Shellfish, Seattle Shellfish, and Arcadia Point Seafood, among others. In 2007 a second request was made by DNR. (The 2006 maps may be found here and the 2007 maps here.) Arcadia Point Seafood was the successful "responder" to the proposal on Dickenson Point. 

Thurston County: You almost made it. Mason County: Don't worry about it.

In 2008 APS began seeking out other leases in the Dickenson Point area, being successful with the Thiesens and McClures, the former being adjacent to the north line of the state tidelands. It was a long process with many objecting to the industrial operations, some believing they did not fit in with the residential character of the area. But APS and Taylor Shellfish had money, motivation, and knew how to spend it in the right places. Those permits, while granted, resulted in the Shorelines Hearings Board noting "...it was a very close call.." on requiring a cumulative impacts analysis and Thurston County's  commissioners noting: "The Board shares many of the Coalition's concerns...about the impacts of geoduck aquaculture on the shorelines of Thurston County". It is far different than in Mason County where geoduck farming needs no permit at all. In fact, they have recently leased almost 20 acres of tidelands to Seattle Shellfish, being told they will receive an estimated $3 million from the lease. Maybe.

DNR - "You've won."

Arcadia - "Never mind. I have a better idea."
(and guess which county it's in)

Remind me of what I said in 2006 again?

In the successful response of APS they were seemingly more than generous, and made a point to show how much so. In their "Cost Proposal" they estimated the state would be receiving an estimated 20% of the "gross wholesale revenue" (see above image for their calculations). APS estimated from 40,000 square feet they would be harvesting 90,000 pounds (1.5 geoduck per square foot *40,000 * 1.5 pounds each). (The full response from APS may be found here.)

Seasons change and so did I, you need not wonder why. 
In 2013, seven  years later, after their harvest under the lucrative settlement with the state was complete, APS was contacted by DNR. Along with the other successful "responders" they were asked how they felt about executing on their proposal. APS, realizing the opportunity presented by locking up the contiguous state tidelands with those they already had under lease from private tideland owners, less than 300' from the owner's home, in Mason County where no permit would be needed, had a different response than the others. From notes taken by DNR their change in heart is explained, as well as their offer:

Arcadia Seafood requests the Dickenson Point site be put on hold due to local controversy, and ongoing work of the County Shoreline Hearings Board.  Arcadia point does want to lease this site "in a year or so," but feel "now is not the time."   They would consider to lease an alternate site at Arcadia Point.  The Arcadia site is part of an ownership dispute between Arcadia Point Seafood and DNR that was resolved by settlement agreement.  The site is located at Arcadia Point and fronts the proponents upland property.  Arcadia has indicated, if DNR decides it will only lease one site or the other Arcadia Point Seafood would prefer to farm the Dickenson Point site.  Regarding the lease term, Arcadia is concerned the 10 year lease will only supports a single crop cycle.  For the Dickenson Point site, the proponent proposes rent be amended from 12% of gross and $1,200 per/ac/yr. base rent to 10% and $1,000/ac/yr.  For their private leases, Arcadia pays 15% for multi cycle leases and 10% for single cycle leases; cost of managing single cycle leases is more and there for the royalty to the landowner is less.  Also, in Thurston County, cost and scope of permitting is more difficult than Mason County.  Arcadia proposes a 15% rate at the Arcadia Point site.  Also, Arcadia Point Seafood wishes to review DNR's current BMP's before agreeing to a lease.

DNR: We know you offered 15% but will you take 10.25%?

APS: You drive a hard bargain, and my wife won't be happy, but okay.

In 2015, DNR has suggested a different rate. A lower rate. On May 15 they sent their proposal to APS which included the new, lower rate. (The complete proposal sent to APS may be found here.)

SECTION 4 RENT

4.1 Annual Minimum Base Rent. Tenant shall pay to State the annual minimum base rent in the amount of One Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Three Dollars ($1,223.00). The annual minimum base rent shall be due and payable in full on or before the Commencement Date and on or before the same date of each year thereafter. In addition to the annual minimum base rent, Tenant shall also pay a production based rent as detailed in Section 4.2, below.

