TITLOW & MAURY PILLING REMOVAL?!?!?!!!!

[Winter]

https://www.change.org/petitions/save-m ... and-titlow

My 13 yr old dive buddy Camryn started this pettion, I know there are some inaccuracies in her argument but still the pettion should be passed on to all divers.
If someone out there has access to any studies done on pillings, pollution and the argument for and against removing them would you please share them with the group!
ARG Removal scheduled in January!

[Jeff Pack]

signed.

[Dusty2]

Signed with lengthy comment. I have little hope for this but we can at least hope.

[dwashbur]

Added my input.

[Greg Jensen]

If I hadn't thought that budget cuts put an end to this nonsense, I would have made this suggestion a while ago.

Petitions are all fine and good, but the truth is that the diver community isn't THAT big. We need to get more of the general public on board and aware of what we lose when they take out pilings like these. This board has some extremely talented moviemakers who could document the before and after. REEFers can document the changes in abundance (can you imagine the change in the dungeness crab population at Mukilteo if they took out the old fuel dock there?)

I haven't seen anything in the scientific literature that justifies removing pilings like these- nothing that shows that pilings covered with fouling organisms leach harmful amounts of creosote.

[Nwbrewer]

(can you imagine the change in the dungeness crab population at Mukilteo if they took out the old fuel dock there?)

That's coming by the way. The last master plan I saw had them set to remove the pier when they do the new ferry terminal.

[CaptnJack]

I haven't seen anything in the scientific literature that justifies removing pilings like these- nothing that shows that pilings covered with fouling organisms leach harmful amounts of creosote.

Just the one study on leaching pilings and herring eggs (they all died). Although pentachlorophenol is certainly toxic, it doesn't take a whole lot of scientific literature to document that. Its a pesticide afterall and the pilings would be long gone without it. The current piling removal program is run by DNR, funded by an EPA grant to the Puget Sound Partnership. It was $400K for 2013 IIRC. Derelict piling removal is way way low hanging fruit in terms of Puget Sound restoration, that's why these pitiful small amounts are being spent on stuff like this. Vs. (for instance) the enormity of relocating BNSF away from the immediate shoreline onto alternative right-of-way, then removing the hundreds of miles of shoreline armoring they've placed over the past 100 years...

[Dusty2]

Each time they do this we effectively loose another dive site and they are doing nothing to replace lost habitat. We as citizens should make it mandatory for them to replace lot habitat WHEN they remove the old one. Not when hey get the money. If we could force them to make replacement a part of the removal it would put a stop to this madness. As it is now they have no obligation to do any follow up so there is little incentive to do so. I have seen the before and after and it sickens me to see the damage done.Places like Titlow will cease to be dive sites if the pilings are removed. There is little else to see there.

What we need is for some of our talented video makers to do a feature on the various sites and get it on the media so the public can get behind this. I am sure that if it were brought before the people they would rally behind our cause as they have with other items that we have successfully managed to change. People are unaware of the impact of this project and only hear the other sides misinformation. If we could get together a beautiful video of the pilings at titlow and other such places and maybe some footage of the ugly site of all that life dieing on those barges people would quickly see our point.

Laura, stillhope, seainggreen, MikeMeagher. You guys have the power to change the public's vision of this project. We need you.

[jerryehrlich]

If I hadn't thought that budget cuts put an end to this nonsense, I would have made this suggestion a while ago.

Petitions are all fine and good, but the truth is that the diver community isn't THAT big. We need to get more of the general public on board and aware of what we lose when they take out pilings like these. This board has some extremely talented moviemakers who could document the before and after. REEFers can document the changes in abundance (can you imagine the change in the dungeness crab population at Mukilteo if they took out the old fuel dock there?)

I haven't seen anything in the scientific literature that justifies removing pilings like these- nothing that shows that pilings covered with fouling organisms leach harmful amounts of creosote.

There was another study done by Bellarmine Prep. This was done by two young women who had recently become divers and fell in love with Titlow. They heard the pilings were going to be removed as mitigation for the new Narrows Bridge, and sought advice on how they could stop the piling removal.

The science department at their school said the answer was to do a sophisticated scientific study of the creosote pilings effect on the surrounding environment. They gave a presentation of the results of the study to the Kelp Krawlers Dive Club several years ago. It was a well documented, professional presentation.

Now Bellarmine is not your average school. They have connections. They were given access to analysis equipment and techniques normally only available to the EPA, Dept of Ecology or large corporations. In this case a large company helped them.

The women were surprised their premise that the creosote pilings were harmless was incorrect. The study showed concentric rings of negative effects radiating outward from the pilings. The white metridium anemones can survive, giving the impression that the pilings were benign, but it is not so.

