Edmonds Oil Dock to be removed soon.

[dsteding]

So why don't you? I hate generalizations like this. If you can name half a dozen, please do so.

****

While I can respect what it takes to get a PH.D. (I never got to finish mine), a degree is by no means a guarantee of either expertise or, more importantly, objectivity. My objection to the whole oil dock thing is the destruction of the life that's already there. And if John is correct, that the end result is basically a "scorched earth" approach, then we're not just talking about the destruction of what's there, but the absence of anything to replace it and virtually ensuring that nothing can grow there. I tend to suspect that's at least as bad as the whole creosote thing, maybe worse.

Sure:

There are two in the planning stages in the Duwamish (within 5 miles of Elliott Bay, and tidally influenced, I'd call that Puget Sound). There are ~10 projects associated with Commencement Bay that have recently been completed. I believe the Tulalip Landfill has a NRD mitigation project associated with it, and the gas pipeline rupture up in Bellingham had some NRD work associated with it.

WSDOT does mitigation banking, but those might be more in rivers draining to the Sound. Port Gamble's cleanup has been taken over by Ecology (I believe) and has mitigation/habitat restoration as a part of it. If I had to hazard a guess, the Port Angeles cleanup has habitat restoration as a part of it, and I know that King County as well as the City of Seattle have performed small habitat projects within Elliott Bay in the last ten years. And, I'm recalling a big wetlands project in Everett, but can't remember its name.

This doesn't really touch on mitigation required by CWA 404 or 401 permits/certifications, or as conditions on shoreline development.

As for the educational comment, I agree in an abstract sense. Since I waved that thing around (something I rarely do), here is my background:

I went to UCSC, and spent two years helping teach an aquatic toxicology class, as well as working in an environmental toxicology lab who's primary responsibility was the Regional Monitoring Project for San Francisco Bay, a program funded by dischargers and administered by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. SFEI is basically responsible for studying and helping guide the restoration of San Francisco Bay. I'm a lawyer now, so my knowledge of the state of the science is admittedly limited, but things like creosote pilings I have a decent understanding of.

[TCWestby]

Can we put this another way?

Asbestos is bad, but what is worse leaving it in place in a building and sealing it up? Or abatement which stirs up the environment releasing the fibere into the air in the name of saving the health of people.

The bad stuff is already long gone and sealed up woth paint and wallpaper.
the principle seems to be the same for the pilings, the toxins on the surface are gone. Opening up the innards exposes new toxins to the environment at what cost?

Ok, admitadly, I'm ot a scientist but how many times have scientists been wrong?

Sure the dock is man-made and not naturan and the state wants things to get back th the natural state, I can respect that, but nature is always changing. The only constant in the universe is change.

I'm not saying I have all the answers but I'm sick and tired of governments double standard. If we want to do something we have to prove to the govenment that we are following the rules and replacing habitat. When govenment wants to do something there is little or no oversight, Hail to the King.....

Government needs to lead by example instead of dictating to us what we will do and have different rules for themselves.

I believe that the state is trying to get certain rockfish populations to return to the sound, don't they need structures as habitat? If so, how can the populations increase if we remove structures that support their health?

Frankly, I love diving grass beds but from the sound of it there is no plan on re-planting them either.

[dwashbur]

I quite agree, TC. And that brings me back to my question: has anybody shown that any creosote is actually leaking from these pilings? Funny how nobody seems to be answering that question. I suspect the silence is in fact the answer.

As for the "natural state" of the area, for one thing, TC is correct: there ain't no such thing because the sea floor constantly changes. For another, we don't know what its "natural state" is or was before the dock. Whatever it was, the presence of the dock is now its "natural state" and ripping it out, killing all those organisms and leaving nothing at all as John has described several times, is definitely not "natural."

I suspect that both "creosote" and "natural state" are nothing more than political trigger-words that are used to manipulate people who respond to hot buttons.

That's about all I have to say on the subject. If any studies of that specific spot have been done, I hope someone will point me to them. If they haven't, I think we all need to band together and raise a mighty stink about the whole operation.