4.2 Geoduck Rent Adjustment.(a) Production Based Rent. When the Tenant commences harvest of cultured geoduck, Tenant shall pay to State, in addition to the annual minimum base rent, a quarterly Production Based Rent. The Production Based Rent shall be computed as follows: the total quarterly volume of geoduck harvested in pounds multiplied by the current average wholesale price per pound, multiplied by the royalty rate of Ten point twenty five percent (10.25%) percent.(b) Quarterly Reports and payment of Production Based Rent. At the same time Tenant submits its quarterly aquaculture production report to the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tenant shall submit a copy of the same report to State along with the Production Based Rent as calculated in Section 4.2(a). The quarterly aquaculture production report must include the poundage or other unit of measure and price received for geoduck harvested and sold. If Tenant makes no sales in any quarter, Tenant shall so report.

Commissioner Goldmark did not promise the shellfish industry a shellfish garden. 

Peter Goldmark was elected as the Commissioner of Public Lands in 2008 due, in part, to perceived pressures from the shellfish industry to turn over the few remaining public tidelands there are for them to grow geoduck on. In 2015, as election time ramps up, once again the shellfish industry is pressing the Commissioner directly, and indirectly through politicians, to do what people did not want in 2008 - turn those tidelands into geoduck farms, locking the public out. Commissioner Goldmark never promised the shellfish industry a shellfish garden. Especially one the state only receives 10.25% from.

Who's driving the bus at DNR's aquatics division?

Why isn't DNR's aquatics division 

managing their subtidal lands 

as well as their counterparts

in the forestry division?

DNR requires replanting after harvesting.

Why doesn't the aquatics division require

replanting after subtidal harvesting?

We may not agree with it, but

at least forestland is managed

by requiring replanting.

Forest land and subtidal lands should be managed the same way.
For decades Washington's Department of Natural Resources has been actively managing forest land for the benefit of the state's citizens. Tracts of land are put up for bid, the winning bidder takes the timber as agreed, and then is required to replant the land at a specific density within a specific period of time. While people may disagree with various types of forestry management, the result is that instead of waiting for a new stand of timber to naturally seed, in uneven densities, an even age class of timber is available to harvest in as little as 35 years instead of waiting for 60 to 70 years.

You can do this but not replant?

Subtidal harvesting of subtidal state lands.

Strip it and don't worry about replanting.

8 years, 40 years, who cares? I'm paid to extract geoduck not replant them. Ocean acidification? They don't pay me to think about that.
Currently the aquatics division of DNR views their bedlands (subtidal lands) as areas to simply "clearcut" geoduck from, little more than extracting a resource. The hope is over a 40 year period that enough geoduck are nearby their spawn will settle and eventually repopulate the area to be harvested again. Current subtidal farms in Canada and Alaska are harvesting planted geoduck in subtidal areas in ~8 years. So instead of having 5 harvest cycles, you have 1 every 40 years. This is not management. Especially when you can't control poaching, which reduces any natural spawning even further. Add in ocean acidification's impacts on shellfish's inability to grow shell, if true, and waiting for 40 years is a recipe for disaster.

Don't walk, don't anchor, don't dig.

Why be excluded from here when

planting subtidaly does the same?

Public tidelands are scarce and about to become more so to benefit a few geoduck growers and their investors. It is not in the statewide interest.
Instead of requiring replanting DNR has instead decided the few remaining intertidal tidelands (exposed at low tide) available to the public should be leased out to geoduck farmers, thereby excluding their use to everyone. As noted in the Seattle PI today, DNR will begin leasing tidelands to geoduck growers. No longer will people be able to dig their own clams. No long will people be able to anchor. No longer will people be able to see the diversity of life at low tides. Instead, they will be given tidelands with 40,000 PVC pipes per acre and told to stay off.

Econ 101: Limit supply to artificially prop up the price.
Chelsea Farms recently applied for a permit to plant a subtidal area near Burley Lagoon. They said nothing of there being any problems planting subtidally. So why would the state not want to require planting subtidally? Consider as a possibility the industry is flush with cash and knows how to spend it to get what they want. Economics 101 clearly explains the effect which limiting supply has on price. It artificially props it up higher than it could be otherwise.

