Availabili1y SIotement Security CIsso Thia Report Secui1y as.. This Poge Later in , EPA required the Wyckoff Company to conduct environmental investigation activities under RCRA, and the state required immediate action to control stormwater runoff and seepage of contaminants. List of Figures Figure 1. Regional Setting 6 Figure 2. Area Map 7 Figure 3. Site Operable Units 9 Figure 4.
Land Use Map 10 Figure 5. Eagle Harbor Sample Locations 18 Figure 6. Subtidal Background Locations 19 Figure 7. Intertidal Metals Relative to Background 23 Figure 8.
Subtidal Mercury Concentrations 24 Figure 9. Framework for the Timing of Remedial Activities 87 Figure This decision is based on the Administrative Record for this site. The State of Washington concurs with the selected remedy see Appendix B. This is the first Record of Decision to be completed for the site.
Concentrations of mercury exceed levels acutely toxic to marine life by factors of ten or more and are significantly higher than concentrations of mercury measured in other parts of the site. EPA will be the lead agency for implementing sediment remediation in the West Harbor. Source control efforts will be coordinated with the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this site. Most sedimentS in the West Harbor au are characterized by relatively low concentrations of contamination over large areas.
For this reason, treatment was not judged practicable for most areas addressed by the selected remedy. For low levels of contamination, sediment containment is an appropriate remedy. In this case, the remedy will satisfy the statutory preference for treatment of the principal threat as an element of the remedy.
If, according to test results, sediments do not require treatment, the remedy will not satisfy this statutory preference. This remedial action will result in hazardous substances above health-based and environmentally-based cleanup levels remaining at the West Harbor QU. Consequently, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action, to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environmenL Initiation of the 5-year review period will.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 ',:. It includes information about the site background, the nature and extent of contamination, the assessment of human health and environmental risks, and identification and evaluation of remedial alternatives.
The Decision Summary also describes the involvement of the public throughout the process, along with the environmental programs and regulations that may relate to or affect the alternatives. The Decision Summary is presented in the following sections: Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Describes general characteristics of the site and individual operable units, Provides site history and previous investigations or enforcement activities, Presents highlights of community participation.
Describes the scope of the response action in the context of the overall site strategy, Presents site characteristics, Provides a summary of site risks, Describes the cleanup alternatives evaluated,.
Compares the analyses in terms of the EPA evaluation criteria, Presents the selected remedy, Documents the conformance of the selected remedy with statutory requirements, and Describes significant changes between the preferred alternative presented in the proposed plan and the remedy selected in the ROD. The site includes an inactive acre wood-treating facility, the adjacent Eagle Harbor, and other upland sources of contamination to the harbor, including a former shipyard See Figure 2.
Groundwater and soils at the wood-treating facility the Wyckoff Operable Unit are contaminated with chemicals from the wood treatment process, primarily creosote-derived polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons p AHs and pentachlorophenol.
A groundwater and oil extraction system and treatment plant have been in operation at the facility since as part of an Expedited Response Action ERA aimed at controlling releases of contamination to the harbor.
Additional source control efforts and a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study RIfFS are planned for the facility to address remaining contamination in soils and groundwater. Sediments in areas of the Harbor are also contaminated with PAHs and other organic compounds, as well as metals, primarily mercury.
An interim ROD will be completed separately for the East Harbor OU to address severely contaminated sediments where ongoing seepage is not a significant source. Land use on Bainbridge Island, recently incorporated as a city, is principally residential, with some commercial and industrial use Figure 4. The former City of Winslow population 2, lies on the north side of the Harbor. Residences, commercial centers, a city park, several marinas, a yacht repair yard, a bulkhead enterprise, and a ferry terminal characterize the northern shoreline.
The western and southern shores are primarily lined with residences, farms, marinas, and a boatyard. On the south shore at the harbor mouth, the former wood-treating facility extends into the harbor on fill. A significant use of the harbor is ferry transport of vehicles and passengers between the City of Bainbridge Island and Seattle. Currently, approximately twenty runs are made per day. The harbor is also used for moorage of pleasure boats, house boats, and working boats. Fishing, crabbing, and clam-digging were common recreational activities until , when the Bremerton-Kitsap County Health District issued a health advisory to address bacterial and chemical contamination of seafood in Eagle Harbor.
