by the
Technical Services Program
of the
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon
February 1967
Northwest Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior

by the
Technical Services Program
of the
Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory
Corvaliis, Oregon
February 1967
Northwest Region
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
U. S. Department of the Interior

The purpose of this study was to determine the extent, seriousness, and
causes of water pollution in the Pacific Northwest attributable to water-
craft users. Further, to determine what legislation and physical means
are presently available to control this pollution; and what additional
means and legislation are needed.
Due to the limited time available, no technical studies were carried out
in conjunction with this evaluation. All data were obtained from exist-
ing manuals, reports, and files; and by correspondence and personal
interviews with personnel of various Federal, State, local governmental,
and private agencies. The contacts are far too numerous to list, but
among the major contributors were the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Division,
Portland, and Engineer districts at Juneau, Walla Walla, Portland, and
Seattle; the 13th Naval and 13th Coast Guard Districts; the 17th Naval
District; the U. S. National Forest Service Regional Offices in Juneau,
Portland, and Ogden; U. S. National Park Service Regional Offices in
Omaha and San Francisco; and the State Health Departments, Water Pollution
Control Boards, Boat Licensing Agencies, and Recreation and Park Service
Agencies in the various states.
Without the assistance and cooperation of these, and many others, the
collection of these data in the time available would have been

Description	Page
Type and Extent of Waterways		5
Recreational Watercraft 		7
Commercial Watercraft 		12
Governmental Watercraft 		17
Residential Watercraft 		20
Recreational 		21
Commercial Watercraft 		23
Governmental Watercraft 		24
Residential Watercraft 		25
Existing Methods 		26
Needs		28
Existing 			 . ....... .............	30

Description	Page
Proposed	 31
Needed 	 32
1	- Recreational Watercraft, Pacific Northwest
(excluding Alaska) 	 8
2	- Recreational Supporting Shore Facilities,
Pacific Northwest (excluding Alaska) 	 9
3- Recreational Boating Use, Bureau of Reclamation
Reservoirs, Region 1, 1965 	 11
4 - Commercial Ships Arriving in the Portland Harbor
and in Puget Sound, 1950-1966 	 16
1	- The Pacific Northwest 	 6
2	- Commercial Shipping on the Columbia and
Willamette rivers during 1964 	 14
3	- Houseboat Locations in Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho	 22
Extent of Waterways 	 Exhibits 1-2
Recreational Watercraft and Supporting Shore
Facilities			Exhibits 3-7
Commerce, Commercial Watercraft and Supporting
Shore Facilities 	 Exhibits 8-33

APPENDIX (Cont'd.)
Governmental Watercraft and Supporting Shore
Facilities 	 	 Exhibits 34-36
Watercraft Pollution 	 Exhibits 37-53
Legislation and Regulations 	 Exhibits 54-74

Due to the great area of water available, and the relatively small population,
watercraft pressure in this region is probably less than that in many other
areas. However, additional pressure is exerted by the tourists. This pressure,
plus the increasing commercial traffic, will increase problems in this area.
1.	Watercraft are not major contributors of sewage as compared to other sources
such as municipalities and industry.
2.	Sewage pollution is probably significant under crowded boat conditions such
as marinas, docks, moorages, and regattas, and near large ships. However,
this has not been documented.
3.	Ten to fifteen percent of .'the recreational boats have toilets and other
sanitary-: facilities, and most of these discharge untreated waste directly
to the.waters.
4.	Most houseboats, Federally-owned ships, and large commercial watercraft,
including dredges and canneries, have toilets and other sanitary facili-
ties and discharge untreated waste directly to the waters.
5.	The design of sewage collection systems for ships is a major problem, due
to the requirements for maintaining water tight compartments. This is not
a problem aboard small watercraft.
6.	There are presently three methods being used for handling sewage aboard
small watercraft, none of which are completely satisfactory. Incinerator
use is confined primarily to fecal waste, macerator-chlorinator use can
give questionable results, and holding tank use is limited due to an almost
complete lack of supporting shore facilities.
7.	The design of holding tanks or treatment facilities for ships should not be
too difficult, as existing systems can probably be modified to suit the
need. Considerable work has already been done along these lines.
8.	Foreign vessels constitute a significant percentage of total commercial
shipping, and nj,ust meet the same standards as U.S. registry vessels if
the problem is to be resolved.
9.	Port shore facilities such as piers, docks, and servicing areas contribute
significant quantities of sewage, as many in this region are not connected
to sewer systems, and discharge raw waste to the waters.
10. State laws and regulations vary from state to state; and, Federal regulations
vary from those of the states, and also are at variance with each other.
This leads to mass confusion in the boating industry and among boaters.
There is a great need for sound technical and legal leadership in order to
unravel a mass of confusion.

Trash, Debris, and Garbage
11., The amount of this material discharged from watercraft is difficult to
assess as it is also contributed by the shoreside population, and a large
amount of it sinks to the bottom, including bottles and cans. Personnel
in many agencies "feel" it is a significant amount, but cannot quantify
12.	The primary cause of this problem is careless, non-thinking people, as
it is physically and technically easily resolved. Once the mechanics of
a suitable program are established, education and indoctrination are the
biggest problems.
13.	Means for resolution of this problem are presently quite variable. Personnel
on some small craft do throw their trash overboard but many carry bags or
other containers and discard or empty them at the marina or moorage, while
still others take them home. Some ships and large boats discard indis-
crimately; but many discard when at sea, and store while entering port,
discharging to shore facilities. The greatest physical need in this area
is for provision of more adequate shoreside facilities for the collection
and disposal of this material.
14.	The Alaskan canneries may present a special problem as they discard large
quantities of untreated "garbage," in the form of cannery wastes.
15.	State and Federal laws and regulations are generally not too divergent.
Many State and Federal agencies specifically prohibit discharge of trash
and garbage to waters, whereas others have no specific prohibition against
it. Discharge to waters should be prohibited except that these materials
could be discharged at sea, and possibly far from shore in certain large
inland waters.
Oil and Bilge Waters
16.	The disposal of these materials does constitute a serious problem. In
spite of legislation and fairly adequate enforcement, unauthorized dump-
ing still occurs; and, when it does, the recreational, aesthetic, and
economic results are significant.
17.	Most ships attempt to discharge these materials while at sea, but this is
not always feasible. Since shore facilities for collection and disposal
of these wastes are practically non-existent, the ship's master may have
no recourse but to discharge to the harbor or the river. Accidents also
cause a certain amount of the problem and there is some intentional pumping,
which could be avoided if properly coordinated.
18.	The largest problem area is the lack of shore facilities where oil and oil
containing wastes can be readily collected and eliminated without causing
additional water or air pollution. If these were provided, this problem
could become minimal and be confined primarily to accidental discharge.

19.	To permit use of shore collection systems a central collection system or
systems must also be provided aboard the ships.
20.	Legislation appears to be adequate, but it would be desirable that there
be some requirement for the provision of supporting shore-based facilities.
21.	A number of agencies are disturbed about outboard motor exhausts which may
deposit significant quantities of gaoline, oil, lead, and other additives
to the water.
1.	Prepare a model law to present to the states. This model law should include
the following provisions:
a.	Prohibit the discharge of improperly treated sewage and other
liquid waste to any waters under State or Federal jurisdiction.
b.	Require that these wastes be retained in holding tanks for
disposal ashore in accordance with laws or rules of the
appropriate governmental body; or, the wastes must receive
treatment such as to meet specific standards prior to discharge
to the waters.
2.	Prepare a recommended Federal law, similar to the model law, which will apply
to coastal waters, navigable inland waters and tributaries, and other waters
under Federal jurisdiction.
3.	Increase cooperation with other governmental agencies, and ship ownersand
design organizations to expedite integration of liquid waste collection
and treatment into large boat and ship design.
4.	Provide sound guidance to port authorities, private and public marina
operators, and other responsible groups on suitable shore-based collection
and disposal systems for servicing watercraft.
5.	Give increased consideration to proposals for grants and contracts for
studies in the area of watercraft liquid waste collection and disposal.
Trash, Debris, and Garbage
6.	Prepare a model law, or appropriate section, for presentation to the states.
This model law should include the following provisions:
a. Prohibit the discharge of any garbage, trash, or debris directly
to any waters under State or Federal jurisdiction.

b. Require that these wastes be discharged on the high seas; retained
in appropriate containers for disposal ashore in accordance with
laws or rules of the appropriate governmental body; macerated and
treated in the same manner as liquid waste; or incinerated in
such a manner as to cause neither water nor air pollution.
7.	Prepare a recommended Federal law similar to the model law which will
apply to coastal waters, navigable inland waters and tributaries, and
other waters under Federal jurisdiction.
8.	In cooperation with the United States Public Health .Service, provide guidance
to port authorities, private and public marina operators, and other respon-
sible groups on suitable shore-based collection systems.
Oil and Bilge Waters
9.	Provide guidance to port authorities and other responsible groups on suitable
shore-based collection systems for servicing watercraft.
10.	In cooperation with the United States Public Health Service provide guidance
to these same groups on shore-based disposal systems which will cause
neither water nor air pollution.
11.	Give increased consideration to proposals for grants and contracts for
studies in the area of oil collectors or separators for use aboard
For purposes of this report, the Pacific Northwest includes Alaska, Idaho, the
portion of Montana contained in the Columbia River Basin, Oregon, and Washington.
This includes an area of approximately 856,000 square miles, or slightly less
than one-third of the area of the United States,*- but it only includes a popu-
lation of 5,612,000, which is less than one-thirtieth of the population of the
United States.2 The four conterminous states are bordered on the north by
Canada, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean, whereas Alaska is bounded on the
south by the Pacific Ocean, the west by the Bering Sea, the north by the Arctic
Ocean, and the east by Canada.
The terrain of the conterminous states varies from sea level to 14,410 feet at
Mt. Rainier and from desert to lush areas receiving as much as 146 inches of
rainfall.3 Idaho and Montana do not contain a large number of lakes but the
Oregon and Washington area has approximately 20,000 lakes and impoundments
between them. In considering major water features one thinks of the Pacific
Ocean, Puget Sound, the Columbia and Snake rivers, Crater Lake, Klamath Lake,
Coeur d'Alene, Lake Pend Oreille, and Flathead Lake. These and many others
have open water year round. Alaska also has great variations. Elevations
range from sea level to 20,320-foot Mt, McKinley, and from desert-like conditions
to lush lowlands. It is covered with many lakes and rivers, many of which are