Good Diving,

Jerry

[ArcticDiver]

Intruding for a question. Would the lessons learned from the effort to stop oil rig removal off Santa Barbara be any help here?

[Jeff Pack]

Each time they do this we effectively loose another dive site and they are doing nothing to replace lost habitat. We as citizens should make it mandatory for them to replace lot habitat WHEN they remove the old one. Not when hey get the money. If we could force them to make replacement a part of the removal it would put a stop to this madness. As it is now they have no obligation to do any follow up so there is little incentive to do so. I have seen the before and after and it sickens me to see the damage done.Places like Titlow will cease to be dive sites if the pilings are removed. There is little else to see there..

This is what is done if a wetlands area is changed. A new wetlands mitigation project is created to replace it.

I dont see why the same process isnt applied to sea habitats.

[Magoi]

This is a complex issue. Creosote is a mixture of chemicals that include several carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons called cPAHs. These compounds do not break down very fast. You can see that they limit life because the old pilings always are hollow on the inside and leave a ring where the creosote soaked into the wood. As the pilings degrade, the splinters of creosote drop to the bottom and affect the sediments, in addition to the small amounts that dissolve. Presence of PAHs in the sediments affects benthic organisms which are low in the food chain, and therefore also affect higher level life. Removing the pilings is a benefit for a contaminated environment. Of course, installation of new ones should not be allowed either, but they are.

I think one way to deal with Titlow would be to address loss of habitat. There should have been an environmental impact assessment done for this project under the State Environmental Policy Act. This should have assessed the effects of habitat loss. It should be available for review. It is possible that habitat loss was not adequately considered. Documentation of habitat is something divers can do photographically and by doing population counts for the various species. Under national rules, loss of habitat due to an action needs to be addressed by producing new habitat. This is costing BP billions in the Gulf. While this would probably not stop the removal (due to cleanup benefit), it might be possible to require that habitat be created to offset the loss at the location using some other means - perhaps a rock reef? It also would affect the cost, requiring DNR to get more money, which would likely delay the project. I do not know where this project is in the environmental review process, but it should be fairly easy to find out. The probability of success in affecting the project depends on where it is in the process.

If a small group fully understands the regulatory system and how to use it, and they enter the process at the right time, it is possible to affect projects such as this. This project has both positive and negative environmental impacts.

Larry

[CaptnJack]

They aren't obligated under any law to replace the 'habitat' lost when pilings are removed. The program lead, Ms. Shoemaker might send you the (now quite dated) SEPA checklist for this long running program if you ask nicely. http://www.dnr.wa.gov/ResearchScience/T ... ogram.aspx

Or you can get it and related materials (like any habitat mitigation plans) through a public disclosure request.
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/H ... cords.aspx

[renoun]

One minor distinction about Titilow is that is located inside a marine reserve. Odds are that it doesn't matter to the powers that be but it does exist.

[Tom Nic]

One minor distinction about Titilow is that is located inside a marine reserve. Odds are that it doesn't matter to the powers that be but it does exist.

I wonder what the cost of the artificial reefs at Saltwater was? If I wasn't lazy I would check it out myself... I am sure the info is public or available through the WSA.

Saltwater is not dove a ton because of the surface swim and currents, but the reef is pretty stinkin' amazing, and quite environmentally friendly. I bet it would not take much to get the larger dive community behind similar reefs at well known dive sites - as in by breaking out their wallets. I might be wrong, but if there was an alternative like the Saltwater reefs there wouldn't even be that loud of objections to removing some of the underwater junk (let's say at Redondo or Three Tree).

I would encourage folks who have not dove Saltwater yet to make plans to do so, check out the amazing reefs, and perhaps dream a little. Even though we don't have politicians with the vision of our Canadian neighbours as far as sunken ships that does not mean that there are not at least some solutions that could pass local muster and improve our wonderful shore diving even more.

Just dreaming....

[FlyinV]

+1 on everything you said about Saltwater and more reefs like this.
Heck I would even open my wallet or try to organize some fund raisers at our local dive club to have them do more reefs like this.

[Winter]

I had gotten this response from DNR just the other day...
"We're not sure how the rumor started about Titlow. The majority of the pilings there are owned by the city of Tacoma. We spoke to the people at Tacoma Metro Parks and they are unaware of any plans to remove the pilings at the beach.
DNR does have an agreement with King County to remove the piling located off the Glacier Gravel site. These are scheduled to be pulled by Dec. 31, 2015. DNR is very concerned about cresosote and the health of Puget Sound. We're committed to improving the environment and protecting public health. Creosote continues to leach toxic chemicals from these structures.
If you'd like to speak to one of our staff further about this issue, let me know. You can send an email directlty to me at toni.droscher@dnr.wa.gov.
~ Toni Droscher, communications manager for DNR's Aquatic Resources Division."