Lower Green Bay remedial action plan progress report

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Lower Green Bay Remedial Action Plan

NA88AA-D-CZ088

TASK I.B.1

-T-Ls tL 0- OPO Y-f-2L74~t

:[
224
ii i :ii .. zi iiii~ ii ~ i - :--: -:
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i

~i- iii ii ii i _ i i i ii i i . ii _i:i

[VV6

L 6 -

1989

FirstAnuaPogrssReo
[ l -- -~i

ii !
[[[[[~~~~~ ~~ ~ : [i[[ [:: _: - ; �

TD iiii ~_,:,,: ii ~i:---._ , :- ,: ;.
224~~~~~:i ii:i i,~i :::
- .W6iiii .. �:::--
L6 : : :: - :::- ::::: :
1989 : -~_:-i --�-- ::ii i:_
: : ': -- Firs Anua Prers Report-

EXECUTIVE OFFICE THOMAS D. CUENE
COUNTY EX~ECUTIVE

T&kowll CoutL~t
305 EAST WALNUT, P. 0. BOX 1600 0 GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 54305-5600
PHONE (414) 436-3355

Summer 1989

To the Citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin:

Our water resources, especially the Fox River and Lower Green Say, have played an historically
significant role in the development of Northeastern Wisconsin. Water opened the way for the exploration,
settlement, and subsequent industrialization of the region. Whether used for drinking, transportation,
industry, or recreation, water has been and continues to be an invaluable resource.

Several hundred years of the use and abuse of our abundant waters have led to serious problems within
the Bay and Lower Fox River. These problems manifest themselves in the form of fish consumption
advisories, contamination of wildlife, curtailment of swimming, degraded fish habitat, and interference with
navigation. Man has contributed to these problems through the introduction of toxic chemicals and
overloads of sediments and nutrients into the system.

Priority problems and a vision of the desired future state have been identified in the Lower Green Bay and
Fox River Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The plan envisions a system which will provide a healthy bay
environment, a balanced edible sport/commercial fishery, water-based recreational opportunities, good
water quality, balanced shoreline use, productive wildlife and plant communities, and an economical
transportation network that minimizes environmental impacts. When fully implemented, the RAP will
remedy the problems caused by our past abuse.

Obviously, remediation of the many problems confronting our drainage basin will not be accomplished
overnight. Considerable work yet needs to be undertaken to assure that remediation efforts are based
upon the best scientific data available. Additionally, finding the resources necessary to fully finance plan
implementation presents an awesome obstacle. The successful completion of the RAP will require years
of effort.

While our task is immense, since its adoption in February, 1988, there has been steady progress toward
implementation of the RAP. Our accomplishments for the first year of the plan are highlighted in this --
our first annual report.

Our local Implementation Committee and its advisory committees are to be commended. The active
participation of our citizens, governments, industries, educational institutions, and special interest groups
will assure our success. The citizens of Northeastern Wisconsin are indebted to all of our committee
members for their dedicated efforts.

Congratulations to everyone on a successful first year. With your continued assistance we shall reclaim
our waters.

Sincerely,

Thomas D. Cuene
Brown County Executive

TDC:kaa
Chair, Green Bay Remedial Action Plan Implementation Committee

Lower Green Bay Remedial Action Plan

Fi;"rst Annual Progress Report,

September 1989

[EP~,~{N ''r MVERCF NOAA
IN MEMORIAM: ~S'~<;~

This report is dedicated to the memory of William Fisk. Bill was active in
the creation of the Remedial Action Plan through his dedicated service on
the Citizen's Advisory Committee. He was a leader on the implementation
Committee and the Public Education and Participation Committee of the
Lower Fox River and Green Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) as well as
numerous conservation groups. Bill was an extraordinary person who
believed deeply in the conservation of natural resources and in the ability
of the individual to make a difference. We will miss his corny puns, his wit
and intelligence, his optimism and friendship.

Prepared by the
Center for Public Affairs
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay

Financial assistance for this report was provided by the Wisconsin Coastal Management
Program, Department of Administration, through the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 as amended, administered by the Off ice of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program was established in 1978 to direct
comprehensive attention to the state's 820 miles of Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
coastline. The WCMP analyzes and develops state policy on a wide range of Great
Lakes issues, coordinates the many government programs that aff ect the coast, and
provides grants to stimulate better state and local coastal management. Its overall goal
is to preserve, protect, and develop the resources of Wisconsin's coastal areas for this
and succeeding generations.

Photo Credits: Rick Evans, freelance photographer
Bud Harris, UWGB
Dave Crehore, DNR
Vicky Harris, DNR
Lynn Persson, DNR
University of Wisconsin-Extension

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

What is the Remedial Action Plan (RAP)? ..................
What led to the RAP? ..................................
Why is the RAP Needed?9...............................
How was the RAP Established?9..........................
What does the RAP Say?9...............................

REMEDIAL ACTION IN PROGRESS

Getting the Process Going ..............................
Implementation Committee .......................
Advisory Committees...................................

Toxics and Point Source Pollutants........................
Key Actions ...................................
Advisory Committee.............................
Recent Progress ...............................
Future Directions...............................

NonPoint Source Pollutants ............................
Key Actions...................................
Advisory Committee ............................
Recent Progress...............................
Future Directions...............................

Fish and Wildlife ......................................
Key Actions ...................................
Advisory Committee.............................
Recent Progress ...............................
Future Directions...............................

Shoreland Use and Recreation ..........................
Key Actions...................................
Advisory Committee ............................
Recent Progress...............................
Future Directions ..............................

Public Education and Participation .......................
Key Actions...................................
Advisory Committee ............................
Recent Progress...............................
Future Directions ..............................

Monitoring and Research..............................
Advisory Committee ...........................
Recent Progress..............................
TAKING STOCK

A Review of Accomplishments........................

LOOKING FORWARD

Obstacles to Overcome...............................
Taking the Next Steps................................

SUMMARY

This first annual report of the Implementation Committee reviews progress on the Lower
Green Bay and Fox River Remedial Action Plan (RAP), a long-range strategic plan to
rehabilitate the Lower Fox River and Bay ecosystem. The Implementation Committee
was established by the Department of Natural Resources to advise the other government
agencies and the public on implementation of the RAP. Over the past year, the
Implementation Committee met regularly, sharing information, coordinating programs,
seeking support for programs that furthered RAP implementation, and setting priorities
for the coming year.

This report begins with an introduction to the RAP, describing its purpose, its
development, and its recommendations. The introduction emphasizes the critical need
for coordinated, multi-institutional management of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay
ecosystem. The area remains seriously polluted, and the clean-up efforts of the past,
although effective, have fallen short of restoring beneficial uses of the ecosystem. Past
efforts have focused on conventional, organic, pollution from industries and sewage
treatment plants. The focus now must turn to rural and urban nonpoint sources, runoff,
toxic chemicals in the river sediments, fish and wildlife habitat protection, and public
access to the shoreline.

The report reviews progress in each of the management areas of the RAP: Toxics and
Point Source Management, Nonpoint Source Management, Fish and Wildlife, Shoreland
Use and Recreation, Public Education and Participation, and Monitoring and Research.
Highlights of progress in the first year of implementation include the following:

* New water quality standards limit the discharge of toxics into the
watershed. Plans to upgrade wastewater treatment at the Green Bay
Metropolitan Sewerage District and the city of Appleton will reduce toxic
ammonia and chlorine discharges. A multi-million dollar, multi-year
mass balance research project will measure the sources, movement,
and rate of toxics in the Fox River and Green Bay.

* The East River Priority Watershed Project provides costsharing to
landowners who use "best management practices" to reduce agricultural
and urban nonpoint source pollution. The conservation Reserve
Program provides compensation to farmers who retire erodable lands
and use green strips along streams. Model ordinances have been
drawn and proposed to local governments to control animal waste,
construction erosion, and stormwater runoff.

* Wetlands preservation programs now protect portions of west shore
wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat. A permanent barrier to sea
lamprey migration up the Fox River is completed. Progress continues
on programs to increase native predator fish and to protect endangered
birds. Duck hunters planted wetland vegetation along the west shore.

* Boat launch and shoreline fishing facilities have been upgraded or
planned to accommodate public use and recreation demands. Brown
County continues planning for a sizable parkway along the east shore of
the Fox River. Research is planned on the future of the Green Bay
harbor.

a Newsletters, brochures, and reports have been prepared to increase

public education and participation. To complement written material,
informational displays have been developed and a Speaker's Bureau
formed. A Bay/River Clean-Up Day attracted over 200 people,
providing an opportunity for direct public participation in the clean-up
process.

A monitoring plan was developed to track the effects of remedial
actions. A workshop focusing on Green Say research and monitoring
attracted over 30 researchers and scholars. Several proposals were
developed for toxics and nonpoint source pollution research and await
funding decisions.

Six advisory committees to the Implementation Committee monitored and assisted
progress in each of the management areas. Further, each of the advisory committees
produced an implementation strategy with priorities and recommendations for action in
the following year. Finally, the advisory committees served to coordinate the activities of
the many individuals, firms, and agencies involved in the implementation process.

Through this pioneering process, much has been accomplished, and much has been
learned, although much remains to be done. With the assistance of the DNR, the
Implementation Committee is learning how to implement an ambitious resource
management plan in a multi-jurisdictional environment. The advisory committees are
learning how to pool information and draw upon the resources of participating agencies.

Obstacles, however, remain. All the committees are severely understaffed, and
resources for implementation projects are inadequate. Also, a long-term implementation
structure has yet to be formed. furthermore, little effort has been directed to the massive
fundraising effort needed in the immediate year ahead if a successful abatement
program is to occur.

However, in spite of the obstacles, some progress in the first year of implementation has
occurred. The DNR has provided able leadership, and many agencies, firms, and
individuals responded favorably. The Implementation Committee offers thanks to all
involved. Further, the Implementation Committee offers a challenge -- to itself, to the
DNR, and to the public -- to strengthen their resolve to implement the RAP, to overcome
the short-term obstacles, and to restore the integrity of the Lower Fox River and Green
Bay ecosystem.

WHAT IS THE GREEN BAY REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN?

The Lower Green Say Remedial Action Plan (RAP) is a long-range plan to
restore the environmental quality and public uses of the Lower Fox River and
southern portions of Green Bay by the year 2000 and beyond. The RAP was
produced by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and
approved as a part of Wisconsin's Water Quality Management Plan in February,
1988.

Many individuals contributed to the RAP. These individuals, representing diverse
perspectives and organizations, spent considerable time researching,
discussing, negotiating, and writing to complete the plan. The RAP thus
embodies a communitywide, multi-institutional effort at ecosystem rehabilitation
unprecedented in Wisconsin.

In short, the RAP is a plan for rehabilitating a delicate natural environment within
a complex social and political setting. The RAP takes an "ecosystem approach"
to resource management. That is, the RAP addresses the natural environment,
including the waters, wetlands, fish, birds, and wildlife in the Lower Green Bay
area. The RAP also considers human uses of the area, including fishing,
hunting, swimming, boating, transportation, development, and waste disposal.
And, the RAP acknowledges the social environment within which the plan must
be implemented.

The Green Bay RAP contains the basic components of all successful plans: The
description of problems addressed, the specification of goals and objectives, and
recommendations for action.

This annual report briefly describes the RAP and documents the actions taken in
the initial year of plan implementation.

The purpose of this report is to inform citizens, governments, and agencies about
RAP implementation and to stimulate their participation in a collective effort to
restore the natural beauty, balance, and benefits of the Green Bay ecosystem.

WHAT LED TO THE RAP?

The Remedial Action Plan represents the most recent stage in a long-term
effort to improve water quality and the natural environment in the Lower
Green Bay area.

Water-quality problems were recognized as early as the late 1800s and early
1900s. Periodic closings of Bay Beach on Green Bay and complaints of
dead fish in the southern bay in 1938 led to the first-ever study of water
quality problems in the Bay. The 1938 study found levels of oxygen in the
Bay below that necessary for the survival of many species of fish.
Subsequent studies in the fifties, sixties, and early seventies found similar
levels of oxygen depletion in the East and Fox rivers. Industrial pollution,
agricultural runoff, and municipal sewage were identified as major
contributors to the areas' water-quality problems.