frozen a major part of the year. The major water features are the three seas
and oceans, the Inland Passage, and the Yukon-Koyukuk-Tanana River System.
In the five states of the Pacific Northwest Region there are 32,000 miles of
coastal shoreline, approximately 30,000 lakes and reservoirs, and a total river
and stream length of approximately 200,000 miles.
Type and Extent of Waterways
Data pertaining to numbers of waterways and waters and mileage or square
mileage involved were obtained from many references, none of which present
the data in a similar manner. Therefore, a correlation between states was
not feasible.
Oregon is reported as having over 46,700 miles of streams, 1,360 major lakes
and reservoirs, and over 350 miles of ocean front.(4^ of the 350 mile shore-
line, 257 miles are commercially navigable.(5) In addition, there are 774
commercially navigable miles in 61 coastal rivers, and 116 miles in the 49
coves, bays, harbors, and sloughs,- for a total of 1,147 miles of navigable
waterways.(4>5) ^he two major navigable coastal rivers* are the Columbia
and the Willamette. There are 525 major lakes in Oregon,(^) which are used
extensively for recreation. Of these, 87 have boat launching facilities, and
have a total surface area of 40,000 acres. There are also 74 major artificial
impoundments with a water area of 113,015 acres(7>8,9,10) Additional informa-
tion on type and extent of waterways in Oregon is contained in Exhibit 1.
The State of Washington has 2,397 square miles of salt water consisting of
226 square miles of Pacific coastal water, 1,610 square miles of Straits of
Georgia and Juan de Fuca, and 561 square miles in Puget Sound.(H) The State
has a total saltwater shoreline of 2,656(12) miles, 1,800 of which are located
in the Puget Sound.(13) The majority of this is commercially navigable. There
are approximately 7,860 lakes and artificial impoundments in Washington, with
a total area of approximately 955 square milesj uf. these,-.63 have a
surface area greater than 1,000 acres, and account for 735 square miles.(14)
Idaho has no commercially navigable rivers but many of the rivers are used
for recreational watercraft activities. At present there are approximately
1,500 lakes and reservoirs in the State with a water surface in excess of
800 square miles.(15) Of these, sixteen have a surface area greater than
ten acres and account for 696 square miles. (H) All of these are accessible
for boating. (Exhibit 2)
Montana has no commercially navigable rivers in the Columbia River Drainage
portion of the state. The total inland water surface is 1,402 square miles.(16)
Included in this total are 58 reservoirs with a total surface area of 856 square
miles(9) and 1,500 lakes(16) located primarily in the Northwestern part of the
State, with 221 square miles(17) of recreational boating area. In addition,
there are approximately 32,000 miles(3) of river available to the pleasure
boater with the Missouri River System providing most of this mileage.
*coastal rivers defined as those affected by tidal action.


Alaska is virtually surrounded by the sea, having three major seas as boundaries.
It has over 30,000 miles of coast line on the Pacific Ocean, Arctic Ocean, and
the Bering Sea. Of particular note also is the Inland Passage. Much of this
coast is navigable, a major exception being the Arctic Ocean which is frozen
most of the year. There are also more than 20,000 miles(18) of commercially
navigable rivers. Major rivers are the Yukon-Koyukuk-Tanana River System, the
Kuskokwim, Kobuk, and Susitna rivers. Most rivers are frozen a significant
part of the year. There are many lakes, but the majority are tundra type lakes
which are shallow, and located in marshy flat terrain. Very few of these are
used by boaters. Due to the nature of the lakes, and the fact that many are
frozen or inaccessible most of the year there are only about 20 major lakes
which have significant recreational use.
Recreational Watercraft
Number and Type
Three of the five states in the Pacific Northwest Region require motor boat
registration with a state agency, the exception being the states of Washing-
ton and Alaska. In Oregon, boats are registered with the State Marine Board;
in Idaho it is the Department of Law Enforcement, and in Montana it is the
State Board of Equalization. The states of Alaska and Washington depend upon
U. S. Coast Guard registration.
In 1966 it was estimated that there are over 313,000 motor boats in the
Northwest Region excluding Alaska and an undetermined number of small row-
boats, canoes, and prams.^19,20,21,22,23,24) of this total number, approxi-
mately 78 percent are less than 16 feet, 16 percent are 16 to 26 feet, and
the remaining 6 percent are 26 feet or larger. Approximately 89 percent have
outboard motors. The breakdown by length is of interest because it provides
an indication of the number of boats with marine heads. Assuming that 80% of
the boats in the 16 to 26 foot class and all those greater than 26 feet have
marine heads, there would be an estimated 58,000 boats in the Northwest Region
with marine heads. The number of outboard motors is of interest as regards
pollution from outboard motor exhaust. Table 1 on the following page provides
' a summary of these data. Exhibit 3 provides additional information. In Oregon
alone, there were an estimated 5,000 recreational boats equipped with marine
toilets as of December 31, 1966.(25)
In Alaska, there are over 10,000 boats, registered by the Coast Guard, that
are used primarily for recreation. The majority of these are used either
on coastal waters or on the Yukon River system. An unknown number of
recreational boats are not registered by the Coast Guard. These include
boats used on the inland lakes (not required to be registered) and boats
used by the natives of Alaska in remote areas. A conservative estimate of
native boats would be 4,000. Type of boats found on the coastal waters vary
from small skiffs to large pleasure yachts. ?The majority of the recreational
boats are either small cabin cruisers or open run-about types in the length
range of 16 feet to 30 feet. The boats on the inland rivers are generally of
the square bow "river boat" style, 18 feet to 28 feet long.

Recreational Watercraft
Pacific Northwest (Excluding Alaska)
S tate
16 feet
16 to Less
Than 26 feet
26 to Less
Than 40 feet
40 to
65 feet
65 feet

In- Out-
Eoard Board
In- Out-
Board Board
1,737 9,032
235 67

293 3,081
48 21
3,475 10,262
1,635 95


1 MIIJI » J ¦ ¦ II


(a)	Reference No. 21. These are totals for state, as breakdown of data was not feasible.
(b)	Data based upon June 1965 State of Washington Department of Commerce and Economic Development
estimate, adjusted to December 31, 1966.

Supporting Shore Facilities
Facilities to support pleasure craft in the Region, excluding Alaska which did
not have data in this form, are summarized in Table 2. There are over 1,050
boating sites with approximately 958 boat launching facilities, 337 boat moor-
ages, and 307 fueling and service facilities. Details regarding type and
location of supporting shore facilities are contained in Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.
Exhibit 7 contains data pertaining to supporting shore facilities in Alaska.
Recreational Supporting Shore Facilities
Pacific Northwest (Excluding Alaska)

Number of

Type of Service

Number of
Number of
Number of
Gas & Fuel
Service Areas
TOTAL	1,051 	 958	337
(a)	Reference Nos. (9,35,36,37). Includes reservoirs only.
(b)	Reference No. (17). These are totals for state, as breakdown of
data was not feasible.
(c)	Reference Nos. (4,6,7,8,9,10,28,29,30,31,32,33,34).
(d)	Reference Nos. (26 & 27).
Utilization of Various Waters
According to U. S. Coast Guard Registration figures, 70% of all boats in
the State of Washington are located in the Puget Sound area.(37) Based upon
the estimate made by the Washington State Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, this represents approximately 205,000 boats. The Sound offers
some of the most exciting and interesting areas in the world for pleasure boaters,
with the net result that more and more boaters are converging upon this area.(38)
The primary recreational use of Washington coastal waters is sport fishing, which
is gradually shifting from the Sound to the Pacific Ocean. There are two major

reasons for this shift: Fish catch per angler-day is approximately two or
three times as high in the ocean as in the Sound, and the increase in the
second hand boat market, along with the increase in the average income, gives
more people the opportunity to own a sea worthy watercraft.(39) Washington
State has 295 licensed charter boats operating from four ports. These boats
all contain marine toilets. In addition there are 1,600 licensed rental kickers
(outboard motor boats) on the Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca.(^O)
These are open boats of 14 to 18 feet in length and provide no sanitary
Oregon coastal water boating constitutes nearly 94 percent of small boat
activities (less than 21 feet) and nearly 83 percent of the large boat
activities (greater than 21 feet).(24) Salmon sport fishing from June through
September off the Oregon coast accounts for the majority of this activity. The
Oregon State Game Commission makes estimates of the catch, effort, and calcu-
lated fishing success in eight major fishing areas along the Oregon coast. In
1965, a total of 535,500 anglers spent approximately 4,139,000 angler-hours
on salmon fishing at the eight major areas. The Columbia River area received
the greatest use with a total of 251,700 anglers spending nearly 3,000,000
angler-hours. The total number of boats used for coastal salmon fishing
in 1965 at the eight areas was 138,120. Approximately 45 percent of this
number, or 60,000, used the Columbia River.(4!)
. Alaska-coastal waters are used to a great extent as a highway linking it
to Canada and the main portion of the United States, and for fishing. Due to
its unique location with respect to the other states, most of the material
shipped in and out is by watercraft. Fishing, both commercial and recreational
is of major importance, the primary fish being salmon. Sightseeing excursions
are also quite popular. Due to lack of roads in many areas, travelers and
hunting parties use the coastal waters similar to the way highways are used in
the Continental United States. The ferry system is quite extensive, as described
later in this report.
Navigable Rivers
The major navigable rivers of the four conterminous states, the Columbia,
Willamette, and Snake are commercially navigable year round due to the many
dams constructed across their channels. Popular areas for waterskiing and
pleasure boating are concentrated generally along the rivers in the vicinity
of major population centers. These include the Portland-Vancouver area and
Tri-City area on the Columbia River.and the Portland area on the Willamette
River and the Lewiston-Clarkston and Tri-City areas for the Snake River.
The fishing activity, which is the major boating interest, is generally spread
throughout these waters within certain concentrated areas. There is an
extremely heavy fishing effort for spring chinook salmon on the lower Willamette
River from its mouth to Oregon City, a distance of 26 miles. The Oregon State
Game Commission reported in 1965(^2) that there were over 74,000 man-days of
fishing and an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 boat-days on this stretch of the
river for March 1 to May 30, 1965. The 20-year average annual fishing effort
for this stream is 91,800 man days with an estimated 40,000.,to 45,000 boat-
days. (42) Most of the boats used in this area are less than 21 feet in length
and have no sanitary facilities.

