Edmonds Oil Dock to be removed soon.

[Grateful Diver]

And what are they doing with all those creosote-tainted pilings once they're removed from the water?

If they're putting them in a landfill, guess where all those chemicals are gonna eventually end up anyway?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

[TCWestby]

I'm not surprised! Wasn't it a couple of years ago Queen Christine got a bee in her bonnet to remove all creosote pilings in Puget Sound? I don't know what the timing is but that will have to add to her 2.7 billion dollar overdraft.

When the state and feds get done removing all the habitat and the life moves on who will they blame?????? Global warming, it must be global warming....

I'll have to get there so I can tell my kids one day how it used to be back in the day......

[airsix]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

[TCWestby]

My biggest issue is that it takes years or decades to get the marine life to really take hold.

The removals I've seen is in areas where there is no visible sign of oily water then immediately after cutting off the piling the oils locked inside are exposed thus leaking into the water. Now this may or may not be the right way to do it but it seems like it will create a bigger problem. Reminded me of the old days after installing new ones.

I'm sure glad I don't have to make the big decisions concerning this. I'd sure like to see the EIS for the projects. Also who is paying for the work? Most likely tax dollars, which means the citizens. I don't know about you buy I can't afford another tax increase.

When I loose my house I'll be the guy at the offramp with gear and an I'll dive for air sign....

[John Rawlings]

Creating habitat isn't part of the official program. The official program is to remove the pilings completely and kill anything on them. Unless they have changed their methods since they destroyed the Mukilteo T-Pier all that will be left behind will be a completely shaved sand bottom - they dig as far down into the sand as they can to remove all trace of "un-natural" structure.

Establishing new habitat requires permission from not only the same folks that destroyed the old habitat, but a long list of other agencies as well.

We have managed to create agencies that do nothing but hinder, while simultaneously legislating ourselves into a corner.
Am I cynical? You bet! It comes from years and years of futily attempting to do here what other states and Provinces seem to be able to do only to see the efforts here stone-walled at every turn.

It's frightening, but every now and then I actually understand the Anarchists' viewpoint when it comes to government.

- John (grumble - grumble - grumble)

[Pez7378]

Didn't you guys hear the report of the Leatherback Sea Turtle that was spotted at this site? I heard that they were laying eggs on the beach too. Hey! Aren't those endangered?!?!

http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/Spec ... pcode=C00F

[TCWestby]

I hear you bro unfortunatealy it seems to be the so called environmentalists who cause alot of the crap. The problem is unregulated the pendulum swinge to the other extreem.

Ahhh, anarchy, sometimes sheer survival of the fittest seems like the way to go......

[TCWestby]

Sombody call Jonny Dep, I wanna be a pirate, arrrrg....

[dwashbur]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

Um, there are hundreds of Metridium anemones, barnacles, sea stars, nudibranchs, and all the rest that call those pilings home and appear to thrive on them. The fact that at least 4 species of nudibranch that I've seen there personally not only live on them, but lay their eggs and have the young grow to maturity on them, suggests that what we have there is a habitat that is not only good for them, it's extremely conducive to their growth and reproduction. In other words, we already have "healthy marine habitat" there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've seen a swarm of a dozen or more ratfish chowing down on some huge tubeworms under the dock, and it's the only place that we've ever seen any of the Big Skate, and also where we saw our first juvenile cabezon. A couple of years ago I posted a picture, either on this forum or on the Northwest Diver board, playfully asking "how many rockfish are in this picture?" It was a shot of no less than 10 within about a 3'x3' space, and I took it at the oil dock. This is GOOD habitat. We should do whatever we can to keep an inane government agency from screwing it up.