[Sea of Green]

Whenever I read scientific studies, I look for key words like "may", "can", "could", "possibility" or even "strongly suggests". You don't need a PhD to know how to read. Words like these indicate that they aren't real sure, and only have theories to go on. There was a "study" recently done by the Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences, University of Hull (UK) that concluded that male divers are bad for the environment. Of course it's nonsense, and the "scientist" who did it (a female) obviously had a misandrist agenda. I am a bit distressed that any University would accept it as "scientific" work, (but not surprised). Creosote pilings today, male divers tomorrow?

Also am I the only one who remembers the "Canadian rat tests" of the 70s? They set out to show that an artificial sweetener, sacrin, was bad for your health. A group of Canadians injected rats with a concentrated solution that was the equivalent of more than anybody could possibly consume in a life time, then when the rats started dropping dead or developed nasty diseases, they concluded that sacrin is indeed bad for human consumption. The tests were so blatantly biased and bogus that the term "Canadian rat test" became a pejorative. The point being is that it's not beyond some academics to set out with an agenda and conclude whatever it is they want to try to prove.

[billandwende]

OK I'm not saying that I would even consider building an artificial reef piece by piece and placing it in the Puget Sound. BUT if someone were to do this how would one go about building it from materials that will not do harm. I seem to remember reading that plain ol cement is not a good idea. Is there some special mix? Any Ideas? I would prefer something that could be formed so spaces and voids could be made as well as ease of transport and stacking. Of course this would be purely speculation that anyone would need such info or actually build any such project.


1 Person. 2 or 3 50lb parts per trip. 52 trips per year. Couldn't hurt.

[dwashbur]

There was an episode of "Dirty Jobs" in which Mike learned how a particular company makes eco-friendly "reef balls" using a special concoction. You might see if you could hunt that episode up to figure out what sorts of materials might conceivably be used for such a hypothetical project

[Phineas Gage]

http://www.reefball.org
http://www.reefball.org/concretespecifications.htm

Looks like it's all about the PH.

Dirty Jobs is a cool show.

[Sea of Green]

OK I'm not saying that I would even consider building an artificial reef piece by piece and placing it in the Puget Sound. BUT if someone were to do this how would one go about building it from materials that will not do harm. I seem to remember reading that plain ol cement is not a good idea. Is there some special mix? Any Ideas? I would prefer something that could be formed so spaces and voids could be made as well as ease of transport and stacking. Of course this would be purely speculation that anyone would need such info or actually build any such project.

When I was in Flori-duh, I did some dives with the Palm Beach County Reef Research Org, and they said they preferred limestone over reef balls for artificial reefs.

[TCWestby]

Well, so far I have contacted state senator Jean Berkey and recieved no response. Not suprising in my history of trying to communicate with her.

I also contacted John McCoy who responded with the following generic banter.

"Todd,

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. As someone who is also very concerned about the condition of our waters I appreciate your email. Making the right investments in preventive measures and cleanup efforts today will ensure the long-term future of our environment and our economy, and most important, our own health. A healthy sound brings back the sea life and sustains a balanced ecosystem, for both fish and man.

Here is the link to the Department of Natural Resources press release on creosote cleanup: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/em_fs07_210.pdf. I believe it will answer at least a few of your questions as to whether it is true or not and also how it is being funded. There is also additional information at DNR’s aquatic and marine sciences webpage with a contact for questions: http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/A ... /Home.aspx.

Also in a quick search on the topic I found some information at the Department of Transportation as well:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/your_ws ... /creosote/

As far as habitat restoration, I have had my legislative aide put in a call to DNR to investigate what is being down to maintain and ensure habitat for the creatures that have made their homes out of these pilings. Once we have gathered more information we will pass it on to you.

Puget Sound is our region's namesake and we must protect it. Our waters are key to attracting and retaining businesses and employees to our region. In order to have a strong economy, we need to keep the Puget Sound region a great place to live. That's why the State Legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership by passing Senate Bill 5372, to oversee the restoration of the Sound and invested a lot of funds in protecting our water:

*Puget Sound toxic sites: $4 million
*Puget Sound aquatic cleanup and restoration: $5 million
*Puget Sound storm water projects: $17.92 million
*Puget Sound creosote removal 4 million

*Water pollution control loan program: state contribution of $90 million matches federal investment of $50 million; total $140 million

*Urban waters cleanup and restoration: $2.57 million
*Puget Sound toxics cleanup: $529,000

There is information a plenty at http://www.psp.wa.gov/index.html to find out more about the Puget Sound Partnership. I think you will find it a resourceful site and a way to stay up to date on their progress.

