5. Dumping grounds Illicit Activity Navigation Hazards Illegal scrapping Contamination Search & Rescue Reports Wildlife Entanglement Eyesores Loss of habitat Cost

6. Scenario - Barge 202

7. Could DSL/DNR exercise submerged lands authority? No. Barge 202 was legally moored until it was adrift and anchored. Questions… Did DEQ/DOE have actionable authority ? Because there was no pollution threat there was no DEQ/DOE authority. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? USCG and USACE had actionable authority to prevent a hazard to navigation. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the barge qualify for existing state removal programs? Yes, however the stability of the barge prevented tow to a recycling facility. Required by WA but not enforced. No oil on board barge so no requirement per OPA 90 for a COFR No, due to over 100' long

8. “But there are big loopholes in the law, foggy regulatory authority and a lack of money to get rusting hulks out of the water. No one but ship owners, at times broke or absentee, is legally responsible for getting vessels aground.” “Squatting on abandoned craft like Barge 202 is legal. International salvage law lets a person stake claim to a vessel designated cargo-free and without means of propulsion if no owner challenges the claim.” “Mr. Harris began laying a plan to get small fishing vessels to push the barge along shore. He looked for salvagers, approaching Yakama Indians to help. "There were some wind surfers who expressed interest in helping," he said, "but none of them were very committed.“ "You obviously can't pick 250 tons out of the water with cranes or whatever," Mr. Harris explained. "So you have to do what the old boys did: You run the nose up, on a log or something, and then just keep pulling it up and cutting it off."

10. Could DNR exercise submerged lands authority? Yes. Owner was in default to State for moorage fees. Questions… Did DOE have actionable authority ?Not until vessel caught fire creating substantial pollution threat. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? Not until vessel caught fire creating substantial pollution threat. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the vessel qualify for existing state removal programs? Yes. After vessel salvage was towed to local ship yard for removal scrap. DSL could not locate Vessel had expired COD DNR worked with DOE to fund removal.

12. Could DNR exercise submerged lands authority? No. However, moored on private property initially with permission but since has been asked by owner to move. Questions… Did DOE have actionable authority ? Yes, when vessel listed creating substantial threat. Following pollution removal, no. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? Yes, declared a hazard to navigation by both USCG and USACE. USACE has for action. Yes, for pollution following list however currently no pollution.. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the vessel qualify for existing state removal programs? Vessel owner has plans to remove from waterway. DNR could not locate. COI Deactivated in 1999 No, due to being over 100’

14. Could DSL/DNR exercise submerged lands authority? No, moored on private property before drifting down river. Moored to city dock following drift down river. Questions… Did DOE/DEQ have actionable authority ? No substantial pollution threat. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? Hazard to navigation while adrift however, after moored to dock it was not longer Haz to Nav and did not have authority. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the vessel qualify for existing state removal programs? Yes, however presence of Asbestos and Lead paint drove up costs. Owner had bill of sale for $1. No. Yes, OR requirements for local/state agencies to obtain removing authority and go through seizure process challenging.

16. Could DSL exercise submerged lands authority? No, vessel owner bought land where the vessel is moored. Questions… Did DEQ have actionable authority ?Not at present time. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? Not at present time. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the vessel qualify for existing state removal programs? Possibly, however owner does not want to dispose of vessel. No. Vessel is recreational and has no propulsion. No. No, due to over 100' Gross Tons

18. Could DNR exercise submerged lands authority? Barge was illegally moored but DNR did not have awareness to exercise authority. Questions… Did DOE have actionable authority ?Not until it became a pollution threat due to illicit scrapping. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? USCG had authority once it became a pollution threat. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the barge qualify for existing state removal programs? No, ship breaking facilities were not willing to take liability. No. No, due to over 100' long

20. Could DSL exercise submerged lands authority? Yes. Questions… Did DEQ have actionable authority ?Not until it became a pollution threat due to illicit scrapping. Were ship breaking/recycling facilities available and willing to take vessel? Did Federal agencies (USCG/EPA/USACE have actionable authority? USCG had authority once it became a pollution threat. Was there a requirement to bond or insure? Was there Titling/Certificates of Ownership required? Did the barge qualify for existing state removal programs? No, ship breaking facilities were not willing to take liability. No. COFR required but became expired. No, due to over 100’ Gross Tons

