Edmonds Oil Dock to be removed soon.

[BASSMAN]

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr_ ... ew_map.pdf

Looks like Titlow is safe according to the map!

I was told that Reef balls would replace the Titlow poles.
And that all of the Plumose anenomes would be transferred over to the reef balls.
No method of transfering them seemed to be known.

Just some banter between divers. I have no scientific credentials to prove anything.

Lets go diving!

[Tangfish]

Anyone up for chaining themselves to the pilings at Edmonds with me?

[smike]

Anyone up for chaining themselves to the pilings at Edmonds with me?

No. Not me.

[BASSMAN]

Anyone up for chaining themselves to the pilings at Edmonds with me?

Nope! But you have all of my support right here from my computer.
I might even have some chain laying around that you can have!

I'm here for you Buddy!

[Tangfish]

Alright, I just did my last dive at the EOD on Sunday with Ken and Rawlings. I posted a short tribute to the site as well as some photos.

Adios, EOD!

[John Rawlings]

Fantastic photos, Calvin, and a good write-up.

That was an absolutely beautiful dive, but throughout it my thoughts dashed back and forth between joy and sorrow. I wish that those that are in such a hurry to destroy could see what it is that they are so gleefully condemning....

- John

[Grateful Diver]

Somehow I managed to miss this thread (most of it happened while I was in Port Hardy), and just stumbled on it.

Hate to say it folks, but a lot of it sounds like something out of an AM radio talk show. Not gonna bother responding point-by-point, but there's some real sensationalist, uninformed statements in here.

Some points I'll make ...

First, for those of you who think this stuff doesn't continue to leach chemicals into the water, ask yourselves this ... what's the state of Puget Sound's alpha predators (the resident orca pods) these days? And how'd all those chemicals get into their bodies? Where'd that stuff come from? What makes you think it's no longer a problem?

On what basis would you introduce new "habitat"? Didn't that exact same thing happen here 30 years ago? What was the result? Why did the project stop?

Y'all seem to think somebody in state government just dreams this stuff up, and acts on it without a thought. Well, I've been working with the Dept. of Ecology for the better part of a year now, documenting the things that the City of Tacoma has to do every time anything gets built in the City that affects water quality. Gotta tell you it's not a process that lends itself well to simple language and off-the-cuff solutions. And I can assure you that the WSDOT had to jump through some pretty serious hoops before implementing this project ... I can also assure you that the process started years before "Queen Christine" became governor (and for that matter, that it's highly unlikely that she or any other governor had any say in the matter).

Hey, I like neat dive sites just as much as anyone posting here ... but if I had to choose between a dive site I can enjoy today or a Puget Sound that the next generation can enjoy in 20 years, I'm gonna pick the latter.

As for the use of terms like "may", "can", "should", etcetera ... consider how many variables go into the consideration of a project like this one. How can you reasonably be asking for absolutes? It's like decompression theory ... we know what we know based on the application of prior, similar events. But we also know that there are complex interactions involved, and therefore we cannot speak of certainties ... only probabilities.

Finally, how many times have humans introduced something into an ecosystem with the intent of doing something good, only to have it turn out to create a greater harm that they never even thought of? My answer to that question is "most of the time".

Cut these folks some slack ... they're not environmental whacko's ... for the most part, they're trying to maintain the health of Puget Sound so that we can all continue to enjoy the life we have here. I should think that, as divers, we could appreciate that fact ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[dsteding]

Very well said Bob.

[spatman]

being relatively new to the PNW, i'm not familiar with this reference:

On what basis would you introduce new "habitat"? Didn't that exact same thing happen here 30 years ago? What was the result? Why did the project stop?

what is the project you're referring to and why was it halted?

thanks.

[Tom Nic]

Alright, I just did my last dive at the EOD on Sunday with Ken and Rawlings. I posted a short tribute to the site as well as some photos.

Adios, EOD!

WOW Calvin! Those are GREAT photos! Looks like you guys had some really good viz... Calvin those are some of the best wide angle photos of the sound that I've seen lately.

If any of you haven't surfed on over to check them out you should!

[CaptnJack]

being relatively new to the PNW, i'm not familiar with this reference:

On what basis would you introduce new "habitat"? Didn't that exact same thing happen here 30 years ago? What was the result? Why did the project stop?

what is the project you're referring to and why was it halted?

thanks.

