[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ DIct 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ' 7~~~ - w~~~ J3~~~~~~~ 1~~~~~~~~ 980 BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY MASTER PLAN U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOU1H HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 Prepared for the City of Green Bay, Park and Recreation Department by: John P. Jacobs, Project Manager Joseph A. Brue Amy A. Badeau Graphics and Drawings by: John P. Jacobs Base Map Drawn by: Joseph A. Brue The preparation of this publication was made possible with funds from the State of Wisconsin, Department of Administration, Office of State Planning and Energy and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 as amended, administrated by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration. July 1980 Property of CSC LibraZ7 FOREWORD It has been the goals of this master plan to first of all-collect and assimilate base line data on the physical-ecological site and the human element; to make sound management alternatives and proposals based on this data; and to make general and specific recommendations which will help the Sanctuary function more efficiently and professionally by considering the human needs and the restrictions inherent in the physical site and allocating those uses to the areas that suit them the most. J.P.J. 1 ~~~~~~~~~ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people have contributed their professional talents to I ~ ~this Master Plan. This effort is a tribute to the community partici- pation that went into this plan. We would also like to acknowledge people who have made contributions, but who we may have overlooked in the list below. Person Affiliation Contribution 1 ~~~Dave Ranke Green Bay Metropolitan Water Analysis Sewerage District 3 ~~~Joe Nowak Green Say Health Department Water Analysis Dorothy Heinrich University of Wisconsin, Literature Green Bay-Special Collections Donald VanBeckum Model Building Instructor Scale Model Northeast Wisconsin Technical Inst. I ~ ~~Brian Houle Northeast Wisconsin Technical Scale Model Institute - student 1 ~~~Kurt Badeau Boy Scouts of America Visitor Count Evelyn & George "Friends of the Bay Beach Visitor Count 3 ~~Stumpf Wildlife Sanctuary" Organization Hank Bredael President - "Friends of the Bay Consultation 3 ~~~~~~~~Beach WildlifeSacur" Donald Quigley Neville Public Museum Geological & Historical Information Sandy Lubow University of Wisconsin - Computer Programming Green Bay I ~~Dr. Richard Steihl Professor - University of Assistance with small Wisconsin-Green Bay mammal survey I ~~Carol Cutshall Bay-Lake Regional Planning Consultation Commission Dave Such Bay-Lake Regional Planning Consultation Commission Boni Thor University of Wisconsin - Sampling Equipment Green Bay, Tech Unit Dr. James Wlersma Professor - University of Consultation Wisconsin-Green Bay Samuel Halloin Mayor - Green Bay Iiii Entire Staff of the City of Green Bay - Park, Recreation and Forestry3 Department, especial ly: Chet Miller Director Administration3 Janelle Mehan Account Clerk Typing manuscript, Bookkeeping, monthly WCMP reportsI Edith Unsin Office Manager/Accountant Accounting AdministrationI Jay Eklund Administrative Clerk Accounting, purchasing, payroll3 Ken Holman Assistant Forester Management Consultation Robert Mongin Landscape Architect MappingU Jim Robertson Assistant Architect Mapping Dale Preston City-County Planning, Planning Consultations Senior Planner Adrienne Euclide City-County Planning Office Graphic AdviceI Mike Weiner, City of Green Say Automatic Traffic Dave Grunwald, and Engineering Department CountersI Jack Hodek City Purchasing Departmen t Equipment Purchases3 City of Green Bay Printing & Reproduction Printing Department3 Gerold McFarlane Wisconsin Department of Mapping Transportationg The entire staff of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, especially: Ty Baumann Sanctuary Manager Management Consultation,3 Project Consultation and Review Robin Hawley Assistant Manager Soil Surveys, CanadaI Goose Data Mary Jacobs Naturalist Breeding and Migrating3 Bird Studies Randy Korb WCMP-Project Aide Wildlife Reports3 Michael McFarlane Previous WCMP Project Manager at Sanctuary3 iv Mark Martell Previous WCMP Project Aide at Sanctuary David Brinker Dames & Moore Environmental Canada Goose Data Consultants Phillip Lapinski Wisconsin Department of Fish Shocking Natural Resources Dr. Ronald Stieglitz Professors - University of Soil Cores and Geology & Dr. Thomas Mcintosh Wisconsin, Green Bay Dave VanLannen Surplice and Associates New Education Nature Center Planning Dr. Joseph Moran Professor, University of Geology Wisconsin, Green Bay Dr. Keith White Professors, University of Vegetation Consultation & Dr. John Reed Wisconsin, Green Bay Joel Trick and University of Wisconsin, Vegetation Verification Gary Fewless Green Bay, Herbarium Austin Straubel Airport Weather Service Climate and Weather Data Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary Advisory Committee James Kreiter Neville Public Museum Graphic Assistance Eileen Gillis Typing Manuscript I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TABLE OF CONTENTS3 INTRODUCTION I PHYS ICAL- ECOLOG ICAL ASPECTS 4 Backg round 4 Weather and Climate 4 Recent Geological History of Area 5 i Soils 8 Water 9 Water Quality 9 I Vegetation at~ the Wildlife Sanctuary 14 Tension Zone 18 Vegetation Cover Types 19I Undisturbed Areas 21 Animals 27 Microscopic Organisms and Other Invertebrates 27 Insects 27 Fish 27 Amphibians and Reptiles 28 Birds 30I Waterfowl 30 Management of Geese 31 Management of Other Waterfowl 33 Game Birds 33 Mammals 34 Deer 35 Predator Control 36I Pests 37 Introducing New Species 383 THE HUMAN ELEMENT 39 History 39 The Development of the Sanctuary 41 Administration 441 Goals 44 Personnel 44 Funding 47I Visitor Usage 48 Survey Analysis 48 On Site Survey Analysis 48I Mailout Survey Analysis 50 Outdoor Education and Community Programs 53 Recreation 543 MANAGEMENT AREAS 58 I nt roducti!on 58 Area A 58 Nature Center Building 58 Caged Animal Complex 59 Rehabilitation of Sick, Injured or 60 Orphaned Animals Parking 61 Recreation 623 vi 3 ~~~~~Area B 62 Area C 64 Tral Is 64 Refuge or Restricted Areas 64 Buffer Zone Along 1-43 65 Field Area Along Danz Avenue 65 Area D 65 I ~ ~~~~~Revegetation of Land-fill Site 65 Mulching Area 65 Forested and Marsh Area 65 Trails 66 Conclusion 66 Summary of General Recommendations for 66 3 ~~~~~~Management Area APPENDICIES 69 A. Climatology of Green Bay Area 69 I ~ ~~~~B. Soil Analysis 70 C. Water Studies of Sanctuary Lagoon Systems 71 D. Vascular Plants of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary 82 I ~ ~~~~D,. Comparison of the Forest at the Sanctuary to 90 Typical Southern Lowland Forest E. Animals of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary 92 El, Fish Surveys of Sanctuary 96 F. Small Mammal Survey, Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary - 98 Fall, 1979 G. Birds of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary 101 IH. Duck Population Studies at Bay Beach Wildlife 118 Sanctuary 1. Background Information on the Canada Geese at 121 I ~ ~~~~Wildlife Sanctuary J. "Friends of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary" 129 Organ izat ion K. Trails of the Bay Reach Wildlife Sanctuary 130 L. Sanctuary Education Programs 132 M. Visitor Counts for 1979-80 at the Bay Beach 133 Wildlife Sanctuary I ~ ~~~~N. An Example of the Questionnaire Mailed to a Random 138 Sample of Brown County Residents 0. An Example of the Questionnaire Used On Site 143 3 ~~~~~at the Sanctuary to Inventory User Preferences P. Survey Results 145 Q. Comparison of Facilities at the Bay Beach Wildlife 157 Sanctuary to Several Other Nature Centers R. Plans for Future Expansion at Bay Beach Wildlife 160 Sanctuary 3 ~~~~~S. Coastal Management Project Mapping 165 H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~vii SOURCES 167 MAPS 1. Location of Wildlife Sanctuary 2 2. Base Map for Wildlife Sanctuary 3 3. Soil (not complete at time of printing, will be added later) 4. Historical Sites on Green Bay 1669-1689 40 5. Vegetation Cover Types 23 6. Location of Water Samples Taken at Wildlife Sanctuary 72 7. Management Areas at Wildlife Sanctuary 67 8. Trap Areas for Small Mammal Study 99 9. Bird Census Areas and Routes for Breeding Bird Study 103 10. Passive Recreation Areas at Wildlife Sanctuary 56 11. Considered Disposal Sites 63 12. Shorelines of Green Bay 7 13. Disturbed-Undisturbed Areas on Sanctuary 25 14. Location of Tension Zone 18 I - - - I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l l l l l l The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary is adjacent to Bay Beach Amusement Park and is located in the north-eastern part of the City of Green Bay, Brown County, Wisconsin (440 32' Lat. - 0870 58' Long., Congressional Township T24N-R21E). The Sanctuary is bordered on the west by Irwin I ~ ~~Avenue, on the north by County Trunk A (Marsch Road-East Shore Drive) and on the south and east by the Interstate 43 right of way. (-Mlaps I 2) The Sanctuary has a physical connection to the coastal area of Green Bay through the Bay Beach Amusement Park (both the Sanctuary and the Amusement Park are owned by the City of Green Bay and are managed through the City's Park and Recreation Department) which has U ~ ~~approximately 1,800 feet of public access shoreline along the bay of Green Bay. The Sanctuary also has a narrow tract of land ex- tending to the Bay. A canal did connect the lagoons directly with I ~ ~~the Bay until 1969. During that year the canal was filled to prevent the drastic water level fluctuation caused by the seiche activity of the Bay. I ~~~The Say Beach Wildlife Sanctuary currently consists of approximately 57 acres of ponds and 350 acres of a mixture of wet-low woodlands, landscaped lawn-park, cattail marsh and grass field succession. Most I ~~~of1 the animals native to Northeastern Wisconsin can be found at the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary primarily serves as a waterfowl refuge, mainly for Canada Geese, a local population of about 700; Mallard ducks, summer population about 250 and winter population 2,300; Black ducks, summer population about 20 and winter approximately 400; and many other species of waterfowl in fewer numbers. I ~ ~~he area also serves as an Outdoor Education and multiple-use passive recreation site year-round. No admission fee is charged. Other activities include: waterfowl feeding, viewing native animals both caged and free, hiking, biking, cross-country skiing, fishing for young people under 16 years of age, photography, picnicking and bird watching. Over 230,000 people visited the Sanctuary during 1979. The Sanctuary is a very popular area for local residents and visitors have come from all over the country 3 ~~~and world. Although no hunting is allowed in the Sanctuary, the ducks and geese fly 3 ~~~over much of the Lower Say and thereby provide sport for many hunters. The Sanctuary generates sufficient revenue through corn and concession sales to help pay for its expenses. I MAP 1 I I Bay y of Green Bay City of Green Bay I I I I i?1 BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY I I I ~~~~~~~~I'- S t < 4 ~~~~WisconsinI LOCATION OF WILDLIFE SANCTUARY I - I l H I I 2 l I I I I I Map 2 I Base Map for Wildlife Sanctuary I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I 000000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0000) 0 00 10031040000 Qz) �) �3 �4 (D �D ((o i~wCOMPAf.5 7-YP rRAII A F.IWES I" *zoo' TO 8E CouRT (AFF, OX.) -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'~~~~~......... ~.. ... .........54T J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L I:~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L I * L- II CD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x . ..... N. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~F'FD/OAfl 81.84" / y I *. ------ 7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~M EM/5510A1 IJA E -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1-k~71' Sm~o14 AI 10_ rP'OA.M/ 0 O K ~ .~- I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~~~~~PHYSICAL -ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS I I I I I I I I I I I PHYSICAL-ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS Backg round The natural physical aspects of an area including; geology, land forms, topography,, soil types, amount of water available, location on continent, local climate and weather, etc., are all important factors in determining what types of plant and animal life are present or can live in that area. It also determines what type of human uses are most appropriate for that area. These factors comprise the foundation the planner has to work with an are an important part of the planning process. Weather and Climate 3 ~~~The area's climate is modified by surrounding topography and large bodies of water. Predominantly the modification results from the water of Green Bay and Lake Michigan and to some extent Lake Superior and the slightly higher terrain north, south, and west of the Summer temperatures are temperate with few days of 900 F or above (normally seven) and a rather narrow average daily temperature range. Humidity is fairly high. The average yearly precipitation, including snow values expressed as rain, is 28.38 inches. Most of the annual preci- I ~ ~~pitation (60%) falls within_,the growing season, (May-September) as thundershowers. Summers are I ~ ~~relatively short averaging a 148 frost-free day period each year (May 7 - October 2). Skies are generally cloudy to partly cloudy, probably due to the lrebodies of water nearby. Winters are long with a fairly large number of days of 00 F or below V.> (normally 30 days). ~-.~ U ~~~Seasonal snowfall ->)~*"; is moderate (44.8 \,4 inches) for this - latitude. Appendix A contains more complete infor- mation on normal weather conditions for the Green Bay area. 4 Recent Geologic History of the Area Many of the topographic features and soil conditions of Wisconsin are a direct result of its glacial history. The northern and eastern parts of the state have been covered by various glacial stages that movedU down from the north. There have been at least three main substages of glaciation. The earliest substage is believed to have occurred over 30,000 years ago. The area now the Wildlife Sanctuary, has beenI affected by glacial lake forces. This area has been compressed by ice, flooded, and received glacial lake deposits, several times. The last major movement of ice (glacier) appeared to have occurred about 9,000 - 10,000 years ago. Since the last ice movement the water level of Green Bay has fluctuated drastically several times. Between 4,000 and 9,000 years ago the water level was so low (far below 580 feet mean sea level-MSL, which is the present approximation of the level of the Bay)I that most of the area of what is now the bay of Green Bay was dry and had probably gone through several stages of plant succession to a climax forest. About 3,000 - 4,000 years ago, the water level rose toI approximately 600 - 605 feet MSL, about 25 feet above the present level of the Bay. The shoreline was one-half to one mile south of its present position (See Map 12). The Sanctuary was under 25 feet of water.3 The water level gradually dropped until it reached a level about 596 feet MSL. The Sanctuary was still under about 15 feet of water. The water level remained at this level for a long time until the channelsI emptying Lake Michigan-Green Bay opened up. Dry land has been exposed at the Sanctuary site for only about the last3 1,500 years. Since this area is in the present flood plain of the Say, it has been temporarily flooded many times in its recent history. The last flood occurred in 1973, water was 28 inches high inside the present nature center building. A dike was recently constructed along the south- east shore of Green Bay to prevent flooding. Several small, barely noticeable beach ridges run east-west through the Sanctuary but because of constant flooding, which help level the ridges, and lack of forceful wave and wind action, no definite ridges have been formed (like the ridges along Lake Michigan at Woodland Dunes orI Point Beach). The present site is nearly level, 0 - 2% slope. Natural relief was originally less than three feet. Small mounds two or three feet high have been constructed of dredge material when the lagoons were dry. The Danz Avenue landfill has a hill approximately 20 feet above the surrounding land surface. Wind, rain, and ice continue to alter the land surface, but man's activities are the most obvious forces shaping the land surface today.3 The table on the following page summarizes the recent geological history and shows different theoretic habitats believed to have been at the Sanctuary during each period. 5 SUMMARY OF RECENT GEOLOGICAL HISTORY IN THE GREEN BAY AREA Approximate Age Level of Lake Michigan Habitat at Sanctuary Glacial Periods Ancestral Lakes in years before & Green Bay above MSL (Hypothetical) present Paull Hough No Green Bay and Sedge meadow, cattail, Glaciers Lake Michigan Present 580 Southern Lowland Forest Algoma 2000-3000 590-595 596 Under 15 ft. of water Nipissing 3000-4000 600-605 605 Under 25 ft. of water Chippewa 4oo000-9000 <580 230 Various stages of plant succession to Climax Forest Third glacial Algonquin 9000-10,000 600-605 605 Under 20 ft-40 ft of period water, and for most Toleston 10,000-11,000 600-605 Lake periods of time Greatlakean Lake Chicago Oshkosh hundreds of feet of ice. Calumet 1i 11,000-11,800 620 640 Two Creeks Bowmanville 11,800-12,500 <580 580 Black Spruce Boreal Forest - Cool, moist climate Second glacial Calumet I 12,500-13,000 620 Buried under period hundreds of feet Woodfordian Gleenwood 13,000-14,000 635-640 640 of ice most of (Port Huron) Lake Chicago Lake time Oshkosh First glacial period (Cary) 30,000 Buried under glacier Changes were gradual and took hundreds of years to occur, not in a simple distinct period. Water levels are approximate and may have varied between Lake Michigan and Green Bay. 4933~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~MAP 12 SHORELINES OF GREEN BAY 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PRESENT~~~~~~9 000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I- SHORELINE OF GREEN BAY oil Cow,~~~~ so Bay Beach Park~~~~~~~ ~~~SHRLNOFGENBAY BEA CHus ~~~~~~~~~WIDIESNTUARYs 493~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)/7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~u i4~: ~~ 4 Coun~~~~~y iomp . -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7 54~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~ ch~~~~~~ Tan 3,000 YEARS AGO navs ~~-' _____ p->,f>'1 -~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 - ---- m - --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-3- Soils The soil studies done at the Sanctuary GENERALIZED show changes in water levels. Being SOIL PROFILE located near the mouth of the Fox River, the Sanctuary area was part of the river delta. Sediments deposited are well sorted and layered, indicating fluct- uations in water levels. Organic peat oZ layers are common between mineral layers which indicates former marsh type environments. Clay layers are Az common to indicate low energy deposi- A3 tion environments. Water levels in the lagoons are maintained by clay 81 m " pans forming perched water tables ' above the Green Bay lake level. Sands, silts and clays compose the fertile soil in which the3 . rich vegetation of the Southern Lowland Wet Forest is evolving. b ? In general the soils of the '6,, ~ Sanctuary are young and developing with the vegetation. Most of these o ~ ' ' soils are wet or saturated year- round and are limited in use. A major part of the undisturbed land is sandy with a high organic matter content in the "A" horizon. Another lesser portion is silty clay which is developed over clay till. Dredging spoils from the lagoons form some relief on the site and enable more diversity of vegetation to be established. Because they generally are dryer and have good internal drainage they support more upland type species of trees and shrubs. The soil study shows that a large portion of the Sanctuary has been disturbed by human activity. Much of the original soil has been buried by "chip-dumps" and land fill. The "chip dumps" are dry during the summer and support only hardy plant species. The soil will remain poor in these areas until the chips decompose (10 - 50 years) or additional soil is added. The landfills have been capped with clay and given time will eventually form a soil which will sustain more diverse vegetation. Intense manage- ment of these mounds to prevent erosion is necessary. Once a plant cover is established, a soil will develop along with the plant succession. 