Review of 40 years of research on the ecosystem of Green Bay, Lake Michigan, USA; prepared primarily by HJ "Bud" Harris, emeritus professor of ecoystems analysis, Univ of Wisconsin-Green Bay, with help from Paul A. Wozniak, Fox River historian

1. The Green Bay SagaResearch for Management of a Freshwater Estuary Emeritus Professor H.J. “Bud” Harris University of Wisconsin-Green Bay & Paul A. Wozniak-river historian

2. GREEN BAY Where in the world is Green Bay, Wisconsin? MADISON

4. 40,500 sq km

5. Land uses: Forest & agriculture

8. 29% Urban/Dev.

9. 10% Forest

11. 1920’s Citizen groups organize for changes after massive fish kills and river stink increases 1st statewide water pollution survey of major rivers in1925 1927 report published River ice harvest ends due to gross filth But whose pollution is to blame? Canneries, creameries, foundries?

12. 1927:What was the cause of the fish kills? Low dissolved oxygen

14. 1930s 1938 water quality study of Green Bay reported 90% of BOD loading from pulp-paper mills Blue-green algae linked to organic and nutrient discharge of Fox River But which nutrients?

15. Blue-green algae Aphanizomenon (# per L @ 6ft) Green Bay 1938-39

16. 1940’s/1950’s Freshwater “dead zone” persists Commercial fisheries decline Green Bay (lake herring) Lake Michigan (lake trout) Poor water quality closes city swimming beach in Green Bay permanently Little statutory authority to respond to deteriorating conditions!!!

17. Benthic surveys: Hexagenia 1938 : 16 of 51 stations 1952 : 1 of 27 stations (Surber & Cooley) 1956 : 1 of 99 stations (Balch, industry-state survey) 1967 : 0 of 73stations (Howmiller & Beaton)

18. Policymaking and enforcement 1972 – US Clean Water Act Amendments 1972 –Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between US-Canada 1974 – International Joint Commission names Green Bay a problem spot on Great Lakes Senator Muskie 1972

19. Major questions of 1970-7314 Sea Grant projects on Bay, most ‘observational’ “Is the patient already dead?” What are the nutrient inputs to Bay? What are the levels of Nitrogen-fixation in Bay and are they related to algal blooms? Are there organic chemicals with unknown but potentially dangerous impacts? Do people who use the bay know about the pollution? Do swimmer decisions on where to swim correlate with health risk data? Does the local economy really need a port for large ships (with associated dredging)?

20. Chemical correlates of water mass movement Modlin & Beaton, 1970 Arnsbach & Ragotzkie, 1970 Conductivity distribution

21. 1970’s: Early modeling in anticipation of new rules Late 60s: WI begins modeling effort BOD absorption Fox River only First EPA model tried but found inappropriate for Fox River 1973-74: Data collection to calibrate QUAL models of (O’Connor, Manhattan College, NYC) Fox River BOD wasteload allocation for permits

22. 1970s: Paper industry & wastewater treatment plants install equipment

23. Average Total Discharge of BOD Material to the Lower Fox River and Summer DO Averaged from 8 Sites Across the Lower Bay From State of the Bay Report, 1990

24. Year Species First Caught in Lamprey Trap at the De Pere Dam

25. Parallel efforts 1978-86:research & planning for implementation GLERR : Great Lakes Ecosystem Rehabilitation & Restoration ecosystem research Understanding structure & function of “ecosystems green” ecosystemrehabilitation Holistic approach Identify critical stressors Biophysical dimensions Socioeconomic context

26. 1978 GB Research Workshop”blueprint” to guide research agenda for 80s Trophic interactions: Paul Sager Environmental Contaminants & Human Health: Anders Andren Water Movement & Mass Transport: Clifford Mortimer Influences of Land Use: Daniel Bromly Water Use Implications: Jack Day “Green Bay Research Workshop Proceedings” WIS-SG-78-234

27. Blueprint-recommended research priorities* led to 25 studies over 8 yrs, $2.1 million Fisheries (stock assessment) 31% Physics/Chemistry (water mass movement, transport) 30% Trophic (interactions, dynamics) 18% Watersheds (runoff, land use-remote sensing) 7% Outreach 10% Socioeconomics (people issues) 4%

28. Designing a plan for rehabilitation of Green Bay-Great Lakes Ecosystem Restoration & Rehabilitation Green Bay I - 1979 Green Bay II - 1980 Green Bay III - 1981

29. Designing a plan for rehabilitation Green Bay I – 1979 Ranking critical stressors Green Bay II – 1980 Defining elements of rehabilitation Technical Socioeconomic institutional Green Bay III – 1981 Structuring the plan Digraph of Green Bay stressors

30. Apply 8 yrs of research and GLERR experience 1984: Wisconsin ordered by EPA to act on AOC’s via Remedial Action Plan (RAP) GB is 1 of 42 RAPs in Great Lakes WDNR asks UW-Sea Grant for help on RAP 1986: Workshop integrates Sea Grant research and GLERR management experience for RAP Organized by WDNR’s Llewellyn & Harris Coupling Ecosystem Science with Management: A Great Lakes Perspective from Lake Michigan, USA. Environmental Management 11(5): 619-625

31. 1986: GBMSD starts monitoring Bay 16 sites, 9 parameters

32. “Take action” = RAP Remedial Action Plan (RAP) Based on prior work for GLFC and GLERR 1987 Key Actions identified by Technical Advisory Committees LIST OF 100+ POSSIBLE ACTIONS REDUCED TO 11 KEY ACTIONS “RAP Update”1993

33. RAP High Priority Key Actions, 1987 Eliminate Toxicity of Industrial and Municipal Point Source Discharges Reduce Availability of Toxic Chemicals from Contaminated Sediments Reduce Phosphorus Inputs to the River and Bay from Point and Nonpoint Sources Reduce Input of Sediment and Suspended Solids Create an Institutional Structure for Plan Implementation Increase Public Awareness of, Participation In and Support for River and Bay Clean Up

34. 1988: Rising concern about PCBs and other toxics PCB impact on birds supported by evidence Green Bay RAP first to be approved by IJC GB Mass Balance Study creates model with potential application to Great Lakes management

35. Green Bay Mass Balance Study1989-90: USEPA & WDNR-sponsored Coupling river-to-bay transport models Planning 1988, data collection starts 1989 Multi-agency, $13 million Assess feasibility of mass balance Calibrate model for Green Bay List PCB sources, rank priorities Improve methodology for mass balance studies

37. Joseph DePinto, Univ of Buffalo

38. Thomas Young, Clarkson University

39. Paul Rogers, Limno-Tech, Inc.Role of Mass Balance Modeling in Research and Management of Toxic Chemicals in the Great Lakes: The Green Bay Mass Balance Study, Great Lakes Research Review, July 1994

40. Ecological Risk Assessment 1991 – Ranking Stressors on GB Ecosystem Values and Services

41. 1999: Four action prioritiespre-climate change Remediate contaminated sediments Reduce nutrients and solids loading Protect wetlands & ecological services Prevent further exotic species introduction

43. Established in 2003

45. 2007: Future basin-wide load reduction scenarios built on SWAT model supported by robust monitoring. Laura Blake and Sandra Brown, The Cadmus Group, Inc., and others, 2007.

46. How has research informed management?