[spatman]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

Um, there are hundreds of Metridium anemones, barnacles, sea stars, nudibranchs, and all the rest that call those pilings home and appear to thrive on them. The fact that at least 4 species of nudibranch that I've seen there personally not only live on them, but lay their eggs and have the young grow to maturity on them, suggests that what we have there is a habitat that is not only good for them, it's extremely conducive to their growth and reproduction. In other words, we already have "healthy marine habitat" there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've seen a swarm of a dozen or more ratfish chowing down on some huge tubeworms under the dock, and it's the only place that we've ever seen any of the Big Skate, and also where we saw our first juvenile cabezon. A couple of years ago I posted a picture, either on this forum or on the Northwest Diver board, playfully asking "how many rockfish are in this picture?" It was a shot of no less than 10 within about a 3'x3' space, and I took it at the oil dock. This is GOOD habitat. We should do whatever we can to keep an inane government agency from screwing it up.

i'm no marine biologist by any means, but there is significant data that creosote can have serious long-term affects.

humans live in toxic environments, too. and some thrive, even though they're not as healthy as they should be, or may die earlier, or may be passing along birth defects to future generations, etc.

just because it appears healthy, it may not be.

[dwashbur]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

Um, there are hundreds of Metridium anemones, barnacles, sea stars, nudibranchs, and all the rest that call those pilings home and appear to thrive on them. The fact that at least 4 species of nudibranch that I've seen there personally not only live on them, but lay their eggs and have the young grow to maturity on them, suggests that what we have there is a habitat that is not only good for them, it's extremely conducive to their growth and reproduction. In other words, we already have "healthy marine habitat" there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've seen a swarm of a dozen or more ratfish chowing down on some huge tubeworms under the dock, and it's the only place that we've ever seen any of the Big Skate, and also where we saw our first juvenile cabezon. A couple of years ago I posted a picture, either on this forum or on the Northwest Diver board, playfully asking "how many rockfish are in this picture?" It was a shot of no less than 10 within about a 3'x3' space, and I took it at the oil dock. This is GOOD habitat. We should do whatever we can to keep an inane government agency from screwing it up.

i'm no marine biologist by any means, but there is significant data that creosote can have serious long-term affects.

humans live in toxic environments, too. and some thrive, even though they're not as healthy as they should be, or may die earlier, or may be passing along birth defects to future generations, etc.

just because it appears healthy, it may not be.

Is it really wise to rip out all that well-used habitat based on a "may not be"? How long has the oil dock been there? Have any adverse effects actually been observed? Seems to me these are questions that should have been explored before making any decisions. This whole thing sounds more like a knee-jerk reaction operation than a serious environmental study and conclusion.

[spatman]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

Um, there are hundreds of Metridium anemones, barnacles, sea stars, nudibranchs, and all the rest that call those pilings home and appear to thrive on them. The fact that at least 4 species of nudibranch that I've seen there personally not only live on them, but lay their eggs and have the young grow to maturity on them, suggests that what we have there is a habitat that is not only good for them, it's extremely conducive to their growth and reproduction. In other words, we already have "healthy marine habitat" there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've seen a swarm of a dozen or more ratfish chowing down on some huge tubeworms under the dock, and it's the only place that we've ever seen any of the Big Skate, and also where we saw our first juvenile cabezon. A couple of years ago I posted a picture, either on this forum or on the Northwest Diver board, playfully asking "how many rockfish are in this picture?" It was a shot of no less than 10 within about a 3'x3' space, and I took it at the oil dock. This is GOOD habitat. We should do whatever we can to keep an inane government agency from screwing it up.

i'm no marine biologist by any means, but there is significant data that creosote can have serious long-term affects.

humans live in toxic environments, too. and some thrive, even though they're not as healthy as they should be, or may die earlier, or may be passing along birth defects to future generations, etc.

just because it appears healthy, it may not be.

Is it really wise to rip out all that well-used habitat based on a "may not be"? How long has the oil dock been there? Have any adverse effects actually been observed? Seems to me these are questions that should have been explored before making any decisions. This whole thing sounds more like a knee-jerk reaction operation than a serious environmental study and conclusion.

would you want to build your house with creosote soaked logs, dave? even though you might not see any visible sign that your neighbors are affected by their creosote houses, would you live there?

i'm not advocating the removal of these pilings. i'm just pointing out that a proliferation of 3-eyed simpson fish or any other visible symptom are not necessarily the way to tell if something is harmful.