Another heavy fishing effort is for winter steelhead in areas including
the Columbia River from McNary Dam to the mouth; the Kalama, Cowlitz, and
Lewis rivers in Washington; and the Alsea, Wilson, Saudy, Clackamas, and
Siletz rivers in Oregon.
The major Alaska commercially navigable rivers are the Yukon-Koyukuk-
Tanana River System, Kuskolcwim, Kobuk, and Susitna rivers. These are used
as major transportation routes for personnel and material for non-recreational
purposes. They also receive considerable use for fishing, hunting, and sight-
seeing. The use of these rivers is increasing annually.
Artificial Impoundments and Lakes
Data have been provided by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Region I, and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, regarding types of
recreational boating at 84 Federal reservoirs under their jurisdiction. These
data are felt to be representative of the boating use at lakes, reservoirs,
and impoundments throughout the region.
The Bureau of Reclamation has 66 reservoirs under its jurisdiction in
the states of Oregon,(18) Washington,(32) Idaho,(14) and Montana.(2) In
1965 there was a total visitor attendance of over 1,600,000 visitor-days(9)
related to water usage. Approximately 425,000 visitor-days were spent boating
and waterskiing with an unspecified portion of the remaining visitor-days water
sport oriented. There was a total of 285,595 powerboat-days and 33,974 sailboat
and rowboat days for the 66 reservoirs.(9) These data are summarized in Table 3.
Recreational Boating Use(9)
Bureau of Reclamation Reservoirs
Region I
Number	Sail & Row-
State of
(a) These
are totals for state,
as breakdown
of data was not

For these same 66 reservoirs the total visitorrdays use (including non-
boating activities) has increased from approximately 2.6 million in 1958 to
over 4.6 million in 1965, an increase of 80 percent.(8) Reservoir use in
Oregon and Montana showed the greatest increases.

The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Seattle, and Walla Walla
districts, have a total 18 reservoirs under their jurisdiction in the North-
west Region. In 1964 it is reported that the total visitor attendance at
these 18 reservoirs was 6,533,000 persons.(33) of this total it is estimated
that 25 percent or 1,630,000 were engaged in boating activities.
In the Pacific Northwest, boating is a favorite recreational activity
of many people and plays an important part in the festivities of certain
annual regattas and festivals. Among these are included the Seattle Seafair,
the Portland Rose Festival, the Lake Chelan Apple Cup, Lake Couer d'Alene
Diamond Cup, the Tri-City Atomic Cup, and the Yukon Marathon Race. At all
of these festivals, a great many boats are concentrated into a single area
for a period of several days.
Since 1950, Greater Seattle, Incorporated has promoted an annual Seafair
celebration. This festival is promoted to focus the attention of vacationists
on Seattle during the summer months. The Seafair celebration is climaxed by
holding an unlimited hydroplane race known as the "Seafair Trophy" on Lake
Washington. During the 1966 Seafair Trophy race an estimated 300 boats were
tied up to one spectator boom to witness the race.
The annual Rose Festival held in the City of Portland during one week in
June features primarily a rose parade through the streets of Portland. An
added feature of the festival are the Navy ships that come into harbor and
remain for the duration of the festival. In the 1965 festival there were
eleven U. S. Navy ships and two Canadian ships that participated in the
festivities, with the number of men aboard these ships estimated at 5,000.
All ships are open to public inspection while in port. There are no waste
treatment facilities provided for pumping ashore or treatment on board the
No data are available concerning the number of boats involved in the other
festivities mentioned.
In 1965 the Oregon State Marine Board conducted a study of pleasure boat-
ing and other uses of Oregon waters.(24) it is felt the results of this study
are generally representative of pleasure boating in the Region. The study
found that average annual boat usage is approximately 46 days for boats under
21 feet in length, 81 days for those over 21 feet in length, and listed the
following major activities for pleasure boats: fishing, cruising, and sight-
seeing, waterskiing, skin diving, and hunting.
The predominant activity of boats less than 21 feet is fishing regardless
of type of water location. Over 59 percent of these boaters spend over half
their time fishing. This varied from a high of 94 percent for boats using
coastal waters to a low of 55 percent for those using rivers. The second
major use for boats less than 21 feet was for waterskiing with an average of
16 percent. This varied from 23 percent for lakes and reservoirs to 1.6
percent for coastal waters.

For boats over 21 feet, cruising and sightseeing was the major activity
for approximately 49 percent. However, for those using coastal waters over
one-half the time, fishing was the predominant activity for nearly 83 percent.
Commercial Watercraft
There are approximately 65 ports and port districts in Oregon and Washington.
The two major ports are Portland and Seattle, and the two primary commercial
waterways are the Columbia River and Puget Sound. The locations of these 65
ports are shown in Exhibit 8. In Alaska there are approximately 30 ports and
port areas, the major ports being Ketchikan, Wrangell, Juneau, and Anchorage-
Waterborne Commerce
The Columbia River is the chief avenue of waterborne commerce to Oregon and
Central Washington. The Corps of Engineers maintains a deep water channel
from the mouth of the Columbia River to Portland, some 100 miles upstream.
The series of dams and navigation locks that have been constructed or are
being constructed by the Corps of Engineers upstream from Portland will
provide year around slack-water for commercial shipping from the mouth of
the Columbia River to Lewiston, Idaho, a distance of more than 460 miles.
The Columbia River upstream from The Dalles Dam has a relatively shallow
channel depth and is used chiefly for barge traffic.
Figure 2 shows the commercial shipping tonnage that moved through the mouth
of the Columbia River and through the locks upstream during 1964. Commercial
shipping upstream from Portland is small compared to the total shipping that
takes place from Portland to the Pacific Ocean. Exhibit 9 shows traffic
through the locks for the period 1930-1965.
The greatest amount of commercial shipping in the Pacific Northwest occurs
in Puget Sound. Total commercial shipping in Washington ports exceeded
42 million tons in 1964 with over 39 million tons of this shipping in Puget
Sound. (Exhibit 10) Non-metallic minerals including petroleum products
accounts for the greatest part of the total tonnage (Exhibit 11). Commercial
traffic through the various waterways and ports of Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho are given in Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Alaska major water
commerce is shown in Exhibit 17. Due to the nature of Alaska, there are many
small ports and harbors along the cost, which serve as primary supply lines to
and from Alaska. All types of commodities are moved, with emphasis upon
petroleum and wood products. In addition to U. S. Registry vessel movements,
over 2,000 foreign vessels entered Alaskan ports during 1966. Major ports of
foreign vessel use and number of foreign vessels cleared through the Bureau
of Customs entering Alaskan ports are as follows:
Eagle (Yukon River)

fewneviUe, Jock
ihe^baUed' JL&ck
Figure 2
(Data from Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.)

Table 4 shows the number of commercial vessels that arrived in Portland and
Puget Sound during the period 1950-66. As can be seen, shipping is on a slow
but steady increase. Of the 1,673 commercial vessels arriving in Portland
during 1966, 183 vessels or 15.7 percent were of United States registry. Of
the 2,154 commercial vessels arriving in Puget Sound in 1965, 1,054 or 48.9
percent were of United States registry. Exhibit 18 shows the number of vessels
and country of registry of the commercial vessels arriving in Portland and
The Commission of Public Docks of Portland has reported on the pollution
control measures practiced at the Portland Public Docks in cooperation with
Police Harbor Patrol. These measures include the following:
a.	Daily inspection of under dock and slip water
areas at public terminals to detect the presence
of floating oil.
b.	A report form is logged daily. This report assures
that pollution is detected from day to day and an
accurate record is available for referral.
c.	Maintaining personnel trained in the proper methods
of pollution detection and reporting.
d.	Close liaison between Commission personnel and the
Police Harbor Patrol, U. S. Coast Guard, and the
local office of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
e.	All inbound merchant ships are routinely boarded by
the Police Harbor Patrol and the vessel's master is
given a form letter warning that a strictly enforced
program is in effect and violation of Municipal or
Federal pollution regulations will be prosecuted.
f.	At Portland Public Docks, security guards are present
when a vessel arrives or departs to immediately
report any oil pollution observed upon movement of
the vessel.
Reportedly, commercial vessels docking in Portland stay an average of three
days. As there is no free anchorage in the Portland Harbor, shipping companies
are anxious to move their ships out of the harbor as soon as possible to reduce
dock charges. With an average on-board crew of approximately 20 when a vessel
is in port, the 1,700 vessels a year docking in Portland would contribute
approximately 102,000 man-days of sanitary waste to the Portland Harbor, or
a population equivalent to approximately 300 people. Litter and garbage is
generally stored on the stern of each vessel during its stay in port and is
dumped at sea.
Most of the sanitary waste from Portland docks goes into septic tanks; however,
some of the facilities discharge their sewage directly into the river. There

Commercial Ships Arriving in the
Portland Harbor and Puget Sound by Year*
Number of Ships
Year	Portland	Puget Sound
1950	-	1,530
1951	-	1,672
1952	-	1,913
1953	1,438	1,943
1954	1,437	1,953
1955	1,458	1,889
1956	1,510	1,848
1957	1,588	1,889
1958	1,517	2,039
1959	1,534	2,141
1960	1,657	2,278
1961	1,651	2,188
1962	1,662	2,118
1963	1,720	2,098
1964	1,667	2,064
1965	1,747	2,154
1966	1,673
*Data from Merchants Exchange, Portland, and the
Marine Exchange, Seattle.

are plans to construct municipal sewers to the dock areas. Exhibit 19-30
list the piers, wharves, and docks in the major ports of Washington and
Oregon. Sanitary waste from most of these facilities goes directly into
the adjacent waterways and probably exceeds the amount of sanitary waste
from the commercial vessels.
During the 1950's, the Shaver Transportation Company operated a barge in
Portland Harbor to collect bilge waste from commercial vessels docked in
the harbor. This waste was barged down the Willamette River and discharged
into a lagoon adjacent to the river, where the oil was periodically burned.
Problems over inspection of the barge and the threat of fines caused the
discontinuance of this service. Air pollution regulations would now prevent
burning of oil wastes in this manner. There are presently no facilities for
the collection or disposal of bilge waste or tank cleaning waste from vessels
in the Portland Harbor. This lack of collection facilities undoubtedly
contributes to the discharge of some waste directly into the harbor. No
facilities of this type were found at any of the ports in this area.
Commercial Fishing
The Oregon State Fish Commission and the Washington Department of Fisheries
have provided reports describing the commercial fishing industry in Oregon
and Washington (Exhibits 31 and 32). Commercial fishing vessels commonly
are engaged in more than one fishery so that the combined total of vessels
incolved in each type of fishery does involve duplication of vessels.
The commercial fishery in Oregon had a total value of $7 million to fisher-
men in 1964, and the Washington fishery had a value of $18.7 million to
fishermen in 1965. Salmon is the most important fishery, accounting for
$3.2 million in Oregon in 1964, and $8.4 million in Washington in 1964. Over
$5 million of the Washington Salmon fishery was landed in Puget Sound and
$1.2 million were landed in the Columbia River ports. Over 800 vessels are
utilised in the Oregon salmon fishery with most of the vessels operating out
of Coos Bay and Astoria. Exhibit 31 shows the approximate distribution of
the commercial salmon fleet. The Washington State fishing fleet consists of
approximately 3,900 boats and is distributed approximately as shown in
Exhibit 33.
The Alaskan Fish and Game Department has licensed approximately 10,000 fishing
boats of all types. The majority of these are operated for the salmon fishery
which exceeds that of Washington and Oregon. The others are used primarily
for the crab and herring fisheries. Supporting this fleet are a number of
floating canneries which discharge waste directly to the waters. The King Crab
canneries operate year round, while the salmon canneries are a summer operation.
Commercial fishing licenses on the Yukon number only 531.
Governmental Watercraft
Federal Watercraft
The following Federal Agencies have vessels operating in the study area. Details
as to location, number, and description of vessels and type of waste disposal
systems are presented in Exhibit 34.