As I mentioned above I will be in contact once I have additional info concerning habitat restoration. Again I thank you for contacting me with your concerns. I agree that the tax payers do not have an open check book and should not be treated as so. We need to make wise investments with the funds that are available and potential sacrifices to relieve the burdens being faced by not only you but also my family and our neighbors.

Sincerely,

John McCoy
State Representative
"

So far not alot of info but I'm still going through the links. One thing of interest to me was the map of the piling removal projects. I'm familliar with a number of the areas. most of which had a minimal number of affected pilings. I looked at Edmonds and Mukilteo where we all know there are alot and they are set as possible future projects.

Thought you'd all like to see what I got...

[rjarnold]

I don't mean to be rude here, but as a scientist that publishes ""may", "can", "could", "possibility" or even "strongly suggests" and goes after grant money for more research, I take offense to such statements that those people (me) do not have any 'real' evidence and are only throwing out theories to get more money. To understand the lingo of these studies, you first have to understand rigid scientific theory. Rarely does a scientist ever say "proves that" in their published manuscripts. If I say something 'proves' something else, I am in fact implying a law of nature that cannot be broken. For example, I can dissect a thousand frogfishes [not that I ever could, a thousand fish for this family is a huge amount] to determine that all the ones guarding egg nests have thus far been female. The natural tendency then is to say that 'all frogfishes guarding eggs are female.' But I can't. I have to say that the data strongly suggests that all frogfishes found guarding egg nests are female. One should read the entire article and draw their own conclusions - did the authors employ rigorous testing methods? Were controls used? Was every possible explanation addressed? You don't have to agree with the results from a published scientific study, but you should at least understand the study and what was done before you call it crap. And of course scientists can and have been wrong, we're not inhuman.

Without reading the above quoted studies, the sheer amount of them suggest that there is something to this leaching problem. As one person already pointed out, the biggest missing piece of evidence here is that there has been no testing to confirm [as far as I'm aware] that leaching is actually occurring [though it probably is] at the oil docks, and on top of that to do a real environmental costs vs. benefits analysis.

Sad as it may be, but the ocean is often devoid of much life when there is no 3-dimensional structure to provide habitat [especially the open ocean where there isn't even a usable 'bottom']. You will find a plethora of species around these structures when they are present, i.e., the incredible Sargasso Sea with its Sargassum weed. When man-made 3-dimensional structures are put into the water, the same thing occurs. The oil rigs out in the Gulf of Mexico are an amazing place to fish because of the habitat that they provide. But we have to realize that this is an artificial environment created by us, not something that naturally occurred.

Of course, then there's always the issue of whether or not creating those man-made habitats is harmful, neutral, or actually beneficial (and to whom?). I know of no studies finding that underwater man-made habitats [the creation of the habitat itself, not anything about the building materials used or chemicals released] are harmful, and some that find them to be beneficial [though I don't know of any specifically off the top of my head, as my realm of research has nothing to do with creating habitats or MPAs (marine protected areas)].

The situation at hand is a sad one, as we will be losing a beautiful diving location and the creatures that already inhabit the oil dock will lose their homes, and yes, many of the non-swimming types will probably die. As none of them are endangered or threatened [as far as I am aware], these species should readily inhabit other niches that are opened up to them. I am also pessimistic that another area with 3-dimensional habitat will be created and opened up to divers to specifically replace this one, but am hopeful that there are other restoration projects at hand that will provide new dive sites. I also suspect that the reasoning for the removal of the oil dock has little to do with environmental issues and it is just used as a blanket excuse for the people opposed to removing the oil dock, and the real reason [and as such, the decision probably won't be reversed] is the relocation of the ferry terminal.