The advisory, recommending against the harvest and consumption of fish and shellfish, has significantly reduced recreational harvest of seafood from the harbor. The upper harbor is shallow, but the central channel is between 6 and 15 meters 20 to 50 feet in depth.
Several small creeks feed the harbor, and at the harbor mouth a long sandbar called Wing Point extends southward from the north shore. The harbor supports several fish resources. Coho and chum salmon once used the creek on the north shore to spawn, and fingerlings are released there regularly. The creek at the head of the harbor is a salmon nursery, and chum may use the drainage on the south side as a spawning ground and nursery. Eagle Harbor may also be a spawning ground for surf smelt and Pacific sand lance Washington Department of Fisheries, Other fish and invertebrates present in the harbor include several flatfish species, rockfish, pile perch, cod, lingcod, crabs, and shrimp.
Several shellfish species are present in intertidal and subtidal areas. Bainbridge Island supports a wide variety of resident and migratory birds and other wildl ife.
Major bird groups represented include waterfowl, shorebirds, gulls, songbirds, and raptors. Although residents report sightings of bald eagles, no critical habitats are formally designated near the site. D, 10' fh.. Figure 4.
Subsequent land use was residential, timber-related, or agricultural. Starting in , a major shipyard was established on the north shore of Eagle Harbor, and wood-treating operations began on the south shore in The early days of the shipyard emphasized wooden ship-building. After flourishing during World War I, the yard slumped during the 's. In the 's and 50's, the emphasis was on construction and repair of mil itary ships, conversion of ships to wartime use, and postwar decommissioning under contracts with the Navy, Army, Coast Guard and other military entities.
Repair contracts dwindled into the late , and in the property was sold and subsequently divided. Wood treating operations at the Wyckoff OU began in and continued until through several changes of ownership. Pressure treatment with creosote was the primary method of wood preservation, although pentachlorophenol also came into use.
Preservative chemicals were delivered to the facility by barge and ship and stored in tanks on the property. Spills, leaks, and drip page entered the ground directly or through unlined sumps. During the 's, efforts were made to address oil seepage on beaches adjacent to the Wyckoff OU through inspections and recommendations. Data Collected at the time revealed the presence of significant soil and groundwater contamination.
A July AOC. The ERA. The UAO calls for increased groundwater ex. A potentially responsible party PRP search was initiated in to identify parties potentially liable for response costs for Eagle Harbor. Continued PRP search efforts resulted in the notification of an additional party in January The liability of one of the ten parties was resolved ina bankruptcy settlement in RI fieldwork began in early Key technical memoranda are listed on Table 1.
Table 1. The EP A has met these requirements and maintained an active community relations program at the site. Currently, the mailing list comprises over addresses. Fact sheets have been mailed to interested citizens three or four times a year since the site listing.
The community has shown consistently high interest in the site. In , public notice of the availability of funds for a technical assistance grant fAG was published, and the Association of Bainbridge Communities ABC applied for and received the grant. The group's volunteer technical advisory committee and a consultant hired with the grant monies have been active in EP A's Eagle Harbor Technical Discussion Group and regularly update the community in the ABC newsletter.
The community relations plan was revised in late to reflect the existence of the TAG. Approximately thirty residents were present.
The Eagle Harbor administrative record was placed in the library in July , and is updated regularly. In December , the draft final FS and Proposed Plan for Eagle Harbor were added to the information repository, and copies of the Proposed Plan were sent to citizens on the site mailing list.
A sixty-day public comment period began on December 16, EPA held a public meeting on January 15, to provide information and answer community questions. An opportunity for formal public comment was provided at a second meeting on January 30, At the request of the public, the comment period was extended ten days to February 25, and comments from one party who received late notice of its potential liabil ity were accepted until March 7.
Over 40 letters commenting on the proposed plan were submitted to EP A, and at least 70 citizens were in attendance at each of the January meetings. The decision is based on information in the Administrative Record for the site.
As stt. This West Harbor OU ROD is intended to address chemical contamination of marine sediments, impacts to marine organisms, and related human exposure pathways. The focus of the actions described in Section 10 of this ROD is to control potential upland sources of contamination to the West Harbor; address highly contaminated sediments near the shipyard which may be acting as a source of contamination to other harbor areas, and reduce or eliminate environmental and human health risks associated with remaining contaminated sediments.