Get involved - demand the state's subtidal lands be managed for everyone, not just the geoduck industry. Replanting should be required and the few state owned tidelands should be left for the public to use.
The geoduck industry is fixated on transforming any available tidelands into geoduck farms. They are out of area to grow on and now only have private and state tidelands to pursue. Private owners have said enough, leaving only state tidelands. Huge subtidal swaths of subtidal lands are being cleared of 4 million pounds of geoduck each year. None are being replanted. That is not management. Help by supporting The Coalition to Protect Puget Sound Habitat. Demand subtidal lands harvested be replanted.

DNR Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan: Comments Due December 4

Comments due December 4

 

Tell DNR to manage the state's subtidal

aquatic lands for the benefit of everyone,

not just a few corporations

selling geoduck to China.

Comments on Washington's Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) are due December 4. They can be emailed to WFWOComments@fws.gov. In the subject line of the email, please include the identifier: WDNR Aquatic Lands HCP DEIS.

Details are found on DNR's site here:
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/Topics/AquaticHCP/Pages/aqr_aquatics_hcp.aspx

4 million pounds of geoduck per year are "clearcut" from Washington's subtidal area
There are many facets to managing the state's aquatic lands, but as it relates to geoducks and the subtidal areas, it is not being "managed." It is simply extracting 4 million pounds of geoduck each year and hoping the "clearcut" subtidal areas will naturally recruit, and perhaps in 40 years a new "crop" will be ready to harvest.

 

Clear cutting is not managing

Unlike state and private forest lands, there is no requirement to replant geoduck after harvesting the subtidal areas. On forestlands, DNR does not wait for seeds to slowly spread over lands clearcut, they require operators and land owners to replant them. By managing the forests in this manner crop rotation is shortened dramatically. Trees are available to begin harvesting in as little as 25 years, not 70 plus years. It is called management, something DNR's aquatic division is lacking.

 

40 years from now Puget Sound's waters will not be the same

To wait 40 years is short sighted and misguided, benefiting in the short term a few shellfish companies who are forcing geoduck into the intertidal areas in unnatural densities, excluding other species. Predator nets further exclude species who had relied on these intertidal areas as a food source. Limiting supply by waiting 40 years is not in the statewide interest and DNR needs to be told so. 40 years from now Puget Sound's waters will be far different than they are now and DNR needs to recognize that.

 

If you can do this  you can replant

To see a subtidal harvest, you may view this clip on YouTube (harvesting starts ~6 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XItZumG3yuA

If you can do this you can replant.

 

Get involved - the shellfish industry is 
Tell Washington's Department of Natural Resources it is time to manage the state's aquatic lands like the forest lands and force the subtidal tracks being "clearcut" of 4 million pounds of geoduck annually to be replanted instead of waiting 40+ years for recruitment. If divers are able to harvest geoduck they can replant them, in the areas they grow naturally, instead of forcing them into the intertidal area with PVC pipes and nets. As practiced now it's not management, it's extraction. Tell them it's time to act in the state's interest, not for the benefit of a few shellfish companies.

From DNR's website: 

How can I comment on the proposed Aquatic Lands Habitat Conservation Plan?
Send written comments to: Tim Romanski, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102, Lacey, Washington 98503; OR Scott Anderson, NOAA Fisheries, 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103, Lacey, Washington 98503. Comments also may be submitted by e-mail, to WFWOComments@fws.gov. In the subject line of the email, please include the identifier: WDNR Aquatic Lands HCP DEIS.
All comments must be received no later than December 4, 2014.

Mason County Shellfish Expansion - Part 2: County Considers Whether Public Tidelands Should be Leased

[Update: County contacts for this project are John Keates (JohnK@co.mason.wa.us) or the Mason County Commissioners (click here for contact information).]

 

When is enough too much?

 

Welcome to the neighborhood

 

 

County Tidelands on Harstine Island

 

Mason County is considering leasing 19 acres of the few remaining tidelands available to the public in south Puget Sound to the shellfish industry. The parcel is located between McMikken Island State Park and upland property also owned by the state on Harstine Island. If leased it would most likely be converted to geoduck farming, a process taking place along a large area of the eastern shores of Harstine Island and south Puget Sound.

County parcel the shellfish

industry wishes to lease.

