Addendum To The Green Bay /Fox River Management Summary Report.


ADDENDUM
TO THE
GREEN BAY/FOX RIVER
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY REPORT
PREPARED BY
WILLIAM RICHARDSON
DOUG ENDICOTT
U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY -DULUTH
LARGE LAKES RESEARCH STATION. GROSSEILE. Ml
DALE PATTERSON
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
THIS ADDENDUM INCORPORATES THE INITIAL TECHNICAL FINDINGS
OF THE GREEN BAY/FOX RIVER MODELING TEAM FOR THE FATE
AND TRANSPORT OF PCBS IN THE WATER, SEDINMENT, AND BIOTA
OF THE FOX RIVER AND LOWER GREEN BAY. WORK CONTINUES
ON THE UPPER SEGMENTS OF THE BAY AND OTHER PARAMETERS

-------

-------
The suite of Fox River/Green Bay models were applied to predict the
long-term trends in PCB concentrations for six remediation scenarios.
While work continues to revise and confirm these predictions, they
provide useful qualitative information as to future trends in PCB
concentrations - and the effectiveness of various remedial actions to
alter those trends.
For the management scenarios, the models were coupled to predict
the sequential transport of PCBs, originating from contaminated river
sediments, downstream through the Fox River into Green Bay.
The lower Fox River model was used to predict PCB tributary loading
to Green Bay. The model was also used to predict PCB water
concentrations for bioaccumulation modeling in the river. However,
the most important prediction is of tributary loading, because this is a
major component of the PCB mass balance in Green Bay. Ultimately,
the effect of these scenario predictions will be expressed as PCB
concentrations in Green Bay fish.
Five of the management scenarios prescribed remedial actions for the
river, or examined the consequences of natural events there. The two
river mass balance models were essential to relate these scenarios to
PCB tributary loading from the Fox River.
The predicted PCB tributary loadings (in kilograms/year) from the Fox
River, for each management scenario, are presented together in a
three-dimensional graph:

-------
Predicted Annual PCB Tributary Loading from
Fox River Management Scenarios
eiip(*nj
I	lOO** reduction :n toed J st ;*t Def'orc Oam
SOS reduction in loads. scow D»*Peie Dam
sediment remediation below OcPere Dan
EB^*a t*dimeritr«rredi«tior)abeweDePeieCam
?2r 2; 1-
-------
Differences in the predicted PCB tributary loading for the management
scenarios can be seen by comparing the cumulative 25 year Fox River
tributary loading:
Cumulative Predicted PCB Tributary Loading for Management Scenarios
3000
o>
"O
a
o
>>
a
3
.O
o
>
a
3
E
3
O
2500
2000
•
mm
B9
rail
1
* /
» ' '
l\ <* '
~in
3 4 6 b
scenario
6d
The potential for migration of the estimated 25,000 - 40,000
kilograms of PCBs from the lower Fox River sediments into Green Bay
is a significant environmental concern. The model prediction for
scenario 1 (no remediation) suggests that only 2% of this in-place
reservoir is transported to Green Bay over 25 years. Even a 1-in-100
year flood (scenario 2). increases transport from this reservoir to only
3%. Work is underway to confirm these results, based upon a model
under development specifically for predicting transport and fate of in-
place pollutants.
-------
" "L
Vr
Projected Year 5 and 10 Walleye Concentrations
in the Lower Fox River and Inner Green Bay
•
m
No Action
100 Year Event
Above Dam Select Remediation
100% Fox R. Load Reduction
Flow Clipping
Year 5-10 Year 10-20
Zone 1 - Lower Fox


Year 5-10 Year 10-20
Zone 2 • Inner Bay
-------
' '	Miles
10	20 : :r 30	J
Kilometers ,;.'y<; if' ".0/-".. /
u0 V • 1 o"£*..2p.^:\ 30\;^ j' ::A

' .• ::'7y;;":.V Escai
MICHIGAN
Martin
Rock
Washington
WISCONSIN/ ;
T^rSc" 'l "0*
4rChambers
r. ¦:•: MenonVneeC,
PeshtJgor.
Marlnett
$
GREEN BAY
-------
1.	What are the loading rates of chemicals from point and
non-point sources including in-place contaminated
¦ sediment?:-	^
2.	Is the Bay a source or sink of contamination to Lake
Michigan?
3.	What is the response in the Bay water, sediment, and biota|
to alternative loading reductions including "No Action"?
Fox River.
sA
-------
- ¦¦ ;,VV	^;: yV;:S-:i-.	•
1 .- ¦ :¦* ;,,'i v/v-:'"^v-;rvu	¦,'M •¦¦ ;;r-
' v'v j. - v'!"'s*;	* ¦ ¦ ¦-' :;j^;t'* ---v''1-;-: ' * i! 1	-'t' =¦' ¦ '¦ . ¦* *" '
i ¦I''!'.7*. -'i j t'iv- *A ;[p'' ' f. \-:M


1. Able to simulate concentrations in water, sediment, and
biota in space and time as a function of loadings and
interaction with solids.


solids as a function of wind and flow.
of nutrient loadings.