Other types of environmental or public health problems within the site boundaries are the responsibility of other federal, state, tribal, or local programs. Examples of problems beyond the scope of the Eagle Harbor project include problems related to bacterial contamination and impacts to marine organisms from physical disturbances such as propeller wash or shoreline uses. EPA coordinates with these other programs as appropriate.
The focus of the RI was to determine the nature and extent of contamination in the harbor, identify significant sources of contamination, and assess threats to human health and the environment due to chemical contamination. As much as possible, RIfFS field sampling, laboratory analytical and biological testing methods, and processes for evaluating biological effects were consistent with methods and approaches developed for evaluating conditions in Puget Sound and later incorporated in the State of Washington Sediment Management Standards "Sediment Standards".
Ecology's Preliminary Investigation PI had identified a general problem area and problem chemicals, and had located a hotspot area of high PAH contamination. The problem areas and chemicals were determined based on exceedance of Puget Sound Apparent Effects Thresholds AET , concentrations of contaminants which indicate possible biological effects.
Table 2 lists chemical-specific AETs for four biological tests available in Further discussion of AETs is provided in Section 7. These were compared to specific AETs in order to identify areas of potential biological effects. The June sampling also included collection of sediment samples for laboratory bioassays using amphipods and oyster larvae and for evaluating the abundance and diversity of benthic organisms at the sample locations.
The same sampling was conducted at ten sample locations in uncontaminated embayments near Eagle Harbor for comparison Figure 6. Intertidal sediment sampling was conducted in May and June, , including a high, medium, and low tide sample from each of 16 beach transects.
Samples were analyzed for the same chemicals as the June subtidal samples. At each transect, shellfish were collected and a composite sample of tissue from each transect was analyzed. Intertidal locations near and outside the harbor mouth were identified as background sampling transects Figure 5, transects 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and Samples from the intertidal background locations contained PAHs at levels comparable to the subtidal background areas.
Mercury was undetected at 0. Subsequent field activities, conducted in and , included sampling of beach sediments on the north shore of Eagle Harbor to further define an intertidal hotspot and to evaluate potential PAH contamination along the north. In the East Harbor, a diver survey, deep sediment coring, subsurface hydrology studies, and a geophysical investigation were conducted to determine the extent of a known subtidal sediment hotspot, investigate potential transport of contamination from the Wyckoff au through the subsurface, and estimate the depth of contamination.
Additional fish; shellfish, and sediment sampling was conducted in to provide more complete information about human health risks. The results of activities subsequent to the RI were presented in the technical memoranda listed in Table I and incorporated in the FS November Intertidal samples from Eagle Harbor were found to exceed the maximum concentrations measured at background locations for a number of metals Figure 7. The greatest number of metals detected and the highest concentrations were detected near the former shipyard on the north shore.
In subtidal samples, copper and lead exceeded background by two to four times in much of the harbor, and a few locations exceeded background values for zinc, cadmium, and arsenic. Subtidal mercury concentrations exceeded maximum background values by betWeen two and tWenty times throughout the harbor and were particularly high near the former shipyard Figure 8.
EH06 Anc:uic 93 57' c.. ImNm 6. Copper 1. Elliott Bay. Ol iDcluded in the pn:vioul gencraUoo of AE1. Sediment PAH concentrations adjacent to the former shipyard in the West Harbor were lower, but were still higher than at intertidal background stations. Subtidal samples showed heavy P AH contamination in the East Harbor, with several high values near the fonner shipyards in the West Harbor. Estimated average concentrations of HPAH, the high molecular weight subgroup of PAH compounds, were highest north of the Wyckoff facility and in the central harbor, consistent with the initial PI problem areas, and were significantly higher than background values.
Although two of the four chlorophenols were detected, contamination by pentachlorophenol is not widespread. Figure 9 shows ranges of TPAH measured in subtidal sediments. On the basis of their widespread prevalence above AETs, mercury and the sixteen PAH were selected as indicator contaminants to define areas for remediation.
Areas of contamination by other organic compounds and metals are encompassed within areas defined by PAH and mercury. The results of the bioassays and benthic evaluations are discussed under Section 7.