Department of the Interior
In the four conterminous states the Department of the Interior has
approximately 25 boats and ships. The Northwest Regional Office of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration^^) has a total of eight
boats which are used routinely in water sampling activities. These
vessels range from outboards to a 45-foot oceanographic vessel. Only the
oceanographic vessel has a head, and it is equipped with a macerator-
chlorinator device. The U. S. Geological Survey(45) presently has two
boats in their operations but are purchasing a third in the near future.
None have heads but a chemical toilet may be added to the. proposed vessel.
The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife(46) has a few outboard and many
rowboats located throughout the region, none of which have heads. The
regional office of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries^?) has a 223-foot
supply vessel and two research vessels, 93-and 177-feet long. These three
vessels all with heads, and have a total crew capacity of 37. One of the
vessels has a holding tank and the heads of the other two are not used
when the vessels are moored. The Bureau of Land Management(48) has one
14-foot outboard in Boise, Idaho, which does not have a head.
The Department of the Interior in Alaska has approximately 200 boats
and ships, with 176 belonging to the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, and
23 to the Bureau of Sport Fisheries.(49) Many of these boats have sanitary
facilities, but none are known to have treatment facilities.
Department of Defense
Within the four conterminous states, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
has vessels under the control of three districts. The Portland District(50)
presently has a total of 12 dredges and smaller boats used in district
operations. These include four hopper dredges, three pipeline dredges, one
booster barge, two tugs, one survey boat, and one launch. The 12 craft have
a total crew capacity of 385. All of the vessels have sanitary facilities
and none presently provide treatment. Treatment facilities for all vessels
are scheduled by Fiscal Year 1968. The Walla Walla District(51) has small
boats, 8 to 45 feet, which are used primarily in surveys, reservoir manage-
ment, and quality studies. Only one vessel is reported to have a head. The
Seattle District(52) has two survey boats, a derrick barge, and a snagboat.
These four craft have a total crew capacity of 31. Each vessel is equipped
with central maceration-chlorination treatment or a maceration-chlorination
package plant. No information was obtained pertaining to Corps of Engineer
boats in Alaska.
The U. S. Navy(53) is represented in this area by the 13th and 17th
Naval Districts. One destroyer and two destroyer escorts with a total crew
capacity of 140 are based in the Puget Sound area. Occasionally a tug, a
submarine, and a transport with a total crew capacity of 455 are also in
the area. There are also six ships located in Alaskan ports with a total
crew of 136 men.
When a ship enters the Bremerton Ship Yards for servicing, it spends approxi-
mately one-third of its servicing period on dry dock. While there, only one-
half of the crew remains aboard. All waste, oil, garbage, and trash is disposed

of to shore facilities, with sanitary wastes going into the waters. Navy
regulations specify one head for approximately 16 men. No recently built
ship has either a treatment system or holding tanl<3.
Department of Commerce
The U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey(54) maintains six vessels which are
moored on Lake Union in Seattle. The vessels, ranging in size from 90 to
292 feet, are used for hydrographic purposes. While at sea the crafts have
a total crew capacity of 261 and a capacity of 237 while moored. Only one
vessel has a holding tank. The moorage at Lake Union is equipped to handle
sewage effluents from its vessels and the vessels are moored from 25 to 50
percent of the time. There are also four ships(49) located in Alaska during
the summer months, with a total ship's complement of 228. These ships have
sanitary facilities, but no treatment.
The U. S. Maritime Administration(-5 & 56) maintains two mothball fleets
in the Pacific Northwest. A fleet of 66 ve33els with a total maintenance
crew of 32 is maintained in Astoria, Oregon, and a fleet of 117 vessels with
a total maintenance crew of 81 is maintained in Olympia, Washington. One
privy is provided for each row of vessels; this waste, chlorinated at Olympia
and untreated at Astoria, is eventually discharged to the water. The working
barges and tugboats have sanitary facilities, but none provide treatment. The
vessels in the mothball fleet are painted every two years; rust scale and oil
paint are allowed to fall into the water. There is no attempt to recover waste
paint during painting operations at Astoria, whereas the water is swept with
burlap at Olympia to recover the waste paint. Refuse and oil at both locations
are collected in barges and burned. The Northwest Regional Office of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration(56) has been working with the
U. S. Maritime Commission in an attempt to resolve water pollution problems
associated with these fleets.
Department of Agriculture(49,57,58)
The U. S. Forest Service has three small outboard and one pontoon boat
used on various lakes and reservoirs in Idaho. They also maintain about 24
boats in Oregon and western Washington. These are all small boats with no
sanitary facilities. In Alaska they have 41 boats, some of which have sanitary
facilities, but no treatment.
Treasury Pepartment(49,59)
The 13th U. S. Coast Guard District operates approximately 187 vessels
in Washington and Oregon ranging in size from 10-foot dingjhys to 269-foot
cutters. Twenty-two of these vessels are larger than 65 feet and have a
total crew capacity of 1,241. Sanitary facilities but no treatment are
provided in these larger craft. Heads are provided in 26 of the 165 craft
smaller than 65 feet. Maceration-chlorination treatment is provided in all
of the 44-foot motor lifeboats. In Alaska there are also 15 boats and ships
with a total complement of 664 men. Some of these vessels have sanitary
facilities but none have treatment

State Watercraft
The following State agencies have watercraft that are operated in the study
area. Details as to locations, number and description of vessels, and type
of waste disposal systems are presented in Exhibit 35.
Idaho had 93 boats licensed at the State level as of January 1, 1967. About
40 of these are located at the various sheriff's offices and most of the
remainder are owned by the Fish and Game Department and the Department of
Law Enforcement. None of these are known to have heads.(60)
In the State of Washington the Department of Game(61) maintains 114 boats,
149 outboard motors, and 83 boat trailers, none of which have sanitary
facilities. The Department of Parks and Recreation(62) maintains five
boats, and the Department of Fisheries(63) maintains 33 boats, ranging from
12 to 80 feet in length. Three of the larger boats have sanitary facilities
but none provide treatment. The Washington State Ferry System(64) operates
20 ferries in the Puget Sound area, and conducts 98 percent of all ferry
business in the area. Each vessel has sanitary facilities, but no treatment
systems are provided. In 1965, over 5,000,000 passengers were carried on
these vessels. The majority of the 18 terminals have sanitary facilities.
Four terminals discharge their wastes to city sewers while seven have holding
tanks and chlorination systems. Details are presented in Exhibits 16 and 36.
The State of Oregon has a considerable number of state-owned watercraft, but
specific numbers were not obtained. Most of these are small boats with no
sanitary facilities; but, size ranges up to the 180 foot Yaquina which does
have sanitary facilities for a crew of 20 men. None of the craft have treat-
ment facilities.
No information was obtained regarding the number of watercraft belonging to
the State of Montana.
Total number of boats owned by the State of Alaska(^9,65) Was not available
but the Department of Fish and Game has a total of 17 boats. Some of these
boats have sanitary facilities, but none have treatment. • The Alaska Ferry
System operates a total of five ferries, each with a capacity of 500
passengers and 108 automobiles. Three ferries operate between Prince
Rupert, British Columbia, and Skagway, normally making five stops in between.
There are four sailings each week in the "off" (winter) season with sailings
more frequent during the tourist season. There are two additional state
ferries serving South Central Alaska, one serving Cordova and Valdez, with
sailing twice a week from each port; and the other ferry serving Seward,
Valdez, Cordova, Port Lions, Kodiak, Seldovia, and Homer. These ferries
have sanitary facilities, but no treatment, discharging directly to the waters.
Residential Watercraft
Findings of the Houseboat Pollution Study being conducted at the Pacific
Northwest Water Laboratory, Technical Services Branch, indicate that in the
states of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon there are approximately 1,200 floating
homes used as part-time or year-round residences, with an estimated resident

population of over 2,000 persons. These are commonly referred to as house-
boats and formally defined as habitable floating structures not equipped
with power. The year-round residential dwellings have the normal types of
facilities found in land homes including toilets, baths and/or showers,
laundry facilities, kitchens, etc., and wastewaters are discharged without
treatment to the waters over which they are inoored. The small part-time
residences of floating shacks use them for weekend retreats, hunting, and
fishing. These are moored year-round where used and may or may not have
sanitary facilities.
There are 645 houseboats in Oregon, with an estimated permanent residence
population of 1,050 persons, located primarily in the vicinity of Portland
on the Willamette and Columbia rivers, the vicinity of Astoria on the
Columbia River, and on Howard Prairie Reservoir in Jackson County.
In Washington there are an estimated 525 houseboats with a population of
nearly 980 persons. Approximately 500 of the houseboats are located in
the Seattle area on or near Lake Union with the remaining 25 located near
Vancouver on the Columbia and Lewis rivers.
There are approximately 30 to 40 houseboats on Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho.
Figure 4 illustrates the location of the houseboats in states of the Pacific
Northwest Region.
Alaska has numerous vessels moored at harbor facilities, especially in
southeast Alaska, which serve as living quarters. Sewage from these
is discharged directly to the waters. Sixty-eight people live on such
vessels in Juneau, but no information is available on other numbers or
Recreational Watercraft
These contribute the following types of waste: trash, garbage, debris, sewage,
and gasoline and oil by-products resulting from incomplete combustion of fuel.
A documented instance of water pollution was not found in the Pacific Northwest
which could be attributed solely to recreational watercraft. A letter from the
Montana State Board of Health, dated December 23, 1966, stated they had found
a slight increase in coliform in a few bays on Flathead Lake, the State's
largest natural lake (Exhibit 6,37), but they did not know whether this concen-
tration was due to boats or some onshore activity. These bays have not shown
similar increases since the passing of the new boating law which requires all
boats equipped with marine heads to be further equipped with a holding tank
or other satisfactory treatment. However, since the law has been in effect
less than a year it is doubtful that there is any correlation.
Data are not available on the quantity of trash and garbage generated by
boaters, but this is the most visually apparent pollution problem resulting
from pleasure watercraft. Concern over this was expressed by every organi
zation contacted, which was responsible for maintaining or using water
recreational areaa, A letter (Exhibit 38) from Oregon's Marion County Sheriff's