[dwashbur]

I don't have a problem with piling removal if the habitat is quickly replaced with something better. It's undeniable that marine life is attracted to the logs, but that doesn't mean the logs are good for them. Humans flock to McDonalds and CrispyCreme, but that doesn't make them good for us. Lets make some healthy marine habitat instead.

-Ben

Um, there are hundreds of Metridium anemones, barnacles, sea stars, nudibranchs, and all the rest that call those pilings home and appear to thrive on them. The fact that at least 4 species of nudibranch that I've seen there personally not only live on them, but lay their eggs and have the young grow to maturity on them, suggests that what we have there is a habitat that is not only good for them, it's extremely conducive to their growth and reproduction. In other words, we already have "healthy marine habitat" there. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I've seen a swarm of a dozen or more ratfish chowing down on some huge tubeworms under the dock, and it's the only place that we've ever seen any of the Big Skate, and also where we saw our first juvenile cabezon. A couple of years ago I posted a picture, either on this forum or on the Northwest Diver board, playfully asking "how many rockfish are in this picture?" It was a shot of no less than 10 within about a 3'x3' space, and I took it at the oil dock. This is GOOD habitat. We should do whatever we can to keep an inane government agency from screwing it up.

i'm no marine biologist by any means, but there is significant data that creosote can have serious long-term affects.

humans live in toxic environments, too. and some thrive, even though they're not as healthy as they should be, or may die earlier, or may be passing along birth defects to future generations, etc.

just because it appears healthy, it may not be.

Is it really wise to rip out all that well-used habitat based on a "may not be"? How long has the oil dock been there? Have any adverse effects actually been observed? Seems to me these are questions that should have been explored before making any decisions. This whole thing sounds more like a knee-jerk reaction operation than a serious environmental study and conclusion.

would you want to build your house with creosote soaked logs, dave? even though you might not see any visible sign that your neighbors are affected by their creosote houses, would you live there?

i'm not advocating the removal of these pilings. i'm just pointing out that a proliferation of 3-eyed simpson fish or any other visible symptom are not necessarily the way to tell if something is harmful.

In the absence of solid evidence that it was harmful, I probably wouldn't worry about it. My point is, the main reason this is being done seems to be more political expediency than environmental concern. I'm much more concerned about all the existing, quite healthy life that's already there that is going to be killed for no apparently good reason. I just don't see how destroying habitat and what is basically an entire little ecosystem is an ecological improvement.

I do see your point, and if there's proof that the creosote in those particular pilings is having an adverse effect on a majority of the marine life there, by all means remove them. But I haven't heard anything approaching proof. And I'm adamantly opposed to destroying habitat that's already there and supporting marine life based on "maybe" or someone's political hot-button. And so far that's all I'm seeing. I think we can agree that until we know a LOT more, this project should be put on "hold."

[H20doctor]

Well I am more than ready to scedule a protest for a reconstruction of a artificial reef with rocks and concrete retaining walls.. The oil dock needs to be evailuated for marine life and it should matter for the Nudi's

[airsix]

Oxford Life Sciences Journal

The findings strongly suggest an association between exposure to creosote and the prevalence of hepatic lesions, including neoplasms, in the bottom-dwelling fish,

Sediment Toxicity Assessment, Boca Raton FL

Some species of fish in the section where sediment contamination was the highest showed a significant increase in the frequency of lens cataracts, fin erosion, and integumental ulceration. Histopathological examination of fish exposed to PAH contaminated sediments revealed a higher prevalence of lesions than in control fish. Liver samples showed a strong positive correlation between cytochrome P450E and sediment PAH. Liver ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase activity showed a similar trend. Several in vitro macrophage function tests (chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and chemiluminescence) showed that integrity of the nonspecific immune response in fish exposed to contaminated sediments was significantly reduced.