Access across tidelands becomes restricted
Throughout  south Puget Sound people are finding long held access across tidelands restricted through geoduck cultivation. Whether it be access to the water or adjacent neighbors, the shellfish industry has decided it will now control who can do what on the tidelands. In the extreme, people who question whether permits are in place receive letters from shellfish attorneys telling them long held use of the tidelands to access neighbors is no longer an option for them. In the case of Mason County's tidelands, a hole between McMikken Island State Park and the adjacent upland area on Harstine Island will be created.

Taylor Shellfish geoduck farm on Fudge Point

restricting upland access to state park lands -

- and another wetland outflow habitat lost.

Shellfish industry is out of tidelands
For years it has been known that the shellfish industry is out of tidelands to use for geoduck farming. All of their privately held tidelands have been converted. Most private owners of tidelands who wish to lease have done so, leaving only public tidelands available, such as those being considered by Mason County. Apparently it is not enough.

DNR's management of tidelands
In addition to Mason County, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is also being pressured to lease the few public tidelands under their control to the shellfish industry. Multiple parcels are now under consideration throughout Puget Sound. Rather than supporting the replanting of subtidal areas currently being "clear cut" by the shellfish industry, DNR instead follows industry's lead and pursues the removal of nearshore intertidal tidelands from the public's use. It is not management of a state resource for the public's benefit but instead management for an industry's benefit to feed the elite of China and provide profits for a few.

When enough is too much - irrational exuberance is not sustainable
In the pursuit of money short term decisions are made which result in long term damage which takes years to recover from. Currently the pursuit of tidelands to grow a shellfish which only the Chinese are willing to pay extreme prices for is the result of nothing more than irrational exuberance. It is not sustainable and fractures the nearshore habitat and long established neighborhood relationships.

Seattle Shellfish Shellfish Hatchery Hearing Postponed, Tideland Ownership Unclear

Mason County has postponed the hearing on a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for a shellfish hatchery on Harstine Island. The Mason County Journal reports it may be held in mid-January.

 

Mason County's contact is Grace Miller at gbm@co.mason.wa.us or 360-427-9670 X360. Permit # is SHR2013-00013

 

Northeast Harstine Island's lagoon

at the south end of Spencer Cove.

Proposed hatchery within the circle.

(click to enlarge)

 

Tideland ownership within lagoon in question

Located at the south end of Spencer Cove, the proposed facility is adjacent to a lagoon whose tidelands do not appear to have been sold by Washington. In a 2011 letter from DNR to Seattle Shellfish they noted the state had "never sold the tidleands" (see below). This issue is still unresolved as deeds from the state do not reference any tidelands having been sold.

 

From DNR to Seattle Shellfish

dated April 15, 2011.

Current use of tidelands

Seattle Shellfish has continued to use the tidelands still apparently owned by Washington and managed by DNR. Information submitted to Mason County by Confluence Environmental Company in August of this year notes it is being used for growing manila clams, oyster culture, and accessing company vessels.

 

From Confluence Environmental Company

report dated August 30, 2013. 

(Note: Confluence incorrectly refers to the tidal

lagoon as being Spencer Cove. Spencer Cove

is the larger body of water to the north, which

the smaller lagoon is part of, on the south.)

 

An expanding convenience - and value - for Seattle Shellfish 

For Seattle Shellfish, the convenience of being able to use these tidelands to support its geoduck operations cannot be understated. Upland bags of PVC pipe are staged then loaded onto barges within the lagoon where they are then transported to nearby areas of Spencer Cove. There they are inserted into the tidelands, planted with geoduck, and covered with nets (see picture below). With the proposed upland hatchery supplying seed for Seattle Shellfish's geoduck nursery adjacent to the lagoon its convenience - and value - will only increase with time.

 

Spencer Cove Geoduck Farm

(click to enlarge)

 

 

 

DNR Retains SEPA Decision for Taylor Shellfish Harvesting of Geoduck on State Tidelands Trespassed On

In this SEPA decision we see what we want to see (or in the case of salmon during dive harvesting, not much).

What does dive harvesting look like?

[click here for short version of intertidal dive harvesting]

or click on arrow below for the full 25 minutes

(also note the discarded geoduck tubes)

Selective science? In the case of DNR's Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on deeper subtidal harvesting, as it applies to intertidal dive harvesting, we read what we want to read.[click here for complete SEIS]

Part of this study looked at a "liberal" 10,000 geoduck-per-acre tract being harvested versus the typical 60,000+ geoduck per acre in a commercial farm. Hardly the same.