• vsn£
Pettd \
} c'
Figure 3
Houseboat Locations
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho

Office, states that their skin diving team has reported that trash and
garbage literally cover the stream and lake bottoms in the vicinity of certain
boat moorages and popular fishing areas. Although trash and garbage found
floating on, deposited in, and adjacent to the waters may not necessarily be
due to pleasure boaters, it is still generally agreed that they do contribute
their share of litter. This problem area is expected to become more signifi-
cant if corrective measures are not initiated.
Exhibit 39 is a proposed study to be conducted by the University of Washington
entitled "Bacteriological and Esthetic Effects of Pleasure Boat Waste Discharge
on Small Harbors." The objective of this study will be to determine and docu-
ment the pollution problems caused by the waste discharge from small pleasure
craft in two small (one fresh water, one salt water) harbors in the State of
Washington. It is probable that large marinas and congested recreation harbors
could produce public health hazards due to fecal discharge from pleasure water-
craft. Since little data is available pertaining to this subject, this study
seems to have merit.
Pollution from boat motors occurs due to increased turbidity of a shallow body
of water through increased turbulence, and the addition of oil, gas, lead, and
other additives through the motor exhaust. English(66), in 1963, found in
laboratory studies that the average percentage of fuel constituents found in
outboard motor exhaust were as follows: non-volatile oil, 54%; volatile oil,
2%; and lead, 22% based on a figure of 2.6 grams of lead per gallon of gaso-
line. English also demonstrated in a field study(67) that tainting bf fish
flesh occurred at a threshold level of combined fuel-use of 8 gallons/
million gallons of water and a daily fuel use rate of 0.17 gallons/million
gallons of water. Data provided by the Corps of Engineers, Portland District,
on boat use at seven of their reservoirs in 0regon(8), was used to calcu-
late the theoretical ratio of gas consumption to reservoir volume of water.
Assuming 3.5 persons per boat and 3 gallons of gas used per day per boat,
together with peak boating use figures, the most critical reservoir was Fern
Ridge (Exhibit 1) with a maximum daily fuel use ratio of 0.065 gallons/million
gallons of water. This indicated that boat usage could increase by a factor
of over 2.5 before problems with fish flesh tainting might occur. At the
current rate of boating growth in Oregon, this level would be reached in
approximately 25 years.
Commercial Watercraft
The major sources of water pollution from commercial vessels are: pumping of
bilge waste, accidental spills of cargo and fuel during dock operations, and
discharge of sanitary wastes, trash, garbage, and debris. The problems result-
ing from the above sources are generally in direct proportion to the disposal
facilities or lack of facilities at the ports, and the volume of port traffic.
According to the 13th Coast Guard District, Oregon and Washington commercial
shipping resulted in 51 water pollution investigations during the period
January 1, 1965, to December 31, 1966. Oil spills accounted for 42 of these
cases, while flushing of cargo tanks and the dumping of refuse into the harbors
comprised the other nine. Exhibit 40 lists all of the investigated water
pollution cases for the stated period. A breakdown of these cases by ports

indicates that Fortland, Oregon, had 61 percent of the investigated cases;
Seattle, Washington, 16 percent; and the remaining 23 percent occurred in
other ports. Personnel at the 13th. Coast Guard District stated ail of their
records, regarding watercraft pollution investigation prior to January 1963,
are located in the U. S. Coast Guard Office, Washington, D.C.
The states of Idaho and Montana reported no investigations regarding commercial
watercraft pollution.
The Alaska District Corps of Engineers provided information pertaining to seven
investigations occurring in Alaska between July 6, 1956, and January 3, 1967.
(Exhibit 41) A special report prepared by the Alaska District Corps of
Engineers on total water pollution is included as Exhibit 42.
A special report prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U. S.
Department of the Interior, on the loss of marine life incidental to stranding
of a petroleum barge at Moclips, Washington, on March 11, 1964, is included as
Exhibit 43. The report states that on March 16, 1964, more than 500,000 gallons
of fuel, consisting mostly of diesel oil, was pumped into the surf in efforts to
free the barge. As a result, an estimated several tons of clams were killed
along with an undetermined number of other forms of marine and wildlife.
Exhibit 44 is a report of a specific instance of a cargo tank flushing. It is
entitled "Engineering Report on the Butterworthing of the HAWAIIAN RANGER at
Terminal 4, June 15, 1966." This report was prepared by the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority to determine the effects of Butterworthing upon the receiv-
ing body of water. Butterworthing is the name of a process used, upon completion
of discharging molasses to shoreside storage tanks, to remove the residue remain-
ing on the sides, floor plates, and heating coils of the cargo tank. These
tanks are cleaned with 1,300 to 1,900 gallons of water heated to 170° F, which
is sprayed around the tank. The resulting mixture of molasses and water is
pumped overboard through a canvas sock. The Oregon State Sanitary Authority
took DO (Dissolved Oxygen) and BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) samples of this
mixture as it came from the tank, from the canvas sock, and at the stem of
the ship. Based upon these samples it was determined that "unless better
control can materially reduce the amount of waste to be discharged to the
Willamette River, that Butterworthing in the Portland Harbor should be prohibited,
unless it is discharged to a land-based sewer where adequate treatment can be
Floating canneries for salmon and King Crab may become a serious pollution
problem in certain areas of Alaska. Salmon canneries operate during the summer
months, and the King Crab canneries are in operation most of the year. In
Kodiak there were five floating canneries in January 1967, each dumping all
their waste and by-products from the crab canning directly into the harbor.
(Exhibit 45) How significant this becomes will depend upon the trend in
commercial fishing.
Governmental Watercraft
Federal government vessels have been responsible for three specific watercraft
pollution cases which were investigated during the period January 1, 1965, to

to December 21, 1966.(Exhibit 40) One of these cases was caused by painting
the Reserve Fleet at Olympia, Washington, and the other two were oil spills.
In all instances, the organizations involved took corrective action.
On June 22, 1966, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration recorded
a serious reduction in dissolved oxygen at their Pollution Surveillance
Station No. 124, located on the Willamette River in Portland, Oregon. The
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, was conducting dredging
operations at a point 1-3/4 miles upstream from the station. The dredging
operation was considered responsible for the oxygen drop. A survey was
conducted by the FWPCA Portland staff on June 30. 1966, in the area of
dredging operations.(Exhibit 46) The results of this survey indicated signif-
icant quantities of bottom sludge deposits in the dredging area. If these
deposits were disturbed in the dredging operation it would have been possible
for this suspended organic matter together with the low flow and temperature
conditions of the river to produce the measured oxygen drop. It is now the
practice of the Corps to schedule its dredging operations in an area of sludge
deposits during high flow period to minimize the possibility of further
dissolved oxygen reductions. Proper scheduling of ail dredging operations
and other necessary steps should be taken to avoid the recurrence of problems of
this type.
Exhibit 47 lists the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District, average
annual volumes of dredging, along with their spoil areas on the various rivers
and harbors throughout their district. The majority of their dredging occurs
on the Columbia and Lower Willamette rivers. Exhibit 48 is the dredging
schedule for the Seattle, Washington, District of the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Their dredging operations are primarily located in the Puget Sound
harbors. No water pollution problems other than the one reported previously
have been attributed to these operations.
Many governmental vessels using the ports of the Pacific Northwest Region are
large and carry a large crew. Thus when in port, these vessels discharge
large volumes of sanitary waste. Concern has been expressed by the Oregon
State Sanitary Authority and other agencies regarding raw sewage disposal from
the Navy and foreign vessels brought into Portland Harbor.for_the annual Rose
Festival. It is estimated that there are between 5rfndvlOV-t'housand men in the
ships for the five days of the festival. While no data have been collected
to document a pollution problem, the potential this instance is
Residential Watercraft
There are approximately 1,200 houseboats, located in the states of Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho. These houseboats are the residences of an estimated 2,250
people who discharge their waste without treatment to the nearest water.
The Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory Technical Services Program is presently
conducting a special study on houseboat pollution for the State of Oregon. It
is calculated that the waste discharge from these houseboats is 31 million
gallons per year with a total organic loading of 64,000 pounds of BOD per year.

Bacteriological and biological data have been collected in the vicinity of
houseboat concentrations in the Portland area. These data indicate minor
pollution conclusively attributable to houseboats. The potential public
health problem from these wastes has been recognized by the Oregon State
Sanitary Authority and abatement of this practice is required by September
In the State of Washington, at the present time, there are an estimated 525
houseboats. Lake Union, in Seattle, receives untreated discharge from 500
of these units and is a relatively shallow, stagnant body of water. The rate
of flow through the lake is regulated by the number of lockages at the Govern**
ment locks. While no data have been collected to confirm water pollution
attributable to these houseboats, it is believed that a problem does exist
and corrective actions have been taken by both the City of Seattle and King
County Health departments. All houseboats in the city and county are being
required to connect to city sewers. The houseboats along the Columbia and
Lewis rivers presently provide no treatment facilities. No corrective
actions have been instigated as the problem has been considered minimal.
In the State of Idaho there are between 30 and 40 houseboats located on
Lake Fend Oreille, all of which discharge untreated wastes.
There are also numerous vessels moored at the harbor facilities in Southeast
Alaska that serve as living quarters. Sanitary waste from these boats is
discharged directly into the harbor.
Existing Methods
Seven basic schemes are in use today for correcting pollution due to liquid
waste disposal from watercraft and shore-supporting facilities. These seven
schemes are listed below:
a.	Holding tanks
b.	Maceration-chlorination
c.	Incineration
d.	Small package plant
e.	Connections with city sewers
f.	Septic tanks with subsequent chlorination
g.	Disposal at sea
Holding tanks are not widely used today but appear to offer one of the best
methods for solution of the problem, especially for small craft. Their big
advantage lies in the fact that they discharge nothing to the water. Dis-
advantages are that unless they are "designed" into the boat, modification
may present significant problems. They may be aesthetically objectionable
due to odor; and, if widely used, many shore facilities must be provided for
manually emptying or pumping them out. One commercially available holding