There are a bunch of artifical reefs around the state. WDFW made them in the 1960s, 70s maybe into the 80s. They are labeled "fish havens" on charts. Some were made of tires (duh!) and are now being removed because they are counterproductive. Some are made of rock and concrete and they are a mixed bag. They stopped making those decades ago because they are tiny yet very expensive and artificial habitat is not nearly as productive or useful as the real deal.

[Tangfish]

Bob, thanks for adding your POV, threads escape me all the time too. I just have a couple questions that you or someone else more familiar with the topic might be able to answer:

- If there are smart, hard working people working on this with the best of intentions and they've spent a lot of time carefully studying, planning and taking the Sound's best interest to heart - then why is the end result essentially bulldozing the Oil Dock? I mean, surely such a concerted, thoughtful effort would result in action that's slightly more sophisticated than the equivalent of clearing some (underwater) garbage out with heavy machinery (that happens to have a bunch of life growing on it).

- Why are other creosote pilings being left *in* the water. If they're bad for marine life, such as the apex predators you reference, why aren't they ALL being removed? Furthermore, why not remove the ones that *aren't* home to other marine life first? They might even learn something during all of those removals about the process of removing them, that could improve upon the way organisms currently living on such pilings are impacted by their removal.

I'm sure others before me have asked such questions and hey, maybe they've even been answered. But, this is what went through my mind as I did that last dive there.

[CaptnJack]

DNR has apparently removed ~3,500 tons of treated logs from beaches in the past couple years. There are some interesting pics on the DNR website of projects on Vashon, Bainbridge, and Dungeness spit. Abandoned docks are one source of treated pilings/logs to beaches and apparently next on the priority list.

[Tangfish]

DNR has apparently removed ~3,500 tons of treated logs from beaches in the past couple years.

Out of how many tons of treated logs in the region total? Are we talking .01% have been removed, or 30%, 50%, etc?

Abandoned docks are one source of treated pilings/logs to beaches and apparently next on the priority list.

Abandoned by whom?

[Grateful Diver]

Bob, thanks for adding your POV, threads escape me all the time too. I just have a couple questions that you or someone else more familiar with the topic might be able to answer:

- If there are smart, hard working people working on this with the best of intentions and they've spent a lot of time carefully studying, planning and taking the Sound's best interest to heart - then why is the end result essentially bulldozing the Oil Dock? I mean, surely such a concerted, thoughtful effort would result in action that's slightly more sophisticated than the equivalent of clearing some (underwater) garbage out with heavy machinery (that happens to have a bunch of life growing on it).

- Why are other creosote pilings being left *in* the water. If they're bad for marine life, such as the apex predators you reference, why aren't they ALL being removed? Furthermore, why not remove the ones that *aren't* home to other marine life first? They might even learn something during all of those removals about the process of removing them, that could improve upon the way organisms currently living on such pilings are impacted by their removal.

I'm sure others before me have asked such questions and hey, maybe they've even been answered. But, this is what went through my mind as I did that last dive there.

AFAIK, they are targeting sites like this all over the Sound. Obviously, they're gonna start with the ones that have the least impact on the overall population and economy first. Let's face it ... the oil dock is unused by anyone except a handful of people who dive there. And I have no doubt that developers and local homeowners see it as an eyesore whose removal would enhance the view. That's a lot of incentive to target it first.

However, my point is that they don't just pick a target on a map and say, "let's pull those out" ... there's a lot of regulatory requirements that have to be met before work like that can be done, and a hell of a lot of justification that has to go into why it should happen. And let's keep the politics out of it ... the governor has nothing to do with it, this is Ecology's baby, and they're generally a pretty apolitical bunch, even if they are professional bureaucrats.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Pez7378]

AFAIK, they are targeting sites like this all over the Sound. Obviously, they're gonna start with the ones that have the least impact on the overall population and economy first. Let's face it ... the oil dock is unused by anyone except a handful of people who dive there. And I have no doubt that developers and local homeowners see it as an eyesore whose removal would enhance the view. That's a lot of incentive to target it first.... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Based on that rationalization, someone should consider removing the big 'ol eyesore at 100Ft Rock. There really isn't much life growing on it either, it's not being used, it's made of creosote coated pilings, and it really does nothing for the population, or the economy..................