Based on historical information and chemical data from RifFS sampling, the memorandum listed probable major and minor sources of contamination to Eagle Harbor, including both historical and ongoing sources. The wood treating facility was identified as the major source of PAH, particularly in the East Harbor, through both past operating practices and ongoing contaminant transport through the subsurface.
In the West Harbor, PAH contamination in nearshore sediments appears to be from combustion products, minor spills, and pilings and piers, while subtidal PAH contamination in the West Harbor is believed to reflect a combination of these sources, disposal practices at the former shipyard, and releases from the Wyckoff au. Elevated concentrations of metals, particularly near the fonner shipyard, are clearly associated with past shipyard operations, including the application, use, and removal by sandblasting of bottom paints and antifoulants.
Ongoing operations at the former shipyard include a bulkhead construction business, a yacht repair yard, and a ferry maintenance facility. These operations could be associated with continuing sources of contamination to the harbor. Other minor sources of contamination may include other boat yards and marinas, surface water and groundwater from contaminated areas of the shipyard, and storm drain releases from paved parking areas and streets.
S Other Contaminated Media The primary media of concern affected by contaminants in Eagle Harbor are intertidal and subtidal sediments, as described in previous sections.
Other media considered were marine surface water, groundwater, and air. Marine surface water and ail were not identified as media of concern. Concentrations of contaminants in the air were considered negligible at the harbor, because the contaminants are primarily associated with sediments which remain under water all or much of the time.
Contaminant concentrations in the marine surface water were expected to be highly dilute relative to sediment concentrations, and would pose negligible human health risk from direct contact relative to exposure to contaminated sediments. Ecology samples of surface water from ten Eagle Harbor locations provided in the FS, Appendix B3 did not exceed water quality criteria.
EPA does not consider groundwater a medium of concern for the West Harbor au. Groundwater is not significantly affected by the sediment contamination.
Similarly, since the major source of contamination to the West Harbor au was past direct discharges to the marine environment, the potential for groundwater transport of contamination to the sediments is low. Wyckoff facitity groundwater, intertidal seeps, and soil contamination are not significant sources of contamination to the West Harbor au. These sources, and their influence on the East Harbor au, are being addressed as part of the ongoing studies at the Wyckoff facility and East Harbor aus.
Although they are not considered environmental media, fish and shellfish tissues are of interest in Eagle Harbor as indicators of exposure of ecological receptors to contaminated sediments.
Also, contaminated seafood may be consumed by the public. However, most contamination in this area appears to be in the upper half meter with the possible exception of areas adjacent to the former shipyard where sandblasting wastes were disposed of. RI sediment sampling focused primarily on contamination in the top ten centimeters of marine sediment, considered the most biologically active zone in Eagle Harbor sediments.
Modeling of fate and transport of sediment-bound contaminants was conducted during the RIfFS. East Harbor subtidal areas were identified where propeller wash generated primarily by ferries waiting at the terminal creates high water velocities near the harbor bottom Figure In these areas, fine sediments and any attached contaminants could be remobilized.
The fine particles and potentially some intermediate-sized particles may be carried up into the harbor or out of the harbor mouth, depending on the direction of tidal flow.
On steep slopes or in shallow areas with active. In some ir.. Both mercury and PAHs can be redistributed in the environment through uptake by plant and animal speci"es and accumulation in tissues; this requires the microbial transformation of inorganic mercury to bioavailable forms.
Although generally metabolized by vertebrates, PAHs can accumulate in invertebrate tissues. Photodegradation, chemical decay, and microbial action degrade individual PAH compounds at different rates. In summary, in the absence of sediment remediation, contaminant transport pathways are likely to continue to redistribute contamination in sediments and biota in and near the harhor.
Waterfront residences, a public park, and fishing piers provide access to potentially contaminated intertidal beaches and harvestable seafood. Marine organisms potentially exposed to contaminated sediments include sediment-dwelling organisms in three major taxonomic groups: mollusca e.
Marine animals such as bottom-feeding fish and crabs are exposed to both contaminated sediments and contaminated prey organisms. Animals higher in the food chain may in turn be exposed.
Thus, although the biological tests may indicate impacts to specific sediment-dwelling organisms, these organisms are a building block of the marine ecosystem. Adverse effects at their level signal potential impacts on the overall health of the harbor. Principal threats include wastes with high concentrations of toxic compounds e. Other metals are also present, and acute bioassays indicate adverse biological effects in this area.
