333 



MURL MILLER 

 to those phases of the study concerned with the dock 

 front areas, sludge deposits and primary treatment. We 

 specifically are concerned first with the sweeping 

 generalized recommendation that we quote from Page XV of 

 the report as follows: 



"Remove, by dredging, the existing accumu- 

 lation of sludge in the Harbor and dispose of such material 

 on land." 



The mills of the Everett area have demon- 

 strated their willingness to take corrective action when, 

 due to requirements of the receiving waters, a need is 

 established. With respect to the Everett Harbor area, 

 conditions existed producing unfavorable results in the 

 in situ bioassays at the time of the study. These con- 

 ditions were limited to dock fronts and to small isolated 

 pockets. These problems apparently related to bottom 

 deposits existing at the tinne of the Project's studies 

 and possibly to near-surface discharges of certain waste 

 streams. While a contribution to these deposits is acknowl- 

 edged by the report to be made by marine traffic, log 

 rafting and the formerly existing estuarine municipal 

 sewage outfalls, the Snohomish River load not attributable 

 to pulp or paper mills is ignored. This load has been 

 estimated from river flows and many years of data upstream 