Yet it will be there for years to come. Just an observation. Hopefully I'm wrong. Maybe it's on someones 10 year plan.

[CaptnJack]

AFAIK, they are targeting sites like this all over the Sound. Obviously, they're gonna start with the ones that have the least impact on the overall population and economy first. Let's face it ... the oil dock is unused by anyone except a handful of people who dive there. And I have no doubt that developers and local homeowners see it as an eyesore whose removal would enhance the view. That's a lot of incentive to target it first.... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Based on that rationalization, someone should consider removing the big 'ol eyesore at 100Ft Rock. There really isn't much life growing on it either, it's not being used, it's made of creosote coated pilings, and it really does nothing for the population, or the economy..................

Yet it will be there for years to come. Just an observation. Hopefully I'm wrong. Maybe it's on someones 10 year plan.

I don't believe Ecology has much to do with these efforts.

The oil dock pilings are on DNR land and they are the lead agency, they are trying to be good stewards of our shared aquatic resources. Edmonds owns the uplands. Ownership to the pier as a functioning oil transfer facility was obviously released by Unocal to Edmonds as part of the sale of that land. As I mentioned somewhere, I have no idea if Unocal is or is not on the hook to remove it. But as an oil transfer facility it has been vacated and rights to use the private portions and state owned tidelands as an oil transfer facility don't exist anymore.

The marina at 100ft rock is not in the middle of a public park. It may or may not be abandoned that depends on whether the owner is still paying taxes on the uplands and his lease fees to DNR on the tidelands.

I can't tell you how much 3,500 tons of logs is relative to the total mass of treated wood in Puget Sound and on its beaches. My guess would be, not much since they removed ~1,000 tons from Dungeness Spit alone.

[dwashbur]

Getting a little nostalgic, as well as trying to prep my mind for returning to the Sound and its critters, I've been looking through my pictures from the Oil Dock and realizing just how many "firsts" happened there:

-our first barnacle-eating dorids
-our first Nanaimo dorid
-our first Northern Ronquil
-our first Big Skate (as well as our second, the only ones we've seen)
-our first and only ratfish feeding frenzy
-our first juvenile cabezon

That's just what I can remember. And all that happened in just six dives. What an amazing place. I'm REALLY going to miss it.

[Grateful Diver]

I don't believe Ecology has much to do with these efforts.

In this state, you don't do a project of this nature without Ecology's approval. They're not interested in land-use issues ... they're interested in water-quality issues. Just the act of moving those pilings (whatever the reason) is going to have large impacts on the surrounding water. I'm certain it didn't get approved without Ecology's blessing (meaning it had to meet the BMPs they specify for such activities).

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[Sea of Green]

Somehow I managed to miss this thread (most of it happened while I was in Port Hardy), and just stumbled on it.

Hate to say it folks, but a lot of it sounds like something out of an AM radio talk show.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yeah, like Air America and NPR...

I like to question authority, it's my right to, and nobody gets a pass just because they have letters after their names. A lot of garbage and junk science has been published and continues to be published under the guise of "science", e.g. the Canadian Rat Tests (sacrin) of the 70s, the Great Apple (Alar) Scare of 89, et al. All depends on who's funding the study. Follow the money.

So tell me, what do you think of this study done by Hull University? Here's the newspaper article. I've requested the actual study from Hull U, but the dept head, Dr. Magnus Johnson, said it won't be ready until sometime towards the end of the year. I did that because the information so far is just an interview with the scientist involved, and I don't trust journalists any more than I do politicians or used car salesmen to get the facts straight, and on the surface it seemed so incredulously ridiculous that I have to read the actual study. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I have a feeling it's going to be GREAT reading! We'll have to wait and see.

But according to the information in the article, as a male you're damaging to the marine environment! It's because all that nasty testosterone is as bad as creosote! I know I'M not leaking testosterone into the water, are you?

The issue with the Oil Dock, (which is coming out even if we argue about it forever) reminds me of this (paraphrased) quote: "In order to save the marine environment, we had to destroy it!"

Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences
University of Hull
http://www.hull.ac.uk/cems

LONDON: A new study has established that women are better divers than their male counterparts, by finding that the former are much more aware of their surroundings than the latter.

Mandy Shackleton, a marine scientist at Hull University's Marine Sciences Centre, conducted the two-year study of scuba divers.

Shackleton, who watched 500 divers of several nationalities, stated that women were found to be calmer, less aggressive and more safety conscious than their 'gung-ho, sensation-seeking' male counterparts.

"Women have better orientation. They have a greater awareness of what is going on around them," the Telegraph quoted Shackleton, as saying.

The study said that men took risks and were prone to showing off. They experienced 'a chain reaction of hormones' that caused them to lose their 'buoyancy control' more easily than women.

The stress hormone cortisol is released first, followed by testosterone, the hormone linked with aggression and finally, adrenaline.

"The combination of these three results in erratic, dangerous diving," said Shackleton.

The study also noted that on an ecological level, men's 'spatially unaware' behaviour was damaging the world's coral reefs.

There is a growing concern about the future of the reefs, which are vital habitats for thousands of fish species.

"Men should try to relax and develop good breathing techniques to maintain control and minimise damage when they go scuba diving," said Shackleton.

Nigel Forman, a professor of psychology at Middlesex University, said there was strong evidence that men had greater spatial navigational skills than women on land. However added that women had better navigation skills.

"Women tend to use local cues, signposts in their immediate vicinity, for navigation and it is possible that this is more effective underwater where even in the clearest waters visibility will not be as good as it is on land," he said.
*****************

[rjarnold]

Somehow I managed to miss this thread (most of it happened while I was in Port Hardy), and just stumbled on it.

Hate to say it folks, but a lot of it sounds like something out of an AM radio talk show.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Yeah, like Air America and NPR...

I like to question authority, it's my right to, and nobody gets a pass just because they have letters after their names. A lot of garbage and junk science has been published and continues to be published under the guise of "science", e.g. the Canadian Rat Tests (sacrin) of the 70s, the Great Apple (Alar) Scare of 89, et al. All depends on who's funding the study. Follow the money.

So tell me, what do you think of this study done by Hull University? Here's the newspaper article. I've requested the actual study from Hull U, but the dept head, Dr. Magnus Johnson, said it won't be ready until sometime towards the end of the year. I did that because the information so far is just an interview with the scientist involved, and I don't trust journalists any more than I do politicians or used car salesmen to get the facts straight, and on the surface it seemed so incredulously ridiculous that I have to read the actual study. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I have a feeling it's going to be GREAT reading! We'll have to wait and see.

But according to the information in the article, as a male you're damaging to the marine environment! It's because all that nasty testosterone is as bad as creosote! I know I'M not leaking testosterone into the water, are you?

The issue with the Oil Dock, (which is coming out even if we argue about it forever) reminds me of this (paraphrased) quote: "In order to save the marine environment, we had to destroy it!"

Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences
University of Hull
http://www.hull.ac.uk/cems

LONDON: A new study has established that women are better divers than their male counterparts, by finding that the former are much more aware of their surroundings than the latter.

Mandy Shackleton, a marine scientist at Hull University's Marine Sciences Centre, conducted the two-year study of scuba divers.

Shackleton, who watched 500 divers of several nationalities, stated that women were found to be calmer, less aggressive and more safety conscious than their 'gung-ho, sensation-seeking' male counterparts.

"Women have better orientation. They have a greater awareness of what is going on around them," the Telegraph quoted Shackleton, as saying.

The study said that men took risks and were prone to showing off. They experienced 'a chain reaction of hormones' that caused them to lose their 'buoyancy control' more easily than women.

The stress hormone cortisol is released first, followed by testosterone, the hormone linked with aggression and finally, adrenaline.

"The combination of these three results in erratic, dangerous diving," said Shackleton.

The study also noted that on an ecological level, men's 'spatially unaware' behaviour was damaging the world's coral reefs.

There is a growing concern about the future of the reefs, which are vital habitats for thousands of fish species.

"Men should try to relax and develop good breathing techniques to maintain control and minimise damage when they go scuba diving," said Shackleton.