State-level pollution control programs were initiated in the early twenties and
strengthened throughout the fifties and sixties; however, effective attempts to
control water pollution began with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. These amendments remain the basis for Wisconsin's
programs in water pollution control. The amendments, known as the Clean
Water Act, sought to restore recreational uses of the nation's waterways by
controlling municipal and industrial discharges and by financing construction
of sewage treatment plants.

The Clean Water Act and Wisconsin's version of the Act established, among
other things, a discharge regulation program which was very successful at
controlling conventional pollution and at restoring dissolved oxygen levels in
the Lower Fox River. In response to these pollution regulations, local
governments and industries spent over $300 million on point source pollution
control between 1975 and 1985. And, as a result, walleye and other sport
fish can once again live in the river.

Although actions taken in the seventies improved oxygen levels in the Lower
Fox River and in Green Bay, serious water quality problems remain. Runoff
from farmland and urban streets continues to muddy the waters. Years of
toxic deposition have poisoned the bottom sediments. Although fishing is
once again fruitful below the De Pere Dam, the DNR advises that no one eat
large fish such as walleyes caught there, due to toxic contamination,
specifically PCBs. Further, the waters at Bay Beach remain unsafe for
swimming due to high levels of suspended sediment and algae. Progress
on ecosystem rehabilitation must continue before the waters are safe to
swim in and the fish safe to eat.

Specifically, management strategies are now needed to address the
nonpoint pollutants that muddy the water with algae and sediments and the
toxic chemicals that lie in the bottom sediments. Although the Remedial
Action Plan addresses a variety of pollution problems and control strategies,
the principal focus of the RAP is to move beyond the limitations of previous
conventional point source water pollution controls of the seventies and
toward ecosystem management in the eighties and nineties.

WH-Y IS THE RAP NEEDED?

Nobody likes pollution. Pollution destroys the bay's nurturing wetlands,
productive fishing grounds, urban beaches, and natural beauty.

Yet we all pollute. We dirty the water we take from the ground, lakes, and
rivers. We foul the air with our fossil fuels. And we fill the earth with
garbage. Our personal contribution may be negligible, but the contribution of
all the watershed residents--roughly three-quarters of a million--can be
devastating.

The process through which we destroy our environment has an alternative.
The alternative is to find ways to discourage pollution, reduce waste, and
pool our efforts toward environmental rehabilitation. The alternative is costly,
but so is the environmental damage. And, just as we all contributed to the
pollution problem, we must now all contribute to the solution.

But local governments, like individuals, cannot solve pollution problems
alone. Pollution control by one local government is ineffective without similar
control by neighboring local governments. Therefore, a commitment must
be made to join the efforts of local, state and federal governments in a team
effort to improve water quality for all.

The Lower Green Bay RAP seeks to combine the efforts of government,
industries, and citizens to rehabilitate the ecosystem of the Lower Fox River
and Green Bay. The RAP identifies water quality problems in the Bay and
the necessary steps toward solving those problems. The RAP also
describes how we must change our polluting behavior and proceed with
environmental restoration. Most importantly, the RAP calls for a commitment
on the part of many local governments, industries, and interest groups that
they will no longer contribute to the causes of pollution, but will instead
contribute to its solution.

HOW WAS THE RAP ESTABLISHED?

The Lower Green Bay Remedial Action Plan (RAP) was developed as a
result of 1985 commitment by the United States and Canada to restore the
beneficial uses of the Great Lakes. The 1987 Water Quality Agreement
between the countries calls for an International Joint Commission (IJC), a
binational commission created to oversee joint use of the Great Lakes, to
identify critical "areas of concern" in the Great Lakes, and to review
Remedial Action Plans to rehabilitate the environment of those critical areas.

The IJC identified 42 Areas of Concern. Five of these are totally or partially
located in Wisconsin: the Menominee River, the Sheboygan Harbor, the
Milwaukee Estuary, the Lower Fox River and southern Green Bay, and the
St. Louis River at Duluth/Superior. The Remedial Action Plan for Green Bay
was the first completed in Wisconsin. Plans for the other Areas of Concern
are in progress.

Work on the Green Bay RAP began in 1985 under the direction of the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Over 70 people
contributed to the plan through a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and
four Technical Advisory Committees (TACs).

The Citizen's Advisory Committee, whose role was to advise the DNR on
construction of the plan, included representatives of local government,
resource agencies, industry, environmental groups and citizens' groups, and
water-quality agencies. The CAC identified citizen concerns, established a
set of goals called "The Desired Future State," reviewed recommendations,
and advised courses of action to restore the Lower Bay environment.

Technical Advisory Committees included Toxic Substances Management,
Nutrient and Eutrophication Management, Biota and Habitat Management,
and Institutional Management. They advised the CAC and the DNR on
technical issues and produced technical reports including recommendations
for plan objectives and remedial actions.

From these reports, the DNR produced a draft of the plan for review by the
Citizen's Advisory Committee. After a series of public meetings and a
hearing, the plan was finalized and signed into Wisconsin's Water Quality
Management Plan by the Secretary of the DNR, C.D. Besadney, in February
1988.

Since then, the plan has been approved by Governor Thompson, reviewed
by the International Joint Commission (IJC), and approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Green Bay Remedial Action
plan is the first RAP approved on the Great Lakes.

WHAT DOES THE RAP SAY?

The RAP describes environmental problems in the area of concern, sets
goals and objectives for resolving those problems, makes 120 specific
recommendations necessary for reaching its goals and objectives, and
describes the necessary steps for implementing the recommendations.

Environmental The environmental problems of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay
Problems are many, diverse, and intertwined. Toxic chemicals, including PCBs,
dioxin, furans, metals, ammonia, herbicides, and pesticides enter the waters
from point and nonpoint sources. Point sources include municipal and
industrial waste discharges. Nonpoint sources include urban and rural land
runoff, landfill seepage, and atmospheric fallout. Once these chemicals
enter the water, they do not disappear. Some are persistent chemicals that
take many years to break down.

Some toxics settle into the bottom sediments where they may be
resuspended through wave action or ingested by aquatic organisms. Some
toxics, such as PCBs, may pass through the food chain and bioaccumulate
in fish and wildlife, where they are linked to cancers, reproductive problems,
birth defects and death. The contamination of some fish in the Lower Bay is
so great that the DNR has, since 1976, issued warnings regarding human
consumption of walleyes, trout, salmon, white bass, white suckers, carp,
and catfish.

Contaminated sediments also complicate navigational dredging and
increase the cost of dredge spoil disposal.

In addition to toxic chemical pollution, the river and bay remain polluted by
excess nutrients and sediments. One nutrient, phosphorus, stimulates
algae growth in the water. Excess phosphorus leads to excess algae.
About one-third of the phosphorus entering the Lower Bay comes from point
sources such as industrial and municipal discharges while the remaining
two-thirds enter from nonpoint sources such as urban runoff, agricultural
erosion, and animal waste.

Excessive algae growth, call eutrophication, not only interferes with
swimming by blocking sunlight from penetrating the water, but also prevents
the growth of desirable underwater plants needed for fish habitat and
waterfowl food. As these large amounts of algae die and decompose,
oxygen is removed from the water, resulting in stresses on fish and other
aquatic life.

Excess sediments washing into the Lower Bay also muddy the water, further
contributing to unsafe swimming conditions and further blocking underwater
plant growth. In addition, sediments cover and destroy spawning habitat as
well as fill in shipping channels and harbor basins. The main sources of
these sediments are upstream soil erosion from croplands, construction
sites, barnyards, streambanks, and roadsides.

Toxics, nutrients, and sediments contribute to the destruction of the natural
habitat of fish and wildlife. Further destruction of habitat is caused by
wetland filling, eroding shorelines, and urban development. As habitat is
destroyed, the ecosystem is upset. Native fish and bird populations decline.
Non-native or exotic fish, such as the sea lamprey, the alewife, and carp
invade the area, causing further problems for native sport and commercial fisheries.

As the quality of the environment deteriorates, the quality of life deteriorates.
Swimming is prohibited, fisheries are restricted, and shoreland uses for
hiking, biking, and picnicking is curtailed. The use of the river and bay
becomes limited to pollution disposal and navigation.

Rehabilitating the environment, so that former uses once again become
possible, requires social and institutional commitment and change. The
public must become aware of the seriousness of water quality problems and
must provide support for remedial actions. In addition, social institutions
that disrupt the ecosystem must change to protect the environment.

In sum, the problems of the area include chemical, biological, and
institutional disruptions. The RAP addresses each of these problems and,
in the context of ecosystem management, addresses the interrelationships
between each of the disruptions.

Desired Future The purpose of the RAP is to rehabilitate the Green Bay ecosystem and
State restore beneficial uses. But, what does rehabilitation mean? And what uses
are to be restored? Rehabilitation requires a vision of what the ecosystem
should look like. The RAP, therefore, describes the desired future state of
the ecosystem as envisioned by the Citizen's Advisory Committee.

The "Desired Future State" of the Fox River/Lower Green Bay ecosystem
includes the attainment, maintenance, and continued evaluation of the
following:

I1. A healthy bay environment providing for balanced and productive
wildlife and plant communities including a well-balanced,
sustainable, and edible sport and commercial fishery.

2. Water-based recreation opportunities including:

a. Accessible local swimming beaches on the Bay; and

b. Adequate boating areas and facilities.

3. Lower Fox River/Lower Green Bay water quality that protects
human health and wildlife from effects of contaminants and provides
for drinkable water after standard treatment.

4. Balanced public and private shoreline usage including park,
agricultural, commercial, residential, and industrial lands,

5. An economical transportation network including both water and
land-based systems which minimizes adverse environmental
eff ects.

6. Point and nonpoint discharges and runoff consistent with the
maintenance of the desired water quality future state.

Goals and The desired state cannot be reached without taking action-, and actions
Objectives cannot cannot be taken without setting goals. Therefore, the RAP lists the
following goals:

1. Enhance and protect multiple uses of the bay and river including
restored swimming and an edible fishery.

Existing uses to enhance and protect include fish and
aquatic life, wildlife, endangered species, boating,
swimming and other water sports, sport and commercial

fishing, hunting, agriculture, commercial navigation,
industry, and aesthetic and scenic enjoyment.

2. Develop a blend of public and private shoreline uses that include
adequate public access.

These include parks for people to use and enjoy, accessible
local swimming beaches on the Bay and adequate boating
areas and facilities. They also include natural areas and
environmental corridors to protect important wildlife and fishery
habitat and commercial developments that build upon and
enhance the value of downtown waterfronts. Other shoreline
uses include residential, agricultural, industrial and aesthetic
and scenic values.

3. Provide suitable and sufficient habitat to enhance and sustain
wildlife of the bay and river.

Wildlife includes spring and fall migrant diving and dabbling
ducks, nesting common and Forster's terns and other colonial
water birds, marsh nesting species, seasonally occurring
hawks and eagles, resident dabbling ducks, resident aquatic
fur bearers, resident and migrant shore birds and amphibians
and reptiles.

4. Establish a self-sustaining, balanced, edible fish community.

This includes increasing and/or maintaining sport and
commercial species, in particular, walleye, yellow perch,
northern pike, and muskellunge, plus other valued fish, such
as channel catfish, white bass, lake sturgeon, smallmouth
bass, and black crappie. This also includes encouraging
forage species, such as emerald shiner, spottail shiner,
trout-perch, and darters which are an integral part of the fish
community.

5.Improve the water quality and trophic status (algae production) of
the area of concern to relieve ecological stresses and support a full
range of public uses by the year 2000.

Specific improvements to achieve include: increased water
clarity;increased submerged aquatic vegetation in photic
zone; increased populations of desirable aquatic
invertebrates, fish and waterfowl decreased algae blooms;
reduced sedimentation to decrease the need for
maintenance dredging and improve spawning habitat;
increased fish production relative to algae production;
reduced occurrences of low dissolved oxygen; reduced
magnitude of system fluctuations; and water quality suitable
for swimming.

6.Achieve and maintain water quality that provides an edible fishery,
protects the ecosystem from the adverse effects of toxic substances
on fish, aquatic life and wildlife utilizing the aquatic resources, and
protects human health.