8 Water The Sanctuary has about 59 surface areas of ponds and lagoons, with an average depth of less than 5 feet. A maximum depth of 15 feet is in the main feeding lagoon which was redredged during the winter of 1972. The source of water supply is annual precipitation, melting snow, run off, and two wells - one pumps water into the main feeding lagoon, the other into the lagoon behind the Manager's residence. Together both wells pump approximately 50 gallons of water per minute. No springs are known of in this area. The lagoon water level can be lowered by a lock system which allows water to flow out of the Sanctuary into a channel draining into the Bay. A serious water quality problem exists at the Wildlife Sanctuary. Water Quality The water quality has been a major problem for the Sanctuary for many years. The problem became so great in the main feeding lagoon in the late 1960's, that this lagoon had to be redredged in 1972. The main causes of the poor water quality are: waterfowl excrement, little flushing action, lack of a clean water source, bottom feeding fish such 9 3 ~~~as carp and bullheads which stir up bottom sediments, bank erosion, and high algal blooms. During 1979 and 1980 water samples were taken at five sites on the Sanctuary. They were taken as close as possible to sites of previous sampling so results from this study could be compared to those taken in the past. The data is summarized in Appendix C, Tables I - 5. The I ~ ~~data collected during this study is also compared to samples taken prev- iously at the Sanctuary and to water samples taken off the east shore of Green Bay just north of the Sanctuary (Appendix C, Table 6). Additional water studies done for this master plan include: analysis of water for fecal coliform, water level fluctuations, and a complete depth profile map for all lagoons. The water level records and fecal coliform analysis can be found in Appendix C. The depth profile maps are on file at the Sac t ur Nature Center. Care must be taken not to over-interpret the results of the water sample studies. It was felt that comparing the range of analysis results was the most appropriate method since there were some biases: sample sizes were not equal for all studies; time of year varied greatly, most of 1970 and 1971-1973 samples were taken during the summer, samples for 1976 were taken I ~ ~~in early fall and in 1979-1980 only one sample was taken during early summer; not all samples were analyzed for the same parameters. Weather conditions also greatly affect water quality at the Sanctuary. A hot dry sume will cause very poor water quality for the shallow lagoons. However, it appears that some basic generalizations can be made: 1) The overall quality of water in the lagoons generally has not changed significantly in the last seven years. A comparison of results from the study done in 1979-80 to the results from the study done in 1973 for the same time of year, at the same site shows that for: tot-al phosphate, orthophosphate, pH, dissolved oygen, total nitrogen, and specific conductance, no significant I ~ ~~~~change has occurred. 2) The feeding lagoon continues to be more polluted than the other lagoons. Significant differences were found in total phosphate, orthophosphate, pH, and dissolved oxygen. The high levels of phosphate are a result of the heavy waterfowl use the feeding lagoon receives. I ~~~To arrest the main causes of poor water quality, the main management alternatives which have been proposed are: 1) Reduce the number of waterfowl using the Sanctuary I ~ ~~~2) Increase inlet of clean water 3) Remove rough fish: replant with minnows and game fish 4) Redredge lagoons 5) Stabilize lagoon banks 6) Aerate water 7) Nutrient inactivation through chemical precipitation 3 ~~~~8) Circulation - nutrient assimilation system 10 Alternative I - Reduce the number of waterfowl using the Sanctuary. A study done in the early 1970's at the Sanctuary by Janet Ladowski showed high concentrations of waterfowl (approximately 3,000) on a small body of water, the main feeding lagoon, can result in a rapid degradation of water quality. Nutrient levels in the main feeding lagoonI increased significantly within one year following redredging due to the high waterfowl population. Other studies indicate this also. The close relationship between the water quality and waterfowl population makes itI necessary to mention this topic here. However, waterfowl management will be discussed in a later section. Alternative 2 - Increase the inlet of fresh water. I The sources of water for the lagoons are meling snow, run off, rain, and two wells which together pump approximately 50 gallons of water per minute. These sources barely replace the water lost by evaporation and seepage.U An additional deeper well with larger diameter pipe has been proposed as the most feasible method of increasing clean water inlet. If enough additional clean water is added, the outlet lock could be opened more often, thereby increasing the flushing action in the lagoon system. AtI the present time, the lock is rarely opened, usually only after heavy rains. Restrictions on wells may make it difficult to obtain permits for this use. The waters of Green Bay are cleaning up and presently are probably cleaner than the Sanctuary lagoons (comparison with more recent samples taken from the Bay are needed). The Bay might be a suitable source for "clean" water except that it is high in PCBs and some other chemical pollutants. Alternative 3 - Remove rough fish such as carp and bullheads and re-plant with gamefish and minnows. Carp and bullheads stir up bottom sediments, clouding the water. Ridding the lagoons of these fish should increase water clarity and plant growth and keep sediments on bottom. The new fish poisons are reported to be specific for gill-breathers and quickly biodegradable. A 3.0 ppm ofU Rotenone treatment of Lily Lake, Brown County was very successful and has greatly improved water quality (personal communications with Phil Lapinski, DNR Fish Manager). The feeding lagoon might provide a possible test siteI for chemical treatment. Cost is estimated at about $1,500 for treatment of the feeding lagoon. The major disadvantage of chemical treatment would be the loss of the invertebrate population which would require two years to recover. Netting, electric shocking, or sectioning off parts of lagoons, then pumping them partially dry and netting out fi'sh are all possible methodsI to remove rough fish. These methods would require more labor and might not remove all the rough fish. The lagoons would then be restocked with minnows, perch and large gamefish after rough fish have been removed. Alternative 4 - Redredge the lagoons. The main feeding lagoon was redredged in the winter of 1971-72 at a cost of $31,000. This lagoon had deteriorated greatly and was believed to beI the cause of the death of 400 ducks and geese in 1969. The cost of dredging the original lagoons was approximately $500,000 in 1938. It would probably cost approximately $5 million to redredge all the lagoons today. Redredging 11 the lagoons is a costly and time consuming alternative. And in the case I ~ ~~of the feeding lagoon, it appears to be only a temporary solution. A water chemistry study done during 1970-1973 by Janet Ladowski showed that by one year after dredging the conditions in the feeding lagoon had again deteriorated significantly in amounts of phosphate and chlorophyll 'a', due to the heavy use by waterfowl on that lagoon. Redredging the feeding lagoon in 1972 was necessary then because conditions were so bad it was the 3 ~~~best alternative. Alternative 5 - Stabilize lagoon banks. The soil along the edges of the lagoons is easily eroded and the banks I ~ ~~break down quickly, filling in the lagoons. Some bank stabilization has been done by placing broken concrete (rip-rap) from sidewalks, streets, etc., along some of the banks. Asphalt has not been used because of possible pollution to lagoons. Gravel or crushed rock could be dumped along the lagoon banks for bank stabilization, but the expense of gravel has pre- vented its use. U ~~~Alternative 6 -Aerate Water The feeding lagoon has two aerators and two circulation pumps. These devices are kept running 24~ hours a day year-round. They keep ice from I ~ ~~forming on part of the feeding lagoon in winter and circulate water in summer. Studies done in 1971-73 (Ladowski) and the studies done for this master plan show that the aerators are not able to effectively aerate the I ~ ~~water. The aerators might be stirring up bottom sediments keeping them from settling out. This might detract from the water quality or it may help the small flushing action of the outlet remove some of the nutrients. Studies might be done on the feeding lagoon to determine if the aerators are helping or hurting the water quality during the summer months. New, large, more effective aerators might do a significantly better job 3 ~~~aerating the water. Alternative 7 - Nutrient inactivation through chemical precipitation (Peterson, 1973) 3 ~~~Chemicals are added to the water which react with the nutrients and deposit them on the bottom of the lake. This may be a suitable short term method to control the eutrophication of the feeding lagoon but needs more 3 ~~~investigation. Alternative 8 - Circulation - nutrient assimilation system (Peterson, 1974) This alternative would require the movement of water, possible by pumping, I ~ ~~from the feeding lagoon through the other lagoons where nutrients could be utilized by emergent and submergent vegetation. The periodic harvesting of aquatic plants would provide a means of removing some of the nutrients from the system. Just circulating the water from the feeding lagoon into the other lagoons would probably help water quality for the feeding lagoon but at the same time would decrease water quality in the other lagoons. A circulation system which moved the water too rapidly would increase bank eros ion. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~12 Recommendations The poor water quality is a very serious problem for the Sanctuary and will require action in the very near future. The following recommendations are suggested: I) Reduce winter duck population to a maximum of 1,000 and a maximum goose population of 700. Total winter waterfowl population shouldU not exceed 1,700. Canada geese have priority. Waterfowl management will be discussed in a later section. 2) Eliminate the carp and bullhead fish populations from Sanctuary lagoons. 3) Increase fresh water inlet, hopefully creating some kind ofI flushing action. A larger pump and deeper well seems to be the best alternative but may not be feasible because of strict well regulations.I 4) Continue bank stabilization using waste concrete, but break up concrete into various size pieces, which provides better erosion protection and makes it easier for the ducks to climb onto shore. 5) Pursue circulation - nutrient assimilation system or similar alternatives as a method to remove nutrients from the lagoons.I 6) Monitor the water quality. Continue water chemistry analysis of lagoons similar to those done for this report. Samples shouldI be taken in February, April, June, August and late September. 13~~~~~~~ 3 ~~~Vegetation at the Wildlife Sanctuary An inherent part of a practical management master-plan for the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary must be an accurate scientific evaluation of the past, present, and future vegetative development on the site. As the Great Lakes coastal zone, the Sanctuary has traditionally been an area of great importance and activity. Severe disturbance by man in the recent past I ~ ~~on the Sanctuary site and then subsequent attempts to manage for floral rehabilitation have made the Sanctuary a living laboratory exemplifying the successional intricacies of plant communities. Present and future U ~ ~~scientific analysis of Sanctuary vegetation will surely lead to a great deal of knowledge about coastal reclamation in general. A look at past and present developments in floral patterns will allow this master-plan to suggest sound recommendations for future habitat preservation and enrichment. In the past, most of Sanctuary acreage has undergone many changes. As I ~ ~~stated earlier, most of the Sanctuary land has historically been directly affected by its proximity to both the Fox River and the Bay of Green Bay. River delta activity as well as Bay water level fluctuations have had major impacts on Sanctuary soils and, in turn, plant development. As early as the 1700's exploring Jesuit missionaries recorded extensive forested areas in the general Green Bay area. Along with mammoth White Pines (Pinus strobus) they discovered extensive White Cedar (Thuja I ~ ~~accidentalis) swamps and Tamarac (Larix lavicina) bogs as noted features of the area. Along the Bay's shores, particularly on the west shore, extensive growths of Wild Rice (Zizania aquatica) grew. Few openings I ~ ~~in the forest were recorded for the area. However, it must be cautioned that forest openings were often unmentioned in timber oriented surveyor's journals. I. P. Lapham, who was the first to attempt a complete listing of Wisconsin's vegetation, recorded, in 1846, much timbered land with few openings in the general vicinity. By this time, however, activities of the areas more agriculturally oriented native Americans like the Winnebagos, the Potawatamis and the Menominees, might have developed large I ~ ~~fire cleared and maintained open areas. Also, Bay water level inundations and recessions probably would have developed and maintained large areas of northern sedge-meadow and cattail marsh then just as they do on the I ~ ~~west side of Green Bay now. William Finley, in 1951, published a rather specific vegetation cover-type map of the Green Bay area as it was in 1834-1847. He used quite detailed information found in the original land survey records. According to Finley's findings, the Sanctuary properties were entirely contained in an extensive open area termed "wet prairie". This extended from the east shore of the Fox River delta to a point slightly northeast of present Sanctuary land holdings. John T. Curtis' I ~ ~~famous map of the major plant communities of Wisconsin ca. 1840 shows the entire area classified as conifer-hardwood forest. So, which records were accurate? Probably all of them were. Further perusal of historical I ~ ~~literature as well as a series of personal consultations with faculty and graduate student staff members of the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, Science/Botany Department, has yielded the following evaluation of 3 ~~~Sanctuary vegetative history for the 1800's. Until the early 1900's, the 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~14 Sanctuary area was indeed subject to major bay water level fluctuations which created a dynamic spectrum of northern sedge-meadow, cattail marsh and in areas subject to fires wet prairie in the topographically lowest areas. Sprinklings of mixed conifer-northern hardwoods with White Pine, White Cedar, American Elm, Black Ash, Green Ash, and Silver Maple likely occupied higher areas such as old beach ridges. White Cedar swamps, Tamarac bogs and Alder thickets might have occurred in some Sanctuary areas although no evidence of these communities can be found in either the most recent soil or vegetation sampling. Recent soil core samples do indeed reveal soil types which are congruent with and a clear record of both wet prairie and northern sedge-meadow communities. Also, very fibristic organic materials of the A horizons of many core samples positively identify numerous areas of cattail (Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia) marsh in both the recent and distant Sanctuary past. So, a community composed of genera from the Compositae (asters and goldenrod), Cyperaceae (sedges), Gramineae (grasses), Rosaceae (cinquefoils) and Labiatae (mints) families most likely dominated the Sanctuary site prior to 1900. Major dominants of this sedge-meadow community were Carex stricta and other sedges, Calamagrostis canadensis, Poa palustris, Scirpus atrovirens and Glyceria canadensis. The most prevalent ground layer species were Aster simplex, Eupatorium maculatum, Iris shrevei, Campanula aparinoides, and Lycopus unifloras. The most closely related communities, according to Curtis, are southern sedge-meadow, wet prairie, shrub-carr, fen and Alder thicket. Wet prairie dominants would have been Calamagrostis canadensis, Spartina pectinata, Andropogon gerardi, and Muhlenbergia racemosa. Any species of the above northern sedge-meadow related communities may have been a minor contributor to recent past Sanctuary flora. In the early 1900's, local industries, like the paper-making industry, failing to see the value of wetland marsh or sedge meadow, which have since been proven to be some of nature's most productive ecosystems, began using the area as a waste disposal site. Such wastes as wood chips, sawdust, and fly-ash were dumped over acres of wetland and then "capped" with "clean fill" materials like broken concrete, dismantled equipment, and other refuse of various forms. Such dumping persisted for fifty years. Waste often reached ten to twenty feet in depth completely altering the natural topography. Needless to say, this human activity totally devestated the original flora of the Wildlife Sanctuary area. Luckily, in the early 1930's a few Green Bay area citizens who were appalled at the rapid des- truction of local native wetland habitat founded the Sanctuary as a refuge. (See III Human Element in this Document)l Lagoon systems were exca- vated later in the 1900's and eventually the City of Green Bay Parks and Recreation Department took permanent ownership of Sanctuary properties. In the meantime, the once lush vegetation of the past had become a waste- land. Weedy species only suited to pioneering severely disturbed sites invaded just those areas on which some soil development had remained. The acidity of many chip-dump areas prevented any revegetation in those areas for many years. Unnatural leachates entered the runoff and the ground 15 I 3 ~~~water systems and destroyed even more of the vegetation that once had been abundant. Also, residential deve~Iopment along the bay shore cut off the former rapport of marsh with open, bay waters. Diversity was at an all time low. Slowly, after decades, pioneer species like ragweeds, goldenrods, nettles, milkweeks, Quackgrass, Box Elder, and Cottonwood invaded. I ~~~Little planned rehabilitation of the Wildlife Sanctuary areas vegetation took place between 1930 and 1970. At times, a few individuals would donate their own time and money and make some isolated plantings, mostly of exotic species or horticultural varieties. Thus, there was a vague attempt to restore diversity. However, it wasn't until the Green Bay Parks and Recreation Department hired, in 1971, a degreed full-time Manager in residence that some professional management began to be involved I ~ ~~in rehabilitating the Wildlife Sanctuary. Although not a botanist, the manager was a wildlife biologist who recognized the need for overall plant diversity and who knew how to manage for specific habitat requirements that I ~ ~~were needed by the flock of Giant Canada Geese and other various faunal elements. With the increase of the waterfowl flock, trained naturalist staffing, and public awareness of the areas ecological importance, vege- tainmanagement began to be a familiar concept at the Sanctuary. Since the arrival of professional vegetation management in the mid to late 1970's until now, the floristic composition of the Sanctuary began to be studied, sampled and manipulated. Naturalist staff, well-versed in Botany as it is related to wildlife ecology, realized that with alot of careful professional guidance the Sanctuary could become an extremely I ~ ~~diverse and valuable natural area once again. Student projects controlling such aggressive pests as Great Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) and European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) were begun in cooperation with the University 3 ~~~of Wisconsin Science and Environmental Change Department faculty. Grazing and loafing areas for geese and goslings are presently being 3 ~ ~~managed for. Shelterbelts near highways or roads are being considered as are plantings along perimeter fencing. All such measures will benefit many game and nongame species. Thus, painstakingly plant diversity and natural succession is being reestablished. As part of the Sanctuary's OutoorEducation Program for youngsters of the Green Bay area schools, acreage for instruction about forest, grassland, and marsh ecology is being maintained. Evaluation of current floristic composition at the Sanctuary has come mainly through the persistence of the interested and involved Naturalist staff. The most recent analysis of plant life have been much more I ~~~organized and based on proven scientific methodology (Curtis point- quarter sampling method). As yet, not enough of this sampling has been completed to represent publishable data. But enough sampling and research I ~ ~~has been done to create a good picture of~ the Sanctuary's current community structure and vegetative trends. Due to past disturbances, many communities occur in the seral stage. Soil is slow to develop even under good conditions and many areas of the Sanctuary are still able to support only minimal vegetation cover. (See Appendix D for a complete listing of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species) 16 A woody dominant which was introduced and how is vigorously invading isU European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). It is taking over nearly all of the wet-mesic areas. This shrub is considered a real threat to future diversity and therefore it is presently being managed for control or3 eradication. This project includes the possible development of a mycological biotic control agent. Large areas of Sanctuary acreage once dominated by Buckthorn are being converted to frequently mowed lawn grazing area or to park-like loafing area. This will afford the rather large goose and waterfowl flock sufficient habitat for food and rest. It also has altered flock nesting success to some extent. These areas were planted with Kentucky Bluegrass. Landfill siteI grasslands are mostly dominated by Quackgrass. Other dump areas are completely covered by nettles or Great Ragweed. (See Appendix D for a complete listing of herbaceous species and various exotic plantings)3 The future success of vegetation management at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary will depend on concerted well-documented scientific efforts. It is a goal of this master-plan to guide these efforts. The establish- ment of the grid coordinate system under this Coastal Management grant will allow great control over any future analysis or experimentation. It is suggested that vegetation sampling data be collected, analyzed,I and permanently recorded for each 100 meter grid on the Wildlife Sanctuary site as soon as possible. Acceptable techniques as per J. T. Curtis' Vegetation of Wisconsin-should be used. A herbarium collection for the Sanctuary has been started. This collection should be coordinated with the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay herbarium collecting staff. Methods for proper plant collecting and species identification should be strictly standardized in order to eliminate errors. Management decisions should be recorded on such a map and then a documented time schedule for the work required should be drawn up andI strictly adhered to during implementation. ~~~~~~~~~~~17;/ Tension Zone The vegetation of Wisconsin is divided into basically two floristic provinces. The Southern Prairie-Forest Province and the Northern Hardwood Province. Where these two provinces meet, a narrow band called the Tension Zone is formed. The Tension Zone is a boundary marked by the northern and southern range limits of many species of plants. The Tension Zone falls across most of western and southern Brown County. Within Brown County, 42 plant species attain their range limits. Although the northern and southern provinces are quite distinct, the Tension Zone contains species common to both of them. For this reason, the vegetation of Br-own County is quite diverse and contains communities which may be classified in the Northern Hardwood Province or Southern Prairie-Forest Province, or Tension Zone. Although the Sanctuary is not within the Tension Zone, (located just east of the Tension Zone - Map 14) it is close enough to be affected by those climatic factors which delineate the location of this zone. I~~~~~~~ MAP 14 LOCATION OF TENSION ZONE 18 Vegetation Cover Type The vegetation cover types for the Sanctuary have been categorized into seven types and mapped (Map 5). (For directions on reading grid maps see Appendix S) Not all of these seven types are "pure" plant communities which fall into a specific category described by John Curtis; however, some do fit nicely into his categories. 