CP
-------
Green Bay Modeling Team
Loads
Scott Martin,
Transport
Youngstown State University;
Chloride
Thomas Young, ;

Clarkson University
Eutrophication
Solids
Victor Bierman, Notre Dame/LTI

Joseph DePinto, U. Buffalo;'-
Toxics Fate
Ramish Raghunathan, U. Buffalo

Paul Rodgers, LTI, Ann Arbor;
Food Chain
John Connolly, Manhattan College:
Uncertainty
Dominic DiToro;-

Manhattan Cojlege;
Hydrodynamic
Water Quality
Wilbert Lick,
U. California at Santa Barbara
Joseph Gailani,
U. California at Santa Barbara
Mark Velleux,
AScI, LLRS, Grosse lie
Kirk Freeman;?
CSC, LLRS, Grosse lie
Doug Endicott,
EPA-ORD-ERLD-LLRS, Grosse lie
Water Quality
Jeff Steuer,
Wisconsin DNR/USGS
-------
87°30'

20	30
m Kilometers .v
. 0 . 10 20 30
o4f®« oA
Escanaba
WISCONSIN
"^Men o nv' r»ee vL*
Peshllgo.- T*
l:	Marinette^

^ 1



86° 30*.
ivnc h

44°.^^- v -
30* "jWi.
f^1' Fox River
Water quality sampling
stations for the Green
Bay mass balance study.
I '
",-i
Study
Area
IS
-------
88°
87°30'
87°
86° 30'


£* ^ IS#';
StrMartinJsT*.
ri -/
Rock
"¦*-• -w *~ v' - -t" "l^-vi.*1
¦ .^^.- ;^.cr5V^L V?
Uflehin/i4Arii>f * •>
nmon
WISCONSIN
Chambers Is
•5-%i3 •>*««.	,~- v«* I ¦»»
¦> .*<•	- I <*":
wi	^ / 61*=¦ '-^m-•»
McnonVnetV^sSSs
•c:."-.. Peshtlgo<< • Ofstej*
~.~-_: Marinettc^SsiS
; Oconto
contojT. m

Green
Bay
*¦' V^-4 ^1-
•V or*H^'.r-'":T v.*x>
Fox River
Green Bay
Model Segmentation
-------
Predicted Relationship Between Resuspension
and Flow in the Lower Fox River
100
200
300
Flow (m3/s)
400
.-'A:
The sediment transport
model predicts that as
peak flow increases from
350 to 450 m3/s (30%
increase), resuspension
flux will increase from
14,000 to 36,000 metric
tons (160% increase). The
potential mobilization of
in-place PCBs will
similarly increase with
peak flow.
Based upon this
relationship, peak flow in
the Fox River was limited
to 350 m3/s in Scenario 7.
500

-------
Fox River
Lake Winnebago to DePere Dam
-------
Lower Fox River
Model Segmentation

Green Bay
.. . r - - .„ «r <-* f". —
^	- l - -— '.-v-r ;? i
Tv4m '	^ v/ 5 > ' I: b	Nw- r r
	^ r-* ..... ¦.
i « ryc-\?	• :;;
* f-"-'"-~.fi ;;~h
i u'sfUw-.^UiV' >.rv«i
*-* '
' - ' .	« - ..	~ /*"* . ¦. f .
• '».» V-" iO * 1*1, t	. •,¦'¦ 'i* 1 I f rj- t *« » "
^ •' Corn, ¦¦¦
0 = Water Quality
Monitoring Station
/ = Segment Boundary
There are 19 Segments
in the model:
16 River Segments-
3 Bay Segments (see
inset below)
Little Tail
Poin
Long Taif
Point
Lower
Green Bay
A
ptftchman CreeV.
' • v ; \	v
ivr	• ' *t •
IV -X; \.y i. V I - L- ; • -.w V
DePere Dam
-------
\ ° W; C-20	30
/•'	KHomettro .•
-i- o:- 10	30
Escanaba
MICHIGAN
WW*.
Martin
53TW*
Washington
WISCONSIN
Chambers
^PosmlQOj^
• ": - ^"Meno
:\v:_ Peshtlgo
Marin© tl
Oconto
' f » * ¦
£?aun
sAnofi
S3KE"
Study
Area
AST.
Jjf?
Fox River
-------
Total PCB Concentration at Fox River Mouth
>v Data
— Calibrated
Predictions
Day of Simulation (Day 0=10/10/88)
-------
:• .. ¦: .vr. .	. .	•	. 		.....
¦V	'	•	'if-
\
Green Bay 1989 Total PCB Calibration
Seament - 3
-J
40.0 t
c
35.0-

30.0-
c
o
25.0-
• mm
a
20.0-
>_
*-•
15.0-
c
CD
10.0-
O
c
5.0-
o
0.0+
O
0
— calibrated
model
Particulate Phase
103 206 309 412
Time (days)
515
c
o
¦ mm
CO
Total Dissolved
103 206 309 412 51
Time (days)
p
-------
Food Chain'Model Calibration for Total PCBs
Comparison of average observed (points) and predicted (line)
concentrations
^ , nn Zocplankton
131 1D.0
3
Alewlfe