Reduce the loading of toxic substances from all sources to the
Lower Fox River and to Green Bay. To the maximum degree
possible, concentrations of toxic substances in the water column
and bottom sediments are reduced to levels where:

a. The most stringent state and/or federal fish and game
consumption advisory levels are met;

b. Human health is protected from all water associated
exposure;

c. Adverse affects on aquatic and terrestrial life are
virtually eliminated; and

d. Other beneficial uses of the water are not impaired.

7. Develop a management strategy and organizational structure that
will coordinate public and private efforts to improve and protect the
natural resources

This should be done while protecting the public trust,
providing for multiple uses, minimizing conflicts, recognizing
the needs of the greater populace, while protecting the
viability of minority views and improving the overall quality of
life of citizens of the Green Bay area and northeastern
Wisconsin.

Key Actions The fundamental aspects of the Remedial Action Plan are contained in
sixteen Key Actions and 120 associated recommendations. The Key
Actions describe the overall remedial action needed, and the plan
recommendations detail specific activities and steps to accomplish the
Key Action. Each of the Key Actions is assigned a priority level.
Following each Key Action, the plan identifies a target date, potential
funding sources, and a lead agency to carry out actions.

The sixteen Key Actions are:

TO RESTORE, PROTECT AND ENHANCE THE ECOSYSTEM

(High Priority)
1.- Reduce phosphorus inputs to the river and bay from nonpoint and
point sources.

2. Reduce sediment and suspended solids input.

3. Eliminate toxicity of industrial, municipal, and other point source
discharges.

4. Reduce availability of toxic chemicals from contaminated sediments.

5. Continue control of oxygen-demanding wastes from industrial and
municipal discharges.

(Moderate Priority)
6. Protect wetlands, and manage habitat and wildlife.

7. Reduce/control populations of problem fish.

8. Increase populations of predator fish.

(Lower Priority)
9. Reduce sediment resuspension.

10. Reduce bacteria inputs from point and nonpoint sources.

11. Virtually eliminate toxicity caused by nonpoint and atmospheric
sources.

TO IMPROVE PEOPLE'S USE OF THE ECOSYSTEM

(High Priority)
12. Create a coordinating council and institutional structure for plan
implementation.

13. Increase public awareness of, participation in, and support for river
and bay restoration efforts.

(Moderate Priority)
14. Enhance public and private shoreline uses.

(MONITORING AND RESEARCH)

15. Monitor to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial actions, track
trends, and new problems.

16. Conduct research to better understand the ecosystem, its problems
and how to remedy them.

Implementation Successful implementation of the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay Remedial Action Plan by the year 2000 will
require considerable coordination of governments,
agencies, private industries and citizens. To facilitate
such coordination, several institutional arrangements--
ranging from a coalition of, agencies to an independent
River Basin authority--are described within the RAP.

The approved RAP recommended the formation of a local
Interim Implementation Committee to initiate plan
implementation and consider the feasibility of a long-term
Coordinating Council to assume oversight responsibilities
in two to three years.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
formed the local implementation committee in March 1988.
Committee members were asked to serve for an interim
period of two years. Their role is to advise the DNR,
governments and other agencies on plan implementation,
to seek funding to initiate projects, and to pursue creation
of a long-term implementation structure.

The Interim Implementation Committee is composed of
representatives of local government, agencies, industry
and citizen groups who are directed by a Steering
Committee. Member of the Interim Implementation
Committee as well as the Steering Committee are listed at
the end of this report.

Six Advisory Committees assist the Implementation
Committee on technical issues. The Advisory Committees
include Toxics and Point Source Management, Nonpoint
Source Management, Fish and Wildlife, Shoreland Use
and Recreation, Public Education and Participation, and
Monitoring and Research. Members of the Advisory
Committees are also listed at the end of this report.

To date, implementation of the RAP has proceeded under the interim
organizational structure illustrated here:

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
(Appointed by DNR Secretary

Steering
Committee

Advisory Committees

NONPOINT TOXICS FISH SHORELAND
SOURCE & POINT & USE &
CONTROL SOURCE WILDLIFE RECREATION

I
PUBLIC MONITORING
EDUCATION &
PARTICIPATION RESEARCH

10.

REMEDIAL ACTION IN PROGRESS

The Implementation Committee. Much has happened since the
signing of the RAP in February 1988. The Interim Implementation
Committee first met on April 28, 1988. A list of the members and the
organizations they represent is included on the back cover. The committee
elected Tom Cuene, Brown County Executive, as Chair of the Committee
and Winston Ostrow, attorney and lzaak Walton League member as vice-
chairperson. Under Cuene's leadership, and with staff assistance from the
DNR and the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency, the committee has
since met six times to assist the DNR with the plan implementation.

Members of the committee were appointed by the DNR and assigned these
charges:

1 . Advise the Department (and other agencies, units of
government and private organizations) on RAP
implementation including strategies, timing, sources of
funds, available programs and coordination needs. Also,
advise the Department on plan updaites or amendments as
needed.

2. Promote cooperative efforts among governments, agencies
and private organizations in managing the Lower Green Bay
and Fox River ecosystem and in implementing the plan.

3. Foster conflict resolution.

4. Coordinate activities and information sharing to actively
facilitate plan implementation.

5. Annually review implementation activities of organizations
and individuals with implementation authority.

6. Provide an annual report to the Secretary of the DNR and
the public on implementation progress, the state of the Bay
and implementation needs for the coming three years. No
sooner than two weeks to one month after the report is
available for public review, a public hearing is to be held to
receive comments from the public

7. Help organizations obtain technical assistance and funding
for implementation projects.

8. Identify and investigate conventional and non-conventional
problem-solving techniques for plan implementation.

9. Coordinate public information and education activities.

10. Provide opportunities for public participation in plan
implementation.
11. Represent the interests of citizens, business, government,

agencies, and others whose cooperation will be needed
to restore beneficial uses to the river and the bay.

In its first year, the Implementation Committee served four primary
functions. First, it served as a clearinghouse for information about
activities related to the Lower Fox River and Green Bay clean-up.
Key local officials were briefed on RAP related issues. Following
briefings, the Committee spent time discussing implementation
issues such as DNR water quality rules, funding for municipal
sewage treatment facilities and nonpoint source pollution control in
the East River watershed. These discussions provided local
officials with a common base of information for decision making.

With this information, the Implementation Committee served its
second primary function: soliciting political support for legislation,
funds, and projects that serve the objectives of the RAP. Their
activity strengthened proposals for funding and/or actions by
agencies both inside and outside the region. Examples include the
Fox River Contaminated Sediment and Green Bay Mass Balance
Studies, Wisconsin Coastal Management Program Grants for public
education, a call for phosphorus standards, nutrient and pesticide
research by UW-Extension, and creation of a Statewide In-Place
Pollutant (contaminated sediment) Management Program.

The Implementation Committee also worked to influence the
programs of local governments and agencies. Through their
participation on the Implementation Committee, community leaders
have become aware of the critical actions needed to implement the
RAP; with this awareness, they have been able to lead their own
and other organizations toward taking those steps. To expand this
effort, the Implementation Committee recently formed "contact
teams." These teams will solicit direct actions by lead agencies and
governments toward implementing the RAP.

Finally, the Implementation Committee reviewed and approved the
implementation plans of each of the six advisory committees and set
priorities for the coming year. Through publication of this annual
report, the Implementation Committee informs the public on
progress of the RAP and identifies future priority actions needed to
implement the RAP.

The Advisory Six advisory committees provide technical assistance to the
Committees Implementation Committee. The names of committee members are
listed at the end of this report. Membership on the advisory
committees includes local and statewide experts on many aspects of
the natural and social environment in the area of concern. Staffing
for the advisory committees was provided by the Department of
Natural Resources, the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency,
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District, the University of
Wisconsin - Green Bay's Center for Public Affairs, and a citizen
volunteer.

Members of the advisory committees were also appointed by the

12.

DNR, and given this charge:

1. Review the RAP recommendations targeted to begin 1989-1990 and
recommend implementation priorities based on the following criteria

2. Establish goals and objectives for implementation of priority RAP
recommendations assigned to Advisory Committee.

3. Identify and evaluate developing or existing, conventional and non-
conventional approaches that should be considered for effective RAP
implementation.

4. Develop implementation strategies that include technical, social,
economic, political and informational/educational considerations for
implementation of identified priority actions. Identify potential sources
of funding and refine cost estimates for implementation strategies.

5. Advise the Implementation Committee and the Department on possible
impacts of implementation strategies.

6. Prepare a short-term (1 - 3 years) and long-term (life of project)
implementation plan describing the Advisory Committee's recommended
implementation strategy, goals, and objectives.

7. Work with other Advisory Committees and the Implementation
Committee to share information and coordinate activities. Serve in
other technical capacities as directed by the Implementation
Committee.

8. Prepare an annual report of implementation progress on key actions
and recommendations assigned to the Advisory Committee.

9. Create opportunities for implementation or take advantage of other
opportunities as they arise.

The Implementation Committee assigned each advisory committee a list of
recommendations from the RAP specific to the expertise of each
committee. The advisory committees then reviewed the status of each of
the recommendations and developed detailed implementation strategies for
priority recommendations.

13.

'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 9/k ,4'4

14.

TOXICS AND POINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

The issues addressed by the Toxics and Point Source
Management Advisory Committee are perhaps the most complex
and problematic. Toxic chemicals lodged in the water, fish, and
bottom sediments of the Bay and River are perhaps the main
reason the IJC identified Green Bay as one of the 42 critical
areas of concern. These same toxics will also be the most
difficult problem to remediate.

Toxics of concern in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay include
PCBs, dioxins, furans, chlorophenols, ammonia, resin and fatty
acids, and heavy metals. These toxics, which originate from a
variety of sources, have for many years washed through the
watershed and settled into the bottom sediments of the river
and bay.

Once in the sediments, toxics are extremely difficult to control.
In the sediments, toxics may be resuspended in the water by
dredging, wave action, and other natural activities. From there
they find their way into the food chain, where some toxics, for
example, PC's are bioaccumulated in fish, wildlife, and
eventually humans. Some toxics are suspected to cause cancer
or reproductive disorders and birth defects in fish, birds, and
wildlife. Because of this bioaccumulation of PCBs in fish,
advisories about the consumption of certain fish are issued
warning the public about the risks of eating fish from the Lower
Fox River and Green Bay.

Point source pollutants come from identifiable discharges into
the water, such as factories and municipal sewage treatment
plants. In addition to toxics, point source pollutants include
conventional pollutants such as phosphorus, bacteria,
suspended solids, and oxygen-demanding waste. In some ways
point source pollutants are more easily controlled because they
can be monitored and treated at the source when the source is
easily identified. In other ways point source pollutants are more
difficult to control. They result from basic economic activities,
can be expensive to treat, and are difficult, if not impossible, to
manage once they are discharged into the ecosystem.

Toxics and Point
Source Key The RAP addresses toxics and point source pollutants through
Actions five Key Actions:

#1 Reduce phosphorus inputs to the river and bay from point
and nonpoint sources.

#3 Eliminate toxicity of industrial, municipal and other point
source discharges.

#4 Reduce availability of toxic chemicals from contaminated
sediments.

15.

#5 Continue control of oxygen-demanding wastes from industrial
and municipal sources.

#10 Reduce bacteria inputs from point and nonpoint sources.

In short, these key actions call for the control of further toxic
discharges into the river and bay, the reduction of existing toxics
in the contaminated sediments, impacts, and for continued
reduction in conventional point source pollutants.

ToxicsandPoint The Toxics and Point-Source (TPS) Advisory Committee is
Source (TPS) composed of scientists and managers from public, private, and
Advisory academic organizations and advises the Implementation
Committee Committee and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) on
appropriate courses of action to implement toxic and point
source recommendations.