tank system was found. This system was a self-contained, electrically operated,
recirculating flushing toilet. Space requirement for this system was little
more than for conventional marine toilets. The cost to the boat owner for this
system ranges from $100 to $235. Holding tanks are currently being used by the
Coast Guard on some of their smaller craft and by the Coast & Geodetic Survey
on one of their large 292-foot survey ships which is moored on Lake Union,
Seattle, Washington. The Oregon State Sanitary Authority is presently looking
most favorably at the holding tank method for small craft (Exhibit 49). The
State of Montana is also heavily in favor of the use of these systems as their
laws require the use of a holding tank or a treatment system equivalent to
secondary treatment.
Macerator-chlorinators are becoming quite popular. Some ten firms throughout
the United States manufacture the unit which ranges in price from $90 to $130.
Most of these devices consist of two chambers. The waste enters the first
chamber, is ground up and sodium hypochlorite is added. It next goes through
a small detention tank and is then discharged. The advantages of this system
are that these units take up little space and are easily installed on present
facilities. The biggest disadvantage lies in the fact that the boat owner is
solely responsible for the correct operation of the system. Should the
macerator quit functioning or the supply of disinfectant run out, the unit
continues to work but a completely unsatisfactory effluent is discharged.
Many studies have been carried out on these devices. One worth noting was
published by the New York State Department of Health in 1962.(68) This study
concluded that these units were effective in treating fecal sewage but the
degree of treatment was dependent on variables such as load, amount of chlorine
added, amount of grinding, dexterity of human manipulation, and environmental
variables such as pH, temperature, etc. The State of Montana prohibits the
use of these devices and the Oregon State Sanitary Authority does not consider
them as acceptable (See Exhibit 49). The Department of the Army, as of
October 1965, printed a regulation prescribing treatment using the maceration-
chlorination technique on vessels with a normal complement of from 1 to 24
men.(Exhibit .50) An additional report on marine toilets using macerator-
chlorinators can be seen in Exhibit 51.
Incineration offers another method of treatment. These devices have become
popular for treating wastes from trailers and campers. Basically the wastes
are subject to intense heat generated by a power burner run on bottled gas.
The waste is then vented to the air, and, according to the manufacturer, an
invisible, odorless vapor is formed. Two units found in the literature sell
for approximately $300 each. Their biggest advantage lies in the fact that
the incinerators return nothing to the stream. However, they require a
source of power as well as storage space for bottled gas. The Oregon State
Sanitary Authority states that units which return nothing to the stream would
probably be acceptable.
The fourth scheme is the use of small package plants. These are usually aerobic
treatment systems and can be used either on board vessels or by supporting shore-
facilities. Their biggest use today is probably by the supporting shore
facilities. These units can be either of the floating type or mounted on dry
land. They offer an excellent treatment system for a marina in an outlying

area where connections with city sewers are not feasible. The Army specifies
this type of treatment for their craft with a complement of 25 or more (See
Exhibit 50).
Connections with city systems offer the best solution for supporting shore
facilities and for shore-based watercraft, such as houseboats. Examples
of this type of disposal can be found in the Pacific Northwest. Of the 18
terminals used by the Washington State Ferrie3, four are currently connected
to the city system (Exhibit 36). The Naval Shipyard at Bremerton connects
ships in dry dock to the Bremerton system and the Coast & Geodetic Survey
shore facilities on Lake Union are also connected to the city system which
facilitates the pumping of the holding tanks on their vessels.
Septic tanks with subsequent chlcrination are used by 7 of the 18 terminals
in the Washington State Ferry System (See Exhibit 36). While this system
does not offer extremely good removal, it is an improvement over practices
of dumping raw sewage into receiving waters. Certain ships are reportedly
equipped with central collection systems and septic tanks, and studies have
been undertaken using activated 3ludge systems, but none were seen in the
The last method is disposal at sea. While this method does not reduce the
amount of pollutants entering our waters, it does help the problem in our
Trash, Debris, and Garbage
Personnel on small boats normally carry bags or other containers for later
disposal at marinas, docks, or at home; or, in some instances throw it
overboard. While at sea this is probably the more common method.. Some
ships and large boats discard indiscriminately; but, many discard when at
sea and store while entering or in port, discharging to shoreside facilities.
Oil and Bilge Waters
These are generally pumped while at sea. However, this is not always
feasible. Since shore facilities for collection and disposal of these
wastes are practically non-existent, the ship's master may have no recourse
but to discharge to the harbor or river. The Alaska District Corps of
Engineers have special recommendations regarding pollution from oil and
bilge (Exhibit 42). Accidental discharge due to human ignorance or a true
accident also occurs.
The needs for pollution control from watercraft and supporting shore facilities
are many. In many cases all that is needed is utilization of equipment and
knowledge available. Other cases require additional research. In any case,
the Federal Government should lead the way in developing and adopting efficient
treatment programs for their watercraft and shore facilities. This in effect

is being done. A few of the agencies to lead the way are the Corps of
Engineers, the Maritime Administration, U. S„ Navy, and U. S. Coast Guard
(See Exhibits 34,50,52). The Corps of Engineers is specifying maceration-
chlorination for some of their craft, and may conflict with existing laws
or laws to be enacted.
Small watercraft are in need of an efficient, reliable, inexpensive treatment
facility which can be used as an alternative to holding tanks. Also needed,
if holding tanks is the method of choice, are additional supporting shore
facilities for collection and disposal of these wastes.
Ships need improved design of internal collection systems which will meet
stringent requirements pertaining to watertight compartments. Additional
work is necessary on the design or modification of holding tanks, package
plants, and other aerobic or anaerobic systems to meet the needs of these
large watercraft, and other watercraft such as houseboats and dredges. The
Navy is vitally interested in this approach as they don't consider dockside
collection systems as practical for the many waste discharge points in Naval
ships (Exhibit 52). Work should also be done in cooperation with shipbuilding
firms to design new ships so that either holding tanks or treatment systems
could be employed.
Finally, there is a need for supporting shore facilities for the collection of
liquid wastes from ships. This waste, plus the waste from shore facilities,
must then be properly treated. Facilities are also necessary for the
collection and treatment of wastes generated from cleaning of cargo space,
"Butterworthing," and other similar procedures.
Trash, Debris, and Garbage
The biggest need in this area is for the provision of adequate shore-based
collection facilities and an extensive educational program. Also desirable
would be work on developing containers which degrade, but the effort seems to be
in the opposite direction; aluminum cans, glass, plastic containers, aluminum
foils all of which do not degrade, are becoming more prevalent.
Oil and Bilge Waters
Ships should be designed so that these materials can be pumped to a supporting
shore facility. The supporting shore facility in turn needs a suitable
collection system with suitable disposal so as not to cause water or air
pollution. This is particularly significant as materials of this type
normally are not permitted to enter municipal sewers. It would also be
desirable to develop low head oil collectors or filters which could be
used aboard ship to remove oil from bilge water or other oil bearing waters.
Additional work is also needed to develop new methods for mopping or cleaning
up oil and other materials resulting from accidental spills

In the Pacific Northwest there are a number of laws and regulations that
either do or could apply to water pollution attributable to watercraft and
supporting facilities. These have originated at local, State, and Federal
levels of government as well as in Canada and at the international level.
The City of Portland, Oregon, has ordinances (Exhibit 54) prohibiting the
discharge of garbage, refuse, and oil in the Portland harbor and immediate
vicinity. In 1944, the City of Seattle, Washington, passed an ordinance
(Exhibit 55) prohibiting sewerless houseboats on Lake Washington. Twenty
years later another ordinance (Exhibit 56) was passed which prohibits the
dumping or throwing of garbage or refuse into the waters from houseboats.
State laws and regulations in the Pacific Northwest vary markedly. Idaho,
Washington, and Alaska are at one end of the spectrum with no specific laws
or regulations pertaining to watercraft waste disposal. However, these
three could use other existing water pollution control regulations (Exhibit
57,58,59) for pollution abatement if necessary. At the other end of the
spectrum is Montana, which in 1966 passed a law (Exhibit 60) requiring all
watercraft with toilets to use holding tanks, or treatment devices capable
of accomplishing the equivalent of secondary treatment. The Oregon Legis-
lature adopted Senate Bill No. 185 (Exhibit 61) in 1965, which has now become
a part of Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS 449.150). This law became effective
September 1, 1967, and it provides for the abatement of all sewage and
garbage pollution sources including houseboats, moorages, marinas, and other
waterbased buildings and structures. In addition the Oregon State Marine
Board has regulations (Exhibits 62,63) governing the use of marine toilets
on eight lakes in Deschutes County. Toilets must be sealed, or provide
treatment "to render waste harmless."
Several Federal agencies have some jurisdiction over waters in the Pacific
Northwest. The National Park Service has regulations (Exhibit 64) covering
park waters. They prohibit the dumping or discharging of wastes, garbage,
and refuse in freshwater bodies, except the Great Lakes. In salt water and
the Great Lakes the dumping is prohibited within one mile of the nearest
shore. National Forest supervisors have the authority under Regulation U-6,
Department of Agriculture, to restrict use of National Forest lands when
deemed necessary to safeguard public health, welfare, safety, or convenience.
Exhibit 65, an example of a regulation safeguarding public health, requires
the sealing of all "heads" on cabin cruisers launched on Diamond Lake in
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has regulations (Exhibit 66) governing the
use of houseboats,boathouses, etc., on their reservoirs. Discharge of sewage

and garbage from any watercraft is prohibited except in accordance with State
and local regulations. Refuse and rubbish cannot be thrown on reservoir waters
or adjacent land, but must be disposed of at designated places. The U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers also published Regulation No. 1125-2-302 (Exhibit 50) in
October 1965. This regulation requires the installation of sewage treatment
devices on Corps floating plants involved in civil works functions.
One of the more extensive Federal laws is the River and Harbor Act of 1899
(Exhibit 67). It prohibits the discharge of refuse into any navigable water
of the United States.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 (Exhibit 68) makes it unlawful to discharge oil
by any method, means, or manner into or upon the coastal navigable waters of
the United States. State and Federal laws related to oil pollution of the
Puget Sound area are summarized by the Department of the Navy in SOPA Puget
Sound Instruction P5400.1A (Exhibit 69). The Oil Pollution Act of 1961
(33 USC 1001-1015) implements the provisions of the International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act P. L. 84-660, as amended, also provides
certain general guidelines which could apply to watercraft, but primarily is
an enabling act which authorizes and directs action by governmental agencies.
The Canadian Shipping Act, Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations of 1960, plus
amendments, are shown in Exhibit 70. Due to the proximity of Canadian waters,
this law can have effect upon some United States waters and shores, and in
general, is quite similar to the United States law.
International regulations can also have considerable effect upon our shores
and waters and one with considerable potential effect is the 1954 International
Convention on Oil Pollution at Sea. Signatories to this convention are Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, The
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom; and, as of 1961,
the United States. This regulation establishes males regarding the discharging
of oil and oil containing wastes on the high seas, and permits establishment
of areas restricted to dumping.
Private Organizations
Two model acts are also included. Exhibit 71 is a "Model Act on Sewage
Disposal from Boats" by the Outboard Boating Club of America and Exhibit 72
is a "Model Act to Prohibit Littering and the Disposal of Untreated Sewage
from Boats" by the National Association of State Boating Law Administration.
The State of Washington Department of Park and Recreation Commission has two
new proposed regulations before the 1967 State Legislature. Th^r read as follows:
Pacific Northwsjt Water La&ftbiy
200 South 35th Street
Corvallls, Oregon 97330