Institute of Applied Environmental Research, Laboratory for Aquatic Ecotoxicology, Stockholm University, S-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

The level of DNA adducts in fish from the creosote-contaminated site was 6.8±4.1 nmol mol−1 nucleotides compared to 0.21±0.21 nmol mol−1 nucleotides in fish from the long-distance reference site. The adduct level was also significantly increased compared to adduct levels in fish from the local reference site...In the laboratory, perch were exposed to an organic solvent extract prepared from sediment collected at the creosote-contaminated site or to benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) by oral administration. Perch treated with the extract had adduct patterns very similar to those observed in perch from the contaminated field site.

Virginia Institute of Marine Science (regarding creosote-contaminated site in the Elizabeth River, Virginia)

Hydrophobic DNA adducts were examined in liver, anterior kidney, spleen, and blood of tumor-prone mummichog (Fundulus heterclitus) from the creosote-contaminated Atlantic Wood (AW) site (Elizabeth River, Virginia). DNA adducts eluted in a diagonal radioactive zone, characteristic of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon exposure, in all examined tissues of AW fish. Mummichog demonstrated significantly higher levels of DNA adducts in spleen (394±109 nmol adducts/mol nucleotides) than in liver (201±77 nmol adducts/mol nucleotides) or anterior kidney (211±68 nmol adducts/mol nucleotides; P=0.036). The levels of DNA adducts in the pooled blood (pool of four) were 142 nmol adducts/mol nucleotides.

St. Lawrence Centre, Environment Canada - genetic toxicity observed in rainbow trout

Rainbow trout hepatocytes were exposed for 24 h at 15 °C to several concentrations of the sediment extract. Afterwards, the cells were collected, and cell viability was assayed along with genotoxicity using the nick translation and the alkaline precipitation assays. Results showed that the wharf contained high concentration of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), displayed genotoxicity and cytotoxicity to hepatocytes. In addition, PAHs, cytotoxicity and sometimes genotoxicity were detected in all sediment samples and tended to decrease with distance.

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences - Toxic Substances and Reproductive Disorders in Baltic Fish and Crustaceans

Exposure of the mysid shrimp Mysidopsis bahia to water-soluble fractions of creosote-contaminated sediment decreased mysid growth and the proportion of gravid females (82). Exposure to creosote and phenanthrene reduced growth rate and the number of broods, and increased the abortion rate in D. pulex (83). Long-term exposure of the calanoid copepod E. affinis to low concentrations of naphthalenes for 29 days reduced total numbers of nauplii, mean brood size and egg rate production (84). Exposure of the harpacticoid copepod N. affinis to dilute solutions of crude oil reduced brood size (85).

The published scientific data on this subject goes on and on and on... Marine life inhabit these sites because they provide shelter and anchorage. They aren't smart enough to know that the leaching chemicals are causing organ damage and genetic mutation.

We all want cool sites to dive, but at what cost? I want a clean healthy Puget Sound, not one poisoned for my own selfish interests. Support the cleanup but demand replacement habitat.

-Ben

[cardiver]

Thanks for the research, Ben! It's nice to see some scientific data and not just rhetoric.

[Sea of Green]

The published scientific data on this subject goes on and on and on... Marine life inhabit these sites because they provide shelter and anchorage. They aren't smart enough to know that the leaching chemicals are causing organ damage and genetic mutation.

We all want cool sites to dive, but at what cost? I want a clean healthy Puget Sound, not one poisoned for my own selfish interests. Support the cleanup but demand replacement habitat.

-Ben

Have you ever heard of a "Canadian Rat Test"? These are all theories and guess work conjured up by eggheaded academic types, key words are "can", "strongly suggest", i.e. they're not really sure because they have no real evidence what-so-ever. Their only interest is getting grants so they don't have to work in the real world. Who's being "selfish" here? And replace it with what? Do that and they'll still say you're harming the environment because your introducing something artificial. That's not an exaggeration either, it's exactly why they won't let any artificial reefs in Puget Sound.