H.J. Harris, Professor of Environmental Sciences at UW-Green
Bay, chairs the committee. After spending considerable time in
briefings with experts, the TPS Committee identified three top
implementation priorities:

1. Contaminated sediment management.

2. Phosphorus point source control.

3. Dredge spoil management.

To begin contaminated sediment or "in-place pollution" control,
the committee adopted a protocol for the assessment of
contaminated sediments prepared by the IJC Water Quality
Board. The protocol calls for minimizing the flow of new toxics
into the sediments, identifying the existing quantity and
distribution of toxic material in the sediments, and adopting the
least-cost technology for removing the toxics from the
sediments. Toward these ends, some committee members
participated in the Mass Balance Study (described elsewhere in
this report) and attended national conferences on toxic
contaminants and in-place pollution to study management
alternatives and prepare recommendations for future actions.

To enable new discharge limits for phosphorus, the TPS
Committee recommended and the Implementation Committee
took action to seek the initiation of water quality standards for
phosphorus in Wisconsin. The Toxics and Point Source Advisory
Committee further recommended that the Implementation
Committee ask municipal sewage treatment facilities to study
their phosphorus removal capabilities and to reduce phosphorus
discharges voluntarily until the new standards and discharge
limits are developed.

Finally, the TPS Committee requested the Implementation
Committee to seek a full-time staff person. The staff person
would help the TPS Committee synthesize information from the

16.

Green Bay Mass Balance Study and Fox River Sediment
Transport Study and organize the information to develop a
remedial plan for contaminated sediments

Recent Progress Although toxic management and point source pollution control
of the Toxics involve long-term remedial actions, progress towards these ends
and Point Source was made during the first year of implementation. Several
(TPS) Committee programs and studies were undertaken by a number of agencies.
A few major projects are further described in this portion of the
report:

New Toxic Discharge Control Rules. To minimize the
discharge of new contaminants into the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay, the DNR recently established new state
administrative rules and water quality standards. Natural
Resource rules NR 105 and 106 establish procedures for setting
water quality standards and discharge limits that protect human
health, fish and aquatic life, and domestic and wild animals from
the effects of toxics in municipal and industrial wastewater.
Natural Resources rule 207 updates the DNR's antidegredation
policy and protects certain state waters from further degredation
by toxics and other contaminants. These rules advance a
critical element of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay RAP:
controlling toxic inputs into the ecosystem.

The establishment of these complex, technical rules generated
considerable controversy. For example, the rules do not impose
congener-specific regulation of PCBs although research has
shown that regulating PCBs by congeners may decrease
treatment costs and increase environmental effectiveness. The
RAP states:

Water quality standards for total PCBs should initially be
developed. The standards could be revised when
adequate information is available on a congener-specific
approach. Congener-specific monitoring by industries
and municipalities will be necessary prior to setting
standards and effluent limits

for PCB congeners. The Natural Resources rules regulate total
PCBs as suggested in the RAP as an interim measure. New
discharge permits are being revised to require toxicity testing
and, in some cases, monitoring for PCB congeners.

Current research on toxics in the Lower Fox River and Green
Bay will establish and test procedures for sampling and
analyzing PCB congeners. Also, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) may propose, and the DNR supports,
uniform water quality standards for toxics in the entire Great
Lakes. These efforts will review PCB findings and provide
information necessary for regulating PCB congeners.

The new rules also permit a controversial "zone of initial
dilution." The RAP recommends elimination of acute toxicity to

17.

aquatic life. The zones of dilution permit acute levels of toxicity
in areas immediately adjacent to the outfall of discharges, but
only where aquatic life is minimal due to physical limitations of
the receiving water. The rules further specify that discharges
must be sufficiently diluted before reaching the habitat of
aquatic life. Chronic levels of toxicity may be present in the
mixing zone, but not outside of this zone.

The toxic rules are currently being applied to all discharges as
their existing permits expire. At the urging of the public, the
rules are also being used to recalculate discharge limits for nine
paper mill and municipal permits that were developed just prior
to adoption of the new rules.

New Toxic Air Emission Rules. The DNR adopted new
air emission rules, NR 406 and NR 407. These rules require
industries to develop a compliance plan and to demonstrate that
they do not exceed air quality standards beyond their property
lines. They also require basic control technology be used for
certain emissions.

In addition, the DNR, the EPA, and UW-Green Bay are
monitoring air quality at a number of sites to estimate toxic
deposition from the air into the area of concern. This
information will be used in the Green Bay Mass Balance Study
to determine the impacts of air emissions on the water quality of
the bay. Currently, air quality rules do not address secondary
impacts on water quality or the accumulation of persistent toxics
in the ecosystem.

The Green Bay Mass Balance Study. The U.S. EPA,
the DNR, the Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, and other agencies
have joined efforts on the Mass Balance study. The Green Bay
Mass Balance study is a multi-million dollar project that will
pioneer research on the fate of toxic materials in large aquatic
ecosystems. The results of the study will become available over
the next three years.

The study will provide key information about the flow of toxic
materials, specifically PCBs, two heavy metals - lead and
cadmium, and the pesticide, dieldrin into, within, and out of the
Green Bay ecosystem. By monitoring and quantifying all
sources of toxic materials--including point source discharges,
air emissions, stormwater runoff, groundwater, etc.--scientists
will gather information about how toxics enter the bay, what
happens to the toxics while in the bay, and how and when toxics
leave the bay, if in fact they do.

From this information scientists will develop a model of toxic
flows throughout the ecosystem, which will hopefully lead to
better management decisions for reducing and removing toxics.

The Implementation Committee helped to secure state funding to

18.

complete this important study.

Lower Fox River Sediment Transport Study. In a project
closely related to the Mass Balance Study, the DNR is
conducting an assessment of the sources and movements of
PCBs in the Lower Fox River. Through massive sediment
sampling, the DNR and the U.S. Geological Survey are mapping
sediments, quantifying the presence and sources of PCB's, and
modeling the movement of PCB's in the Fox River from Little
Lake Butte des Morts to the DePere Dam.

This information will provide critical inputs into the Mass
Balance model and will lead to better management decisions on
in-place contaminated sediment and point-source controls.

In-Place Pollutant Funding. When it became apparent that
state funding to initiate an in-place pollutant (contaminated
sediment) program was in jeopardy, the Implementation
Committee took immediate action. One member, state
representative Mary Lou Van Dreel, introduced legislation, and
the Implementation Committee successfully lobbied state
legislators to reinstate $240,000/year and two permanent, full-
time positions in the state biennial budget.

In the first year of the program, the funds will also be used to
help complete the state's portion of the Green Bay Mass Balance
Study. The funds are needed to support contaminated sediment
studies and to develop remedial programs for managing in-place
pollutants.

To promote federal assistance, several Implementation
Committee members and Toxics and Point Source Pollutants
Advisory Committee members testified at a U.S. Senate
Subcommittee hearing held in Green Bay by Senator Herbert
Kohl. Members encouraged more federal support for RAP
implementation and in-place pollutant clean-up.

New Facilities for the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
District. A facilities plan to improve the Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District treatment plant (GBMSD) was approved in
1989. The plan evaluated facility alternatives to meet two levels
of treatment: permit-related treatment to meet new discharge
limits for ammonia, chlorine, organic (oxygen demanding) waste,
and enhanced treatment for phosphorus and possible toxics
removal. Reductions in ammonia toxicity, phosphorus, and
potential toxics are high priority recommendations of the RAP.

The first level of treatment is needed to eliminate ammonia
toxicity in Lower Green Bay and the mouth of the Fox River.
GBMSD receives high levels of ammonia from domestic and
paper mill wastes. It had been discharging levels of ammonia
that are toxic to fish and aquatic life. Chlorine used by the
facility to disinfect the discharge is also a toxic chemical.

19.

Further, chlorine can combine with other substances in the
wastewater or river to create more toxic chemicals.

If GBMSD continues to use chlorine for disinfection, new permit
limits require installation of dechlorination equipment to remove
most chlorine prior to discharge. The new permit also places
more stringent limits on the amount of oxygen-demanding
organic waste that the plant can discharge during periods of low
river flows and higher water temperatures.

GBMSD will meet these new permit requirements through Phase
I of the facility upgrading. Significant reduction in ammonia
toxicity is expected as the result of the project. Recent studies
in the lower bay have shown that ammonia is the primary cause
of toxicity in the sediments. Other types of toxic effects that are
likely present are masked by the magnitude of the ammonia
problem.

Phase II or further upgrading of the GBMSD facility may be
needed in the future to achieve further reductions in phosphorus
and potential toxic contaminants. Existing information does not
indicate toxicity problems other than ammonia, but as new
information becomes available, there may be a need to regulate
other substances in the future. All sewage treatment plants
discharge low concentrations of many kinds of chemicals, some
toxic. There may be a need to reduce these low concentrations
in the total load.

Phase II could be triggered by one or more of the following
events:

* More stringent effluent limits for toxics or phosphorus;

* Failure to meet existing effluent limits;

* Increases in plant incoming flows and loads;

* Desire to comply with RAP recommendations, which are more
stringent than existing permit guidelines and would not be
eligible for any state or federal cost sharing.

Phase II improvements would be based on the particular need or
triggering event, but could include further treatment of ammonia,
an alternative type of disinfection, and advanced treatment for
toxics and/or phosphorus.

New Facilities for Appleton Sewerage Treatment Plant.
The city of Appleton completed facility plans to upgrade its
wastewater treatment. The plans call for increased capacity to
remove ammonia, nearly double the hydraulic capacity to
prevent sewage bypassing during wet weather, new equipment to
reduce chlorine discharges, and a new sludge treatment process
that captures methane gas and heat for use in the plant.

20.

Construction is expected to begin in 1990 and take several years
to complete. The facility improvements are expected to reduce
toxic ammonia and chlorine discharges to the Fox River. As with
GBMSD, additional improvements may be necessary in the future
if other toxic substances are found to be a problem.

Bayshore Sanitary District Plan. On April 24, 1989, the
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District annexed the Bayshore
and Dyckesville Sanitary Districts providing service to the towns
of Scott, Red River, and Dykesville. The annexation will provide
sewage treatment to the districts and will solve local water
quality problems due to failing septic systems along the east
shore of the bay from Point au Sauble to the Door County line.
Although the sanitary districts lie outside the area of concern,
collection and treatment of sewage will help improve water
quality in the lower bay, especially along the beaches of the east
shore.

Oneida Tribe Activities. The Oneida Tribe completed a
facilities plan to improve wastewater treatment and the water
quality of Duck Creek. Following studies that showed that 50%
of private septic holding tank systems were failing and that 35%
are deteriorating, the Tribe decided to annex to De Pere Sewage
Treatment plan.

In addition, the Oneidas cooperated with the EPA on a
macroinvertebrate study of Duck Creek and are cooperating with
the U.S. Geological Survey on PCB sampling for the Green Bay
Mass Balance Study.

Industrial Land Runoff and Ground Water Management.
Progress towards managing industrial land runoff and
contaminated groundwater has begun. The DNR and the EPA are
developing procedures for issuing discharge permits to industries
that have separate stormwater discharges to surface waters.
The permits will require evaluation of discharges and, if
warranted, limits on toxic pollutants. In addition, the DNR
developed regulations to control toxic substances from fly ash
and dredge spoil disposal sites.

Finally, the DNR has inventoried and monitored leakages from
several landfills, underground storage tanks, and industrial spill
sites to determine if they are potential sources of contamination
into the Fox River. Clean-up of past spills is underway for
several sites near the Fox River. Funding is being sought to
monitor two additional disposal sites suspected of being sources
of PCBs. And more sites may need to be investigated and
cleaned up.

21.

Future Directions
of Toxicsand Looking toward the future, the TPS Committee recommended
Point Source that the Implementation Committee seek these actions:
(TPS) Committee
Encourage municipal and industrial dischargers to
further evaluate phosphorus loads and treatment
capabilities, and to make reductions as soon as
possible.

The DNR should initiate development of phosphorus
water-quality standards and provide assurance that the
standards are consistent with RAP objectives and
trophic status models for Lower Green Bay.

The DNR should establish a phosphorus wasteload
allocation if necessary to achieve phosphorus
reductions. Review point and nonpoint source
loadings, establish point and nonpoint allocations by
administrative rule, and incorporate effluent limits and
compliance schedules into WPDES permits.

The TPS Advisory Committee, DNR, and EPA should
conduct investigations of contaminated sediment
control options. After review of options available, the
Implementation Committee should seek funding to
conduct pilot studies to test remedial measures in the
Fox River.