Section 46; The discharge of garbage, rubbish, or debris from boats
on the waters of this state is prohibited.
Section 47: "In addition to the powers and duties otherwise provided in
this chapter, the Commission shall have the power and duty to make rules and
regulations regarding marine toilets and their use consistent with the preven-
tion and control of pollution of the waters of this State and not in conflict
with the rules and regulations of the State Department of Health or the,
Pollution Control Commission." Washington also has an Interclub Association
(Yacht clubs) with a Litter and Pollution Panel. They presented a list
(Exhibit 73) of possible methods to combat litter and pollution from watercraft,
The Bureau of Reclamation, Region 1, Boise, Idaho, is starting to include a
clause pertaining to boats in lease agreements with other Federal and State
agencies. In a draft(69) of such an agreement the clause reads as follows;
"h. The State shall post the following notice at all boat
launching and docking facilities located on and around
Spangler Reservoir:
Watercraft using Spangler Reservoir shall not dump trash
or sewage into the waters thereof. All trash and sewage
shall be disposed of on shore in accordance with State
and County sanitation regulations.
Launching and use of houseboats and of any craft equipped
with flush-type toilet facilities upon the waters of
Spangler Reservoir is prohibited."
It is planned to include a similar clause in all new lease agreements made
by Region 1.
Exhibit 74 is a "Proposed Policy of Sewage and Waste Disposal from Vessels"
prepared by the Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection,
U. S. Public Health Service. It presents proposed effluent standards for
interstate traffic under the terms of the Interstate Quarantine Regulations,
One set of standards is for vessels with a normal complement (passengers
and crew) of over 40 and another set for vessels with a normal complement
of 40 or less.
Enforcement of the laws presently in effect is difficult, and is generally
poor. Lack of personnel and funds is given as the primary reason. However,
if all of the laws and regulations were enforced, there would still be
confusion due to lack of conformity which exists.
Oil and oil-containing material appear to be covered adequately. One barrier
to the proper functioning of oil discharge laws is the lack of supporting
shore facilities. Facilities, where oil and oil containing wastes can be

readily collected and eliminated without causing additional water or air
pollution, are virtually nonexistent. Therefore, if a ship does not or
cannot discharge these wastes at sea, they have no alternative but to pump
them into a harbor or river.
Appropriate laws should require the provision of supporting shore facilities
for the collection and disposal of oil and bilge waters.
Sewage disposal, including wash waters, regulations are at great variance
and should be made as consistent as feasible. Model laws should be
developed, based upon valid scientific studies. Federal laws and regulations
should be patterned after these, and the model laws should be presented to
the states for their consideration.
Trash and garbage regulations have somewhat more consistency. The discharge
of these from boats and ships, should be prohibited, unless on the high seas,
or macerated and passed through an acceptable treatment system.

1.	Areas of United States, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1942.
2.	1960 Census. World Book Atlas, Field Enterprises, Educational Corp.,
Chicago, Illinois, 1965.
3.	Colliers Encyclopedia, Vol. 23. Crowell, Collier and MacMillan, Inc.
4.	Oregon Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Recreation Division, Oregon State
Highway Department, Salem, Oregon, June 1962.
5.	List of Navigable Waters in Portland District, U. S. Army Engineer
District, Portland, Oregon, June 30, 1965.
6.	Oregon Fishing and Vacation Guide, 2nd Edition, H. B. Helstrom, Editor
and Publisher, Portland, Oregon.
7.	Oregon Boating Guide, Oregon State Highway Department, Salem, Oregon,
8.	Dam pamphlets for Dorena (1965), Fern Ridge (1964), Lookout Point
(1965), Detroit (1963), Cottage Grove (1963), Cougar (1965), Hills
Creek (1964), and Green Peter and Foster (1964). U. S. Army Engineer
District, Portland, Oregon.
9.	Recreation and Wildlife Summary Reports, Calendar Year 1965, U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Region I, Boise, Idaho.
10.	Reservoirs in the United States, U.S.G.S. Publication No. 1360-A,
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
11.	Areas of the United States, 1940, Prepared under the supervision
of Clarence E. Batschelet, U. S. Department ofCommerce, U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1942.
12.	Lengths of Shoreline in Washington State, Carlos B. Hagen, Published
by Bureau of Surveys and Haps, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, Olympia, Washington, 1958.
13.	Atlas of the Pacific Northwest Resources and Development Second
Edition, Edited by Richard M. Highsmith, Jr., Department of Natural
Resources, published by Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon,
14.	Lakes of Washington, Vol. I and II, by Ernest E. Wolcott, Washington
Department of Conservation, Olympia, Washington, 1964.
15.	Idaho Boating Laws-Regulations, Safe Boating Tips, 4th Edition, 1966.
Published by Department of Law Enforcement, Boise, Idaho.

World Book, Vol. M. Field Enterprises Educational Corp., Chicago,
Illinois, 1964.
"A Guide to Boating in Montana," Pamphlet by Montana Chamber of
Commerce and Montana Fish and Game Commission, Helena. Montana.
Data compiled on navigable rivers. Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration Laboratory, College, Alaska, 1966.
Report of Certificates of Number Issued to Motorboats, State of
Oregon, State Marine Board, Salem, Oregon, December 31, 1966.
Report of Certificates of Number Issued to Motorboats, State of
Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, Boise, Idaho, December 31,
Montana Boat Registrations, Montana State Board of Equalization,
Helena, Montana, June 30, 1966.
Data of Recreational Boats in Washington, Washington Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, Business and Economics Research
Division, Olympia, Washington, June 1965.
Recreational Boating Statistics, U. S. Coast Guard Annual Reports for
1964 and 1965.
Pleasure Boating in Oregon, Oregon State Marine Board, Salem, Oregon,
July 1966.
Personal Communication by Letter dated December 28, 1966, with R. F.
Rittenhouse, Director, Oregon State Marine Board, Salem, Oregon.
Washington State Directory of Saltwater Boating Facilities, Tourist
Promotion Division, Department of Commerce and Economic Development,
Olympia, Washington, June 6, 1966.
Report of Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1964-65,
Annual Report, Olympia, Washington.
Design Memo #7B, Master Plan for Development and Management of Lower
Monumental Reservoir, U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla,
Washington, 1966.
Preliminary Master Plans for John Day, 1966, Lower Granite, 1965,
Lower Monumental, 1963, U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla,
Dam Pamphlets for McNary (1966), John Day (1965), and Ice Harbor
(1964-65), U. S. Army Engineer District, Walla Walla, Washington.
Dam Pamphlets for Bonneville and The Dalles, U. S. Army Engineer
District, Portland, Oregon, 1965.

32.	Design Memo #28A, Lower Granite Project, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Walla Walla, Washington, 1965.
33.	Recreation, U. S. Army Engineer District Civil Works Projects, Portland,
Oregon, June 1965.
34.	Boating and Cruising Guide Pacific Northwest, Standard Oil Co. of
California, Rand McNally & Co., 1965.
35.	Idaho Lakes and Reservoirs with Public Access and Use Areas, Information
Bulletin No. 2, Idaho Fish and Game Department, Boise, Idaho.
36.	Public Access Areas, Information Pamphlet No. 11, Idaho Fish and Game
Department, Boise, Idaho.
37.	Puget Sound Comprehensive Study, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Seattle, Washington, June 1966.
38.	Facts to Help You Know Washington, State Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, Olympia, Washington, 1965.
39.	Private Communication with Dr. Crutchfield, Economics Professor,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
40.	Letter from Washington State Department of Fisheries, January 12,
1967, Olympia, Washington.
41.	Estimates of Catch, Effort, and Calculated Fishing Success, Oregon
Offshore Sport Salmon Fishery, 1965, by Oregon State Game Commission
and Statistics Department of Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
42.	The 1965 Willamette River Spring Chinook Sport Fishery, Stout, W. H.
and Collins, M.D., Oregon State Game Commission, Portland, Oregon,
April 1966.
43.	Waterborne Commerce of the United States, 1964, Part 4, Waterways and
Harbors Pacific Coast, Alaska and Hawaii: U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
44.	Data from records on watercraft, Northwest Regional Office, Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration, Department of the Interior,
Portland, Oregon, January 1967.
45.	Verbal communication on watercraft, Portland Office, U. S. Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior, Portland, Oregon, January 20, 1967.
46.	Data from records on watercraft, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho, January 1967.
47. Data from records on Watercraft, Regional Office, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Department of the Interior, Seattle,
Washington, January 1967.

Data from records on watercraft, Boise District Office, Bureau of
Land Management, Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho, January
Data compiled on governmental watercraft, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration Laboratory, College, Alaska, February 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Portland, Oregon, January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Walla Walla, Washington, January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, U. S. Army Engineer District,
Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, 13th U. S. Naval District, U. S.
Navy, Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, District Office, U. S. Coast and
Geodetic Survey, Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington,
January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, U. S. Maritime Administration,
Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
Data from two memoranda on waste water disposal practices by Mari-
time Administration, December 6, 1965, and December 7, 1965,
Northwest Regional Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Department of the Interior, Portland, Oregon.
Data on boats from letter No. 2300, January 10, 1967, Pacific North-
west Region, U. S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture,
Portland, Oregon.
Data from records on watercraft, Intermountain Region, U. S. Forest
Service, Department of Agriculture, Ogden, Utah, January 1967.
Data from letter No. 9360, January 12, 1967; records on watercraft,
January 1967; telephone communication, February 2, 1967. 13th U. S.
Coast Guard District, Treasury Department, Seattle, Washington.
Data from records on boats licensed at state level, Chief of Motor
Vehicle Registration, Department of Law Enforcement, Boise, Idaho,
January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, Department of Game, State of Washington,
Olympia, Washington, January 1967.
Data from records on watercraft, Parks and Recreation Department, State
of Washington, Olympia, Washington, January 1967.