That being said, while writing letters and sending emails to the people 'in charge' is necessary, PR is a resource that I don't believe anyone here has yet looked into? Public notice is key and can be a huge asset to any argument. Plaster the words "TO BE DESTROYED" over a beautiful underwater picture of all the life on the oil docks in the Seattle Times, and you're bound to get some notice, even if only to do a study to 'strongly suggest' [ ]that the oil docks are a detriment to the health of the ecosystem, or that their negatives are outweighed by the positives that they bring to the underwater habitat.

[airsix]

Very well said.

Science can never be perfect because it is practiced by imperfect beings. It can never be entirely objective, however it strives to be. It is this commitment to objectivity and quantification that should be respected. I am not a professional scientist, but I have a deep love of science. What facet of our lives has not benefited from disciplined scientific study? The second law of thermodynamics wasn't discovered by listening to talk radio. Discoveries like that were made by men and women with discipline, patience, and determination. To hear so much disrespect directed at a group which has done so much to improve the human condition really irks me.

That said, I have no respect for poor execution of the scientific method. But just because there is a flaw here or there is no reason to disregard the entire field!

Science is very much like religion. Rarely will you find a follower/practitioner who is as perfect in practice as the doctrines ascribed to. This does not make the doctrines themselves flawed. Scientific study, though imperfect, provides the best information we have. In this world you have to make decisions based on the evidence in front of you. In the case of the creosote who has provided more compelling evidence than the scientific community?

And to conclude, I just want to remind everyone of the following. Our common ground is much broader than our differences.
We all Love Puget Sound.
We all Love diving here.
We Love the wonders of the marine ecosystem.
We enjoy sharing our enthusiasm for these gifts with one another. Why else would we be here. :occasion5:

-Ben

[CaptnJack]

Without reading the above quoted studies, the sheer amount of them suggest that there is something to this leaching problem. As one person already pointed out, the biggest missing piece of evidence here is that there has been no testing to confirm [as far as I'm aware] that leaching is actually occurring [though it probably is] at the oil docks, and on top of that to do a real environmental costs vs. benefits analysis.

Pentachlorophenol and PAHs the most commonly detected organic chemicals in King County and Ecology ambient water samples, I have worked with those results for almost a decade. Look and they are everywhere. Find some of those results here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/

I have no doubt that some of that mass is from pilings, some is from combustion products (exhaust, diesel particulates), some is from... just about everything. These organic chemicals were very very rarely detected in surface water in Wyoming (where I was working in the 1990s); even right next to refineries (big potential source). No pilings, little exhaust, little stormwater runoff from pavement there.

PAHs have various impacts on food chains and at the cellular level in humans (including cancer, increased risk of heart attacks, and various other sundry effects). Penta is not very well studied beyond acute effects or in food chains. If you want citations I recommend starting in IRIS for human health effects or Ecotox for environmental effects.
IRIS = http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm
Ecotox = http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

Knock yourselves out, there are thousands of references on the effects of the constituent components of creosote treatment (which is itself a highly varied mix of isomers and compounds).

[rjarnold]

Without reading the above quoted studies, the sheer amount of them suggest that there is something to this leaching problem. As one person already pointed out, the biggest missing piece of evidence here is that there has been no testing to confirm [as far as I'm aware] that leaching is actually occurring [though it probably is] at the oil docks, and on top of that to do a real environmental costs vs. benefits analysis.

Pentachlorophenol and PAHs the most commonly detected organic chemicals in King County and Ecology ambient water samples, I have worked with those results for almost a decade. Look and they are everywhere. Find some of those results here: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/

I have no doubt that some of that mass is from pilings, some is from combustion products (exhaust, diesel particulates), some is from... just about everything. These organic chemicals were very very rarely detected in surface water in Wyoming (where I was working in the 1990s); even right next to refineries (big potential source). No pilings, little exhaust, little stormwater runoff from pavement there.

PAHs have various impacts on food chains and at the cellular level in humans (including cancer, increased risk of heart attacks, and various other sundry effects). Penta is not very well studied beyond acute effects or in food chains. If you want citations I recommend starting in IRIS for human health effects or Ecotox for environmental effects.
IRIS = http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm
Ecotox = http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

Knock yourselves out, there are thousands of references on the effects of the constituent components of creosote treatment (which is itself a highly varied mix of isomers and compounds).