Nigel Forman, a professor of psychology at Middlesex University, said there was strong evidence that men had greater spatial navigational skills than women on land. However added that women had better navigation skills.

"Women tend to use local cues, signposts in their immediate vicinity, for navigation and it is possible that this is more effective underwater where even in the clearest waters visibility will not be as good as it is on land," he said.
*****************

Yeah, there is so much about this study that sounds like garbage (in fact, taking a peek at the university's website, they also sound like... a degree mill maybe? There doesn't even seem to be a major professor for grad students, just more classes!, which is absurd for students wanting to publish research). I think most people can easily see there are some bogus points made in this article, and it's not a reason to get hung up on one bad 'study' that is honestly not even published yet (if it even gets through the peer review process, pending if they even HAVE a good peer review process). There are tons of "studies" out there, starting from ones done by people in their back yard that haven't a clue as to what the scientific method is, to ones that try to convince you that they have more merit than they actually do (i.e., a 'university' that is really only that in name). Of course, there are 'bad' scientists out there as well. Again I say that scientists are still human, therefore inappropriate things can and have been done (and published). But honestly, once you realize what to look for, it's generally easy to distinguish from a 'good' study that's been done well and one that hasn't been or is trying to mislead you. I wouldn't have given that article a second glance nor taken any of what it said to heart, nor do I think the majority of the scientific community would.

Again, you have to know what you're looking for - were all the possible explanations addressed, were controls used, what statistical methods were employed, who was doing the study (yes, though not a reason to reject it altogether, it's something to take into consideration). ALSO - is the study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? What sort of reputation does that journal have? Certainly there are journals that call themselves 'scientific' but have a reputation within the scientific community for publishing garbage.

That article above cites none of what I listed, to the point that I wouldn't even call it a 'scientific study'. It sounds like some girl just watched a bunch of scuba divers and came up with her own conclusions. That's not science, and this does not relate -at all- (nor can it be compared) with actual scientific studies. And yes, journalists get SO much wrong. I've read a couple of articles where I was directly involved and I had to laugh at what was written, and wondered if the journalist was in lala land when taking notes.

[rjarnold]

BTW - how did you even FIND that article? Googling it only came up with some obscure online newspaper called "The Times of India".

[Sea of Green]

BTW - how did you even FIND that article? Googling it only came up with some obscure online newspaper called "The Times of India".

Here: http://tinyurl.com/6hcjzp

[Joshua Smith]

I got no letters after my name. But I have gotten liquid creosote in an open cut on my arm. It burned like acid, and some of the tissue around the cut died, even though I rinsed it with fresh water immediately. Another time, I got a huge chunk of a creosote railroad tie stuck in my leg- like a splinter, only it was the size of a pencil. Had to pull it out with pliers. The wound was incredibly painfull, turned bright red, got infected almost immediately......

I think anyone who questions the toxicity of creosote ought to duplicate these two "experiments."

Going back a few pages, I agree with those who think it's OK to remove the oil dock, but would like to see it replaced with some kind of structure.......

[smike]

I still want to know where the creosote is going to be dumped, and who has studied what kind of effects it will have there.

[airsix]

Another time, I got a huge chunk of a creosote railroad tie stuck in my leg- like a splinter, only it was the size of a pencil.

Josh has come a long way since his train-jumping hobo days.

[Joshua Smith]

Another time, I got a huge chunk of a creosote railroad tie stuck in my leg- like a splinter, only it was the size of a pencil.

Josh has come a long way since his train-jumping hobo days.

As a residential construction laborer in New Mexico during the mid- '80s, we looked up to the train-jumping hobos.

[Sea of Green]

Yeah, there is so much about this study that sounds like garbage (in fact, taking a peek at the university's website, they also sound like... a degree mill maybe? There doesn't even seem to be a major professor for grad students, just more classes!, which is absurd for students wanting to publish research). I think most people can easily see there are some bogus points made in this article, and it's not a reason to get hung up on one bad 'study' that is honestly not even published yet (if it even gets through the peer review process, pending if they even HAVE a good peer review process). There are tons of "studies" out there, starting from ones done by people in their back yard that haven't a clue as to what the scientific method is, to ones that try to convince you that they have more merit than they actually do (i.e., a 'university' that is really only that in name). Of course, there are 'bad' scientists out there as well. Again I say that scientists are still human, therefore inappropriate things can and have been done (and published). But honestly, once you realize what to look for, it's generally easy to distinguish from a 'good' study that's been done well and one that hasn't been or is trying to mislead you. I wouldn't have given that article a second glance nor taken any of what it said to heart, nor do I think the majority of the scientific community would.