The marine life on the pilings now is probably the umpteenth generation since the last bit of creosote leached out, and I haven't seen any mutant ninja anemones.

[John Rawlings]

Support the cleanup but demand replacement habitat.

They are NOT providing replacement habitat. No funding for replacement habitat has been provided, nor will it be. When this all started people demanded replacement habitat until they were blue in the face and it didn't happen. Those pushing this issue are convinced that ANYTHING man-made is unnatural and should not be introduced to the environment.

What they do is they hire a commercial diving company to completely and utterly remove the offending pilings (every last one of them) and all marine life affiliated with them. They then scour the bottom for any trace of manmade debris, also scooping up anything living affiliated with that. When they are done they will have sifted the sand and removed anything solid. If any marine life should happen to venture into the site after all this is done what they will find is a smooth bottom with absolutely nothing on it - much like the head of a completely bald man.

You may scoff, but this is what they do. I have dived where they have been (before and after) and I regard it as destruction, pure and simple.

Replacement habitat? To shut you up they will tell you that that is part of "future planning"....when pigs fly.

- John

[airsix]

I hear you John. We need to come together on this. The fact is that the pilings are coming out. I don't think there's any stopping that (for better or worse). I think we need to start looking forward to what is going to be done in its wake.

There is precedent in wildlife management to provide man-made habitat in areas where population declines have resulted from human activity. That's one argument that can be used.

Also, there is precedent for preservation of habitat even if it is man-made - if that habitat is supporting wildlife. Thanks to the awesome photographers in this club we have proof that these man-made sites are heavily inhabited.

If enough public attention is drawn to this there will be some kind of concession.

-Ben

[dwashbur]

Thanks, Ben, for the info. What I haven't seen is anything about the Oil Dock in particular. That would be nice to have as well. I'm not trying to say that creosote isn't potentially harmful. My question is, do we have any idea if any is actually leeching from the pilings at the oil dock, if so, what kind of damage is it actually doing, if not, why the hell are they destroying this habitat? Okay, that's actually several questions... To date I have received no response at all to my email to the DOT, not even an automated "yeah, we got it and we're fully prepared to ignore it" message. Your tax dollars at work.

[John Rawlings]

Actually, since they're planning on eventually relocating the ferry terminal there, the Edmonds T-pier would be removed no matter what. We're losing the dive site either way.

[fpoole]

I thought I had a reply on this early but don't see it...
Anyway, Bummer... OD was one of my favorites...

I tried to re-read the postings but coudn't find...

So what's going to happen to the exiting doc?? next to the park... would that become a dive site... Heheheh he said knowingly realizing that for whatever reason that wouldn't happen.. but just what would be the plans for the existing one???

Just wandering minds that want to know eh???

[dwashbur]

Actually, since they're planning on eventually relocating the ferry terminal there, the Edmonds T-pier would be removed no matter what. We're losing the dive site either way.

Very true. And I have to admit that something needs to be done about the ferry traffic problem in that town, because it's so far beyond ridiculous I'm not even sure there's a word for it. At the same time, it's a shame that they can't come up with a better way to do this. And looking at the layout of that part of the town, I'm not sure that moving the ferry terminal a few feet south (so to speak) is really going to do that much to alleviate the problem. But then, I'm no bureaucrat...

Thought: maybe the existing ferry terminal pilings could become a new dive site once the ferry stuff is moved? Just thinking out loud here...

[H20doctor]

The good news is if the ferry is going south now we can dive the dry dock legally !!! And no. More tickets

[dwashbur]

Just a quick note to spatman:

Hey, I hope I didn't come off as antagonistic or argumentative. I wasn't intending to be, just trying to figure all this out and find out what it's based on, but I know sometimes I can get a little, um, abrasive. If I did, it wasn't intentional and hope we're cool.