See I didn't even know what creosote really was... the 'costs' just got pretty high.

[CaptnJack]

See I didn't even know what creosote really was... the 'costs' just got pretty high.

The actual dose from any one piling is probably tiny. Nor can you measure the impact of "just one car". Piling removal is probably much cheaper than substantive stormwater retrofits and other source control efforts like that. Although, I'm not an economic calculus kinda guy and I can't really speak to that angle.

[dwashbur]

See I didn't even know what creosote really was... the 'costs' just got pretty high.

The actual dose from any one piling is probably tiny. Nor can you measure the impact of "just one car". Piling removal is probably much cheaper than substantive stormwater retrofits and other source control efforts like that. Although, I'm not an economic calculus kinda guy and I can't really speak to that angle.

Okay, I'm going to ask what may be a loaded question but I really want your view. How much of the whole piling removal thing do you think is actually ecological and how much is political?

[CaptnJack]

Okay, I'm going to ask what may be a loaded question but I really want your view. How much of the whole piling removal thing do you think is actually ecological and how much is political?

I don't really know what you're asking for but I'll take a stab at it...

Contamination from pilings is an intermediate deal IMO. In many not too bad areas, removal is actually do-able. Some of the worst (repeat) offenders are already done, namely routine dolphin work at ferry terminals. Those are 100% steel now. Some bad actors are just plain old sacrifice zones, Port terminals, Lake Union, etc.

For comparison, removing private seawalls and restoring the nearshore sediment transport dynamics or retrofitting even 10% of the (totally untreated btw) stormwater runoff from Seattle is probably way more ecologically useful but for all practical purposes never going to happen.

[rjarnold]

Actually, I am wondering, and perhaps there is an answer out there somewhere... since these pilings have been in there for quite awhile now, are they still leaching "a lot", "a little", "barely detectable" amounts of these pollutants?

[dwashbur]

Okay, I'm going to ask what may be a loaded question but I really want your view. How much of the whole piling removal thing do you think is actually ecological and how much is political?

I don't really know what you're asking for but I'll take a stab at it...

Contamination from pilings is an intermediate deal IMO. In many not too bad areas, removal is actually do-able. Some of the worst (repeat) offenders are already done, namely routine dolphin work at ferry terminals. Those are 100% steel now. Some bad actors are just plain old sacrifice zones, Port terminals, Lake Union, etc.

For comparison, removing private seawalls and restoring the nearshore sediment transport dynamics or retrofitting even 10% of the (totally untreated btw) stormwater runoff from Seattle is probably way more ecologically useful but for all practical purposes never going to happen.

I thought the question might need a little expansion. What I mean is, there are other things - such as those that you mentioned - that would do much more good, or at least that's the impression I get (correct me as necessary), but doing something like tearing out the oil dock is more of a "high visibility/low cost" project that enables the politicians to say "See, we're doing something ecological!" but doesn't really have that much of an impact on the overall ecological situation. It just looks good in the press. I'm wondering, from your obviously experienced perspective, how much you think this project is designed to make the politicians look good (and maybe please some big contributors who whined about the view?), and how much you think they actually give a rat's hind leg about the condition of the Sound?

I hope that makes more sense, and again, I'm really interested in your perspective.

[60south]

Just an aside... My dive buddy today says he used to go salmon fishing near that dock. They regularly pulled up ratfish that had four little hind legs; this was the only place where they saw that. Strictly anecdotal, I know, but an interesting "footnote".

[rjarnold]

Just an aside... My dive buddy today says he used to go salmon fishing near that dock. They regularly pulled up ratfish that had four little hind legs; this was the only place where they saw that. Strictly anecdotal, I know, but an interesting "footnote".

Wow, honestly I'd have to see that to believe it, sorry :P My guess is that they were seeing claspers (male sex organs, much the same as their cousins, the sharks, skates, and rays).

[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? :naka:

[smike]

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

No. Not me.

[BASSMAN]

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

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!
:occasion5:

[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!