The EPA, DNR, and local governments should establish
federal, state and local programs to clean up
contaminated sediments. The Implementation
Committee should seek continued federal funding for
Section 118 of the Clean Water Act, the Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments Program.
Federal and state programs should adopt and use IJC
sediment assessment protocol.

The EPA and DNR should complete studies to
determine the mass and availability of PCB's and other
contaminants in the river system. The Implementation
Committee should seek to provide a staff person for
the TPS Committee to facilitate implementation of
research findings.

In summary, progress has been made on difficult problem
areas of the RAP: point source pollution control and toxic
substance management.

The TPS Committee has adopted a contaminated sediment
management strategy and progress is being made on
implementing that strategy. Specifically, research has begun
on the extent and distribution of toxic substances in the
system. New water quality standards have been set which

22.

limit the discharge of additional toxic pollutants into the
system. Dischargers are taking steps to limit toxic
discharges and options are being considered about
contaminated sediment management.

As the TPS Committee indicated, however, significant work
remains. Further controls are needed on phosphorus, more
study is needed on the problem of dredging in contaminated
sediments, and nonpoint sources of toxics such as industrial
stormwater, coal/chemical stockpile runoff, and landfills need
to be evaluated.

23.

Eq .
J- 11
I.

:1,

1
24.

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTANTS

Nonpoint source pollution presents continuing, unresolved
problems in the Green Bay area of concern. Although nonpoint
source pollutants are similar to point source pollutants in
substance--that is, they deal with toxics, phosphorus, oxygen
demanding waste, bacteria, and sediments--they differ in an
obvious respect. Nonpoint sources of pollution include
croplands, barnyards, city streets, parking lots, construction
sites, and eroding streambanks throughout the Fox/Wolf River
basins. And because nonpoint source pollution comes from
these many diffuse locations, it is inherently more difficult to
control.

NonpointSource The RAP addresses nonpoint source pollution in four Key
Pollution Actions:
Key Actions
#1 Reduce phosphorus inputs to the river and bay from
nonpoint and point sources.

#2 Reduce sediment and suspended solids inputs.

#10 Reduce bacteria inputs from point and nonpoint sources.

#1 Virtually eliminate toxicity caused by nonpoint and
atmospheric sources.

Phosphorus and sediment loadings are the major nonpoint
source pollutants, although some toxics enter the watershed
from nonpoint sources. Of the total phosphorus load into the
Lower Fox River and Green Bay, approximately two-thirds
originates from nonpoint sources.

These loadings come primarily from urban and rural runoff. That
is, phosphorus and sediments wash into the river and bay from
urban and rural land following rains and snowmelts. Excess
phosphorus loadings cause the waters to be highly enriched,
which increases and speeds the process of eutrophication,
resulting in the growth of too much algae. Too much algae and
suspended sediments rob the water of oxygen when algae die,
destroy spawning habitat, block sunlight to underwater plants
and give the water its murky look and unpleasant smell. Excess
algae are the main reason Bay Beach fails to meet water
visibility standards for safe swimming. Sediment loads increase
the need for dredging the ship channel.

Reducing phosphorus and sediments from nonpoint sources is
necessary to reclaim the swimming, fishing, and scenic beauty
of the river and bay.

Nonpoint source pollution control in the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay requires better management of thousands of acres of
urban and agricultural land. In the area of concern, land

25.

management falls under the jurisdiction of more than one
hundred local governments and agencies.

Nonpoint Source The Nonpoint Source Management (NPS) Advisory Committee is
Pollutant (NPS) made up of land use and conservation experts from the area of
Management concern and is chaired by Robert Beining, a local farmer. Under
Advisory Mr. Beining's leadership, the Nonpoint Source Management
Committee Advisory Committee reviewed the nonpoint source
recommendations in the RAP, prioritized the recommendations,
and developed to the implementation a nonpoint source
implementation strategy.

More specifically, the NPS Committee formed four work groups.
One work group reviewed the RAP and other areawide water
quality management plans to identify high, medium and low
priorities for watershed management. The high priority
watersheds selected by the committee include:

* Duck Creek

East River (watershed project ongoing)

Ashwaubenon - Apple - Dutchman's Creeks

Lake Winnebago East

East Branch Fond du Lac River

Lake Winnebago West

Spring Brook

Big Lake Butte des Morts

* Dagget's Creek

Arrowhead River

These priority rankings should now be used by the DNR,
Department of Trade, Agriculture, and Consumer Protection, and
local governments for referral into the state's Priority Watershed
selection process.

Another work group set as its goal the adoption, implementation,
and enforcement of uniform construction erosion, stormwater
management, and animal waste management ordinances for all
local governments in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay area of
concern as well as the Fox/Wolf River Basin. Currently less than
half the counties in the basin have some form of erosion control
or animal waste ordinances. Additionally, the ordinances are
neither uniform nor complete in coverage. The Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Advisory Committee targeted 1990 for
counties to adopt construction erosion and animal waste control
ordinances, and 1995 for stormwater management ordinances.

26.

A third work group focused on agrichemical use and impacts. A
proposal was written by the University of Wisconsin-Extension
and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to fund a nutrient
management research and demonstration project. One objective
of the project is to show farmers how to increase their crop
yields while reducing their fertilizer applications. This proposal
ties in with elements of the East River Priority Watershed
Program in that the research and demonstration project would.
be carried out in the East River Watershed

A fourth work group addressed reduction of phosphorus and
sediment inputs to the river and bay by focusing specifically on
strategies to create buffer strips along shorelines and decrease
soil erosion in agricultural areas. The group proposed that
buffer strips be established in the East River Watershed to
demonstrate their effectiveness.

Recent Progress A comprehensive approach to nonpoint source pollution
of Nonpoint management has yet to be implemented, but several nonpoint
Source Pollution source pollution control projects are ongoing or began in the
Management first year of RAP implementation:
Advisory
Committee The East River Priority Watershed Project. The
East River Priority Watershed Project is part of Wisconsin's
Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program under the
coordination of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The statewide program provides cost-sharing and technical
assistance to local governments and landowners who adopt land
management practices to reduce nonpoint source pollution. The
East River Priority Watershed project covers approximately 218
square miles in Brown County and three square miles in Calumet
County. Participating cities and villages include Green Bay, De
Pere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon, and Wrightstown; participating
towns include Bellevue, Brillion, De Pere, Eaton, Glenmore,
Green Bay, Holland, Lawrence, Rockland, Scott, Wrightstown,
and Humboldt.

The East River project is scheduled to run for ten years at a
cost of over three million dollars. To date, county land
conservationists have inventoried urban and rural sources of
nonpoint pollution to target areas for management. But the
success of the project will depend on the cooperation of
homeowners, farmers, and local governments in the watershed.

The Conservation Reserve Program. The Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) is a federally funded program
administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under this
program, land owners are compensated for retiring highly
erodible cropland or cropland adjacent to waterways and
wetlands. Once retired from the plow, land along waterways can
serve as a buffer strip or vegetation filter for soil, nutrients, and
chemicals before they reach nearby streams. These lands also

27.

provide habitat for waterfowl and other wildlife.

The DNR contacted landowners in portions of the East River
Watershed to encourage participation in the Conservation
Reserve Program. The Implementation Committee endorsed a
demonstration project to show how buffer strips can improve
water quality.

The Winnebago Comprehensive Management Plan.
The DNR, with the assistance of many Fox Valley governments,
agencies, and interest groups, prepared a comprehensive
management plan for Lake Winnebago similar to the RAP. This
plan, which includes specific recommendations for reducing
phosphorus and sediments into the upper Fox River, the Wolf
River, and Winnebago Pool Lakes, will subsequently help reduce
these nonpoint pollution loads into the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay. The Lake Winnebago plan also calls for reclaiming
and protecting wetlands to restore fish and waterfowl habitats.

Animal Waste Management Program. The Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection has
begun work on a model animal waste ordinance. The model
ordinance will provide guidelines to help farmers better manage
animal wastes and to prevent waste loadings into nearby
streams. Once completed, the Department will provide advice to
counties and encourage them to adopt the ordinance.

Future Directions With these efforts currently underway, the Nonpoint Source
of Nonpoint Advisory Committee identified priority actions for the future.
Source Pollutant Most of the priority actions focused on agricultural practices and
Management watershed management. The specific recommendations of the
Advisorycomtearasflw:
Committeecomtearasflw:
*The Implementation Committee should seek to maintain
funding for county, state, and federal conservation
programs.

*Include additional land in the Conservation Reserve
Program through additional landowner sign-up periods.

*Encourage innovative and alternative ways to achieve
n onp oi n tsource management objectives. The
Implementation Committee should seek federal nonpoint
source funds through the Water Quality Act and state
money through the stewardship program.

*Research is needed to assess possible impacts of
pesticides and herbicide use and controls as necessary.
UW-Extension should develop public education programs
on nutrient/pesticide management, establish
demonstration projects, and perform additional research.

*The DNR and Department of Agriculture, Trade, and

28.

Consumer Protection (DATCP), and counties should
implement comprehensive watershed management
projects to reduce phosphorus, sediment, and other
pollutants from nonpoint sources. They should select an
additional nine to eleven Priority Watershed Projects
based on the Nonpoint Source Pollution Advisory
Committee's priority list, use Geographic Information
System (GIS) models to evaluate nonpoint source
problems, and seek legislation for state and federal
nonpoint source funding.

*Counties should require use of shoreline buffer strips or
green strips through shoreland zoning regulations,
conservation easements, or comprehensive zoning.

*Counties, cities, villages, and towns should require and
enforce construction erosion and stormwater runoff
controls. The DNR should provide local governments with
model ordinances and advice.

*Counties should adopt animal waste management
ordinances and farmers should use best management
practices. The Department of Agriculture, Trade, and
Consumer Protection (DATCP) should provide model
ordinances, advice, and state funding to county
governments.

Managing nonpoint source pollution in the U.S. presents a
special problem. Since most land use controls and land
management ordinances are enforced at the local level,
implementing nonpoint source pollution recommendations will
require extensive cooperation by many local governments.

Ways must be found to encourage landowners to adopt a land
ethic and voluntarily cooperate in available programs. Without
voluntary cooperation, further regulatory actions will be
necessary. The successful reduction of phosphorus and
sediment loads into the Lower Fox River and Green Bay will
depend on the actions of upstream governments. These upper
parts of the watershed must become aware of their impact upon
their neighbors in the lower bay and the Great Lakes. They
must become more involved in RAP implementation.

29.

Art'

-.,- V

A'
4*
./t
4'

'....

30.

FISH AND WILDLIFE

The fish and wildlife in the Green Bay area of concern are perhaps the region's
greatest resource. The Fox River and Green Bay ecosystem was once home to
a variety of fish, birds, and other wildlife. Today, due in large part to years of
overfishing and pollution, fewer predator fish remain in the system. Those that
remain are mostly too contamined for human consumption. In addition, several
fish-eating bird populations are endangered, and many other forms of wildlife
have lost their habitat along the shorelines. The Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan recommends actions to restore the integrity of the ecosystem for fish and
wildlife.

The wetlands that once fringed the lower bay are key to the survival of native
fish, birds, and wildlife. Wetlands provide spawning beds for a variety of fish and
habitat for wild animals and migratory birds. In addition, wetlands filter land
runoff, removing nutrients and sediments, and buffer the shorelines from
erosion. Protecting the remaining wetlands is thus vital to maintaining the
habitat of native fish and wildlife in the Lower Fox River and Green Bay.

Maintaining the habitat alone, however, is insufficient. Years of environmental
disruption have upset the balance of the ecosystem. At present the wters
contain excessive populations of carp and other forage and rough fish. Foreign
species, such as the sea lamprey and white perch have invaded the ecosystem,
threatening commercial and sport fisheries. And the ecosystem has been
purged of some sensitive native organisms, such as burrowing mayflies, clams,
sturgeon, and bluegills. Restoring the natural balance of the ecosystem will thus
require species management, preservation of habitats, and better water quality.
Fish and Wildlife
Fish and Wildlife The RAP addresses fish and wildlife in three Key Actions:
Key Actions
#6 Protect wetlands and manage habitat and wildlife.

#7 Reduce/control populations of problem fish.

#8 Increase populations of predator fish.

The Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee was formed to assist the
Fish and Wildlife
Commit e e Implementation Committee on these Key Actions. The committee includes
Committee
representatives of federal, state, and local conservation groups and agencies,
the University of Wisconsin, and concerned citizens. The committee is chaired
by Janet Smith of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recent Progress To restore and maintain the natural balance of fish and wildlife in the area of
of the Fish and
of the Fish and concern, the committee adopted a two-step approach: first, protect and restore
Wildlife
Wildlife habitat; then, re-establish the species balance of fish and wildlife. During the
Committee
Committee first year of implementation, these steps were taken toward these ends.

Wetlands Preservation. Twenty acres of wetlands near Longtail Point
were purchased by the state and targeted for protection and management. Two
parcels of West Shore wetlands were donated to the DNR as part of trhe West
Shore Wetland Preservation Program. Two other parcels are being appraised
for purchase in 1989. About one-half of the West Shore lands targeted for
protection by a West Shore Master Plan have been acquired, but they mostly

31.

represent lower priority habitats. Unfortunately, high priority wetlands still need
protection.

To achieve this, all counties in the Fox/Wolf River Basin and all municipalities in the
area of concern, except De Pere, have completed and approved wetlands maps and
shoreline/wetlands zoning ordinances. As a result, no new developments have
occurred on the West Shore wetlands since 1988. However, wetlands along the
Lower Fox River and bay shore continue to be lost or degraded because local and
state rules do not apply to wetlands behind municipal bulkhead lines.

Meanwhile, the DNR continued its review of shoreline modification and dredging
permits, resulting in downscaling of development proposals to protect habitats and
water quality. Further, the DNR incorporated additional habitat enhancement
practices into the nonpoint source abatement program (NR120) so that these
practices will be eligible for cost-sharing in Priority Watershed Projects, including the
East River Project.

Wildlife Management. In a joint effort, scientists at UWGB, the DNR and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are continuing studies of endangered terns on Renard
Island to monitor population status and to determine the effects of toxics on bird
reproduction. Vegetation on the island is periodically managed to promote
endangered tern nesting.

Controlling Populations of Problem Fish. To prevent further invasion by
the sea lamprey, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers completed construction of a
permanent barrier to lamprey migration at the Rapid Croche Lock and Dam on the
Fox River. However, this controversial project also prevents boat traffic from passing
through the lock. Nevertheless, the barrier is viewed as the only effective means to
block the sea lamprey from entering the Lake Winnebago and Wolf River systems
and from decimating their fisheries.

Meanwhile, the UW Sea Grant Institute is funding a study of the Green Bay perch
fishery to evaluate alternative fish management policies. In a related project, the
DNR is monitoring the recent invasion of the non-native white perch, which may
compete with the more desirable, native yellow perch. Finally, the DNR developed
plans to study the abundance and movement of carp. Because carp contain high
levels of PCBs, carp harvesting has been considered as a means of both reducing
the carp population and removing some PCBs. At present, the Implementation
Committee is seeking funding for this high-priority study.

Increasing the Numbers of Predator Fish. Fish management programs
that seek to increase the numbers of predator fish continue at the DNR and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Activities in these programs include monitoring and
management of the walleye population; monitoring fish contamination and revising
public consumption advisories; managing commercial and sport yellow perch
fisheries; and establishing a stock of Great Lakes muskellunge.

To re-establish the once-native muskie, Great Lakes muskie eggs were
obtained from Michigan and the hatched fish will be released in Lower Green
Bay in Fall 1989. This represents the first attempt to re-establish the muskie,
which naturally preys on carp.

32.

Future Directions To continue progress on the restoration and preservation of fish and wildlife, the
of the Fish and Committee recommended the following actions over the next three years.
Wildlife Advisory
Committee *The Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee will cooperate with Bay-Lake
Region Planning Commission to identify and map remaining habitats and
will establish goals for wetlands and habitat protection.

*Local, state, and federal agencies should strictly enforce existing laws to
protect remaining wetlands and other habitat.

*The DNR should obtain funds for pilot projects to evaluate and manage carp
populations.

*Landowners should use "best management practices" to protect fish and
wildlife habitat in the East River Priority Watershed Project as a model for
other shoreline landowners.

*Local governments should strengthen wetland zoning ordinances to include
smaller (less than five acres) wetlands and should consider comprehensive
zoning or other use restrictions to protect shoreline habitat.

*The DNR should initiate a program to evaluate and manage northern pike
populations.

*The EPA should continue studies to determine causes of walleye and bird
reproductive problems.

*The DNR should establish breeding sanctuaries and management programs
for endangered tern populations.

*The Implementation Committee should work within the City of Green Bay to
modify bulkhead lines as necessary to protect shore habitats and wetlands.

� The DNR should monitor waterfowl population trends.

� The DNR should continue efforts to re-introduce muskellunge to lower
Green Bay as water quality improves.

� The DNR and Brown County should limit public entry to critical habitats of
endangered birds during nesting seasons.

� The Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the City of Green Bay
should improve Interstate Highway 43 wetland habitats that were intended
to replace wetlands lost during highway construction.

The success of the Fish and Wildlife Committee depends upon many of the
same critical factors facing the other committees: funding, cooperation, and
public support. Moreover, the restoration of fish and wildlife communities
depends upon successful implementation of other aspects of the RAR That is,
fish and wildlife cannot return until progress has been made in reducing point
and nonpoint source pollution, controlling toxics, and increasing public
awareness of the delicacy of wildlife habitat.

Until these other tasks are completed, the Fish and Wildlife Committee will seek
to maintain and protect remaining habitats and assist nature when and where
possible at restoring balance among species.

33.

34.

SHORELAND USE AND RECREATION

Shoreland use and recreation aspects of the RAP focus on people and their use
of the ecosystem. The RAP is not an end in itself; rather, the RAP is a plan to
restore the beneficial uses of the system to the people in Northeastern
Wisconsin and beyond.

Green Say has served people in the region for a long time. Throughout the
years, the bay has served as a means of transportation, as a disposal site for
municipal, industrial and agricultural waste, as a location for hunting, boating,
fishing, swimming, and other recreational uses, and as a site for commercial and
residential development. Quite obviously, the bay cannot be all things to all
people. We have become increasingly aware that emphasizing one use of the
bay may impair the ability of the bay to serve other uses.

Recent and rapid social change has altered our desired uses of the bay and its
environment. Not long ago the ability of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay to
provide inexpensive transportation and to assimilate manufacturing and
municipal waste were paramount. Over the years, however, as the standard of
living has risen and as the focus of the region's economy has changed, these
uses have become relatively less valued.

Today, we value the recreational and aesthetic, services of the river and bay and
would like once again to fish in the watershed and safely eat the fish we catch;
we would like to picnic in shoreline parks and enjoy the scenery along the
waterway; and we would like to boat in the water and safely swim along the
shores. The Green Bay Remedial Action Plan recognizes these desires.

Shoreland Use The RAP includes recommendations for shoreland use and recreation issues
and Recreation under one Key Action:
Key Action #14 Enhance public and private shoreline uses.

Specific recommendations include:

* Improve boat launch facilities.

* Improve marina and mooring facilities.

* Provide safe swimming beaches.

* Provide shoreline fishing facilities.

* Improve public accss to the water.

* Protect wetlands and wildlife habitat.

* Revitalize the urban waterfronts.

* Reduce shoreline erosion.

* Evaluate harbor and port alternatives.

35.

Shoreland Use The Shoreland Use and Recreation Committee was first established in February
and Recreation 1989 to seek implementation of these recommendations. The Committee is co-
Advisory chaired by Robert Fisher of the Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission and
Committee Dale Preston of the Green Bay Planning Department. The remainder of the
Committee includes representatives of business, local recreation departments
and organizations, UW-Green Bay, and the DNR. Its membership is perhaps the
most diverse of all the advisory committees.

Recent Progress In spite, or perhaps because of its diversity, the Shoreland Use and Recreation
of the Shoreland Committee has been extremely active and productive. The committee targeted
Use and several work items for completion in 1989 or 1990. This work includes the
Recreation preparation of a base map of the area of concern and land use overlay maps
Advisory from which areas of conflicting use can be identified. The overlay maps will
Committee include, for example, existing wetlands, shoreland/wetland regulations,
recreational lands, and community land use plans.

In addition, the committee--with assistance from Bay-Lake and Green Bay
planning staffs--is preparing an inventory and analysis of public and private
recreational uses and needs. By 1992, the committee plans to make specific
recommendations concerning marina, harbor, fishing, and swimming sites.

Work to enhance shoreland uses and recreation over the past year also includes
these activities.

Boat Launch Facilities. The City of De Pere is actively working with the
DNR to acquire property on the east side of the Fox River for future
development of a boat launch facility. Other facilities near the mouth of the Fox
River, the Suamico River, and the De Pere Fairgrounds will be upgraded or
expanded. Part of the funding for these improvements will come from boat-
launch fees, which in some places went into effect in 1988 and may soon go into
effect at other locations.

Public Access to Waterways. Many communities have taken action to
ensure that existing public holdings of land adjacent to the river and bay remain
public. Plans for new facilities are also underway. A park is planned in the
Village of Howard along Duck Creek. The DNR provided funds to create a
shoreline fishing area near Longtail Point. The City of De Pere is planning to
expand and improve shoreline fishing facilities along the banks of the Fox River.

And the Implementation Committee has requested the Brown County Board to
continue a 20-year plan to create a recreational trail between Green Bay and De
Pere along the east side of the Fox River. When complete, this project will result
in a 6.5 mile parkway for hiking, bicycling, jogging, and cross-country skiing.
The abandonment of the Soo Line railroad tracks along the east side of the river
provides a one-time opportunity to progress on this project.

Green Bay Harbor Area. The Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission is
leading development of a scope of study for a cost-benefit analysis of the Green
Bay harbor. The study will address Pot economics and environmental impacts
and will consider long-term dredge spoil disposal. At the request of the Toxics
and Point Source Management Advisory Committee, the study will also consider
alternative sites for the Port and the value to the community of reclaiming the
urban waterfront for recreational uses.

36.

Future Directions The Shoreland Use and Recreation Committee also selected priority actions for
of the Shoreland the next year and recommended the following to the Implementation Committee:
Use and
Recreation Advisory *Local governments should protect and develop recreational and
Committee environmental corridors, especially along the Lower Fox River and
Green Bay shorelines.

*Area businesses, cities, and villages should revitalize waterfronts and
enhance shorelines.

*Local governments should continue adoption and strictly enforce local
wetland zoning.

*The DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should further encourage
private wetland preservation.

*The Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission should seek continued
progress on a 25-year dredge disposal plan and study of harbor
alternatives.

*The Brown County Regional Planning Commission should complete a
management plan for Renard Island.

*Regional planning agencies should collect and update soci-economic
and demographic information on the region.

*The City of Green Bay should modify bulkhead lines as necessary to
protect important habitat.

*Local governments should evaluate and upgrade boat launch facilities.

*The Implementation Committee and local governments should
encourage development of marinas if environmentally and fiscally
sound.

*The City of Green Bay should evaluate potential for swimming beaches
on the lower bayshore.

*Local governments should develop shoreline fishing facilities.

*University researchers should measure public attitudes and perceptions
of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay and the RAP.

* Planning agencies and researchers should measure public use of the
river and bay.

The Shoreland Use and Recreation Committee has made considerable progress
toward planning for increasing recreational use of the area of concern. The
completion of the committee's work is a tribute to both the staffs of the
participating organizations and to the foresight of drawing the leadership of the
committee from agencies able and committed to completing the work.

Considerable strides have also been made toward enhancing public access to
the shoreline of the Lower Fox River and Green Say in several of the

37.

surrounding communities. These projects reflect the willingness of local
governments to pursue popular recreation opportunities, but local governments
must demonstrate greater leadership to take action on more controversial issues
such as dredging and wetland zoning.

38.,

PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION

The RAP is a long-term plan that requires the cooperation of many different
agencies, organizations, and individuals. The commitment of so many
organizations for such a long period of time is possible only with substantial
public support for the plan. Even if all the technical problems of toxic and
conventional pollution abatement, fish and wildlife maintenance, and shoreline
use were solved, remedial action would not take place without public
involvement. Thus, generating and maintaining public support for the RAP is
another critical element of the project.