1. Hardwood Forest Most of this forest compares favorable to a Southern Lowland Wet Hardwood Forest described by Curtis (Appendix 4). The most common trees are: Cotton (Populus deltoides), Black Willow (Salix nigra), Box Elder (Acer negundo), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum). Several cottonwood trees were sampled for age. Growth-ring counts showed most of the cottonwoods (the largest tree) were between 35 and 50 years old. No very old stumps were found. Few, if any, trees are believed to be over fifty years old on the Sanctuary site. The most common plants in the understory are: Red Osier (Cornus stolonifera), Bittersweet Nightshade (Solanum dulcamara), Buckthorn (Rhammus sp.). Elderberry (Sambucus sp.), and seedlings of the above common trees. In some highly disturbed sites, like former dump areas, almost monotypic stands of Box Elders occur (portions of grid area: 9-B, 10-B, 10-A). Much of this cover type also covers undisturbed areas (See Map 13) (grid areas 8-G, 7-A, 20-F, 21-F, 21-E, 22-E, 22-F, 22-1). % I 19em 19 Approximately 51.5 grid areas or 127.21 acres (36.3%) of the Sanctuary's 350 acres are covered with this vegetation cover type. 2. Park Area This cover type is highly managed by man and is characterized by mowed lawns (Kentucky blue grass) with shade trees of various species planted throughout (Cottonwood, Silver Maple, Linden, (Ash, etc.). Approximately 12 grid areas or 29.64 acres (8.5%) of the Sanctuary are covered with this vegetation cover type (portion of grid areas: 3-B, 6-B, 7-B, 10-C) 3. Evergreens This cover type consists mostly of planted White Spruce (Picea glauca), Norway Spruce (P. abies), and Blue Spruce (P. pungensT, and Red and Austrian Pine (Pinus resinosa and P. nigra). Approximately 1.3 grid areas or 3.21 acres (.9%) of the Sanctuary are covered with this cover type (portions of grid areas: 4-C, l-D, 12-E). 4. Cattail Marsh This cover type consists almost entirely of Cattails (mainly narrow-leaved, Typha angustifolia). These remnant cattail areas are one of the few Sanctuary areas that have not been altered by man. Approximately 9.7 grid areas or 23.96 acres (6.8%) of the Sanctuary's 350 acres are covered with cattail marshes (portions of grid areas: 12-H, 13-H, 14-G, 18-E). 5. Invasion Species In highly disturbed sites with very poor soil (former dump sites and wood chip dumps) only very hardy plants can live. The most common plants growing in this cover type are: Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), Stinging Nettle (Urtica dioica), Mullein (Verbascum thapsus), White and Yellow Sweet Clover (Melilotus sp.), Bedstraw (Galium sp.) and many non-native "weed" species. Approximately 11 grid areas or 27.17 areas (7.7%) of the Sanctuary are covered with invasion type vegetation (portions of grid areas: 11-B, 12-B, 13-B, 14-C, 15-C, 15-D). 6. Open Fields The most common plants growing in this cover type are: grasses, Asters (Aster sp.) and Goldenrods (Solidago sp.). Two areas along Danz Avenue have been used as landfill sites and have been capped with clay and planted with grass. Open field areas cover approximately 25 grid areas or 61.76 acres (17.6%) of the Sanctuary (portions of grid areas: 15-F, 15-G, 15-H, 14-1, 17-G, 17-H, 17-1, 18-G, 18-H, 18-1, 19-G, 19-H, 19-1). 20 7. Shrub- Carr This cover type also fits a basic plant community described by Curtis. The most common plants in this cover type are Red Osier (Cornus stolonifera) and Sandbar Willow (Salix interior). Approximately 7.5 grid areas or 18.52 acres 5.3%) of the Sanctuary is covered with this cover type (portions of grid area: 10-H, 11-H, 15-D, 19-E, 20-E). Water Water covers approximately 23.7 grid areas or 58.66 acres (16.8%) of the surface area of the Sanctuary. This water is in two "forms": permanent ponds (lagoon system) - 23 grid areas or 56.81 acres (16.3%), and temporary ponds - .7 grid areas or 1.85 acres (.5%) of Sanctuary area. The temporary ponds contain water most of the year but sometimes dry up in late summer. Temporary ponds occupy portions of grid areas: 15-E, 15-F, 14-G, 14-H, and 16-D. The lagoon system occupies much of grid areas: 1-13, B-F. Undisturbed Areas Map 13 shows the location of highly disturbed, moderately disturbed, undisturbed and possible undisturbed, sites on Sanctuary land. 1. Highly Disturbed Areas These are areas that have been used for waste dumps, chip dumps, or landfill sites. They have very poor soil and poor plant diversity. They require extensive management and probably the addition of soil. Specific sites should be left unaltered and monitored carefully to document the time required for a soil to form and natural plant succession to take place (it may require 50 or more years). Most of these areas should be used for demonstration plots, management and topography experimentation, building or other facility sites. There are 47 grid areas or 116.09 acres (33.3%) of the Sanctuary in this type of area. 2. Moderately Disturbed Areas These are areas that have been altered by man, usually to "improve" ' them for one reason or another. They include mowed lawns, ever- green plantings, dredged lagoons and ponds, and other areas. These areas should continue to be managed to maintain a diversity of plants and animals. Native plant species should be planted instead of domestic or ornamental plants. There are 55.7 grid areas or 137.62 acres (39.3%) of Sanctuary in this type of area. 3. Undisturbed Areas These are areas that have not been disturbed or altered by man. They have been allowed to evolve normally. These natural areas are composed mostly of two plant communities; Cattail Marsh and Southern Lowland Forest. It is recommended that these areas, since they are so valuable and relatively uncommon, be allowed 21 3 ~~~~~to remain natural and that no management be done to them. Approximately 33 grid areas or 81.47 acres (23.3?%) of the Sanctuary are contained in this type of area. 1 ~~~~4. Possible Undisturbed or Very Slightly Disturbed Areas It is difficult to determine if these areas had been disturbed or altered by man. These areas should also be left unaltered or unaffected by man. Approximately 6 grid areas or 14.82 acres (4.2%) of the Sanctuary fall into this category. Summary 3 ~~~There is both a variety and an abundance of wildlife at the Sanctuary because: 1. Immediate Availability of Water Water is necessary for all life. The availability of water both in the lagoons and in the adjacent Bay help to attract and retain wildlife in this area. Water also adds another environment for w il1dli1fe. 2. Several Different Habitat Types Diversity of habitat is necessary for diversity of plant and animal life. The Sanctuary has at least six very different habitat types: hardwood forest, flat open fields, evergreens, I ~~~~~brush, ponds, and cattail marshes. 3. Extensive Edges "Edge" is the habitat zone where two ecosystems meet (i.e. shore- 3 ~~~~~lines - water meets land, or edge of woods and field). Studies have shown that these edge areas are high in diversity and numbers of wildlife. The Sanctuary has many long, meandering habitat edges. I ~~~~4. Many Plant Habitats In Early Stages Of Success ion Most of the habitats are just developing - going through various stages of succession. Studies have shown that these stages are I ~ ~~~~generally more productive in numbers and diversity of wildlife than "climax" stands. 5.Excellent Location In -a Coastal Area Along -a Major Migration Route The bay of Green Bay is a natural leading edge or funnel for migrating birds and insects. Also these travelers often deposit seeds from other areas increasing the diversity of plant life at the Sanctuary. The surrounding urban area helps to channel wild- life into the Sanctuary. 3 ~~~However, the Sanctuary does lack two important factors which help create good habitats: 1. Topography Most of the Sanctuary is flat with little or no relief. Some of the dump sites might be good areas to landscape and create topography. I ~~~2. Rich Soils In Some Areas Former dump sites will probably require the addition of soil. 22 o MAP 5 0 - -- ------ ~---~-~ zm , I q,~*~ f ~~~ - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~�JLJ~~~~~~i 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L=_M o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ---- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--C- -m - - Map 5 Vegetation Cover Types (See explanation in text) '@ ~ Hardwood Forests - 51.5 grids or 127.21 acres, 36.4% of Sanctuary (no shading) Park Areas - 12 grids or 29.64 acres, 8.5% of Sanctuary ~4 Evergreens - 1.3 grids or 3.21 acres, .9% of Sanctuary -:~ : Cattails - 9.7 grids or 23.96 acres, 6.8% of Sanctuary i,'illllli Invasion Species - 11 grids or 27.17 acres 7.7% of Sanctuary ""...."% Open Fields - 25 grids or 61.76 acres, 17.6% of Sanctuary Shrub - Carr - 7.5 grids or 18.52 acres, 5.3% of Sanctuary Water (ponds - lagoon) - 23.7 grids or 58.66 acres, 16.8% of Sanctuary Total of 141.7 grids or 350 acres "~~I_ o MAP 13 f~0. -.C1 .... ...fllIIU .11 /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I I. iIslas ~~~~~~~~~gnrl /~j. hitii ' "I i I -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~icnai 2o R _ Wd/ lilt liii ,*~ ~~~!!Atile DL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I Map 13 Disturbed - Undisturbed Areas on Sanctuary Key -\ ~Extent of Area Covered in Master Plan Highly disturbed - waste dumps, chip dumps or landfill sites, ,~illI'r' 47 grid areas or 116 acres, 33.3% of Sanctuary land. (no Moderately disturbed - lawns, nursery, introduced plantings, shading) dredged areas, 55.7 grid areas or 137.62 acres, 39.3% of Sanctuary land. Undisturbed - natural vegetation, mostly cattail and southern lowland forest, 33 grid areas or 81.47 acres, 23.3% of Sanctuary land. Possible undisturbed or very slightly disturbed - 6 grid areas or 14.82 acres, 4.2% of Sanctuary land. Animals3 Microscopic Organisms and Other Invertebrates Although microscopic organisms were not studied for this master planI that does not mean they are not important, or that it is not acknowledged that they are important; they are. They provide the basic units which make up the beginning of many food chains. Among the soil's inhabitants are specialists that decay organic matter, transform nitrogen, build soil tilth, produce antibiotics, and otherwiseI affect plant welfare. The open water is a world of minute suspended organisms, the plankton. Dominant are the phytoplankton, amonq them the diatoms, desmids, andI the filamentons green algae. Suspended with the phytoplankton are the animal, or zooplankton organisms, which graze upon the phytoplankton. These animals form an important link in the energy flow in the aquaticI habitat. Most characteristic are the rotifers, copepods and cladocerans. Some aquatic invertebrates have been used as indicators of water qual ity. Microscopic organisms are very important in recycling nutrients and making them usable to larger animals and plants.3 Larger invertebrates such as worms, clams, slugs, snails, crayfish, spiders, mites,centipedes and millipedes are also very important but often overlooked or taken for granted. A partial list of these animalsU is found in Appendix E. Insects3 The insects are the dominant group of animals on the earth today. They far surpass all other terrestrial animals in number, and they occur practically everywhere. Several hundred thousand different speciesI have been described throughout the world - three times as many species as there are in the rest of the animal kingdom.3 The Sanctuary has its share of insects, 12 orders and 47 families of insects have been identified at the Sanctuary, and this represents only an initial investigation. (This partial list is found in Appendix E.)3 Insects also are important and necessary. Besides providing food for many birds and other animals they are an essential element of a balanced ecosystem and should not be destroyed simply because they become aU nuisance during some seasons. Except for some aquatic invertebrate sampling and general insect studies,3 extensive studies of the invertebrates at the Sanctuary have not been done. It is presumed from general observations and the limited studies mentioned above that in many parts of the Sanctuary there are adequate, stable3 27I microscopic and other invertebrate populations. The notable exceptions I ~ ~~would be in highly disturbed areas such as dumps, roads and buildings. ~~~Mngmn eomnaion ~~~Litteseii aaeeti eesr omiti elhsal pouaino hs malanals oegeneral recommendations ae 1) Continue to allow natural leaf litter, dead trees, etc. to decay in the areas they fall, avoid trying to "clean up" I ~ ~~~~the woods (of course, dead limbs or dead trees which are a hazard to property or human life should be removed.) 2) Avoid using any insecticides, herbicides or other chemicals. I ~ ~~~~These chemicals destroy the micro habitat that the microscopic and other invertebrates live in. (Even heavy use of road salt should be avoided.) Insect repellents (not insecticides) should be used if mosquitoes become a nuisance. Fish' Fish are important food for many birds (kingfishers, herons, gulls, and mergansers) and some mammals (raccoons, and the otter). They also provide recreation for young people under the age of sixteen (Sanctuary Policy limits fishings to persons under sixteen years old.) Fish'are also an important link in recycling aquatic nutrients and a necessary part of the natural aquatic ecosystem. 28 Surveys of fishermen (creel censuses) taken in Fall of 1979 and the Spring of 1980 (Appendix E, Table 1) showed that fishing was a popular sport, that perch averaging 6 1/2 inches long were the most common fish caught and that about three fish each hour were caught. Spring and Fall were the best seasons to fish but general observations show many fishermen use the Sanctuary during the Summer also. On October 19, 1979 a DNR fish shocking crew conducted a survey of two Sanctuary lagoons; the front lagoon where fishing is allowed and the feeding lagoon where no fishing is allowed. (Appendix E, Table 2) Electric shocking will only bring up about 40% of the fish. Size, type of fish and water depth all influence the results of the shocking. Perch were the most common fish shocked. Carp and bullhead were less common than expected but this was probably because the shocking was done late in the season and many of these fish were in deep water. The smallmouth bass was unexpected. The numbers, sizes, and different species of game fish are indicators that the lagoon systems are supporting a healthy aquatic ecosystem. In addition to the fish listed in Appendix E, white bass (Roccus chrysops), burbot (hota lota lacustris) crappie (Pomoxis sp.- Iorthern pike (Esox lucius) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) have been reported in the Sanctuary lagoons in the recent past. Fish Management Fish management is closely linked with water quality management and the recommendations made in the water section would also pertain here. Additional general recommendations would be: 1) Retain present fishing area without expanding it. 2) If rough fish are eliminated, consider planting largemouth bass as a gamefish in the lagoons to keep panfish numbers in check. Amphibians and Reptiles A complete list to date of reptiles and amphibians is found in Appendix E. The only reptiles that are really common at the Sanctuary are garter snakes (Thamnophis sp.), and painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina) are fairly common. Several Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingi) have been found in recent years but these are probably the ones that have been released on site. The American toad (Bufo americanus) is the most common amphibian and is found throughout the Sanctuary. Salamanders have been released on site but none have been found. Since they are very secretive they may occur without being noticed. 29 Management Recommendations Maintain temporary ponds, decaying logs, brush piles, logs in water, and a deep woods to provide adequate habitat for reptiles and amphibians. Bi rds Probably the most attractive resource at the Wildlife Sanctuary is its birdlife. The general location of the Sanctuary along the shore I ~ ~~of Green Bay, which is a good migration route, and the variety of habitats present, attracts many migrant and breeding birds. The Sanctuary's location in the middle region of the state means that occasionally birds are observed which are more typically seen north or south of this area. Spring is the best time of year for birding at the Sanctuary. Appendix G has a complete list of the Sanctuary birds and the status of each. During May, June, and July of 1980 a detailed study of the migrant birds, breeding birds, and summer residents (birds present but not known to be nesting) was done at the Sanctuary to update the extensive general observations from the last 10 years. The migration study determined birds that migrate through the Sanctuary and areas where they concentrate. For the breeding bird survey the Sanctuary was systematically covered from May 29 through July 12. Early I ~ ~~morning surveys of singing territorial males along with general observations of bird activity were compiled to determine birds that nest, and those that are summer residents. Through the past 10 years the Sanctuary has recorded 218 of 370 bird species that have I ~ ~~een recorded as migrants or residents in Wisconsin. Included in the Sanctuary list are several birds rarely seen in Wisconsin. The recent breeding study has established new H ~~~breeding and summer resident records forA the Sanctuary and Brown County. /I I ~ ~~Management Recommendations Continue to provide as many different habitat types and "edge" habitats aspossible, as recommended in the vegetation section. Maintain refuge or restricted area under present policy. Waterfowl The main purpose of the Sanctuary is to provide a waterfowl refuge, and therefore, the waterfowl flock is the most important resource the I ~ ~~Sanctuary has. Most Sanctuary visitors come to see and feed the waterfowl. This feeding program draws many people back to the Sanctuary several times a year, year after year. 30 About 3,000 waterfowl winter at the Sanctuary; 650-700 Canada geese and 2,400 ducks (2,000 mallards, 400 black ducks and about 20 individualsI of other species of waterfowl). About 650 Canada geese summer at the Sanctuary along with about 300 mallards. The influx of migrating waterfowl greatly increasesI these numbers during Fall (Appendix H and 1). The Sanctuary presently has approximately 650 Canada geese as permanent residents. During Fall additional migrants increase the flock to as many as 1,400. The Sanc- tuary flock is the nucleus for the Canada geese nesting in the lower Bay. In the \ Summer of 1978, over 105 pairs of Canada geese nested in the lower Bay. Sixty-fiveI pair of geese nested at the Wildlife Sanctuary; twenty pair nested at Bark- K hausen Game Reserve; and another twenty pair nested on the islands and shore of the lower Bay and in the East River marsh. The lagoon system with its long, irregularI shore line and several small islands gives the Sanctuary a large amount of water-land edge. The geese prefer to nest along the shore less than nine feet (3 meters) fromI the shore. The large amount of "edge" gives the Sanctuary a good number of possible goose nesting sites. Thirty-fourI artificial nesting platforms called "ganderlanders" provide additional nesting sites. Approximately 65% of these were used by geese in 1978. The population of geese at the Sanctuary has increased signi- ficantly each year for the last five years. (Appendix I). Management of Geese The most unique wildlife the Sanctuary has is the Giant Canada goose. Only five other areas in Wisconsin have a breeding population of Canada geese, and only three other areas in Wisconsin have wintering populations. Green Bay has the Northernmost wintering Canada gooseI population in the Midwest. The Sanctuary should strive to maintain a large, healthy flock of Canada geese. But it really does not need to maintain a permanent flock larger than 700 geese. A flock largerI than 700 will cause too great of an impact on the limited resources of the Sanctuary, especially the water quality in the lagoons. A flock too small will not provide as large a gene pool and might cause inbreeding problems. It also would not attract as much attention and positive public relations for the Sanctuary. 