EP A has defined sediments containing concentrations of 5 mgikg or more mercury as the principal threat in the West Harbor. At this concentration, the oyster larvae measure is exceeded by less than Most of the remaining sediments contain less than 1. To assess the risk posed by site contamination, human health and environmental risks assessments were completed as part of the Eagle Harbor RI.
Additional information gained during the preparation of the FS was incorporated in a Revised Risk Assessment for human health. Although risks were assessed for the harbor as a whole, this section emphasizes results from the West Harbor au.
Table 3 shows the potential exposure pathways evaluated. Other exposure pathways considered were eliminated because risks associated with these routes were not expected to add significantly to human health concerns related to the site. Human exposure to contamination was considered of concern in intertidal areas, where dermal contact with and ingestion of contaminated sediments IS possible.
Harvest and consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish was also of concern. For this rf'. The risk assessment identified 42 of these as chemicals of potential concern for human health, based on the frequency and magnitude ot measurements in sediments and seafood from Eagle Harbor. Of these, 13 were eliminated because. The remaining 29 chemicals fable 4 were carried forward for calculations of risk.
Generally, cancer risks are calculated using toxicity factors known as slope factors 5fs. SFs have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic contaminants of concern. Intertidal sediments Industrial beaches Ingestion Workers or visitors Beaches readily accessible to workers and Dermal absorption visitors.
Intertidal sediments Public beaches Ingestion General public Beaches readily accessible to public. Dermal absorption Shellfish Residential beaches Ingestion Residents Beaches readily accessible to residents and visitors. Clams exist at beaches. Shellfish Industrial beaches Ingestion Workers or visitors Beaches readily accessible to workers and visitors. Shellfish Public beaches Ingestion General public Beaches readily accessible to public. Pelagic or bottomfish Deeper waters within Ingestion General public Presence of fish and recreational Eagle Harbor fishermen.
Benzoic acid 2,4. Note: In Ihe intertidal aediment and shellfish semples thet were enalyzed from Eagle Harbor. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. SFs are derived from the results of human epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied e.
Reference doses RIDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants of concern exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. Estimated intakes of contaminants of concern from environmental media e. RIDs are derived from human epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty factors have been applied. Because dermal toxicity factors have not been developed for the chemicals evaluated, oral toxicity factors were used in estimating noncancer risks from dermal exposure.
The noncancer toxic endpoints e. Cancer risks from dermal exposure could not he calculated. The oral SF of benzo a pyrene was used for all seven carcinogenic P AHs in estimating cancer risks from ingestion. This approach is intended to address uncertainties in the toxicity of the remaining 6 P AHs. The high rate for shellfish consumption was estimated to be The study estimated that an average consumer eats at most 30 such servings of fish and 3 such servings of shellfish per year.
The high rates above were used for the reasonable maximum exposure RME assumption for adults. These assumptions were modified to develop ingestion rates for children, based on body weight ratios. Soil ingestion and site-specific dermal exposure assumptions were also developed. For carcinogens, risks are estimated as the incremental probability of an individual developing cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to the carcinogen. Excess lifetime cancer risk is calculated by multiplying the SF see toxicity assessment above by the.
These risk are probabilities generally expressed in scientific notation e. An excess lifetime cancer of 1 x 1 Q45 indicates that an individual has a 1 in 1,, chance of developing cancer as a result of site-. The ratio of exposure to toxicity is called a hazard quotient.
Hazard quotients are calculated by dividing the chronic daily intake by the specific Rfd. By adding the hazard quotients for all contaminants of. The RME provides a conservative but realistic exposure in considering remedial action at a Superfund site. Remedial action is generally warranted where excess cancer risks exceed 1 X " one in ten thousand. Both average and RME risks were estimated for each of the four exposure pathways to show a range of uncertainty.
Non-cancer risks: The lifetime and child noncancer hazard indices for ingestion of contaminated intertidal sediments were well below 1.
Calculated noncancer risks from dermal contact with PAH-contaminated beach sediments using oral exposure Rfds were significantly below I for both lifetime and child exposures. Clam tissue data from and were used to evaluate noncancer risks from consumption of clams. The data yielded lifetime hazard indices from 0. Because of differences in the mercury results, the highest hazard index based on clam tissue data was 0.