At present the RAP is not widely known. Without public awareness and support,
there will be insufficient pressure on public officials to divert resources toward
implementing the plan. Further, implementation will require cooperation between
many individuals and agencies. Therefore, the objectives of the Public
Education and Participation Committee (PEP) include informing the public about
the RAP and enlisting the active support of the public towards implementing plan
recommendations.

Individuals make a diff erence. Individuals can do the following to help implement
the RAP.

* Participate in river and bay clean-up projects.

* Attend public meetings and hearings and express their opinions.

* Let their support for the RAP be known to their elected
representatives.

* Keep informed on the progress of RAP activities.

* Join or help form groups to work for RAP implementation.

* Use biodegradable products.

* Recycle or compost wastes.

* Dispose of chemical wastes according to label directions, and at
sanctioned facilities; or participate in "clean sweep" programs. Don't
dump chemicals down storm sewers or drains.

Land owners and local residents can do the following to help implement RAP:

* Keep leaves and grass clippings away from curbs and storm sewers
where they can be washed into the river and bay.

* Preserve five feet of natural vegetation along stream banks to buffer
shoreline erosion and filter land runoff.

* Dispose of pet wastes properly so they don't wash into storm
sewers.

39.

Apply lawn and garden fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides carefully
and sparingly or consider organic alternatives to chemical use.

Use organic mulches and seed to cover bare soil and prevent
erosion.

Direct downspouts away from paved surfaces, allowing rainwater to
soak into the ground.

Reduce the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and household products
containing toxics.

Public Education Concern about the role of the public in implementing the RAP is expressed in
and Participation Key Action #13.
Key Action
Increase public awareness of, participation in, and support for river and bay
restoration efforts.

Public Education The Public Education and Participation Committee is chaired by William Elman,
and Participation Executive Director of the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency. Members
(PEP) Committee of the committee represent the University of Wisconsin, environmental interest
groups, educators, citizen volunteers, and the DNR.

Recent Progress The committee has had an active year developing educational materials and
of the Public providing opportunities for public involvement in the RAP.
Education and
Participation Books, Brochures, and Reports. With a grant from the Wisconsin
Committee Coastal Management Program, matched by the DNR and private funds,
members of the Public Education and Participation Committee have been active
producing booklets, brochures, and reports. The committee and DNR staff
produced a Baybook that provides information about what citizens can do to
reduce water pollution from their homes.

With funding from the DNR and the counties of Brown, Calumet, Fond du Lac,
Outagamie, and Winnebago, the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency
produced a quarterly newsletter, entitled NEWSRAP, and four brochures on key
aspects of the RAP.

In addition, the Institute for Land and Water Studies at UW-Green Bay is
developing the first annual State of the Bav ReDort which will summarize
technical information in general terms and track changes in the bay due to RAP
implementation.

Finally, staff of the Center for Public Affairs at UW-Green Bay prepared this first
annual progress report.

Visual Aids and Displays. Also with support from the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program and private contributions, the DNR is preparing outdoor
interpretive displays to be located at the Neville Museum and at Bay Beach Park
in Green Bay. The DNR additionally developed an educational display on the
problems and management of contaminated sediments. Committee members
are also working on a RAP logo to be used on all RAP related material.

40.

Participatory Events and Educational Programs. The first
River/Bay Clean-Up Day was held on April 29, 1989. Over 200 people,
representing many organizations, participated in cleaning up litter along the river
and bay.

A Speaker's Bureau was formed and presentations about the RAP were made to
local civic groups, professional organizations, teachers, and local governments.

The Green Say Area Chamber of Commerce held a "Leadership Green Bay"
workshop at UW-Green Bay that focused on RAP implementation. Current and
future community leaders examined ways to promote the RAP and to overcome
obstacles to plan implementation.

Another one-day workshop on RAP progress, in which sessions will be led by
the Advisory Committees, will be held at UW-Green Bay on September 9, 1989.
Finally, a public informational hearing will be held on September 14, 1989, at the
Brown County Library to review progress on the RAP and to receive public
comments on RAP implementation. The workshop and hearing are sponsored
by the Implementation Committee and the DNR through a grant from Wisconsin
Coastal Management Program and hosted by the UWGB Center for Public
Affairs.

Survey of Public Attitudes and Perceptions. To gain further
information concerning public awareness about the RAP, the University of
Wisconsin-Green Bay's Center for Public Affairs will soon conduct a survey of
public attitudes and perceptions. This survey will measure the extent to which
the public is informed about the RAP and water quality problems in general, and
will help guide future public information programming.

Information Repositories. To make information about the RAP readily
available to any citizen or interest group, the Public Education and Participation
Committee has made all RAP information publicly available at these locations:

* Lake Michigan District Office of DNR

* Green Bay Area Off ice of DNR

* Brown County Central Library

* Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary

Copies of agendas and meeting minutes of all RAP committees are also
available in these locations:

* Government Publications area of UWGB Learning Resources

* Appleton Public Library

* Oshkosh Public Library

41.

Future Directions To continue public education and participation in the implementation process, the
of Public Education and Participation Committee identified the following priority
the Public actions for the coming year.
Education and
Participation Develop additional public information programs.
Advisory
Committee * Continue to provide opportunities for public participation and input on
major decisions that affect the River and Bay.

* Make water quality information easily accessible and
understandable.

* Develop additional educational programs.

Although the Public Education and Participation Committee accomplished much
in its first year, the task ahead remains formidable. The Lower Green Bay RAP
is recognized as a pioneering rehabilitation effort by scientists around the world;
yet it remains relatively unknown by citizens at home. For successful
implementation, this must change. Resources to implement the RAP must
ultimately come from people, either directly through voluntary contributions and
compliance or indirectly through taxes and fees. These resources will be
provided only when people understand and support the RAP effort.

The Public Education and Participation Committee has made substantial
progress toward generating the necessary public support. The progress of the
committee reflects in part the influence of additional resources. Funding for
many of the projects was made possible by a grant from the Wisconsin Coastal
Management Program, with matching support from the DNR, several local firms
and agencies, and the counties of Brown, Calumet, Fond du Lac, Outagamie,
and Winnebago.

Similar funding arrangements for next year have been established for staffing
committees, providing education and participation programs, and for conducting
a study of the effectiveness of public information activities. Thus, public
education and participation activities will continue in the near future, but the
long-term future of these efforts depends on the continuation or substitution for
Coastal Management funding.

42.

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Monitoring and research is an important element of any well-conceived plan.
Research is necessary to understand how best to get things done, and
monitoring is necessary to determine whether things, in fact, got done. Although
monitoring and research are inherent in all parts of the plan, a separate
committee to address monitoring and research needs was formed for two
reasons. First, a committee was necessary to coordinate the monitoring and
research recommendations throughout the plan, and second, to provide
technical advise on research funding and research methods.

Monitoring and The Monitoring and Research Committee is chaired by Cliff Kraft, Green Bay
Research Field Agent for University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. The remainder of
Committee the committee includes resource managers and scientists, mostly natural
scientists, who represent government, business, and universities. Most of the
members are themselves active in research.

The purpose of the Monitoring and Research Committee is not to sponsor or
conduct research; instead, research related to the RAP will be performed by the
organizations the committee members represent. The purpose of the Committee
is to:

#1 Prepare a monitoring plan for documenting changes in the area of
concern due to RAP implementation;.

#2 Identify critical research needs for RAP implementation;

#3 Seek funds and resources to conduct monitoring and research; and

#4 Coordinate ongoing monitoring and research projects.

Recent Progress The Monitoring and Research Committee completed two major tasks during the
of Monitoring and first year of implementation. On March 15 and 16, 1989, the committee
Research sponsored a workshop for managers and scientists involved in data collection
Committee and research activities in the Area of Concern. The workshop included 30
presentations on topics of water quality, toxic contaminants, fisheries, biota,
sediments, and the Mass Balance Study. The workshop provided a valuable
opportunity to exchange information and plan future projects. The committee will
sponsor the event annually.

The committee also forwarded to the Implementation Committee a long-range
monitoring plan. The plan lists ecosystem characteristics to monitor, the
monitoring area, sampling frequency, the status of the monitoring activity, a lead
agency, and a priority ranking. The Implementation Committee has formed a
task group to seek funding and a lead agency to implement the monitoring plan.

43.

TAKING STOCK

A Review of Considerable work began this past year toward implementing the Lower Green
Accomplishments Bay Remedial Action Plan. A variety of state, local, and federal agencies, along
with several environmental and industry groups, participated in the
implementation process. Although this report included only major
implementation projects, many smaller projects and voluntary actions contributed
to implementation as well. They also deserve recognition. In all, more than 30
staff-years of effort were spent by government officials, industry representatives,
environmental activists, and university scientists toward implementing the RAP.
The Interim Implementation Committee commends all for their contributions.

Efforts were directed primarily at getting organized and initiating studies and
projects. Several ongoing projects were completed, but much remains to be
done. The committee recognizes that implementation will take time, massive
resources, and sustained commitment. The process has just begun, but there is
reason to be optimistic that plan goals can be reached by the year 2000.

To initiate implementation, the DNR established the Implementation Committee
and six technical advisory committees. Each of the advisory committees
submitted a progress report and implementation strategies for priority
recommendations for the coming year. The Implementation Committee,
meanwhile, sought funding and encouraged implementation of the RAP by
agencies both inside and outside the Area of Concern.

Over the past year, the DNR established new water quality rules for toxics, while
the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District and the city of Appleton made
plans to improve their wastewater treatment facilities. When completed, these
improved facilities will significantly reduce ammonia toxicity in the river and bay.
Plans to connect Oneida tribal lands and Bayshore and Dyckesville Sanitary
Districts to existing sewage treatment plants will help solve long-standing water
pollution problems from failing systems. In addition, a world-class study to
model behavior of toxics in a large, aquatic ecosystem was initiated. The $11
million Green Bay Mass Balance Study and related DNR research on Fox River
contaminated sediments will help to design future remedial strategies for in-place
pollutants.

The Implementation Committee was instrumental in securing state funding for
these studies and a new, in-place pollutant management program. Several
committee members testified at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing held by
Wisconsin Senator Herbert Kohl in Green Bay on the need for federal support for
RAPs and in-place pollutants.

For next year, the Toxics and Point Source Advisory Committee recommended
further study on remedial options for contaminated sediments and the
development of new phosphorus water quality standards.

Limited progress was made on nonpoint source pollution problems. Federal,
state, and local agriculture programs provided incentives for soil erosion and
runoff control. The EPA passed rules for future restriction of some industrial
stormwater discharges. Land inventories and plans were initiated for the East
River Priority Watershed Project, and two major studies were also proposed to
demonstrate nutrient and pesticide management practices in the East River

44.

watershed. As a priority for the coming year, the Nonpoint Source Management
Committee recommends identifying funding for additional priority watersheds
projects and work by counties and local governments toward controlling
construction erosion, stormwater runoff, and animal waste.

As the quality of the water has improved, efforts to enhance fish and wildlife
communities increased. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a
barrier on the Fox River to prevent invasion by sea lampreys, and the DNR
initiated or continued programs to increase and manage the stock of native
predator fish. Study continued on the health of endangered bird populations.
Local governments enforced wetland ordinances to protect wetlands and wildlife
habitat. Next year, the Fish and Wildlife Committee plans to increase efforts to
preserve remaining habitat and to continue research and management of carp,
muskies, northern pike, and endangered Forster, common and caspian terns.

Opportunities for shoreland use and recreation have grown. Local communities
made plans for new boat-launch facilities, and existing facilities have been
expanded. The Brown County Planning Department continued work on a major
parkway along the Fox River for all to enjoy. Finally, the Bay-Lake Regional
Planning Commission began studies on the Port of Green Bay and the future of
the Downtown Green Bay Waterfront. A base map of the Area of Concern was
prepared to facilitate resource mapping in the next year. The Shoreland Use and
Recreation Committee plans to use the maps to improve management of
wetlands, shorelands, and recreational lands.