3 1 To stabilize the resident goose population at 700 the following alternatives I ~ ~~have been proposed: 1) Alter local hunting season 2) Ration food (corn) during winter 3) Alter management of grazing areas 4) Hazing program Alternative I - Alter hunting season. The present local hunting regulations are set up to favor the local goose population. Since most of the local geese remain in the Green Bay area year round, a shorter season prevents excessive harvesting of the local population. A longer season would increase the harvest of the Sanctuary Geese. Should a need arise to lower the goose population, lengthening the season is one possible way. Alternative 2 - Ration food (corn) during winter. In the past three feeders provided almost an unlimited supply of corn for the geese at the Sanctuary. One method to limit corn available would be to place a predetermined amount of corn in the feeders daily; approximately 300 lbs. per day. The only additional I ~ ~~food would be the corn people purchase at the Nature Center. The amount of corn put into the feeders could be reduced appropriately so that the daily amount of corn remains controlled and about the same I ~ ~~each day. Limiting food would encourage the geese to forage outside the Sanctuary more and reduce the stress on the lImits of the Sanctuary. It may even encourage more to migrate south for the winter. I ~~~Alternative 3 -Alter management of grazing areas. Canada geese are basically grazers. They prefer large, open, short grass areas near water for feeding and resting during spring, summer, and fall. Creating less or more grazing areas may decrease or increase the flock size or it may alter goose habits. Alternative 4 -hazing program A careful hazing program may be necessary to reduce the number of geese using the Sanctuary during fall and winter. Walking near the geese with a large object (a pole or board) is sometimes enough to flush them from the area. A canoe or boat used in the lagoon occupied by geese is very effective in flushing them from the area. I ~~~Recommendations Carefully monitoring the flock is essential to sound goose management. The information gained from an ongoing study begun in 1976 has proven invaluable for management proposals, education programs, public relations, etc. This study (weekly counts, nesting studies) should be continued. If any of the alternatives are to be effective they must be applied I ~ ~~carefully, gradually, and consistently and their effects carefully measured. Alternative 2 should probably be the first alternative to be applied, followed by alternative 4 if necessary. Lengthening the hunting season would be unnecessary at this time. It took thirty 32 years to build up the goose population to its present leave] and over- hunting could drastically reduce it. More information on goose hunting and its impact on the lower Bay is needed before a decision should be made to lengthen tfie hunting season. Management of Other Waterfowl MallardsI During winter, over 2,000 mallard ducks spend most of the day sitting on the ice or in the open water of the main feeding lagoon at theI Sanctuary. The large amount of droppings from these ducks has caused a deterioration of this lagoon. Mallard ducks are not unique or special and have greatly exceeded the carrying capacity for this area. The mallard population should be reduced to approximately 800-1,000 for the overall long term good of the waterfowl flock and the lagoons of the Sanctuary. This number (800-1,000 mallards) was chosen because it is a large reduction in the mallard population to lessen the stressI on lagoons, but still large enough to "excite" people coming out to feed the waterfowl, and maintain good public relations. Recommendations Alternatives 2 and 4~ (ration food during winter, and a hazing program) mentioned under Canada goose management should also encourage a largeI number of mallards to seek other feeding areas during fall and winter. But these management proposals must be carefully implemented to retain the desired number of ducks. Wood ducks The present habitat, 15 wood duck boxes and natural cavities should be adequate to maintain and increase the several pair of wood ducks presently breeding at the Sanctuary. Blue-winged teal Several pair of blue-winged teal regularly summer at the Sanctuary. Maintenance of present open field upland areas should provide nest sites for these pairs. Game BirdsI Pheasants, gray partridge,ruffed grouse and woodcock have all been observed at the Sanctuary but except for pheasants, only occasionally. Habitat is the key to maintaining a stable population of any species and there is not enough good habitat for any of the above species. Pheasants may have the most habitat of any of the above at the Sanctuary but itI still may not be adequate for maintaining a suitable population. Gray partridge may find suitable habitat in the large open fields on the former Danz Avenue landfill site. More studies need to be done to determine which areas should be modified for game bird habitat. 33I 3 ~~~~MammalIs Twenty-eight species of mammals have been identified at the Sanctuary. I ~~~(Appendix E). A study of the small mammals was done during the fall of 1979 on most of the Sanctuary habitats (Appendix F and Map 8). This survey involved the use of 50 Sherman live mammal traps set at stations about 10 m. apart (2 traps/station), in a relatively straight line through a habitat area. Traps were baited with peanut butter and trapping was done mainly at night. Most small mammals were trapped alive and released unhurt after being marked. Many mammals were retrapped more than once and raccoons often raided the trap lines in wooded habitats. 3 ~~~Overall the habitats that have been disturbed the least by man's activity had the highest population of native small mammals. Several small mammals such as jumping mice and least weasel were not known to inhabit 3 ~~~the Sanctuary before the study was done. General sight observations and track observations were recorded on medium 3 ~~~size mammals such as rabbits, squirrels, woodchucks, muskrat, fox, raccoon and mink. All of the above were found to be common or fairly common. One beaver and one otter (both released on site) inhabited the Sanctuary during 1979-1980. One opposum was found inside a large garbage can at the Sanctuary and released during the Fall of 1979. Occasionally a stray dog or cat becom~es a nuisance and is removed by the DNR or City Animal Shelter. I ~~~Management Fox, gray, and red squirrels are all very common at the Sanctuary although there are few oak or other nut trees. Squirrels have not become a serious pest although they do raid bird feeders, and eat small birds and their eggs, especially cavity nesting birds such as woodpeckers I ~ ~~and small owls. They have few enemies at the Sanctuary except for great horned owls. No management alternatives have been proposed for squirrels. 34 Rabbits are a problem from time to time. They reproduce rapidly and can do a lot of damage to the vegetation. Natural predators such as the great horned owl, fox, and weasel have helped to keep them under control. Recommendations Natural predators could control most of these game species if \ allowed to do so. The number of natural predators should be en- t couraged. In the past the Sanctuary has i_ released squirrels and rabbits brought in by people who found young or live- - trapped adults to protect their flowersj - or shrubs. But to keep a natural : \/ balance, the Sanctuary should continue ___ its present policy of not releasing additional squirrels or rabbits on site. - - Deer A controlled drive to estimate the number of deer on the Sanctuary grounds west of Danz Avenue was conducted on February 7, 1980. The estimated number normally frequenting this area determined by the drive was 18. Deer move back and forth to areas east of Danz Avenue. The perimeter fence somewhat restricts their movements into other areas adjacent to the Sanctuary. Management At least seven fawns were known to have been born on the Sanctuary in the Spring of 1980, outside the enclosure containing the exhibit deer. Without natural predators or some method of harvesting, deer will quickly overpopulate an ' area, consume the food supply and suffer from starvation. Deer have no enemies at the Sanctuary and would quickly overpopulate an area, except -- 35 for two factors; illegal poaching and car kills. Poaching has not been a major problem, but approximately two deer were shot in 1978. Car-killed deer are probably the main factor which has kept the deer herd from increasing too rapidly. However, when the Sanctuary completes I ~ ~~its 7 foot high, cyclone perimeter fence, car kills will probably not be a factor and the deer will probably overpopulate the Sanctuary very quickly. U ~~~Two alternatives for controlling deer at the Sanctuary have been proposed: 1 ~~~~1) Shoot some deer each fall 2) Live trap deer and relocate or sell them 5 ~~~Alternative I1-Shoot some deer each Fall. Shooting the deer would have adverse public reaction and would involve special permits to shoot them and to discharge a firearm within 5 ~~~the city limits. Alternative 2 - Live trap deer and relocate or sell them. Deer would be attracted to large corralled areas with apples, salt or some other attractant and then a gate closed on them. The DNR would then be requested to relocate or dispose of some of them. 5 ~~~Recommendations Alternative 2 is the most feasible and it would probably be necessary to use this method every year or every other year. Maintaining suitable brouse habitat is also recommended so the Sanctuary can support an adequate deer herd. 3 ~~~Predator Control Three alternatives for predator control have been proposed: I ~ ~~~1) Make every attempt to trap, kill or remove all predators from the area. 2) Make no attempt to remove any predators. 3) Selectively remove only problem predators. Alternative I - Make every attempt to trap, kill or remove all predators from the area. Predators kill ducks and geese and therefore have no place at a refuge or Sanctuary. This has been the policy of most game farms and refuges in the past. The Sanctuary had, in the past, also made an effort to remove most predators. I ~~~Alternative 2 -Make no attempt to remove any predator. The philosophy for this alternative is that predators are a natural I ~ ~~part of the ecosystem; they are territorial and limit their numbers naturally; they do not just eat game species but help to keep a balanced ecosystem. 36 Alternative 3 -Selectively remove only problem predators. The philosophy for this alternative is similar to the one above. Predators are basically good for the ecosystem but occasionally one becomes a nuisance and must be destroyed, or live trapped andI relocated. This is the present Sanctuary policy. Recommendations5 Since the Sanctuary is not a totally natural area undisturbed by man alternative three is probably the most feasible alternative. A problem arises in determining when a predator is a real "problem" and can the "problem" predator be destroyed without destroying "innocent'' predators. Live trapping and relocation is recommended over destroying problem predators. Pests Mice and rats are a serious pest from time to time at the Sanctuary. Three methods of control have been proposed:5 1) Poisoning 2) Trapping 3) Removing all sources of food.I Alternative Iand 2 -Poisoning and Trapping. Poisons and traps are only temporary relief measures. Within a short period of time, the rats and mice learn to avoid the traps and poisons. These two methods get results quickly, but the remaining rodents reproduce quickly and replenish the population. Poisons and traps couldI occasionally kill non-target animals. Alternative 3 -Remove all sources of food.I To ensure that no food is available to the rats and mice, the following procedures should be followed:3 1) Keep all possible food sources in rodent proof containers or cabinets. 2) Bring in all animal food uneaten by caged animals at the end of the day. Nocturnal feeders might have to adjust their eating habits. 3) Bring in, close, or cover all small bird and goose feeders.I 4) All other feeders, such as deer feeders, should be constructed so that rats and mice are unable to climb to the food. 5) Do not place any animal food (apples for deer, etc.) on the ground, except the corn that the public feeds the waterfowl. 37I 3 ~~~Recommendations The Sanctuary presently uses a combination of poisons, traps, and removing sources of food. This control program is fairly effective, but could bemore effective. Additional research is needed to develop a more effective rodent control program at the Sanctuary. 3 ~~~Introducing New Species Should species not presently living at the Sanctuary be introduced into the area? A number of questions should be considered with D.N.R., Fish and Wildlife Service and other wildlife professionals before any attempt is made to introduce a new organism (plant, animal, virus). I ~~~~1) Is this organism native to this area? 2) Can the area adequately support this organism? 3) Will it become a pest, overpopulate, compete, or destroy any of the other species at the Sanctuary? 4) Will this organism be a welcome new addition to the Sanctuary? How will the public react to the new species? 5)Have all legal matters been explored? I~~~~~~~~~~~~~3 - -. + I K I I I I I I THE HUMAN ELEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I History The earliest reference to the Green Bay region and its inhabitants is found in Pere Vimont's brief accounts of Jean Nicolet's expedition to the Winnebagoes, found in the "Jesuit Relations" of 1640. But much earlier vague reports had reached Quebec concerning La Baye (Green Bay) and the strange people living on its shores, a tribe not of the Algonquin stock nor speaking any of the various dialects. They were called Puants or Winnepegoes, which was freely translated by the French into "stinkards" or "men of the salt sea". Governer Samuel de Champlain of New France (now Canada) fancied this strange people as being Chinese and hoped to find the passage to China. Thus Jean Nicolet and later many others,including voyaguers and missionaries, were sent to explore the Northwest and take possession of the territory discovered in the name of the King of France, Louis XIII. ment expansion, various tribes had at one time or another camped along the Bay for indefinite periods of time up until 1800. Many of the Native American tribes were agriculturalists. The area which is now Brown County was heavily populated with these tribes. Remoteness from the Iroquis and Sioux, along with an abundance of food made this area desirable for these more peacefully inclined tribes. Early voyaguers wrote of the richness of the land. Extensive marshes edging the bay and its thick water growth was prime habitat for various animals. Migratory waterfowl used the area extensively. The area was excellent for hunting and fishing. The Indian women harvested wild rice which grew along the shores of the Fox River and its tributaries. The first definite knowledge of the location of the various tribes along the shores of Green Bay and the Fox River was found in the Journal kept by Father Claude Allouez of his voyage from Sault Sainte Marie to Green Bay in 1669 (Map 4). The earliest records locate the various tribes as follows: The Pottawatomies occupied the greater part of the east shore of Green Bay. They also had a village at the mouth of the Big Suamico on the west side of the Bay. The Winnebagoes (Paunts) were camped on or near Red Banks and Pointe Au Sable on the east shore of the Bay. On the northwest side of the Bay and on the river of the same name, lived the Menominees. The principal village of the Sauk was on the Fox River. With the advancement of white settlers in the 1840's, the Indians either dispersed to western territories or were placed on reservations. The Bay shore just east of the mouth of the Fox River was a very popular swimming beach during the late 1800's and early 1900's (Bay Beach Park). In 1939 the State Board of Health declared the area unsafe for swimming because of the water pollution and closed the beach. During the late 1920's and 1930's, land adjacent to the beach was used by recreationists. A large roller coaster was the main attraction. The land presently the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary was a low wet sedge meadow and was not developed. The entire Sanctuary area is in the flood plain of Green Bay and was therefore susceptible to frequent flooding. 39 No Archaeological Sites (Indian villages - early settler's cabins, etc.) have been found on Sanctuary Property. IUD~- Is AR'FUR . NEIL3 9SX-9 Ma~p 4 (Iry~~~~~~r CAP ~~ (reprinted from Green Bay Historical Blt Vol. 2 ) 40~S,~AA 6~~~~~ ~~~~~I**UL~~rwA,4f X~~~~v~~~~sr~~~~~cr.SAJ OUS~OAM~~N~ ..'2. MM~~~ OF M~~~A1I S 3~ HITT~c5IE o. GT~~EEH ~AYI 'WI~COMSI14 BAY 3 1669~~~~~~~~~~~B -~rl 1689(I~�c A~rr~ul~ . N~vsu..I9O5 MT5~T. ThAI LSXrgi /?:~~~~~~~ hrbsou~nMap 4 (reprinted fom Green Ba H:.istoica uleinVl.2 40 3 I ~~~The Development of the Sanctuary The City of Green Bay purchased 200 acres of "marsh" land from John Marsch in 1929. This tract of land was only several hundred yards away from the Bay waters and separated from the Bay by a public road (County Highway A). Plans had been made to develop this area into alagoon system and golf course but were never carried out. The history of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary begins in the fall of 1935. Well situated in the Mississippi Flyway, Green Bay should have seen I ~ ~~numerous migratory waterfowl in the late 1920's, but there were few. Much of the natural waterfowl habitat was disappearing at an alarming rate; through years of marshland drainage, over-development, hunting, and a drought in the 1930's. Chester Cole, a local biology teacher and conservationist, was concerned with increasing the scarcity of waterfowl, breeding grounds, natural food and resting sites. Realizing something needed to be done, Mr. Cole contacted a number of conserva- tionstsand outdoor enthusiasts who might be interested in developing I ~~~a wildlife sanctuary. Individual experts on waterfowl and various wildlife agencies were consulted. In 1935, after several meetings with the City Park Board (lawnowners), permission was granted to develop an experimental site with a small lagoon. The property was known as Bay Beach Marsh, which Mr. Cole invisioned eventually as a 200 acre wildlife sanctuary. The area was well situated and would attract not only water- fowl and other wildlife, but provide a place for area residents to study and enjoy wildlife under natural conditions. I ~~~During the fall of 1935, Chester Cole, his father C. F. Cole, Lyle Kingston and Judge Henry Grass, dug a small pond by hand and put out feed to see if ducks could be attracted to the site. Waterfowl did use I ~ ~~the small pond. Further development was delayed due to lack of funds. It was decided that to organize a club was the best way to promote the program. A club known as the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., was organized in 1936. A 50~ membership was charged to raise initially needed funds. Club members were constantly on the lookout for donations of money, excavating equipment, feed, labor, or anything useful to the development of the project. The first ponds were small and dug with I ~ ~~hand tools, but they were enlarged when help came in the form of NYA appropriations (National Youth Administrations). A crew of NYA men, supervised by Blake Posey, began work in 1936. The NYA hand dug a small pond and a meandering stream, planted trees and shrubs, and built a duck coop and too] shed. Later, when ducks began to stop, they cared for sick and wounded waterfowl. I ~~~Due to the lack of heavy equipment, the project proceeded slowly. Club members began a new membership drive and solicited funds and donations of heavy equipment. The Brown County Highway Commission sent a caterpillar. I ~ ~~Northwest Engineering Company of Green Bay decided the project would be a good testing area for their new equipment. Ed Schuster of Denmark agreed to supply a dragline and operator if the club would pay for gas, oil, and half of the repairs to the equipment. 41 A small WPA (Work Projects Administration) project was started toI assist and handle the trucking and leveling of dirt, resulting in a 280' by 300' pond, 7 feet deep.* Except from a financial standpoint, the Sanctuary at this time was beginning to take shape. In an effort to create more enthusiasm among Green Bay residents, Chester Cole conducted a series of 25 weekly broadcasts on WTAQ Radio about wildlife and conservation,I always promoting the Sanctuary. In 1936 the Green Bay Park Board directed Mr. L. Earl Foglesong,I Park Superintendent, to consult Aldo Leopold about developing a waterfowl sanctuary. In 1937 the Sanctuary was far enough along to enter national competition for the 1937 "National Waterfowl Refuge Contest", sponsored by 'More Game Birds in America, Inc.'