21. “The ferry Kalakala has been declared a hazard to navigation, and if it should sink and block access to the Port of Tacoma, it would cost the port as much as $23 million a month and idle 1,300 workers, according to the Army Corps of Engineers.” “Still, Rodrigues isn't the first to fail. He bought the Kalakala at a bankruptcy auction from the previous group of would-be restorers. For the past decade, the old ferry has been something of a sad joke around Puget Sound, getting evicted from one potential home after another. Some say it's not worth saving; it may have looked cool, but it was hard to maneuver and kept running into things.” “Right before the Coast Guard's December 2011 deadline, Rodrigues announced he'd sold the ferry for $1 to an "anonymous billionaire." He insists the mysterious patron has committed to spending the necessary millions for a proper restoration.”

22. The Vancouver Yacht Club barge is now moored at docks along Marine Drive in Northeast Portland. The owner of the barge said someone may have taken it from where it was anchored near Camas. PORTLAND, Ore. - Metro officials say taxpayers may pick up a hefty bill for dealing with a derelict, former floating yacht club. The building's owner claims there's no way the building ended up floating down the river by itself. The runaway barge that carried the former Vancouver Yacht Club building is now moored at the boat ramp on 42nd Avenue along Marine Drive in Northeast Portland. It started out across the river on the Washington side of the Columbia. But Multnomah County sheriff’s river patrol deputies spotted the building the night of March 22 floating in the darkness down the Columbia River. The U.S. Coast Guard ordered a tug to capture it and moor it to the nearest safe spot, which happened to be Metro's new docks. It’s been there ever since. "This becomes the public's cost, unfortunately," said Paul Slyman, Metro parks director. "This is an unfortunate example of someone who has purchased something with no means to take care of it." According to Metro, it has gotten bids, some as high as $80,000, to dispose of the floating building. The cost of getting rid of it is so high because parts of the building contain asbestos, and because it was built in the 1940s and 50s some of the paint is suspected of having lead in it. "It's just been a big mess. They won't allow me put it anywhere," said the building's owner, Richard Dulas, by phone Wednesday afternoon. He said he thinks someone actually took it from where he anchored it near Camas. "It was not drifting down the river. It was anchored. They came and got it," he said. That answer doesn't satisfy angry taxpayers who may have to foot the bill. "I don't know how you can legislate responsibility from people, but we end up paying for it when bad things happen like this," said Kevin Baldwin who uses the docks at the boat ramp. Since the owner has few options right now Metro may be left to deal with getting rid of the old yacht club building itself.

23. This past May, former crab vessel DEEP SEA made news when it burned and sank in Penn Cove, Washington, leaking fuel and causing other pollution so near the Penn Cove mussel beds. According to reports, the state spent over five million dollars dealing with that. Once again, the issue of the disposal of aging, abandoned vessels is called to public awareness. Many boats have fuel, asbestos, lead paint and other toxic coatings, garbage and debris, and other pollutants on board. Some are rusted out, while others are of rotting wood. Some still float, for now, and others are grounded. It often costs more to dispose of such a vessel properly than any proceeds from the scrap, so many are simply abandoned, sometimes causing great environmental damage. We tax payers pay for the clean-ups. Fining the owners of these derelicts doesn't solve the problem when they can't or won't pay. Proposed legislation for stricter rules and penalties have yet to pass. RCW 79.100 spells out the current law in regard to derelict vessels. The Washington State Department of Natural Resources now has a Derelict Vessel Removal Program (DVRP), but it is having trouble keeping up with demand. One suggestion is, given how well known the path to vessel abandonment is, when the Coast Guard, Port of Seattle, or other government entity sells an aging vessel, do a thorough check on the prospective buyer to make certain they can afford the upkeep going forward. If no buyer can be found, scrapping the boat before it causes a hazard may still cost a tidy sum, but it will probably cost us less than five million dollars.RCW 79.100 Derelict Vessel Removal Program

24. “The two happiest days in a man's life are the day he buys a boat and the day he sells it”