To keep the public informed and active, several important public education and
participation projects were initiated, including The State of the Bay Report, RAP
brochures and newsletters, a speaker's bureau, an annual public workshop, an
annual public hearing, and this annual progress report. In addition, study will
soon begin on public perceptions and how and where to improve public
education and participation programming. In the upcoming year, the Public
Education and Participation Committee plans to continue current activities and to
make educational materials, such as interpretive displays and RAP literature
even more accessible.

The Monitoring and Research Committee prepared a plan to monitor ecosystem
change in the Area of Concern. The committee also hosted a research
workshop to highlight and coordinate any ongoing projects and plans to host the
workshop again next year. The committee also plans to develop a long-range
research agenda.

Finally, the DNR continues to consider new approaches to enhance the
effectiveness of the Implementation Committee. At present, a Coordinating
Council--as prescribed in the RAP--appears unlikely; but an alternative structural
arrangement will be evaluated in the coming year. A more permanent
implementation structure is to be recommended by the Interim Implementation
Committee by the end of the year. This new organization will carry
implementation through to the year 2000 and possibly beyond.

45.

LOOKING FORWARD

Obstacles to Although the history of environmental action in the Green Bay area is long,
Overcome actions previous to the RAP were not nearly as comprehensive or ambitious.
Further, the Green Bay RAP is the pioneer of similar efforts just beginning in
other areas of concern around the Great Lakes. Pioneering efforts always
encounter obstacles.

Some obstacles are scientific: How to remove toxics from the sediments? How
to predict the outcome of remedial actions? How to measure minute quantities
of toxic substances? How to restore balance among species of fish and wildlife?
These represent challenging obstacles to overcome. Because none of these
problems, however, are specific to Green Bay, research will continue here and
elsewhere, and committee members will relay the results for use in
implementation. In time, most technical questions can be answered.

As the technical obstacles are overcome, the obstacles become financial: Who
will pay to implement the plan? Implementation of the RAP requires two types of
costs: administrative costs and direct costs. Administrative costs include staff
and resources for all the committees. At present, administrative resources are
very limited. Much of the work products of the advisory committees were
produced by committee members or by the staff of represented agencies. The
staffs and leaders of these agencies deserve recognition for their contributions.
But unless agencies are compensated for their contributions, it may not be long
before recognition gives way to the demands of better funded projects.

Direct costs include the massive costs of actual implementation. Estimates of
the total costs of implementation range from 68 to 640 million dollars. The
higher figure largely represents the potential cost of removing contaminated
sediments. Nonpoint source management alone will cost $50-130 million.

In these times of federal deficits, it is unlikely the federal government will provide
sufficient resources. Further, state and local governments have limited financial
resources. Thus, it will take the combined financial support of all levels of
government to complete implementation of the RAP. Public education projects
funded by The Coastal Management Program, the Green Bay Mass Balance
Study, the East River Priority Watershed Project, and other RAP-related projects
are good examples of intergovernmental financial cooperation. But each of
these programs includes formal guidelines that specify work products and
allocate funds. The RAP effort will soon need similar financial controls and
incentives.

Another major obstacle is political: Who will implement the RAP? Thus far, the
DNR has provided the leadership necessary to sustain the RAP. But the DNR
cannot implement the RAP alone; its powers, though substantial, are too limited
for ecosystem management. Therefore, federal, state and local governments,
and countless private citizens and firms, must assist the DNR in implementation.

For this reason the DNR appointed the Interim Implementation Committee and
its advisory committees from diverse interest groups. But new management
approaches--e.g., ecosystem management--require new management
instruments. The old instruments, repackaged in sets of committees, are
adequate for sharing information, pooling the efforts of local agencies, and

46.

requesting support from outside agencies. But the same instruments are
inadequate for implementing new management techniques, for mandating
ecosystem management, and for providing new resources. A new model for
implementing ecosystem management is needed.

Taking the Next The fact that progress was made in each of the management areas is evidence
Steps that implementation has gotten a solid start. Progress was not uniform in either
rate or character. Some of the committees were led by scientists and
consequently focused on research; others were led by planners, who focused on
planning; still others were led by resource managers, who focused on
management.

But more important, programs were monitored, programs were coordinated, and
programs were initiated. And most important: things got done. However, to
ensure continued success of the implementation effort, as the luster of a new
program fades, bold steps must now be taken. The magnitude of the nonpoint
source pollution problem will require substantial cost-share funds, new
regulations, and understanding by upstream governments and landowners that
they contribute to water quality problems in Lower Green Bay. Solution of the
toxics problem requires major new programs for control of contaminated
sediment clean-up and strict enforcement of toxic control regulations.

Lack of staff and resources limited the progress of all the committees, although
only the Toxics and Point Source Committees explicitly requested staff.
Committees were able to draw upon the experienced staff and resources of
participating agencies. This has proven a major strength of the RAP's multi-
institutional approach.

The next step is to build on this strength by contacting lead agencies and
soliciting their commitment to implementing assigned actions. Just as the
ecosystem interconnects humans with the environment, ecosystem management
must interconnect agencies and their missions.

The environmental quality of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay ecosystem has
improved tremendously in the past decade. As a result, fish are returning to the
waters, wildlife are returning to the wetlands, and people are returning to the
shorelines. As we approach the next decade, our resolve must not waiver. We
must replace institutions that disrupt the ecosystem with institutions that foster
sustainability. And we must provide those institutions with resources to do the
job well. In the past, we took bold steps to rescue the ecosystem from near
collapse; we must now take bold steps to return the ecosystem to sustainable,
balanced life, for us, and for the generations to follow.

47.

Steering Committee of the Implementation Committee
Tim Doelger
Chair: Thomas Cuene Department of Natural Resources
County Executive, Brown County Dr. Jeff Foran
Harold J. Day National Wildlife Federation, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage Commission Vicky Harris
William Fisk RAP Implementation Coordinator, DNR
Izaak Walton League Al Johnson
Charles Higgs Port Director, Green Bay, Wisconsin
DNR Gary Kincaid
Rebecca Leighton DNR
Lake Michigan Federation Dr. Val Klump
Winston Ostrow Center for Great Lakes Studies, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Attorney Rebecca Leighton
Bruce Robertson Lake Michigan Federation
James River Corporation Robert Miller
Janet Smith Director of Public Works, Appleton, Wisconsin
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Dr. John Olson
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Department of Health and Social Services
Robert J. Beining Madison, Wisconsin
Citizen Cathy Rather
Ron Bruch Oneida Indians of Wisconsin
DNR Bruce Robertson
George Nau Burridge James River Corporation
Citizen Don Schneider
H.B. Conlon Fort Howard Paper Company
Chair, Associated Banc Corp. Janet Smith
Robert Cowles U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
State Senator Dr. Ken Stromborg
Robert Fisher U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Executive Director, Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission Paul Thormodsgard
Keith Foye Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
Agricultural Resource Management NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection Chair: Robert J. Beining
Susan Garot Farmer, Greenleaf, Wisconsin
Public Affairs Director Rick Adamski
Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce Farmer, Seymour, Wisconsin
Frank Granberg Steve Bennet
Friends of the Fox University of Wisconsin - Extension
Samuel Halloin Ron Bruch
Mayor, City of Green Bay DNR
Vicky Harris Frank Dadam
RAP Implementation Coordinator, DNR City Engineering Department, Green Bay, Wisconsin
Carol Holden Larry Decker
DNR (Staff) Soil Conservation Service
Peggy McGaffrey Mike Foy
Fox River Sierra Group DNR
Loretta Metoxen Keith Foye
Council Member, Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Conservation Specialist
Joan Mills Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection
Green Bay League of Women Voters Laura Herman
Dan Olson DNR
Regional Director, Ducks Unlimited Carol Holden
David Outcalt DNR (Staff)
Chancellor, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Bill Hafs
John Schreiter Brown County Land Conservation Department
County Executive - Outagamie County Greg Keil
Robert A. Shade, Sr. East Central Regional Planning Commission
Shade Information Systems, Inc. Dr. Thomas McIntosh
Wilma Springer University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Chair, Calumet County Board Cathy Rather
Eric Stearn Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin
Attorney Pete Van Airsdalea
Paul Stevenson Winnebago County Land and Water Conservation Department
County Executive - Winnebago County Pat Vaile
Kenneth Theine Brown County Planning Commission
Executive Director, East Central Wisconsin Regional FISH AND WILDLIFE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Planning Commission Chair: Janet Smith
William Thomasma U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Izaak Walton League Ty Bauman
Mary Lou Van Dreel Green Bay Wildlife Sanctuary
State Representative Dr. Fred Copes
TOXICS AND POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Department of Biology
Chair: Dr. H. J. Harris University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point
Institute for Land and Water Studies Donald Halron
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay President, Great Lakes Sports Fishermen Association
Paul Baumgart Vicky Harris
Clean Water Action Council RAP Implementation Coordinator, DNR
Dr. Kenneth Carlson William Hnilicka
Fox River Paper Company Brown County Zoning Administration

48.

Terry Lychwick Rebecca Leighton
DNR Lake Michigan Federation
Dr. Robert Howe Doug McLaughlin
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Citizen
Cliff Kraft Carrie Morgan
UW Sea Grant DNR
Richard Koch Dave Smith
DNR University of Wisconsin - Extension
Michael McFarlane
Barkhausen Preserve MONITORING AND RESEARCH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
James Maricque Chair: Clifford Kraft
Commercial Fisherman UW Sea Grant
Keith Otis
DNRKeith Otis DDr. Anders Andren
DNR
Jim Raber Water Chemistry Program
DNR University of Wisconsin - Madison
Ronald Spry
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Tom Baht
Dr. Edward Weidner DNR
Director of Cofrin Arboretum
SHORELAND USE AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Co-Chairs: Robert Fisher DNR
Bay-Lake Regional Planning Commission Dr. H. J. Harris
Dale Preston University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Brown County Planning Department
Dr. Ron Baba Vicky Harris
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay DNR
George Burridge John Konrad
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Terry Dickinson DNRDr. Gerrit Knaap
Commodore, Green Bay Yacht Club Associate Professor, Economics, University of Illinois
Susan Garot
Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce
Betsy and Phil Hendrickson Center for Great Lakes Studies
Green Bay, Wisconsin University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Carol Holden John Kennedy
DNR (Staff)
Dr. Per Johnsen Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay Dr. Tom McIntosh
Harlan Kiesow
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
East Central Regional Planning Commission
Menasha, Wisconsin Dale Patterson
Chet Miller DNR
Director of Green Bay Parks and Recreation Department Thomas Pellett
Jeff Pagels
DNR DNR
Gerold Perkofski Bruce Robertson
De Pere Parks and Recreation Department
Dan Rogers James River Corporation
Dan Rogers
DNR Dr. Paul Sager
John M. Rose University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
Green Bay Redevelopment Authority David Rades
James Schlies Institute of Paper Chemistry
Green Bay Economic Development Coordinator Don Schneider
James Vanden Berg Research and Development, Fort Howard Paper Company
Green Bay, Wisconsin Dr. Ken Stromberg
Mary Vollbrecht U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
DNR Dennis Weisensel
PUBLIC EDUCATION AND PARTICIPATION COMMITTEE DNR
Chair: Bill Elman
Director, Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency
Paula Allen
Citizen
David Birschbach
Green Bay Area Public Schools
Greg Bunker
Audubon Society
Dave Crehore
DNR
William Fisk
Izaak Walton League
Don Halron
Citizen
Carol Holden
DNR (Staff)
Gerrit Knaap
Associate Professor of Economics
University of Illinois

49.

Janet Smith, Dave Hildreth, Victoria Harris, I.to r. I.to r., H. Jack Day, Bruce Robertson, and Rob Cowles

(Front to Back), Eric Stearn, Mary Lou Van Dreel, I.tor., Ilona Ridgeway, Tom Cuene, Joan Mills, Bruce
Joan Mills, Harlan Kiesow, William Thomasma, Robertson, Rebecca Leighton, William Thomasma,
Rebecca Leighton, Peggy McGaffey, Ilona Ridgeway, Victoria Harris, Mary Lou Van Dreel, Frank Granberg,
Frank Granberg, and Dave Nennig. Dave Hildreth, Rob Cowles, Peggy McGaffey, Janet
Smith, Dave Nennig, and J. Jack Day.

50.