. The Sanctuary placed fourth; receiving a silver trophy and $50.00 for theirI In an effort to continue work and pay accumulating debts, aU publicity campaign to raise funds was undertaken during 1937, 1938, and 1939. Numerous donations were received, both in terms of money and materials. In connection with Wildlife Restoration Week, the clubI put on a stamp sale to raise money for development. With the money earned and through donations, the club was able to pay off all exca- vating costs, fencing, building materials and miscellaneous expenses, which amounted to about $1,800.00. In order to increase the number of ducks, club members began raising ducklings from eggs. In 1938, Louis Barkhausen gavd six Canada GeeseI to the Wildlife Sanctuary from his private refuge on the west shore of Green Bay, and in 1939 he gave three more geese to the Sanctuary. In 1941 the Sanctuary produced its first young geese from the birds given by Louis Barkhausen. These are the ancestors of the present Canada goose flock. The Secretary of Agriculture granted a permit to Chester Cole and Blake Posey to capture sick or wounded waterfowl for the purpose of helping them recover. Many of the birds did recover and remained at the Sanctuary. Interest by now was running high. More people visited the Sanctuary than ever before. The potential value of the Wildlife Sanctuary to the community was now recognized by the City of Green Bay. In viewI of this local interest, a full-scale WPA project was set up in October of 1938, amounting to $450,000.00. Marshall Simonds, Supervisor of the Green Bay city parks was put in charge. A systemI of lagoons was planned to extend throughout the entire 200 acre tract. At least 160 acres were to be set aside as sanctuary, the remaining 40 acres surrounding a stretch of lagoons in the northern portion wouldI 42 I ~~~remain open to the public as a park. The WPA furnished a drag-line shovel to excavate the lagoons, and the City supplied an industrial railroad to remove the dirt. Two locomotives and 14 hand pump cars I ~ ~~were bought by the Park Department. About 200 men worked on the project for three years, grading dirt and planting vegetation. Excavating work on the lagoons and pond systems was completed in 5 ~~~1941. The total cost to the City was $10,000.00. The water surface was about 30% of the entire area. The average depth was six feet. Areas around ponds were raised two feet by I ~ ~~dredging from the ponds. The lagoons in the refuge area (southeastern portion) were dug shallower than those in the park area. Since the City could provide for the Sanctuary more effectively than the Club, the Green Bay Park Board was entrusted with the care and management of the area in 1941. The Sanctuary officially became the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. In 1942, more trees and shrubs were planted on the islands and more waterfowl were nesting in the Sanctuary. The old heating boiler used I ~ ~~to keep the basin open during the winter was replaced by a well and pump. In 1950, two motor driven water circulators were put in to keep a I ~ ~~small area free of ice in winter. The Boiler Room (formerly the WPA blacksmith and locomotive shed) was modified with lumber from the old Green Bay Packer Stadium into a warming and observation building for public use. By 1956, approximately 3,000 birds over-wintered at the Sanctuary. I ~ ~~Shelled corn was sold for l0U a bag (same price as today - no inflation here). The money from corn and other concessions paid for food and care for the animals. Geese were first banded at the Sanctuary during the summer of 1965. One hundred and sixty seven geese were banded at this time. The ponds at the Sanctuary had been gradually deteriorating because I ~ ~~of siltation, evaporation, high algal blooms, bank erosion, little or no flushing, excrement from waterfowl, and runoff. Approximately $31,000.00 was raised in 1971 for the main feeding lagoon reclamation. I ~ ~~Students sold "Save The Sanctuary" pins. Industries and clubs gave donations and the remainder of the money was provided by the City of Green Bay. I ~~~The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary has undergone a number of changes in recent years. The area of land has grown with the acquisition of 47 acres between Sanctuary Road and East Shore Drive and additional I ~ ~~acreage east of Danz Avenue. The number of waterfowl continues to increase each year as does the number of visitors touring the area. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~43 The existing Nature Center was remodeled during 1976-1977; with the new addition providing needed space for exhibits and displays. With the renovation completed, the Nature Center is a rustic building blending with the landscape. A support organization, "Friends of the Say Beach Wildlife Sanctuary", was formed (Appendix J). A perimeter fence was placed around 3/4 of the Sanctuary in 1979. The animal care center was remodeled during the early part of 1980, to better care for the increasing number of young and injuredI animals brought to the Sanctuary. With the necessary funds supplied by a Community Development Grant, a special trail designed for handicapped persons is underway. Administration GoalsI The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary was established as a waterfowl refuge to provide an environment where wildlife, plants, people, and other natural elements can come together for mutual experiences. It shall provide activities that promote, enhance, preserve the value of the Wildlife Sanctuary and stimulate community awareness and involvement in the out of doors. The specific goals of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary are: To preserve and reinforce the Wildlife Sanctuary as a refuge.I To establish fauna and flora indigenous to Northeastern Wisconsin. To encourage diversity of biotic communities for study and research. To foster appreciation, understanding and study of nature throughI outdoor education. To coordinate planning with other adjacent ecological and urban areas. To allow passive recreation and only those activities that will be in harmony and compatible with the other goails of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. No hunting, no trapping, no collecting of plants or animals is permitted, except under special circumstances and with theI Sanctuary Manager's approval. Personnel The Wildlife Sanctuary is administered by the City of Green Bay Park and Recreation Department, which is under the direction of the Board of Park Commissioners, the City Council, and the Mayor. (See Flow Chart) The Sanctuary Manager also seeks advice and support from two segments of the community:I Professional advice on specific problems of wildlife management is sought from personnel in the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the University of Wisconsin System - Green Bay and Madison, and other professional organizations. Advice and support for fund raising, activities and social functions is sought from the "Friends of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary"I organization (Appendix J). 44 SANCTUARY ADMINISTRATION - FLOW CHART BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS DIRECTOR I PARKS, RECREATION---_j &FORESTRY I I SANCTUARY _ "Friends" MANAGER Board of Directors Pres ident ASSISTANT MANAGER Vice President Secretary Treasurer OPERATING Administrative I PERSONNEL Committees 20 HR/WK NATURALISTS 40 HR/WK CETA PERSONNEL Finance Members CONCESSIONAIRES Membership WORK CREWS Publicity VOLUNTEERS Program By-laws 45 The Sanctuary Manager carries out duties according to the job description for manager and as assigned by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry and by the Superintendent of Parks. His duties include planning, development, review and recommendationI of programs, wildlife management, physical facilities and policies for the improvement of the Wildlife Sanctuary. He also seeks, initiates and coordinates special funding and grants for personnel and facilities. He supervises operating personnel, work programs,I volunteer activities, Sanctuary publications and public behavior so that the goals of the Sanctuary are carried out. The Assistant Manager carries out duties according to his job description and as assigned by the Sanctuary Manager. His main duties include assisting the manager in supervising the overall operation, and he assumes manager's duties in his absence from site (This is an important task since the Sanctuary is open 84 hours per week in spring and summer and 63 hours per week in fall and winter). He also coordinates wildlife research at the Sanctuary. Operating personnel perform duties as directed by Sanctuary Manager and Assistant Manager, including animal care and cage maintenance, wildlifeI inventories, developing and performing educational programs, conducting trail tours, designing displays, maintaining records, and promoting Sanctuary goals in a professional manner. Other duties include yard,I trail and building maintenance and selling corn. The Sanctuary Staff for the summer of 1980 consisted of: A Sanctuary Manager An Assistant Manager Six 20 hr/wk Naturalists Five 40 hr/wk limited term CETA personsI Ten youths working under the "Youth Work Experience" program, for the summer only as concessionaires and yard maintenance personnel. This is a large staff; however, the need for staffing is great at the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary is open seven days a week, including holidays, year-round and during the spring and summer (April thru September) is open twelve hours a day ( 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., a total of 84 hours per week). The CETA program has provided limited term personnel but might be phasedI out entirely in the near future and, therefore, cannot be relied upon as a source of personnel. In a comparison of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary (Appendix Q) to other nature centers in the United States, the Sanctuary compares very well in all areas except two; staffing and facilities. The size of the building and the number of permanent full-time staff were more adequate at the other nature centers, (Guidelines For Interpretive Building Design) The Wildlife Sanctuary ranks very high in; number of visitors, size of area, professionalism of staff, number and quality of programs provided,I trails, environmental education programs, community input, etc. 46 Recommendations To adequately respond to the over 200,000 visiting public using the Sanctuary, to care for the animals, and to provide programs, displays Iand general maintenance for the present facilities and 350 acres of land, the following recommendations are suggested: 1. An increase in full-time permanent staff 2. A new Nature Center and animal facilities The following staff is recommended: a. Sanctuary Manager - full-time, permanent - duties as stated I ~ ~~~~earlier under present staff. b. Assistant Manager - full-time, permanent - duties as stated earlier under present staff. I ~ ~~~C. Head Naturalist - full-time, permanent - duties to coordinate and implement programs, displays, school groups, education schedule, publicity, volunteers. d. Five 20 hr/wk part-time Naturalists to assist Head Naturalist. e. Animal Caretaker - full-time, permanent - duties - animal care and cage maintenance, rehabilitation of injured animals. f. Three 20 hr/wk part-time animal care personnel to assist I ~ ~~~~Animal Caretaker. g. Maintenance Person - full-time, permanent - duties - grounds, building and equipment maintenance, supervise work crew. I ~ ~~~h. Work Crew of 2 - 10 - people from various work programs, CETA, etc. I. Three Concessionaires - 40 hr/wk from various work programs. j. 5 - 10 dedicated volunteers willing to work 5 - 10 hrs/wk as needed. It is also suggested that police aides or park police be considered to assist in patrol ing the Sanctuary during the summer and on weekends. Pay scale for both part-time and full-time Sanctuary employees should I ~ ~~be equal to similar positions on the City-County or other Nature Center- Museum pay scales. A new Nature Center and animal complex are discussed in the Management I ~ ~~Section of this Master Plan and drawings are presented in Appendix R. It is realized that there is a need for new facilities and it is recommended that the plans presented be considered for future construction. Funding Funds for the operation of the Wildlife Sanctuary come from four sources: 1. The City Budget - Park and Recreation Department 2. Program fees, sales from corn, concessions, and souveniers 3. Donations from individuals and corporations 4. Federal, State and local funds obtained for special projects or buildings (ex. Coastal Zone Management Grant for Master Plan) * ~~~Fund raising is done by the "Friends of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary" organ izat ion. Personnel are paid through City budget (Manager, Assistant Manager and 20 hr/wk Naturalist) or Federal programs such as CETA, Adult Work Experience, Youth Work Experience, or other work programs. 47 Visitor Usage A study of the number of visitors using the Sanctuary during 1979 and 1980 showed approximately 242,400 people use the Sanctuary annually. Approximately 207,000 of these people visit the Nature Center - animalI exhibit facilities. Most of the people visited the Sanctuary during the summer (May through August period) and came on weekends (Sunday was the most popular day). Counts showed that on sunny days far moreI people visited the Sanctuary than on cloudy or rainy days. The most popular time of the day was between 2:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. in the afternoon. The majority of people came by car - averaging just overI 3 persons per car and stayed at the Sanctuary about one hour. The heavy weekend use has, at times, severely taxed the Ilimited Nature Center and parking facilities. Appendix Mhas complete graphs of Sanctuary usage. Survey Analysis The purpose of this portion of the study was to obtain preferences from Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary users, which might serve as a guideline forI decisions affecting management goals and objectives. In essence, this was a two part study; part one dealt with on-site visitors and part two was a random survey of Brown County residents. The intent has been toI create a user profile, identify user needs and trends and to identify areas of public interest and concern. This is an initial attempt, and reflects personal preferences of users, but some of the results provideI information that may be drawn upon and utilized in a variety of manage- ment decisions. The methods used in both of the following surveys are standard survey . methods for social analysis at Parks. These methods were based on a social survey done by the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Recreation Site Planning Class 1978, for a St. Croix River Park. Chi square (x2) is a statistical method to help determine if differences between many sets of numerical data are large enough to be significant.I That is; do the numerical differences represent real differences or are they caused by sample size, normal random occurrences, etc. On Site Survey AnalysisI Procedure: Data was obtained through a survey conducted using the questionnaire found in Appendix 0. Visitors to the Nature Center (during fall of 1979 and winter and spring of 1980) were asked to complete this short survey. Data was computer coded and analyzed frequencies and percentages were given. Chi square (x2 was used in testing for significances of differences between two or more sets of responses. 48 Results: A total of 351 questionnaires were completed. The data obtained from this survey was used to construct a visitor profile. Occupations were categorized into 6 groups; students, professionals, blue collar, white collar, housewives, and retired citizens (Table 1). The majority (28.2%) surveyed were students while the minimum (2.6%) were retired citizens. Of the total surveyed, 24.8% were high school graduates and 14.2% were college graduates (Table 2). Years of education of those surveyed ranged from 4 years to post-graduate studies (21 years). Sixty seven percent were from the Green Bay area (which includes DePere, Allouez, Ashwaubenon and Howard), while 21.3% resided in or near Brown County. Ten point five percent were from out of state (Table 3). A large proportion said they traveled 0 - 10 miles (the circumference of the metropolitan area). Fourteen point five percent traveled 11 - 30 miles (Table 4). A large number of visitors are from other counties and states. The Sanctuary is an important visitor attraction for the Green Bay area. The majority (91.5%) of those people surveyed during this span (August, 1979 to April, 1980) came by car (Table 5). Table 6 shows the percent breakdown of distance traveled with type of transportation used. Cars were used most often; even within a 0 - 10 mile distance. This may be due to the fact that 81.2% who visited the Sanctuary came as a group; 50.4% were families while 30.8% were categorized as a mixed group (Table 7). Forty nine point six percent visit the Sanctuary more than 4 times a year (Table 8). A fairly large proportion listed this as being their first visit. Ten point eight percent said they learned of the Sanctuary through word of mouth (Table 9). Television informed 2% of those surveyed while 1.7% came with friends or relatives. A few questions were directed towards time of use (questions 5 and 6). Sixty two percent of the visitors use the Sanctuary on weekends and weekdays, 26.5% said they visit the Sanctuary on weekends only, 4% come on weekdays only (Table 10). Seasonal use was fairly evenly distributed throughout the year (Table 11). 49 ~.-~~~.~ 49 The more popular activities at the Sanctuary were; waterfowl feeding,I observing the caged animals, and hiking the trails (Table 2). The Chi square test determined significant differences in seasonal use and activities. Waterfowl feeding was a main activity during all seasons. Cross-country skiing and observing exhibits and displays were major winter activities. During the summer months observation of wildlife and hiking were popular activities.3 The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary was not the only attraction visited by 15.7% of those surveyed. Nineteen point seven percent stopped at the Bay Beach Amusement Park and 16% visited the UWGB Arboretum. Visitors were asked if they felt the site was crowded during their visit. Fifty nine point eight percent felt it was not a problem (Table 13). A Chi square test was used to determine if there were any significant differences between response to crowding and date of visit. All factors were significant. Therefore, the perception of crowding was related to the date of visit. Mailout Survey Analysis Procedure: Data was obtained by mailing a questionnaire (See Appendix N)I to seven hundred and eighty randomly selected people residing in the Brown County area. Data from the questionnaires were computer coded and analyzed. Chi square (x2) was used in determining significance ofI differences between two or more responses. Results: Of the 780 questionnaires sent out, 42% were completed and returned. Of those who completed the survey, 24.6% were blue collar workers, 20.6% were white collar workers, 12.9% were retired citizens (Table 14). The remaining 6.4% consisted of housewives and students. Table 15 illustrates the educational background of those surveyed; 36.3% were high school graduates, 13.5% were college graduates, while 5.6% did some post graduate work.3 In order to determine the number of people who have visited the Sanctuary, the question, "Have you ever visited the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary?" was asked. Ninty six point six percent replied yes. OnlyI 3.4% or seven persons had not visited the Sanctuary. Those who did visit the Sanctuary were asked how they had learned about it (question 3). Forty nine point two percent said they were life-long residents of Green Bay, 17.8% said through word of mouth, and 11.4% found it when driving by (Table 16). The majority (94.5%) of people came by cars (Table 17). Forty sevenI point one percent traveled 6 - 15 miles to the Sanctuary while 43.7% live 16 to 30 miles away (Table 18). The summer season receives the most use (88.3%) and winter receives the least (Table 19). Forty five point five percent of those who completed the survey said they use the Sanctuary on weekends only, while 36.9% use it both weekends and weekdays (Table 20). Afternoon is the peak time of use, 86% said they come during this time (Table 21). 50I 5 ~~~When asked how long they usually stay, 64.9% said they spent one to two hours while 23.7% spent less than an hour on site (Table 22). Thirty seven point six percent said they visit I - 2 times a year (Table 23). Seventy one percent said they spent approximately $5.00 or less during their visit to the Sanctuary (including cost of gas, food, fees and purchases made at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary and surrounding Green Bay area). Table 33 gives a further breakdown of stay and amount I ~ ~~spent. Forty three point seven percent said they went to other attractions (Table 23). Of this proportion, 41.2% went to the Bay Beach Amusement Park and 1.4?% visited UWGB. When asked to select one or two reasons for visiting the Sanctuary, relaxation and fun were picked most often (Table 24). All were asked to check those activities they participated in while at the Sanctuary (Table 25). The activities selected most often were; viewing the animal exhibits (78.8%), waterfowl feeding (76.9%) and viewing the Nature Center (44.6%). Chi square was used to test for significance I ~ ~~of difference between season (s) of use and activities participated in. None were significant indicating that these activities are the most popular during all seasons. A few opinion questions were placed on the questionnaire in an effort to determine the likes, dislikes and desires of the people. (Questions 14 - 20) Question 14 dealt with crowding at the Sanctuary. Sixty five point five percent felt the area was slightly to moderately crowded (Table 26) during their time of visit. 