Noncancer risks were evaluated both for consumption of fish and consumption of shellfish. Data from and fish tissue sampling were used and, as with the clam data, the results were lower. Fish tissue data from the sampling resulted in lifetime hazard indices approaching or exceeding 1 up to 2 for the child exposure , while data gathered in produced hazard indices considerably less than 1 and less than 2 for children.
Two data sets and were used in estimating the total excess lifetime cancer risks for consumption of clams and yielded comparable results. The highest risk of 3 x Cirone, EPA Region 10, personsl communication, Cirone, EPA Region 10, personal communication, '0.
This is the high ingestion rate computed from the Puget Sound study Tetra Tech, Risk levels depended on the type of tissue whole fish, fish muscle, crab muscle, hepatopancreas.
The highest risk from this route was 1 x lO"3 for consumption of whole perch. For all other tissues, both Eagle Harbor and background samples produced results in the to-" range; however, the data for the PAR contributing most to the risk calculations for fish consumption were qualified as estimates in these samples.
Summary: The risk assessment discussed uncertainties associated with the calculated risks. Among the uncertainties are the absence of complete toxicity information for all chemicals measured, uncertainties and variability in site data, the potential for other contaminants such as polychlorinated biphenyls PCB and dioxin in seafood, and uncertainties associated with exposure assumptions.
The uncertainties can result either in underestimates or overestimates of the true health risks associated with the site. In summary, chemical concentrations in Eagle Harbor sediments and seafood are elevated with respect to background locations, but the associated human health risk estimates are within or below EPA's range of acceptable risks for exposure to sediment contaminants through dermal contact and sediment ingestion.
For seafood ingestion, calculated cancer risks are generally between lQ4 and lQ-6 at both Eagle Harbor arid background locations. Consumption of shellfish from specific areas such as West Harbor areas near the former shipyard and the ferry terminal result in risks above lQ4. While similar results were obtained for certain tissues, such as whole perch, sole muscle, and crab hepatopancreas, uncertainties in the data should be considered.
Similarly, while noncancer hazard indices for seafood consumption at both Eagle Harbor and background locations were as high as 1 in , subsequent data resulted in significantly lower values. Human health risks for Eagle Harbor are thus primarily associated with the consumption of contaminated shellfish.
In the West Harbor, the cancer risks in the 10"3 range were associated with clam tissues from areas near the ferry terminal and the former shipyard. During the RI, sediment chemical and physical data were collected, laboratory bioassays were conducted on subtidal sediments, and evalUations of the existing benthic communities were completed. Available information from previous studies and research was incorporated as appropriate.
Although clam tissue and sediment chemical data were developed for evaluating intertidal areas, the emphasis in intertidal areas was on evaluating potential human health risks. The assessment of ecological risks relied on the "triad approach" which links contamination to specific adverse ecological effects using a preponderance of field and laboratory evidence.
The three elements of sediment chemical analyses, laboratory toxicity tests bioassays , and evaluation of the abundance of benthic organisms from specific locations are used in combination as the three elements of the triad approach. Follow Us.
We work to educate the public and promote awareness of the Looking Glass River Watershed. Friends of St. Joe River Association Helping Conservation Districts and other partners in Indiana and Michigan with watershed education, planning and implementation projects within the St.
Joseph River Basin. Friends of the Rouge To promote restoration and stewardship of the Rouge River ecosystem through education, citizen involvement and other collaborative efforts, for the purpose of improving the quality of life for the people, plants, and animals of the watershed.
Friends of the Maple River "All life is part of our Earth's complex ecosystem. It is in our best interest to promote and support a healthy and sustainable environment. The Maple River and it's watershed is a cohesive unit that reflects our behavior and actions relative to it's surivival.
We all need to make a commitment to promote the wise use of the Maple River and it's watershed" E. The committee has been established to guide the implementation of the entire MS4 program for the communities within three identified watersheds: the Grand, the Red Cedar and the Looking Glass River watersheds.
Enhanced Cost of Living Calculator Now includes childcare, taxes, health, housing for home owners vs renters, insurance costs and more when you upgrade to premium. Log In Sign Up. Health in Zip Wyckoff, NJ. Air Quality Health Risk. Health Map. Physicians per Capita US Avg: Select Map Options.
0コメント