Again, you have to know what you're looking for - were all the possible explanations addressed, were controls used, what statistical methods were employed, who was doing the study (yes, though not a reason to reject it altogether, it's something to take into consideration). ALSO - is the study published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal? What sort of reputation does that journal have? Certainly there are journals that call themselves 'scientific' but have a reputation within the scientific community for publishing garbage.

That article above cites none of what I listed, to the point that I wouldn't even call it a 'scientific study'. It sounds like some girl just watched a bunch of scuba divers and came up with her own conclusions. That's not science, and this does not relate -at all- (nor can it be compared) with actual scientific studies. And yes, journalists get SO much wrong. I've read a couple of articles where I was directly involved and I had to laugh at what was written, and wondered if the journalist was in lala land when taking notes.

You're right, it didn't occur to me to challenge the credentials of the University itself. I only went as far as confirming who the author was and that she was a student there. Not even sure why I'm even bothering, maybe because it's such an easy target. I'm not a scientist but I can think of a lot different criteria other than using divers of different nationalities, e.g. training level, experience level, type of gear, frequency of diving, what type of dive conditions the study was done in, (warm v cold, currents, no currents?) WTF has one's nationality have to do with it? That's why I asked for the actual study, to see if the news article was leaving something out.

But my whole point in referencing that "study" and the others is that there's a lot of stuff being passed off as "science" that needs to be challenged. All well and fine if they can show concrete evidence (no pun) of how the collective efforts will pay off in the long run. I used to scoff at the idea of a new house being built having to meet certain criteria such as not too much paving in the driveway, but when I looked at what they were basing it on, the results they've had so far in the last 20 or so years, and how it impact the water quality of the Sound, I can accept that. One good example, how many divers here wash your cars in the driveway? Take it to the car wash, or at least wash it over grass.

[Sea of Green]

I got no letters after my name. But I have gotten liquid creosote in an open cut on my arm. It burned like acid, and some of the tissue around the cut died, even though I rinsed it with fresh water immediately. Another time, I got a huge chunk of a creosote railroad tie stuck in my leg- like a splinter, only it was the size of a pencil. Had to pull it out with pliers. The wound was incredibly painfull, turned bright red, got infected almost immediately......

I think anyone who questions the toxicity of creosote ought to duplicate these two "experiments."

Going back a few pages, I agree with those who think it's OK to remove the oil dock, but would like to see it replaced with some kind of structure.......

I'm sure it didn't feel good, but it's not a good example. Put seawater on an open wound and see what happens. I had a small cut one time from an oyster shell trying to shuck oysters in my bare hands. I ignored it, it didn't heal and festered up, turned green until good ol' Mom told me to take a sterlized needle, break it open and clean out the gunk (I couldn't believe how bad it stunk!) and use a strong disinfectant on it (Bag Balm). It healed right up after that. All because a little bit of seawater got in a relatively minor scrape. Lesson learned: Wear gloves when shucking oysters, and never ignore even minor wounds that come in contact with seawater.

But yeah, I don't see any reason why we couldn't use the area for a EUP south, unless they decide to ban diving altogether from Marina Beach. But the city of Seattle tried to do that at Cove 2, remember? Divers got together and pointed out to the powers that be that they cannot ban one type of recreational activity while allowing others. Maybe they would rather plant eel-grass there for salmon habit (can eel grass be planted?). I'll support that too, even volunteer to help, since the salmon population has solid scientific evidence of being in danger, and the causes.

[rjarnold]

BTW - how did you even FIND that article? Googling it only came up with some obscure online newspaper called "The Times of India".

Here: http://tinyurl.com/6hcjzp

That link also took me to the "Times of India". That online newspaper has a few other suspicious 'scientific studies' it has reported on, and the question that comes to my mind - if the study was done in London and is legit and has enough evidence to even come close to being true, then why didn't a paper in London report on it?