3 ~~~In order to understand the attitudes and views of those surveyed, they were asked how they preceive the Sanctuary (Question 15). Most selected one or two answers. The majority (71.4%) felt that the Sanctuary was a natural area where wildlife and forest form a pleasant rustic setting, 45.8% view the Sanctuary as an area where educational and recreational activities are mixed (Table 27). Those surveyed were asked to select and rank the features they considered the most important (I being the highest). I ~ ~~These were given a weighting 1=8 points, 2=7, 3=6, 4=5, etc. The weightings were added; features with the highest totals were most important. The results are found in Table 28. Wildlife, waterfowl, I ~ ~~natural areas and the lagoons and ponds were given the highest rankings. Those surveyed were also asked to select and rank the features they felt to be possible problems at the Sanctuary. These were weighted as above and totaled. The results are in Table 29. Litter, water pollution, lack of parking facilities were viewed by visitors as problem areas. Question 18 listed a number of statements reflecting possible practices or preferences; all were asked to check the answer which best reflected I ~~~their interest or attitudes. Negative responses were given a negative value, positive responses received a positive value. Those uncommitted were omitted. The greater the deviation from zero the stronger the I ~ ~~response. All statements reflecting possible practices or preferences were rated favorable (Table 30). Question 19 dealt with programming and facilities at the Sanctuary. All I ~ ~~were asked if they would use any of the listed programs or facilities if 51 offered. These were weighted and ranked as stated before (Table 31).U Drinking fountains, live native Wisconsin animal exhibits, botanical gardens, nature center exhibits, picnic areas, observation decks were given the highest rankings. Snowshoe trails, bait and sport shops, I handicapped facilities were ranked the lowest. Question 20 asked the maximum amount they would be willing to pay if a fee was charged to see a live native animal exhibit. The majority (53.2%') were willing to pay 25~ - $1.00 to see an exhibit of this type (Table 32). Conclusion Both the on-site and mailout survey provide much needed visitor profile3 data. A wide distribution of occupational types were surveyed. The majority of persons surveyed had completed their high school education. A large proportion had also completed college as well. When asked how they learned of the Sanctuary the majority said through word of mouth (excluding those who said they were life-long residents), newspapers and television played a small role since most people knew about the Sanctuary. The surveys indicated that cars are the main means ofI transportation to the Sanctuary even within a 0 - 10 mile radius. This is probably due to the fact that those who come to the Sanctuary come either as a family or mixed group. The majority of those who filledI out the on-site questionnaire visit the Sanctuary more times per year than those who filled out the mailout survey. A fairly even seasonal use distribution was indicated from the on-site survey. This is probably because this survey was conducted mainly in winter months and that those who visit in the winter also use the site in the more popular months (summer and spring). The mailout survey indicated a higher use during the summer months. A large proportion of peopleI visit the Sanctuary on weekends only, but there is a relatively high number who use the area both weekends and weekdays. The top five activities that visitors participate in are waterfowl feeding, viewingI animal exhibits, hiking and viewing the Nature Center. Activities such as picnicking,fishing, skiing and snowshoeing tend to be more seasonal. Some people did visit other areas before or after visiting the Sanctuary. Most of these visit the Bay Beach Amusement Park. Some people felt the Sanctuary was overcrowded, but this may be based upon the time and season of their visit.3 The mailout survey provided additional profile information plus helpful public evaluation and opinions of future management goals and policies. Alarge proportion of visitors prefer to use the Sanctuary during theI afternoon. Their length of stay was usually from I - 2 hours. The survey supports the fact that the Sanctuary is an inexpensive place where a family or group can spend one to two hours. Seventy one percent of those surveyed said they spent .00~ - $5.00 at the Sanctuary (Table 33).1 Brown County residents view the Sanctuary as a natural area which provides the surrounding communities with educational and recreational facilities. With this in mind the area residents recognize the important features ofI the Sanctuary; wildlife, waterfowl, natural areas, lagoons and ponds. They are strongly supportive of the following ideas: on-site outdoor education and expansion of refuge or Sanctuary lands.3 52 3, ~~Those surveyed indicated the need for more water fountains, expansion of parking facilities and more picnic areas. They perceive litter and water pollution as main problems at the Sanctuary. Outdoor Education and Community Programs Prior to 1970, tours or education programs were not available for groups visiting the Sanctuary. The first Naturalist led family tours began in 1970. The tour was a brief walk through the central facilities, which consisted of an observation building, animal complex and a newly established trail (present Goose Refuge Trail). The exhibits consisted of a few caged exotic and domestic species outdoors and a few displays in the observation building. The following year, general tours were expanded to include scout troops and school groups. One Naturalist was hired for the summer months. By 1972, the first year round Naturalist was employed to work with school groups and community lectures. The number 3 ~~~of lectures and tours given grew in the following year, 1973-1974. Outdoor education programs developed and became an integral part of the Sanctuary's growing educational role in 1975 and 1976. One hour special I ~ ~~naturalist led field studies for lower grades were designed. University professors, classes, and individual students began to recognize the educational opportunities the Sanctuary held. Students from UWGB and Stevens Point, using the Sanctuary as a model, designed sensory aware- ness programs for Environmental Education classes. A series of Outdoor Education activities, which were site specific for the Sanctuary, were I ~~~created by another group of UWGB students as a class project. Late 1977 and early 1978 was an expansion period for the Sanctuary. The trail system now stretched for 21 miles; accompanied by a trail booklet I ~ ~~for those interested in a self-guided tour. A series of Sanctuary Saturday classes for families was offered. These lectures were usually conducted by~a person with a knowledgable background of the subject. The Wildlife Sanctuary's lecture series continued to grow in popularity among school groups and clubs within the community. This was also a testing period for the first units of 3rd and 4th grade outdoor education programs and a Summer Park Naturalist Program. The Summer Park Naturalist Program was initiated as a nature awareness experience for youngsters in the City BY 1978 and 1979 a complete set of Outdoor Education units for grades I ~ ~~K-6 were available in manual form, containing various group activities for the classroom and on-site. With help from staff, teachers and students participated in a day long program of field activities. This U ~ ~~type of program required teachers to attend an on-site inservice training session. Eight part-time Naturalists were needed to accomodate the 10,000 students and groups who visited the Sanctuary that year. Because I ~ ~~of the success of the Summer Park Naturalist Program the preceeding summer, two additional people were hired for the summer of 1979. In the fall of 1979, the Outdoor Education units for K-6 were modified I ~ ~~into one-half day field trips, but still contained the same types of 53 activities, goals and objectives as the original programs. Two1 additional units have been developed; The Time Tunnel and a 7th and 8th grade Outdoor Education Unit. All units emphasize environmental awareness and ecology. Manuals designed for teachers include a discussion of goals and objectives, pre and post activities and a detailed explanation of the on-site activities. The Time Tunnel, by means of first person interpretation, takes a historical look at the lower Green Bay area around 1800. These programs require on-site teacher in-services. Other environmental education programs are offered by the Sanctuary3 which do not require a teacher in-service training session. These include the naturalist's guided nature trail, self-guided nature trail, animal program and lecture series (Appendix L). The Sanctuary encourages the teachers to discuss their choice of programs with a naturalist so that the program can be geared toward the subject area the class is studying. Part of the Sanctuary policy requires the teachers to schedule group trips at least two weeks in advance. The Sanctuary offers a number of programs for the community as well. In addition to those programs mentioned above (Appendix L) SundayI movies, Saturday classes, waterfowl feeding and nature center exhibits are available to everyone. RecreationI Besides serving as a wildlife refuge and environmental education site, the Sanctuary also serves as a recreation site. The number of visitors using the Sanctuary has increased steadily over the years and some of these people use the Sanctuary for recreational purposes. This is due to a variety of factors including: greater public awareness of theI Sanctuary's facilities and programs, easy accessibil~ity, close proximity to Bay Beach Amusement Park, increasing gas prices, and the overall high demand for recreational areas.3 54 3 ~~~While the Sanctuary is helping to meet public recreation needs, care must be taken to preserve the main goal of the Sanctuary, which is to serve as a wildlife refuge. Therefore, only those activities that are I ~ ~~compatible with this main goal can be allowed. It is the continuing responsibility of the Sanctuary Manager and the Park Director to determine compatible activities. U ~~~It would be impossible to list all the activities that would be considered compatible or incompatible at the Sanctuary. Below are 3 ~~~listed a few examples: Compatible (in designated areas only) Incompatible 3 ~~~Hiking Snowmobil1ing Botany Baseball Bird Watching Football Relaxing and enjoying nature Ice skating I ~ ~~Photography Boating Sketching and painting Hunting Fishing Off road vehicles I ~ ~~Picnicking Camping Jogging Picking plants Snowshoeing Loud music Cross-country skiing Pets Viewing wildlife and exhibits Alcohol Only a limited amount of Sanctuary area can be used for these compatible activities without interfering with the main purpose of the Sanctuary. Some questions to be considered when determining if an activity is compatible are: 1. Does the activity deprive the wildlife of needed habitat; resting areas, feeding areas, or nesting areas? 2. Does the activity cause unnecessary stress on the wildlife or habitat? 3. Can the activity be easily monitored or controlled by I ~ ~~~~Sanctuary staff? 4. Does the activity disturb the normal peace and, quiet most people expect when they visit a wildlife sanctuary? At present, snowshoeing is compatible at the Sanctuary because snow- shoeing is only allowed on one trail and the group is led by a naturalist. Unlimited showshoeing would cause a great deal of stress on the winter wildlife and therefore is not compatible. It is recommended that the Sanctuary Management continue the very good I ~ ~~job it has done in the past of maintaining a delicate balance between human use and refuge areas. This will ensure that the necessary habitat is preserved for wildlife and the needs of people to enjoy the area are both met. 55 o MAP 10 4 A4s ... . . . , 0Ott'_ __Z_-- '----- Z~~ \_ cb)~~~~~~~~~~,-~�I{1l1v ::~o~........._ co)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A~~rrINENl~~~ u LLJ J~____ O ~~~~ X\~en m- - - m m m - - - - m- Map 10 Passive Recreation Areas at Wildlife Sanctuary |||}||1 Fishing and Picnicking Areas Refuge Areas '..."- Trails I U I I U I I 3 MANAGEMENT AREAS I I I I I I I I I I U I ~~~~~~~~~MANAGEMENT BY AREA Introduction The Sanctuary has been divided into four main areas for purposes of management discussion (Map 7). The main management concerns for each area of the Sanctuary will be presented and discussed, alter- I ~ ~~natives will be given and recommendations made. A summary listing of recommendations can be found at the end of this section. Some of the recommendations are already being considered by Sanctuary Management but are presented in this document as a ready reference. Area A This is the Park area along Marsch Road, Sanctuary Road, and the Nature Center-Animal Complex. This area is characterized by mowed lawns and shade trees, mostly Silver Maple and Cottonwood (almost I ~ ~~all the elms have died and been removed). It presently contains picnic area and fishing area for young people under the age of 16. Two very small parking lots (3 - 4 car capacity) are located along Marsch Road. The manager's residence, a larger parking lot, the Nature Center, restrooms, workshop, storage shed, animal care center, and caged animal complex are all in this area. Area A can withstand heavy, passive human use and gets it; about 70% of the 242,000 annual visitors spend all of their time in this area. 3 ~~~Future changes planned for this area are: I. Replace present footbridge with a new footbridge 2. Expand restroom facilities I ~ ~~~3. Complete new trail (See Appendix K) 4. Remodel animal cages 3 ~~~The main management concerns in this area are: 1. Nature Center Building 2. Caged Animal Complex 3. Animal Rehabilitation 4. Parking areas and replacement of present single-lane car bridge with a double-lane car bridge.- 5. Recreation Nature Center Building I ~~~The present Nature Center building is a multi-purpose building which functions as a classroom, exhibit area, auditorium, observation room, offices, museum, environmental education laboratory, pump room, library, safworkroom, lunch room, conference hall, general storage area, concession counter, equipment storage area, etc. Since it is a relatively small building (1500 sq. ft.) many of the areas serve several 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~58 purposes. This building was designed as an observation-warming building3 and the multi-use of the building evolved as the needs for more services by the community and visitors grew. The building was not designed for all the functions it is presently attempting to provide and therefore is very inadequate. The main reasons the present building is inadequate are: 1. Lack of sufficient space 2. Lack of proper design for special uses such as; audio visual programs, meetings, exhibits, museum, library, classrooms, laboratories, etc. 3. Lack of necessary facilities within the Nature Center such as;I running water, restrooms, sinks, and drinking fountains. With over 200,000 people using the Nature Center building; some for specific purposes such as programs, education classes, meetings, etc., there is a great need for a new Nature Center building. One possible new building plan is presented in Appendix R. Area B, along Sanctuary Road is a possible site for a new Nature Center. If a new Nature CenterI is built, the present Nature Center could be maintained year-round as an observation-warming building for the study of bird life (Ornithological Center).I Caged Animal Complex The outdoor caged native Animal Complex presently consists of skunk,U woodchuck, badger, fox squirrel, porcupine, gray fox, raccoon, coyote, wolf, raven, waterfowl, and crows. Audubon's Caracara and European ferret are also displayed but are not native to Wisconsin. Alternatives to the present outdoor caged Animal Complex are: 1. Dismantle the cages and sell or give the animals to other zoos, or release the animalsI 2. Enlarge the cages, giving the animals about twice as much room but in the same type of cage 3. Build a completely new, modern complex using the new methodsI of "cageless" caging 4. Retain the animal complex as is3 Alternative I - Dismantle the cages, sell or give the animals to other zoos, or release the animals. Some people feel it is inhumane to keep the animals locked up and would enjoy the opportunity to see animals close up and to show them to their children. Viewing the animal exhibit was one of the most popular activities of the people surveyed. Caged animals can be an effective educational too] to give people a better understanding and appreciation for theI animal itself and more respect for animals in general. Some of the caged animals are useful in the environmental education program as an example of a "hands on" animal. Almost all the animals in the Sanctuary cageI complex are former wild-pets and would not survive if released. 59 Alternative 2 - Enlarge the cages, giving the animals about twice as I ~ ~~~~~~much room but in the same type of cages. For a cost of between $5,000 and $20,000, the cages could be renovated and enlarged. This would give the animals about twice as much room. I ~ ~~The cages could not be enlarged more than twice their present size be- cause of the lack of space at their present site. The laws and regulations governing caging and exhibiting wild animals are becoming I ~ ~~stricter, and the present cage system barely meets regulations and possibly would not meet a new code. Alternative 3 - Build a completely new modern cage complex using the I ~ ~~~~~~new methods of "cageless" or earthen-moated outdoor animal exhibits (similar to the Milwaukee Zoo). This method of exhibiting animals is very expensive and requires much I ~ ~~more land than is available at the present cage site. The area north of Sanctuary Road (Area B) would be the most likely site. This area has already been highly disturbed by man and is large enough for an exhibit complex. Alternative 4 - Retain the animal complex as is even though it is an outdated system. This has been the Sanctuary policy for at least the last five years until more information was gathered. Sanctuary management is presently planning renovation of present cages since any new cage complex possibility is still in the future, and cage modification is urgently needed. The Sanctuary should still continue to consider the "cageless" or earthen- moated exhibit method for the near future and strive for fewer exhibit animals but more space for each animal in a more natural environment. It should consider those animals that make the most interesting exhibits and adapt easily to confinement (such as otters) for exhibit animals. The I ~ ~~Sanctuary should also continue its present policy of exhibiting only native Wisconsin animals and resist requests to exhibit exotic or non- native animals. Exotic animals are expensive, not adapted to this climate, I ~ ~~require extra care and do not fit into the overall education program the Sanctuary offers. Rehabilitation of Sick, Injured, or Orphaned Animals Animals are often brought to the Sanctuary for care and rehabilitation. Sanctuary Policy (#2.124) for care of injured animals, summarized briefly, I ~ ~~states that the Sanctuary will discourage the public from bringing in injured, orphaned, or displaced animals. But animals that are brought in are diagnosed, quarantined, treated and released, or disposed of in a I ~ ~~humane, professional manner. The party may not have the animal back, nor does the Sanctuary pick up animals, except in rare cases. Most animals that are brought in as orphans are not orphans but are I ~ ~~recently fledged songbirds, or young rabbits or squirrels and the parent is not seen by the person finding the animal. These animals are better I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~60 off left where they are found. Wounded animals have a very small chance3 of recovering well enough to be returned to the wild. It is a great challenge to tactfully inform the public that young animals should be left alone and that most wounded animals have very little chance of recovery. The Sanctuary does stress this point in its public programs. The Sanctuary has recently updated and expanded its animal care facilities. It made the necessary contacts with local veterinarians who have donatedI their time. It also has made arrangements with volunteers, who have animal rehabilitation licenses, to assist in the care for these animals. In 1979, the Sanctuary cared for more than 815 sick, injured, and orphanedI animals and each year more animals are brought in. The Sanctuary is continuing to provide this needed service for the community. The Sanctuary could refuse any orphaned, sick, or wounded animals (letI the D.N.R., Fish and Wildlife Service, or Humane Society handle this chore and expense). However, since locally, the Sanctuary is best equipped to handle these animals, and has traditionally done this sinceI 1936, and because of the expected negative public reaction toward the Sanctuary if it did completely refuse to accept injured wildlife, the Sanctuary should retain its current policy. Parking Occasionally parking is a problem at the Sanctuary. As visitor usage3 continues to increase and with the loss of two small parking areas along Marsch Road, the Sanctuary might have to sacrifice some land for additional parking space. Since most of the visitor usage takes place in Area A,I especially around the Nature Center and picnic areas, any additional parking lot should be located in this area. The most likely site would be the area immediately northwest of the manager's residence. This area is large and level and would convert into a parking'lot easily. It is near the picnic area and Nature Center, and it would be easy to control public access (especially during closed hours).3 Several alternative areas along Marsch Road could be used but they do not afford the advantage of nearness to the Nature Center and control of public access that the previously discussed site has. Not adding needed parking could cause undesirable public behavior such as parking on the lawn, parking along the road, fewer visitors, or negative public feelings. However, one advantage of not enlarging the parking area is that limited parking will limit the number of people using the area at any one time. This may be an effective way of preventing over-use at the Sanctuary. It is recommended that the area northwest of the manager's residence be considered for a parking lot in the near (I - 2 years) future. The present narrow one-lane bridge leading to the Nature Center is very hazardous and is a traffic bottleneck. It is recommended that this presentI one-lane bridge be replaced by a two-lane bridge. 