63.	Data from letter on watercraft, Department of Fisheries, State of
Washington, Olympia, Washington, January 12, 1967.
64.	Data from records on watercraft, Washington State Ferries, Seattle,
Washington, January 1967.
65.	Data from Alaska Department of Fish & Game memorandum on watercraft,
Vessel Supervisor, Division of Administration, Alaska Department of
Fish &t Game, Juneau, Alaska, November 14, 1966.
66.	Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor Exhaust-Laboratory Studies,
JWPCF, English, J. N., McDermath, G. N., and Henderson, C., July
67.	Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor Exhaust-Field Studies,
English, J.N., Surber, E.W., and McDermath, G.N., JWPCF, September
68.	Evaluation of Marine Toilets Chlorinator Units, Research Report No. 9,
1962, New York State Department of Health.
69.	Lease Agreement for Administration of Spangler Reservoir (Rough Draft),
U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mann Creek
Project, Idaho, November 1966.
70.	Washington State Outdoor Recreation Guide, Washington State Parks and
Recreation Commission, and Tourist Promotion Division, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, Olympia, Washington, June 1966.
71.	Alaska Director of State Harbor Facilities, Department of Public
Works Division of Water and Harbors, Juneau, Alaska.
72.	Oregon Port Directory, The Port of Portland, Portland, Oregon,
January 12, 1966.
73.	1966 Port Director, Washington Public Ports Association, Olympia,
74.	Annual Reports (Statistics) and Waterborne Commerce of the United
States, Part 4, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1930-64.
75.	Merchants Exchange Bulletin, Merchants Exchange, Portland, Oregon,
December 1966.
76.	1965 Annual Report of Vessel Movements on Puget Sound, The Marine
Exchange, Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Seattle, Washington.
77.	The Port of Portland, Oregon, Port Series No. 34, Revised 1962,
Part 2, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C.

78.	The Ports of Coos Bay, Oregon; Longview and Vancouver, Washington,
Port Series No. 33, 1963, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
79.	The Ports of Everett, Bellingham, Port Angeles, and Anacortes,
Washington, Port Series No. 37, 1963, U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
80.	The Ports of Tacoma, Grays Harbor, and Olympia, Washington, Port
Series No. 35, 1963, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
81.	The Port of Seattle, Washington, Port Series No. 36, 1963, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
82.	Personel Communication by letter dated January 26, 1967, with C. A.
Weberg, Assistant State Fisheries Director, Fish Commission of
Oregon, Portland, Oregon.
83.	1965 Fisheries Statistical Report, State of Washington, Department
of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington.
84.	Private communication with the staff of Washington State Ferries,
Seattle, Washington, "January 1967.	>
85.	Civil Engineering Department, Sanitary Engineering Division. University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
86.	Data enclosed with letter No. 5700, February 8, 1967, 13th U. S. Coast
Guard District, Treasury Department, Seattle, Washington.
87.	U. S. Army Engineer District, Juneau, Alaska, January 1967.
88.	Oil and Refuse Pollution, Navigable Waters of the United States,
Alaska, U. S. Army Engineer District, Juneau, Alaska, 1965.
89.	Northwest Regional Office, Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration, Department of the Interior, Portland, Oregon.
90.	U. S. Army Engineer District, Seattle, Washington, January 1967.
91.	U. S. Army Engineer District, Portland, Oregon, January 1967.
92.	Report of Study Pertaining to Marine Toilets and Chlorinators,
Barber, Lawrence, Oregon State Marine Board, August 1962.
93.	Chapter 488 of Oregon Revised Statutes, 1965 Replacement Part, Boats
and Boating.
94.	Report of the Pollution Study Committee National Association of State
Boating Law Administration, Warwick Hotel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
November 8, 1965.

1.	Report on Portland Harbor Development Survey, Commission of Public
Docks, Portland, Oregon, 1959.
2.	Policy Governing the Water Pollution and Public Health Aspects of
Outdoor Recreation, Recreation Advisory Council, Washington, D.C.,
Circular No. 3, April 9, 1964.
3.	Rules and Regulations Regarding Permits for the Discharge of Wastes
from Commercial and Industrial Operations into State Waters,"
Washington Pollution Control Commission, Olympia, Washington,
Adopted July 21, 1955.
4.	Rules and Regulations for the Submission and Approval of Plans
for the Installation of Public Sewage and Industrial Waste Works
and for the Operation of Such Works, State of Washington Pollution
Control Commission and Department of Health, Olympia, Washington,
5.	Regulations Regarding the Discharge of Waste Products to the Canals,
Drains, Wasteways, Reservoirs, and Ground Waters of the Columbia
Basin Irrigation Project Area and Minimum Standards for the Treatment
and Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes in the Area, State of
Washington Pollution Control Commission, Olympia, Washington, March
6.	Idaho Motor Vehicle Laws, Department of Law Enforcement, Boise,
Idaho, 1965.
7.	A Uniform Method for Measuring and Reporting Recreation Use on the
Public Lands and Waters of the United States, Recreation Advisory
Council, Study Committee Number Two, Washington, D.C., April 1965.
8.	Survey of Marina and Watercraft Use in Relation to the Public Health
Aspects, Macomb County Health Department, Mt. Clemens, Michigan, 1963.

Page 1
Navigable Coastal and Inland Waterways, Pacific Northwest 5
Lakes and Reservoirs Greater than Ten Square Miles, State
of Idaho	15
Recreational Watercraft in the Pacific Northwest,
(excluding Alaska)	19-22
Supporting Shore Facilities for Pleasure Craft, State
of Oregon	4,6-9,28-34
Supporting Shore Facilities for Pleasure Craft, State
of Washington	26,70
Supporting Shore Facilities for Pleasure Craft, State
of Montana	17
Directory of State Harbor Facilities, State of
Alaska	71
Port Directory, States of Oregon and Washington	72,73
Traffic through Bonneville, Dalles, and Willamette
Falls Locks, 1930-1965	74
Commercial Shipping for Washington Ports, 1964	43
Commodities Shipped In and Out of Portland and Seattle
Harbors, 1964	43

Page 2
12.	Commercial Water Traffic, Columbia and Shake Riversr,
1964	43
13.	Commercial Water Traffic, Oregon, 1964	43
14.	Commercial Water Traffic, Washington, 1964	43
15.	Commercial Water Traffic, Idaho, 1964	43
16.	Traffic Statistics for State Ferries, State of
Washington, 1956-1965	64
17.	Commercial Water Traffic, Alaska, 1964	43
18.	Number and Registry of Commercial Vessels Arriving
in Portland, 1965, 1966, and Puget Sound, 1965	75,76
19.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Portland, Oregon,
1962	77
20.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Coos Bay,
Oregon, 1963	78
21.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Anacortes,
Washington, 1963	79
22.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Bellingham,
Washington, 1963	79
23.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Everett,
Washington, 1963	79
24.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of GraysrHarbor,
Washington, 1963	80
25.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Longview,
Washington, 1963	78
26.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Olympia,
Washington, 1963	80
27.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Port Angeles,
Washington, 1963	79
28.	Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Tacoma,
Washington, 1963	80

Page 3
Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Seattle,
Washington, 1963	81
Piers, Wharves, and Docks, Port of Vancouver,
Washington, 1963	78
Commercial Fisheries, State of Oregon	82
Commercial Fisheries, State of Washington	83
Commercial Fishing Fleet,. State of Washington, 1959	40
Federal Watercraft, Pacific Northwest, 1966	44-59
State Watercraft, Pacific Northwest, (excluding Oregon},
1966	1	60-65
Supporting Shore Facilities, Washington State Ferries,
State of Washington	84
Letter dated December;23, 1966, State of Montana,
State Board of Health
Letter dated January 6, 1967, Marion County Sheriff's
Office, Salem, Oregon
(Proposed Study) Bacteriological and Esthetic Effects of
Pleasure Boat Waste Discharge on Small Harbors, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington	85
Oil Pollution Investigation, Navigable Waters of the
Pacific Northwest, (excluding Alaska), January 1965 -
December 1966	86
Oil Pollution Investigation, Navigable Waters of the
Pacific Northwest, (Alaska), July 1956 - January 1967	87

Page 4
42.	Oil and Refuse Pollution Report, State of Alaska	88
43.	Special Report, Loss of Marine Life on Pacific Beaches
of Quinault -Indian Reservation and Adjoining Areas,
Washington - Incidental to Stranding of Petroleum
Barge at Moclips, Washington, March 11 to 17, 1964
44.	Engineering Report 
Page 5
54.	Portland, Oregon, City Ordinances, Section 16
55.	Seattle, Washington, Ordinance No. 73578, October 23, 1944
56.	Seattle, Washington, Building Code, Chapter 3.74,
Ordinance No. 82223, October 21, 1964
57.	Water Pollution Control Regulations, Idaho State Board of
Health, May 11, 1959
58.	State of Washington, Pollution Control Commission, Chapter:216,
Laws of 1945 and Chapter 71, Laws of 1955
59.	Alaska Statutes, Water Control Act
60.	House Bill No. 53, State 6f Montana
61/ Chapter 362, Senate Bill 185, 1965 Oregon Laws
62.	State Marine Board Regulations, State of Oregon	93
63.	Boat Operations in Deschutes County, Oregon, Oregon
State Marine Board
64.	U. S. National Park Service, Code of Federal Regulations
65.	U. S. Forest Service Regulation-regarding Diamond Lake,
. July 16, 1962
66.	U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Code of Federal
67.	U. S. River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899, 33 U. S.
Code 407
68.	U. S. Oil Pollution Act of 1924, 33 U. S. Code 431-437
69.	SOPA Puget Sound Instruction P5400.1A
70.	Canada Shipping Act, Oil Pollution Prevention Regulations
71.	Model Act on Sewage Disposal from Boats

Page 6
72.	A model Act to Prohibit Littering and the Disposal of
Untreated Sewage from Boats	94
73.	Litter and Pollution Panel, Interclub Association of
Washington, November 1966
74.	Proposed Policy on Sewage and Waste Disposal from Vessels,
Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection,
U. S. P. H. S.