CL '
Brown Trout
1 2 3 4 5 6
Zone
3 4 3 S

-------
Results and Answers
to
Management Questions
-------
U "V.
Scenarios Selected for Simulation
• Bay Flushing-all loads and BC 0.0
• Base Run-1989 loud and BC constant
1	No Man Made Remediation
2	Fox River Hundred Year Peak Flow Event
3	Above DePere Selected Remediation
4	Above and Below DePere Selected Remediation
5	10 Yr. Hindcast (not run - technical reasons)
6	Step PCB Load Reductions Above DePere
7	Fox River Peak Flow Clipping
8	Fox River Phosphorus Load Step Reductions
PageS

-------
Methodology of Scenario Runs
Fox River Only • No Point Sources or Other Tributaries
Models Run in Cascade Fashion
Boundary Conditions
25 Year Hydrograph
Repeated 1989 Bay Circulation
Bay model sensitivity showed very little difference when circulation patterns
were altered plus or minus 15%
Page 21
-------

25 Year Hydrograph

600 ¦
300
400 '
MVS XD
BO
too
It
'ijjIJI
li



0 1 3 9 4 J 6 7 • * to tl 13 13 l« 13 16 17 II 19 30 21 C Z3 7* a
BKSm Yean
1 — CalibrationPeriod Denred Hydrograph
We used the 25 years hydrograph using real data. We did rot run the model
using multiple hydrographs covering all potential conditions.
Time and money would not allow this to occur.
There will be uncertainty associated with the hydrograph we chose as
opposed to other possibilities
Page 19
-------
25 Year Hydrograph
(100 Year Event)
too r
600
500
400
MVS
300
200
too
Years
100 year event came at the beginning of the simulation. Interpretation of the
results are dependant on where you place the event.
The 100 year event was an actual flow event taken from reaJ data.
-1960
Page 20
-------
PCB Mass Balance Fluxes for 1989
(fluxes in kilograms)
Point
. Sources
,t <1%
Sources of PCB

to lower Fox River	jH-
DePere Dam net
A volatilization
I -A	5 kg
Lower Fox River
point
sources
2.8 kg

dispersion
Upstream ,
transport
p-i175 kg uJ ,
' r'.	V'^Vs'SiL....
i! advection
i ilrlf Uu'ta J \ 2tilAL-lli^LiLl
suspended
-------
1989 Green Bay PCB Mass Balance
(Kilograms)
Sources of PCB
to Green Bay

litf.
Tributaries
5%
Atmospheric
Deposition
4%
Fox River
Net from
Atmosphere
Tributaries
to Atmosphere
from Water

J14

to Lake
rl^'f Michigan

Net from
Sediment
34s\ _
	> ^ Lost to
Sediment
Burial

-------
i/3ean PCB (mg/kg) tr» WaUsye, 1989
Wet Weight, Whole Fish, All Seasons, All Age Classes
Summer U.~
llilsill
Rock Is.^rtr^Wrrr:
MICHIGAN
bahlngtonlau
P06h^9^5!l6X.
' ^ Menomlnei^
Pashtigo*. (
Marinette.
-------
Predicted Average PCB Concentration
Inner Green Bay Walleye (No Action)
Slow: Time to reach action level = 14 years
Fast: Time to reach action level = 7 years
FDA Action Level
10	15
Year from 1989
30
Predicted Fox River
PCB Load Over DePere Dam
(No Action)
200
10	15
Year From 1989
25
30
-------
Fox River/Green Bay Major PCB Sources, Transport and Fate
25 year Cumulative PCB Mass Balance
Upper Fox River
Lower Fox River
Volatilization
50 kg
Green Bay
Volatilization
200 kg
—I Export"
\ 1200 kg
from I "
Lake
Winnebago
Scour
1400 kg
Point source loads are not significant.
Upper Fox	Lower Fox
Initial Storage: 3900 kg	20000 kg
Final Storage: 2500 kg	19400 kg
A Storage: -1400 kg	- 600 kg
Volatilization
2025 kg
Atmospheric
Deposition
225 kg
Export
1750 kg
Scour
600 kg
Green Bay
15000 kg
6800 kg
- 8200 kg
Burial
7150 kg
Export
1000 kg
to
Lake
Michigan
USEPALLRSORO ERL-0
Final PCB Mass
In Storage
-------
Projected Year 25 PCB
Concentrations in Walleye
? 0.2
¦	No Action
100 Year Event	°ou
^ Above Dam Seclected
Remediation
a 100% Fox R. Load Reduction
¦	Flow Clipping
Constant
Boundary
l£l
River
Inner Mid Bay Mid Bay Outer Bay
Bay West	East
No Action	Ul
100 Year Event	Bou
Above Dam Seclected
Remediation
100% Fox R.Load Reduction
Flow Clipping
Declining
Boundary
River Inner Mid Bay Mid Bay Outer Bay
Bay West	East
-------