61 Recreation Most of the recreation that takes place at the Sanctuary occurs in Area A since this area was set aside for public use. Recreation was discussed in the previous section (Human Element). It was acknowledged there that the current Sanctuary policy toward recreation is adequate and has done a good job in maintaining the proper balance between I ~ ~~recreation and other goals for the Sanctuary. It is also recommended that the Sanctuary maintain its current policy (Sanctuary Policy 3.3) and resist any efforts to convert more land from wildlife habitat into I ~ ~~recreational land. Area B I ~~~This is the land north of Sanctuary Road to East Shore Drive. Most of this land was a dump site. This area is the most disturbed site at the Sanctuary and has the poorest wildlife potential of any Sanctuary land. It will also require the most effort and money to upgrade the wildlife 3 ~~~Management alternatives for this area are: 1. Do nothing; let nature reclaim this area at its own rate 2. Attempt to establish plant communities I ~ ~~~3. Cover the ground with 4 to IS inches of soil, landscape, and then establish plant communities 4. A site for new Nature Education Center and a large, modern, I ~ ~~~~live animal exhibit. Alternative I - Do nothing, let nature reclaim this area at her own rate. Due to lack of funds, this is the present Sanctuary management policy. As a result, this area has low plant diversity and little wildlife I ~~~Alternative 2 -Attempt to establish plant communities. Without proper soil, any attempt to establish plant communities would probably be a waste of time, effort, and money. Invasion - weed type species are the only plants able to grow in the present poor soil. Alternative 3 - Cover the ground with 4 to 18 inches of soil, landscape, and then establish plant communities referring to The Vegetation of Wisconsin, by John Curtis, as a source. This is a good alternative, but it is also very expensive. There may be fairly cheap, clean dirt fill available which would reduce the cost of this alternative. For example, the Army Corps is looking for sites to dispose of channel dredgings from the bottom of Green Bay. Several sites on the Sanctuary have been proposed (See map on following page) and Area B is one of those sites. But before the Sanctuary accepts these dredgings, many questions need to be answered: What form will the dredging be in? Will it make suitable soil? How contaminated with pollutants are the dredg ings? 62 0 ~~~~~~WILDLIFE SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES a~mOWNED BY CITY PRIMAARY DISPOSAL SITES --~ ,~ATO BE ACQUIRED F-f',2 POTENTIAL DISPOSAL SITE - F~~AI~ CONSIDERED, BUT REJECTE2 -- - ~HARBOR S" a I: - A / W~~~~~~~~~~~~ILULIFH SANCTUARY '~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~d L . ~~JjLI~~~~~1[~~~ I I~~~~ _ . ~~~CONS113ERED DISPOSAL SITES ~~~77~~~~~Zi~~~~~Z' - .~~~~~~~~~~ ~FIGURE. 4 Map 1 Alternative 4 - A site for a new Nature Education Center and a large I ~ ~~~~~~modern, live animal exhibit. This alternative has been mentioned earlier in the management section of Area A. The use of this area for a Nature Center-Animal Complex is probably the most suitable alternative in terms of use of land and location for a Nature Center-Animal Complex. Appendix R contains plans for the Nature Center and Animal Complex. Area C Area south and east of present nature center. This area contains the I ~ ~~lagoons, the islands and the area bordering Interstate Highway 43. 3 ~~~The main management concerns in this area are: 1. Trails 2. Refuge or restricted area I ~ ~~~3. Buffer Zone along 1-43 4. Field area along Danz Ave. 3 ~~~Trails Three of the six trails at the Sanctuary are located in this area - the Hussong Memorial Trail, the Goose Refuge Trail and the Mockingbird Trail. I ~ ~~The Hussong Memorial Trail is open to the general public during normal Sanctuary hours and is part of the ski trail during winter. The Goose Refuge Trail is closed during waterfowl nesting season and is used only for special groups at other times of the year. The Mockingbird Trail is used only during winter for snowshoeing with a naturalist as a guide. No new trails are being considered for this area. I ~~~It is recommended that no new trails be blazed in this area. The Sanctuary presently contains six trails; four are open to public use, year-round, during normal Sanctuary hours. These four trails are adequate to meet the I ~ ~~needs of Sanctuary visitors. Refuge or Restricted Areas I ~~~It was the goal of the founders of the Sanctuary that 160 acres of the original 200 acres be reserved for wildlife. The Sanctuary management has done a good job in preserving and enhancing these 160 acres for I ~~~wildlife. Most of Area C has generally been closed to public use. This area is reserved for wildlife only; a place where the animals can retreat for resting, nesting, raising young, wintering, etc., with minimal inter- ference by man. From time to time, suggestions are made to allow more human activity ipto some of this area; a new nature trail, outdoor education 3~~~ealetepbi to enjoy this area without infringin~g on the wildlife. It is recommended the Sanctuary retain this area as restricted area and 3 ~~~post it with the proposed signs. 64 Buffer Zone Along 1-435 It is recommended that a buffer zone of evergreen trees be planted along the 1-43 right of way fence to reduce noise and exhaust pollution, andI increase the asthetic appearance of the area. Field Area Along Danz Avenue5 It is recommended that the field area along Danz Avenue be maintained as a meadow, field or prairie except for a buffer strip of vines, trees, shrubs, and evergreens along the Danz Avenue fence. Area D This area is the new land acquisition east of Danz Avenue. Most of this area was a land-fill site. A cattail marsh and cottonwood-willow forest are also located here. The land-fill site has been covered with layers of clay and woodchip-leaf mulch, and is the highest topography in theI Management concerns in this area are:3 1. Revegetation of land-fill site 2. Mulching area3 3. Forested and marsh areas 4. Trails Revegetat ion of Land-fill SiteI To attract a diversity of wildlife, *the Sanctuary must maintain a diversity of cover types. This land-fill area is sparsely vegetated.I This area may make a suitable open field, meadow, or. prairie area. More detailed studies are needed to determine the feasability of this recommendation.3 Mulching Area This area presently contains a woodchip and leaf mulching area andI suggestions have been made that a city-wide mulching area be developed here. The mulch will then be distributed to city residents as it matures. If this area is used for mulching it should be screened with plantings. However, a possible better area would be the former dump area along East Shore Drive east of the corner of Danz and East Shore Drive. This site is more level and the ground beneath it more compacted.3 Forested and Marsh Areas The forested and marsh lands in this area are some of the few examples3 of the natural areas left in this part of the coastal area of the Bay and should be preserved as is and allowed to proceed through their normal stages of succession.I 65 TrailIs Trails considered for this area should not be blazed until a study of the resources has been completed for the entire area east of Danz Avenue and the total amount to be acquired by the Sanctuary is known. The City of Green Bay is attempting to purchase as much of the undeveloped land as is available east of Danz Avenue and north I ~ ~~of 1-43 (as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan - B5,7-2). A sound management plan for this area cannot be made until the entire land area is studied and the amount the City will be acquiring is I ~ ~~known. Conclusion I ~~~In this section recommendations have been made which seem the most sensible for each area considering Sanctuary goals, wildlife needs, human needs and the physical aspects of the area. Other alternatives I ~ ~~are possible and more detailed studies are necessary before any final decisions are made. Summary of General Recommendations for Management Areas: 1. A new Nature Center (15,000 - 30,000 sq. ft.) 2. A new "cageless type" earthen-moated animal complex I ~ ~~~3. Continue policy of exhibiting only native Wisconsin animals 4. Exhibit animals that are interesting and adapt to confinement easily 5. Retain current policy on rehabilitating injured animals 6. Create parking area northwest- of Manager's residence 70. Expand the one-lane bridge leading to the Nature Center into 8.Maintain current policy towards recreation and resist efforts to convert wildlife habitat into recreational land 9.Not blaze any additional trails on the Sanctuary west of Danz Avenue I~~ ~~~o Retain present Restricted Area for wildlife only 11. Plant Buffer strip along 1-43 fence 12. Maintain the present field areas as open field, meadow, or I ~ ~~~~prairie sites along Danz Avenue 13. Preserve natural vegetation areas on east side of Danz Avenue 14. Consider former dump area along East Shore Drive east of Danz Avenue as a possible mulching area. 15. New trails east of Danz Avenue should consider entire area management. I ~~~~~~~~~~~~66 FJORTH "-_ o ) � ( HAIFAycr SAYP 0 0 UOTRHS-c MAP 7m a fI' durCl.A- ARRSER C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - RENA/A Srox S~~~~~~~to~ ~ ~ ~ ~~Id $! ~ ~ ~ _r_ -JOVTI IXOI~~~~~~Y -~r 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ �- ..i IJ I ] O~ ~ i ~;c;c, ,:� ��(6 Q 2 -L41~~ N- 'K 0 / , *n~4/~~A '"' i '""""" '''* / - 0~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~.. ;;;;~~;;;;�;"~~�~�. U~~~~~~~~~~~~ ''''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- o~/~? 'B""'~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ .REASRR/R 0~~~~~, �... c3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i- ------rn-~~~-rn- - n nrnr r Map 7 Management Areas at Wildlife Sanctuary Area A -Park Area Area B -North of Sanctuary Road Area C -South and East of Present Nature Center a' ~~~~~~~~~~~to Danz Avenue Area D -New Acquisition East of Danz Avenue I I I I 3APNICE I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A CLIMATOLOGY OF GREEN BAY AREA Normal weather conditions for the Green Bay Area - recorded at Austin Straubel Airfield - National Weather Service Office. Elevation 682 feet above Mean Sea Level. Lat. 440 29' North, Long. 880 08' West (about 8 miles SW of Sanctuary) Normal Weather Conditions: Temperatures Normal average temperature for Jan. (coldest month) 15.90 F Average maximum (=day) temperature for January 23.80 F Average Minimum (=night) temperature for January 7.90 F Normal average temperature for July (warmest month) 70.30 F Average maximum (=day) temperature for July 80.70 F Average minimum (=night) temperature for July 59.80 F Maximum extremes: 1040 F, July, 1936 and -36o F, January 21, 1888 Normal yearly average temperature of 44.20 F Average maximum (=day) temperature 53.20 F Average minimum (=night) temperature 35.20 F Frost Data from last 8 years - average of 148 frost free days. Last frost normally around May 7 - First frost normally around October 2 (many local frosts occur not recorded at Airfield). Precipitation Average yearly precipitation 28.38 inches (includes snow values expressed as rain). Most rain falls in June - average 3.42" Average seasonal snowfall 44.8" Wind Average speed of 10.2 mph - Prevailing direction is Southwest. Record: 109 mph from NE in 1950. Cloud Cover Percent of possible sunshine 54 Average sky cover in tenths 6.4 Average number of days each year: Clear 89 Partly Cloudy 103 Cloudy 173 With Heavy Fog 26 With Precipitation, .01 inch or more 121 With Snow, 1 inch or more 14 With Thunderstorms 35 With Temperatures 900 F and above 7 With Temperatures 00 F and below 30 69 I APPENDIX B I SOIL ANALYSISI The so!] analysis was not complete at the time of printing and will be added later as a supplement. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 70 APPENDIX C WATER STUDIES OF SANCTUARY LAGOON SYSTEM Water Chemistry Five water samples, one at each of five different locations were taken during the fall of 1979 and spring and early summer of 1980 (map 6). Samples were taken on five dates (total of 25 samples). Water temperature, air temperature, Secchi disk readings and water level readings were taken at the time of sampling. All water chemistry analysis was done by the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District as per normal water analysis methods, except for the dissolved oxygen I ~ ~~test on the samples taken November 14, and the pH test on the samples taken November 14 and March 19. These tests were done by the Coastal Management staff (authors) using water sampling kits (Hach Kits). I ~ ~~Tables I - 5 summarize the results from all water samples. Table 6 compares these results to test results from previous years, and to water samples taken along the east shore of Green Bay near the Sanctuary. Fecal Coliform Tests Samples were taken by the Green Bay Health Department for fecal coliform at two sites; the feeding lagoon, and the front lagoon by the manager's residence (map 6). Samples were taken at the water surface on two dates; November 19, 1979 and June 5, 1980. Sample results are shown on Table 7 and indicate strong evidence of waterfowl wastes as cause of pollution in lagoons. Water Levels Graph I shows the normal seasonal fluctuation of the Sanctuary lagoons during 1979-1980. Water levels at the Sanctuary depend mainly on precipitation, I ~ ~spring snow melt, rainfall and runoff. Two wells add water at the total rate of approximately 50 gallons per minute. Water level measurement is relative. Two permanent gauges divided into 30 cm graduations and subdivided into 3 cm graduations were used to measure water level fluctuations. The gauge in the feeding lagoon is at a different level than the gauge in the lagoon across the parking lot from I ~ ~which the level of the other lagoons was measured. The feeding lagoon water level is always higher than the level in the other lagoons. A pump adds 25 gal./min. of water to the feeding lagoon. This lagoon has a clay I ~ ~lining so no seepage occurs. Water flows from the feeding lagoon into the back lagoons through a small overflow outlet. The level of the other lagoons is lower and fluctuates greater than the feeding lagoon. Occasionally debris (sticks, leaves, etc.) temporarily block the outlet causing the level of the feeding lagoon to rise while the other lagoon levels decline. After the blockage has cleared the water level in the I ~ ~feeding lagoon will decrease and the level in the other lagoons will increase. This is probably what occurred during late October and early November, 1979. 71 Q MAP 6 oe _______ -.-.----S017 z 5 fal ~~~~~~~~~~. ..... . ..... ol ~ / 54 i ol~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~So ~~~~ az,. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~/ Cl)~~~~~~~~~~~~-. Map 6 Location of Water Samples Taken at Wildlife Sanctuary Key A, B Health Department Sample Sites I Metropolitan Sewerage District Sample Sites SITE #1, FEEDING LAGOON TABLE 1 SANCTUARY WATER MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE DATE Nov. 14, Mar. 19, April 10, April 15, June 5, Parameters 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 Air Temp. (CO) 4 13 9 -- 16 Water Temp. (CO) 4 4 7 -- 19 Secchi Disk (CM) 47 64 43 -- 23 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.0 -- -- 8.8 5.3 pH 9.3 9.6 -- 8.1 6.7 Biological Oxygen Demand 6 10 8 6 11 (5 day) 6 10 8 6 11 Orthophosphate .100 .280 .378 -- .800 Total Phosphate .10 .51 .58 .70 1.10 Ammonia Nitrogen 0 1 0 0 .05 Total Nitrogen 2.80 4.00 1.90 2�78 3.47 Specific Conductance 422 410 -- -- 550 Water Level 1.56 -- 1.99 1.93 1.70 -~~~ - -_ SITE #2, LAGOON EAST OF PARKING LOT TABLE 2 SANCTUARY WATER MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE DATE Nov. 14, Mar. 19, April 10, April 15, June 5, Parameters 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 Air Tempo (CO) 4 13 9 -- 16 Water Temp. (CO) 4 4 7 -- 19 Secchi Disk (CM) 100 -- -- -- 43 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 10 -- -- 15.1 7.2 pH 8.3 8.7 -- 8.8 7.7 Biological Oxygen Demand 5 14 11 12 8 (5 day) Orthophosphate .100 .120 .004 .050 .020 Total Phosphate .100 .290 .127 .100 .300 Ammonia Nitrogen 2.5 1 0 0 0 Total Nitrogen 3.10 5 2.10 1.94 2.43 Specific Conductance 465 270 -- -- 545 Water Level 1o90 -- 2.30 2.33 2�02 SITE #3, MAIN BRIDGE TABLE 3 SANCTUARY WATER MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE DATE Nov. 14, Mar. 19, April 10, April 15, June 5, Parameters 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 Air Temp. (CO) 4 13 9 -- 16 Water Temp. (CO) 4 4 7 -- 19 Secchi Disk (CM) 65 -- 59 -- 48 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 12 -- -- 15.5 7.4 pH 8.5 8.8 -- 8.9 7.7 Biological Oxygen Demand 3 10 7 16 8 (5 day) Orthophosphate .1 .004 .001 .100 .04 Total Phosphate .100 .16 .097 .100 .200 Ammonia Nitrogen .8 1 0 0 0 Total Nitrogen 5.60 1 1.70 1.94 2.43 Specific Conductance 440 400 -- 460 545 Water Level 1.90 -- 2.30 2.33 2.02 SITE #4, LAGOON SOUTH OF MANAGER'S RESIDENCE TABLE 4 SANCTUARY WATER MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE DATE Nov. 14, Mar. 19, April 10, April 15, June 5, Parameters 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 Air Temp. (CO) 4 13 9 -- 16 Water Temp. (CO) 4 5 7 -- 19 Secchi Disk (CM) 86 65 59 -- 62 Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 10 -- -- 13.9 7.4 pH 8.5 9.1 8.8 8.8 7.85 Biological Oxygen Demand 7 6 10 14 6 (5 day) Orthophosphate .1 .01 O .02 .01 Total Phosphate .1 .09 .11 .10 .30 Ammonia Nitrogen .8 1 0 0 0 Total Nitrogen 2.8 1 2.1 1.94 2.08 Specific Conductance 432 380 -- 480 535 Water Level 1.90 -- 2.30 2.33 2.02 SITE #5, LAGOON S.E. OF GOOSE REFUGE TRAIL TABLE 5 SANCTUARY WATER MEASUREMENTS SAMPLE DATE Nov. 14, Mar. 19, April 10, April 15, June 5, Parameters 1979 1980 1980 1980 1980 Air Temp. (CO) 4 13 9 -- 16 Water Temp. (CO) 4 5 8 -- 19 Secchi Disk (CM) 110 -- 42 -- 53 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 8.4 -- -- 15 8.5 pH 8.6 8.7 -- 8.8 8.1 Biological Oxygen Demand 7 12 12 16 6 (5 day) Orthophosphate .1 0 0 .03 .03 Total Phosphate .1 .13 .139 .2 .3 Ammonia Nitrogen 1.7 1 0O 0 0 Total Nitrogen 2.8 1 2.8 1.94 2.08 Specific Conductance 478 260 -- 440 540 Water Level 1.90 -- 2.30 2.33 2.02 1m _ _ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - mI I- m - i mm- I- m - m- m i APPENDIX C TABLE 6 COMPARISON OF WATER SAMPLES TAKEN AT WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 1970-1980 The Range of-Sample Results ever the Study Period is Shown PARAMETERS Secchi Dissolved Ortho- Total Ammonia Total Specific Year Site # Disk (CM) Oxygen PH BOD5 Phosphate Phosphate Nitrogen Nitrogen Conductance .. - Ya St mg/l) . (a moks/cm) 1970a 1 8.3-9.2 20-37 .04-.72 .38-1.43 1.49-19.8 4 7.7-9.1 9-18 0-.03 .13-.59 2.24-16.4 1971 - 1 20-98 4-15 7.44-9.91 0-1.5 .03-5.62 0-12.3 380-640 1973b 3 20-95 0-15 7.23-8.94 .002-.213 .06-.82 0-9.0 350-525 5 22-95 0-15 7.23-9,23 o-.o68 .06-.92 0-4.0 360-525 1976c 1 .215 .455 .231 2.3 3 .009 .214 .160 4.5 1979 - 1 23-64 5.3-13.0 6.7-9.6 6-11 .1-.8 .1-1.1 0-1 1.9-4.00 410-550 2 43-100 7.2-15.1 7.7-8.8 5-14 .004-.12 .1-.3 0-2.5 1.94-5 270-545 1980d 3 48-65 7.4-15.5 7..7-8.9 3-16 .001-.1 .097-.2 0-1 1-5.6 400-545 4 59-86 7.4-13.9 7.85-9.1 6-14 -. 