Yet, the SEIS clearly states sediment plumes do not "settle out quickly" as DNR and NMFS authors state in the SEPA documents. In fact, dive harvesting of geoduck clearly shows a far greater impact to the water column and sediments than was considered by DNR and NMFS.

After 20 minutes at 1.0 m/sec current speed, the [sediment] clouds with up to 10 mg/l of TSS were 170 m [>500'] down current from the diver. (page 33, SEIS) (Note: A 10 mg/l increase in TSS increased turbidity 6 NTU units. WAC 173-201A-210(1)(e) does not allow an increase of over 5 NTU.) There is no indication any consideration was given to the unique location of this farm and currents.

The shoreward boundary [of -18 feet] protects shallow water geoducks, minimizes impacts on nearby shoreline residents, and helps protect eelgrass beds and other sensitive nearshore habitats. (page 10, SEIS) Nothing indicates consideration was given to the species within the sediments between where the geoduck were planted and the -18 foot depth. Further, if DNR is concerned about impacts to shoreline residents, why not restrict dive harvesting to daylight hours only? 

Most of this material -- the coarser sediments -- settles immediately to the bottom and forms a berm round the harvest hole, while the fine material (particle size less than 63 microns) settles much more slowly and remains in the water for longer periods. (page 31, SEIS) Statements that sediments "settle out quickly" are simply not scientifically based.

Look a little deeper.

The Department of Natural Resources has retained its SEPA mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) decision which will allow Taylor Shellfish to dive harvest up to 70% of the geoduck planted on state owned tidelands. One commenter noted DNR's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on subtidal dive harvesting limited harvest activity to no shallower than 18 feet below mean low lower water (MLLW). DNR responded the EIS and SEIS were not intended to be used for intertidal (shallow) dive harvesting, despite the papers clearly noting impacts to the water column and shallow area from dive harvesting. DNR went on to respond the 18' depth limit was primarily to address shoreline resident concerns about "noise and commotion from harvest activities" and to avoid "eelgrass and herring spawning areas". It responded further by referencing National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) letters. Neither reference any studies looking at dive harvesting of an intertidal commercial farm which has over 60,000 geoduck per acre, because none exist. Instead they rely on inferences from observations of harvesting activities performed out of water at small farms, in some cases at midnight, and low density wild harvesting to reach the conclusion there is no impact. NMFS states sediment disturbance is no different than naturally occurring wave action, seeming to overlook the fact that 3' of sediments are liquefied and geoduck planted in densities of up to 3 per square foot are being extracted. Waves and currents both have an immediate and ongoing effect on sediments which are carried far further than those disturbed by "dry" harvesting. The stratified sediment composition which had formed over millennium from waves and current is turned upside down in harvesting.

   

Southern Resident Orca, August 2011

(At the mouth of Hammersley Inlet

which passed directly by Taylor's farm

in Pickering Passage.)

In response to concerns of Southern Resident Orca which frequent the area, NMFS states the vessels used are "slow moving" and pose no risk. In fact, the vessels used by the shellfish industry are some of the largest and fastest vessels on Puget Sound. The fact that geoduck need to be moved directly from harvesting to the airport for delivery in China the next day has to make one wonder what era of shellfish harvesting NMFS was thinking about. It's not grandfather Taylor's oyster farm anymore.    

This is slow moving?

Commissioner Goldmark and the Aquatic Division of DNR have tried to do their best in protecting the intertidal shoreline habitat for future generations. They have tried to rely on science to base decisions on. But pressures are building to convert what few remaining public tidelands there are into industrial shellfish farms for the benefit of a few corporate owners who will become very rich while Washington State's citizens loose access to the few public tidelands which remain. Taylor Shellfish should never have been allowed to plant where they did. Taylor Shellfish trespassed and as part of the settlement agreement they are allowed to harvest their geoduck, at great profit (~$2 million). What should not be allowed now is for this SEPA decision to be used as the basis for future decisions.

The area where Taylor Shellfish

planted geoduck without a lease agreement.

DNR, the Port of Seattle, and the Deep Sea Sinking in Penn Cove

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.