1 .09-.3 0-1 1-2.8 -380-535 5 42-110 8.4-15.0 8.1-8.8 6-16 0-.1 .1-.3 0-1.7 1-2.8 260-540 Green Baye 1972 0.0-12.0 7.7-8.3 1.7- 0.0-.272 .04-1.79 .00-.92 1.2-1.68 225-455 Sources: aMetropolitan Sewerage District, 1970 - Personal letters of Communication to Chet Miller, Director, Park & Recreation Dept. bJanet Ladowski - Effects of Waterfowl Population and Sludge Removal on Water Quality of Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, 1974, unpublished report. CJames Wiersma, Dave Brinker - letter communication to Ty Baumann Sanctuary Manager, 1976. dWisconsin Coastal Management Project and.Metropolitan Sewerage District, Water Studies, 1980. epaul Sager, James Wiersma - Water Quality data for east shore of Green Bay 1972, Baseline Information for Proposed Dike Along East Shore of Green Bay. *Site numbers correspond to Sites on Tables 1-5. Values are mg/l except pH, Secchi disk reading and specific conductance. Appendix C Table 7 Fecal Coliform Analysis of Sanctuary Water by City Health Department SPC/ml Total Fecal Fecal Ratio Interpretation Date Site* pH Plate Coli. Strep Coli F. Coli of Ratio Count Per Per Per F. Strep 100 ml 100 ml 100 ml 130 _ .4 Strong evidence of Nov. 19, 1979 A <1,000 200 300 130 300 livestock or poultry CD 260 waste (waterfowl) B 2,000 <100 500 260 500 June 5, 1980 A 7.4 1,200 3,800 3,100 1,600 1600 Strong evidence that .5 pollution is derived 3100 from livestock or poultry waste B 7.8 3,100 5,000 5,100 4,400 44 .86 Predominance of 5100 livestock or poultry wastes in mixed pollution *Site A, feeding Lagoon by Nature Center Site B, Front Lagoon by Manager's Residence - mI -_ --------- APPENDIX C Graph 1 WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS OF SANCTUARY LAGOONS 197941980 2.4 - 2.3 2.2- 2.1-- 2.0-- 1.9-- 1.8 -- 1.6-- 1.5-- 1.4 -- I I ,' , , Aug Oct Lagoons Apr June July Sept i Nov Frozen May DATE Symbols: O Other lagoons Feeding lagoon 81 l~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i ' APPENDIX D VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY HERBACEOUS SPECIES Achillea millefolium Asclepias syriaca I Yarrow Common Milkweed Agastache scrophulariaefolia Asclepias variegata 3 Purple Giant Hyssop White Milkweed Ajuga reptans Asparagus sp. Bugle Common Asparagus Ambrosia artemisiifolia Aster dumosus Common Ragweed Bushy Aster Ambrosia trifida Aster cricoides Great Ragweed Many Flowered Aster (Heath Aster) Amaranthus hybridus Aster lateriflorus Slender Amaranth Calico Aster Anemone canadensis Aster macrophyllus Canada Anemone Large Leaved Aster 3 Anemone quinquefolia Aster novae-angliae Wood Anemone New England Aster Antennaria neglecta Aster pilosus Pussy Toes Heath Aster Anthemis cotula Aster simplex I Mayweed Panicled Aster Apocynum androsaemifolium Aster spectabilis | Spreading Dogbane Showy Aster Aquilegia canadensis Aster vimineus Columbine Small White Aster Arctium minustarctium sp. Barbarea vulgaris Common Burrdock Winter Cress Arissaema atrorubens Berteroa incana Jack-in-the-pulpit Hoary Alyssum Asarum canadense Bidens frondosa Wild Ginger Beggar-tick (Sticktight) 3 Asclepias incarnata Blephelia ciliata Marsh Milkweed (Swamp) Downy-Wood-Mint 82 Boehmeria cylindrica Daucus carota False Nettle (Bog Hemp) Queen Ann's Lace - Wild Carrot Campanula americana Echinocystis lobata Tall Bellflower Wild Cucumber Campanula aparinoides Epilobium glandulosum Bedstraw Bellflower Northern Willow Herb Capsella bursa-pastoris Erigeron annuus Shepherd's Purse Daisy Fleabane Centaurea maculosa Erigeron canadensis Spotted Knapweed Horseweed Cerastium vulgatum Erigeron philadelphicus Mouse-eared Chickweed Common Fleabane Chenopodium album Erythronium americanum Lambs Quarters (Pigweed) Yellow Trout Lily Chenopodium hybridum Eupatorium fistulosum Maple Leaved Goosefoot (Sowbane) Hollow-Joe-Pye-Weed Chrysanthemum leucanthemum Eupatorium perfoliatum Ox-eye Daisy Boneset Cichorium intybus- Eupatorium maculatum Chicory Spotted-Joe-Weed Cirsium arvense Eupatorium rugosum Canada Thistle White Snakeroot Cirsium vulgare Fagopyrum sagittatum Bull Thistle Buckwheat Claytonia virginica Fragaria sp. Spring Beauty Strawberry sp. Convolvulus arvensis Fragaria vesca Field Bindweed Wood Strawberry Convolvulus sepium Galinsoga ciliata Hedge Bindweed Galinsoga (Quickweed) Crepis sp. Galeopsis tetrahit Hawksbeard Hemp Nettle Cuscuta gronovii Galium aparine Dodder Cleavers Cyperus esculentus Galium asprellum Sedge Rough Bedstraw 83 Galium triflorum Linum usitatissimum Fragrant Bedstraw Flax Gentiana andrewsii Lobelia siphilitica Closed Gentian Great Lobelia Gerardia tenuifolia Lychnis alba Slender Gerardia Evening Lychnis Geum virginianum Lycopus americanus Rough Avens Cut-Leaved Water Horehound Glechoma hederacea Lycopus virginicus Creeping Charlie, Bugleweed Helianthus divaricatus Lysimachia terrestris Woodland Sunflower Yellow Loosestrife (Swamp Candles) Hemerocallis fulva Lysimachia thrysiflora Day Lily Bunched Loosestrife Heracleum maximum Lythrum salicaria Cow Parsnip Spiked Purple Loosestrife Hieracium aurantiacum Malva sp. Orange Hawkweed (Devils Paintbrush) Mallow sp. Hordeum jubateum Matricaria maritima Foxtail Barley Scentless Chamomile Hypericum perforatum Medicago lupulina 3 Common St. John's Wort Black Medick Impatiens capensis Medicago sativa Jewelweed (Spotted Touch Me Not) Alfalfa Iris prismatica Melilotus alba Slender Blue Flag White Sweet Clover Iris versicolor Melilotus officinalis Larger Blue Flag Yellow Sweet Clover Lactuca scariola Mentha aquatica Prickly Lettuce Water Mint 3 Lathyrus palustris Mentha arvensis Marsh Vetchling Wild Mint 3 Leonurus cardiaca Mertensia virginica Motherwort Mertensia (Bluebells) Lepidium virginicum Mimulus alatus I Wild Peppergrass Sharp-Winged Monkey Flower I 84 m Mimulus ringens Polygonatum biflorum Square-Stemmed Monkeyflower Solomon's Seal Mirabilis nyctaginea Polygonum amphibium Four-O-Clocks Water Smartweed Monarda fistulosa Polygonum coccineum Wild Bergamot Swamp Smartweed Myosotis scorpioides Polygonum hydropiper True Forget Me Not Waterpepper Nepeta cataria Polygonum hydropiperoides Catnip Mild Waterpepper Nuphar advena Polygonum lapathifolium Spatterdock Pale Smartweed (Nodding Smt.) Nymphaea odorata Polygonum pennsylvanicum Fragrant Water Lily Pennsylvania Smartweed Oenothera biennis Polygonum persicaria Evening Primrose Lady's Thumb - Redleg Oxalis europaea Polygonum scandens Yellow Wood Sorrel (European) Climbing False Buckwheat Oxalis montana Potentilla anserina Common Wood Sorrel Silverweed Oxalis stricta Potentilla norvegica Yellow Wood Sorrel (two species) Rough Cinquefoil Pedicularis lanceolata Prenanthes alba Swamp Housewort Rattlesnake Root (White Lettuce) Phlox divaricata Prunella vulgaris Blue Phlox Heal-All (Self-Heal) Pilea pumila Ranunculus acris Clearweed (Richweed) Common Buttercup (Tall) Plantago major Ranunculus septentrionalis Common Plantain Swamp Buttercup Podophyllum peltatum Rosa blanda May Apple Smooth Rose Polemonium van-bruntiae Rudbeckia hirta Jacob's Ladder Black-Eyed Susan Polygala lutea Rumex crispus Yellow Milkwort Curled Dock 85 Saponaria officinalis Sonchus asper Bouncing Bet Spiny-Leaved Sow Thistle Scilla sibirica Sonchus oleraceus Scilla Common Sowthistle Scirpus americanus Stachys tenuifolia Sedge Rough Hedge-Nettle Scutellaria lateriflora Stellaria media Mad-Dog Skullcap Common Chickweed Scutellaria epilobifolia Stellaria pubera Common Skullcap (Marsh) Star Chickweed Scutellaria parvula Tanacetum vulgare Smaller Skullcap Common Tansy Silene cucubalus Taraxacum officinale Bladder Campion Common Dandelion Sisymbrium altissimum Teucrium canadense Tumble Mustard American Germander (Wood Sage) Smilacina racemosa Thalictrum dioicum False Solomon's Seal Early Meadow Rue Smilacina stellata Thalictrum polygamum Starry False Solomon's Seal Tall Meadow Rue Smilax herbacea Tradescantia virginiana Carrion Flower Spiderwort Solanum carolinense Trifolium procumbens Horse Nettle Smaller Hop Clover Solanum dulcamara Typha angustifolia Bittersweet Nightshade Narrow-Leaved Cattail Solanum nigrum Typha latifolia Common Nightshade Common Cattail (Broad-Leaved) Solidago altissima Urtica dioica Tall Goldenrod Stinging Nettle Solidago canadensis Urtica sp. Canada Goldenrod Solidago gigantea Verbascum thapsus Late Goldenrod Common Mullein Solidago graminifolia Verbena hastata Lance-Leaved Goldenrod Blue Vervain 86 Verbena sp. Viola conspersa Dog Violet Vicia americana Viola pubescens Purple Vetch Downy Yellow Violet Viola blanda Viola sororia Sweet White Violet Wooly Blue Violet Viola canadensis Xanthium chinense Canada Violet Cocklebur (Clotbur) NATIVE TREES SPECIES NATURAL TO WILDLIFE SANCTUARY SITE Acer saccharinum Quercus borealis Silver Maple Red Oak Acer negundo Quercus macrocarpa Box Elder Burr Oak Betula papyrifera Salix nigra White Birch Black Willow Fraxinus nigra Salix discolor Black Ash Pussy Willow Populus deltoides Salix interior Cottonwood Sandbar Willow Populus grandidentata Thuja occidentalis Big-toothed Aspen White Cedar Populus tremuloides Ulmus americana Trembling Aspen American Elm NATIVE TREES REINTRODUCED Acer saccharum Fraxinus pennsylvanica Sugar Maple Green Ash Betula lutea Gleditsia triacanthos Yellow Birch Honey Locust Carpinus caroliniana Juglans nigra Ironwood Black Walnut Celtis occidentalis Larix laricina Hackberry Tamarack Crataegus sp. Picea glauca Hawthorn White Spruce 87 Picea pungens Prunus americana Blue Spruce Wild Plum Pinus resinosa Prunus virginiana Red Pine Chokecherry Pinus strobus Tilia americana White Pine Basswood INTRODUCED OR EXOTIC TREES Acer platinoides Pyrus sp. Norway Maple Flowering Crab Apple Betula nigra Morus alba River Birch White Mulberry Catalpa sp. Picea abies Catalpa Norway Spruce Elaeagnus angustifolia Pinus nigra Russian Olive Austrian Pine Gymnocladus dioica Ulmus pumila Kentucky Coffee Tree Siberian Elm SHRUBS & VINES NATIVE, REINTRODUCED, OR INTRODUCED Amelanchier sp. Euonymus europaeus Juneberry European Spindletree Berberis canadensis Lonicera tatarica Barberry Tartarian Honeysuckle Cephalanthus occidentalis Parthenocissus inserta Buttonbush Virginia Creeper Cornus stolonifera Philadelphus coronarius Red Osier Dogwood Mock Orange Cornus racemosa Physocarpus opulifolius Gray Dogwood Ninebark Corylus americana Rhamnus cathartica Hazelnut Common Buckthorn Euonymus americanus Rhamnus frangula American Strawberry Bush European Buckthorn Euonymus atropurpureus Rhus radicans Burning Bush (Wahoo) Poison Ivy 88 Rhus typhinp Vitis riparia I ~ ~~~Staghorn Sumac -Wild Grape Ribes sp. Sambucus canadens is Currant (Gooseberry) Black Elderberry Rosa blanda Sambucus pubens I ~ ~~~Wild Rose Re-dElderberry Rosa multiflora Viburnum lentago Multiflora Rose Nannyberry Rubus s.~a Viburnum trilobum 3 ~~~~Raspberry sp. H-ighbush Cranberry Syringa vulgaris 3 ~~~~Lilac U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~8 APPENDIX D1 COMPARISON OF THE FOREST AT THE SANCTUARY TO TYPICAL SOUTHERN LOWLAND FOREST Tree Composition (In order of relative dominance) Curtis2 Sanctuaryl Southern Lowland Forest GB-BCPC3 Forest Species Southern Wet Species Av, I.V. Constancy- Successional Forest Cottonwood Silver Maple 81.6 81.5% Black Willow Black Willow Black Willow 64.0 70.3 Cottonwood o Boxelder Cottonwood 54.5 70.4 Red Osier Green Ash American Elm 26.5 66.7 Gray Dogwood Red Osier River Btrch 24.4 51.8 Box Elder Silver Maple White Swamp Oak 15.2 29.6 Green'Ash 8.2 51.9 Bur Oak 5.8 3.7 Boxelder 3.0 22.2 Black Ash - 2.9 18.5 SOURCES; ISanctuary Studies, general observations and point-quarter plant sampling 2Curtis, John T., The Vegetation of Wisconsin, pg. 529. 3Green Bay - Brown County planning Commission, Environmentally Significant Areas Report #48, 1979, pg. 43. APPENDIX D1 STRUCTURE OF A TYPICAL STAND OF SOUTHERN LOWLAND FORESTS Species Less than 1" d.b.h. More than 1" d. b. h. less than 1' tall More than 1' tall 1-4" 4-10" 10-20" 20-30" Wet forest in Dane Countyl Boxelder 154 0 4 13 0 0 Silver Maple 422 158 0 0 0 0 Green Ash 154 0 3 0 0 O Cottonwood 0 0 2 78 66 2 Black Willow 0 212 16 20 22 0 American Elm 212 78 2 0 0 0 1Curtis, John T., The Vegetation of Wisconsin, pg. 530. APPENDIX E ANIMALS OF THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Invertebrates Protozoans~~~~~~~~ Porifera -Fresh water Sponges3 Rotatoria -Rotifers Molluska Pelecypoda - clamsU Gastropoda - snails Pulmonata - Lymnaeidae Pysidae (Physa s.~a) Ctenobranchiata Nematoda - Roundworms (Tubifex tubifex)3 Earthworms (L-umbricus sp:T Arthropoda CrustaceaI Anostraca - Fairy Shrimp Cladocera - Water Fleas (Daphnia sp.) Eucopepoda - Copepods (Cyclops s.)j Isopoda - Aquatic Sow bugs Amphipoda -Scuds & Sideswimmers - talitridae (Hyalella azteca) Decapoda -Crayfish (Procambarus sp.)U Arachn ida Hydracarina - Water Mites Araneida - Spiders Diplopoda - Millipedes3 Chilopoda - Centipedes I nsecta Collembola - Spring Tails Ephemeroptera - Mayflies - Caenidae (Caenis SP. Odonata - Dragonflies - Aeshnidae - darners (Anex sp.) Libellulidae - skimme-rs-(L-adona Sp.) Damselflies - Zygoptera - Coenagrionidae (L-este-s s.) (E-nalIlagma Sp2.) Orthoptera - Grasshoppers Crickets Katyd ids Mallophaga - Feather lice on birds3 92 Hemiptera - Bugs I ~ ~~~~Corixidae - Water boatmen Notonectidae - Backswimmers (Buenoa Sp.) Belostomatidae - Giant Water bugs Tbelostoma sp.) Gerridae - Water Striders (Trepobates. R.) Phymatidae -Ambush bugs Hygaeidae -Milkweed and Box Elder bugs Pentatomidae - Stink bugs ___ Mesovetiidae - Water treaders (Mesovella spa.) Veliidae (Rhagovilia sp.) I~~~~~ootr Cicadidae - Cicadas Cercopidae - Spittle bugs Aphididae - Aphids Coleoptera - Beetles Carabidae - Ground beetles Silphidae - Carrion beetles Elateridae - Click beetles Coccinellidae - Ladybird beetles I ~~~~~Dermestidae -Dermestid beetles Scarabacidae -June beetles Hal ipidae - Crawling water beetles (Peltodytes sp.) Elmidae - Riffle beetles___ Dytiscidae - Predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscus sp.) Lepidoptera -Butterflies and Moths I ~ ~~~~Pieridae -Whites and Sulfers Danaidae -Monarchs Nymphalidae -Mourning Cloaks I ~~~~~Sphingidae -Hawk Moths Noctuidae -Noctuid Moths 3 ~~~~~Lasiocampidae - Tent Caterpillars Diptera - Flies Tipulidae - Crane flies Culicidae - Mosquitoes Chironomidae - Midges Syrphidae -Syrphid flies Muscidae -House flies Tephritidae - Goldenrod Gall fly Tabanidae -Horse and Deer flies 3 ~~~~Siphonaptera -Fleas Hymenoptera -Ants, Wasps, Bees Ichneumonidae - Ichneumid Wasps Formicidae - Ants Vespidae - Paper Wasps 3 ~~~~~Apidae - Bumble Bees 93 I Vertebrates I Fish Black Bullhead (Ictalurus melas) Carp (Cyprinus carpis) Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens) Smallmouth Bass (Micropterus dolomieni) Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus) Bullhead Minnow (Pimephales vigilax) Emerald Shiner .(Notropis atherinoids) Golden Shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) Common Shiner (Notropis cornutus) Reptiles (R) = Species may naturally occur but specimens were known to have been released on site. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingi) (R) Common Snapper (Chelydra serpentina) Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta) Stinkpot (Stenotherus odoratus) (R) Wood Turtle (R) Smooth Scaled Green Snake (Opheodcrys vernalis) (R) Fox Snake (Elphe vulpina) (R) Garter Snake (Thamnophis suritus) Red-Bellied Snake (Storeria occipitomaculata) (R) Hog-nosed Snake (Heterodon platyrhinos) (R) Milk Snake (Lampropeltis getulus) (R) Amphibians American Toad (Bufo americanus) Chorus Frog (Pseudacris sp.) Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) (R) Blue Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma sp.) (R) Spotted Salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) (R) Mudpuppy (Necturus sp.) (R.) Mammals Opossum (Didelphis marsupailis) Shorttail Shrew (Blarina brevicauda) Little Brown Bat (Myotis lucifugus) Masked Shrew (Sorex cinereus) Raccoon (Procyon ltor)t I Shorttail Weasel (Mustela ermina) Least Weasel (Mustela rixosa) Mink (Mustela vison) I Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) Red Fox (Vules fulva) Gray Fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) Woodchuck (Marmota monax) Thirteen-Lined Ground Squirrel (Citellus tridecemlineatus) Eastern Chipmunk (Tamias striatus) Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Gray Squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) 94 I Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger) Deer Mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) White-footed Mouse (Peromyscus lencopus) Meadow Vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) Muskrat (Ondatra zibethica) Norway Rat (Rattus norveicus) House Mouse (Mus musculus) Cottontail Rabbit (Sylilagus floridanus) Whitetail Deer (Odocoileus viyginianus) Beaver (Castor canadensis) (R) River Otter Lutra canadensis) (R) Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius) Birds are listed in Appendix G. 95 APPENDIX E FISH SURVEYS OF SANCTUARY TABLE 1 Summary of Sanctuary Fishing Surveys, Fall 1979 and Spring 1980 Fall 1979 Spring 1980 TOTAL Number of fishermen surveyed 50 161 211 Total hours fished 151 87 238 Average hours fished 3 .54 1.13 Type of Fish Average Size Length in Inches Fall 1979 Spring 1980 TOTAL Bullhead 4.7 317 16 333 Carp 7.3 3 0 3 Sunfish 3.1 12 0 12 Perch 6.6 169 227 396 Bass 4 1 0 1 Northern Pike -- 0 O 0 96 APPENDIX E TABLE 2 Results of Electric Fish Shocking October 19, 1979 Type of Fish Size Length in Number of Fish Shocked Inches Front Lagoon Feeding Lagoon Total Perch 1-4 1 1 4-6 19 19 6-8 178 178 8-10 27 1 28 10-12 5 1 6 232 Carp 1-10 2 2 4 10-20 11 20 31 20-30 5 6 11 Pumpkinseed 1-4 4 4 4-6 4 4 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bullhead 6-9 11 11 Small1mouth. Bass 12 1 1 Golden Shiner 2-6 2 2 Common Shiner X Emerald Shiner X Bullhead Minnow X X indicates several were shocked but no counts made. 97 APPENDIX F SMALL MAMMAL SURVEY, BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY - FALL 1979 In )n 0 0U ) to .-- O 3 Q .0 * -0 - o0 L C- 0 - I . cO. > 0 'I 3 0r 0 c 3 0 : Mow 4- d 4LaJ 3 0/ N e t t e O resn4 4S 4-J 4J w 0U 4-- - L 4- s- 4- CA L ) 4-' o0 o 0 *- 0 0 U) 0 0 L 0 *- a 0 L) ..s 0 o c _ 0 <: 3 En W L3) AREA A 1) Mature Hardwood 220 29/6 7 4 3 8 7 Forest-Cottonwood 2) Mowed Lawn 30 0/0 ISLAND F Small Island 18 1/1 1 Grasses-Large Tree ISLAND B Small Island Nettle, Trees, Shrubs 12 3/1 3 AREA C 1) Mowed Lawn 30 2/2 1 1 2) Evergreens 130 9/3 7 1 1 ISLAND E Small Island 12 0/0 Cottonwood, Red-osier AREA D Old Landfill - 182 6/2 5 1 Unkept Fields AREA E Cottonwood-Buckthorn, 168 29/2 2 27 Small Opening AREA F 1) Box Elder-Cottonwood 48 2/1 2 2) Cattail 48 5/4 1 1 2 AREA G 1) Landfill-Field 24 0/0 2) Cottonwood-Willow 24 8/2 1 7 AREA H 1) Maple-Elderberry 10 3/1 3 2) Box Elder-Cottonwood 14 1/1 1 Nettle ------------------~~ m 84r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -11 ---R E 7A~~~~~~~~~~78 CII)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~005 o MAP B ii fo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r~~~~~~.oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c CIL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SO 0 tO l -- - --- - - - - - - Map 8 Trap Areas for Small Mammal Study (Trap results in table, Appendix F) Extent of Area Covered in Master Plan ~~--<s0 -Trap Lines B\ APPENDIX G3 BIRDS OF THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Method For Breeding Bird Census The census technique used was based on the Williams Spot Mapping MethodI (Williams, 1936) which is commonly used in the United States as a way to measure bird populations during the breeding season. For the census, the Sanctuary was divided into four areas which were systematicallyI covered once a week for four consecutive weeks during the last week of May and most of June. Territorial males (which are used to determine the population) were censused by plotting the position of each singing male on a map, A different map was used on each census. If male birds were observed, but were not singing, they were recorded on the map with a dot afterI their name. Most singing is done right before dawn and during early morning. Censuses were done early in the morning, usually 5:00 A.M. until 7:30 A.M., and there was only enough time to cover one areaI each morning. Additional information taken on each census includes the beginning and ending time, weather conditions (rainy or windy days were avoided), temperature and any additional notes on birds besides the recorded singing males. The same route was used on each census trip. (See Map 6) Routes were selected that would cover the area well enough to enable the observer to hear any singing males within that area. Walking was doneI at a casual pace with stops every 50 meters to aid in detecting all singing males. The breeding bird census was supplemented with general observations madeI of each area during th~e study period. These either added new information or affirmed previous sightings. General observations were kept separate but the information was included in the final report. This breeding birdI study was used to determine the breeding and summer resident birds at the Sanctuary. Census Areas Census Area A Included the Gray Fox Trail, Hussong Trail, the clay dikeI on the south side of the Hussong Marsh and the Wood Chuck Trail. The total length of the route is about 2500 meters.3 Census Area B Included the Goose Refuge Trail, the Mockingbird Trail, and the area south of the deer yard - grid area 6-E. The total length of the route is about 2300 meters. 101 Census Area C Starting at Danz Avenue walking west along the High line- transmission towers on the south border of the Sanctuary and then north along Marsch Road through the park to the about 2150 meters. I ~~Census Area D A canoe was used to cover the back lagoons up to the fence in grid area 5-E. The total length of the route is about 2840 meters. Census Area E East of Danz Avenue, was covered only 3 times, starting at the landfill site, following the transmission towers east to the drainage ditch, then south along the ditch to the 1-43 fence and then west back to the landfill staying about 75 meters north of the fence. The total length of the 3 ~~~~~~route is about 3000 meters. 3 ~~Kgy To Status Symbols PR Permanent Resident; present all seasons. 3 ~~SR Summer Resident; present throughout the summer. WR Winter Resident; present throughout the winter. I ~~TV Transient Visitor; present during normal migration period. SV Summer Visitor; present in summer, but not necessarily throughout the period. WV Winter Visitor; present in winter, but not necessarily throughout 3 ~~~~~the period. * Breeder; has been known to breed at the Sanctuary. I ~~A Abundant; species that stand out as being visibly most numerous in their preferred, or many types of habitat. C Common; species of each family that appear most numerous in their preferred habitat, except for those termed "abundant". FC Fairly Common; "middle-of-the-road" species for each family group. U Uncommon; the least common species of each family group that occur 3 ~~~~regularly in some numbers. R Rare; likely to be seen at the Sanctuary five or less times per year; missed entirely some years. VR Very Rare; likely to be seen at the Sanctuary no more than once every three years. I ~~ACC Accidental; so far removed from normal range as to be of "once-in- a-lifetime" occurrence. I ~ ~HYP Hypothetical; recorded by reputable observers in the field, but no specimens or photographs. 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~102 � � 9 I I I I >1 -- __ I__ -I --z,[ ""*,-fn ZI -__J - - - .* r... .% K - *.. ( 7. �.:�- - - - - y- yr 4- ,. 7 / - - "' --- --- - - -:. soarr*nd .* *.. E - 0 ii --- - minmin - - - - -e m - - i a e m - m m e I Map 9 Bird Census Areas and Routes for Breeding Bird Study �*:"'"o-. Census Routes Birds Of The Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary SPECIES STATUS HABITAT Common Loon VRTV Lagoons Gavia immer Horned Grebe UTV Lagoons Podiceps grisegena Pied-billed Grebe FCSR Lagoons Podilymbus podiceps White Pelican VRTV Lagoons Pelecanus erythorhynchos Double-crested Cormorant RTV Flying over area Phalacrocorax auritus Great Blue Heron USR Lagoon shoreline Ardea herodias Green Heron * CSR Lagoon shoreline Butorides virescens Cattle Egret RTV Lagoon shoreline Bubulcus ibis Common Egret VRTV Lagoon shoreline Casmerodius albus Black-crowned Night Heron CSR Lagoon shoreline Nycticorax nycticorax Least Bittern RSR Lagoon shoreline Ixobrychus exilis American Bittern RTV Lagoon shoreline Botaurus lentiginosus Whistling Swan RTV Lagoons Cygnus columbianus Canada Goose * CPR Lagoons & lawn area Branta canadensis Snow Goose UTV Lagoons & lawn area Chen hyperborea White-fronted Goose VRTV Lagoons & lawn area Anser albifrons 105 Mallard * APR All areas Anus platyrhynchos Black Duck CWR, FCSR Lagoons Anas rubripes Gadwall USR Lagoons Anas strepera Pintail UTV Lagoons Anas acuta Green-winged Teal UTV Lagoons Anas carolinensis Blue-winged Teal * FCSR Lagoons Anas discors American Widgeon UTV Lagoons Mareca americana Shoveler UTV Lagoons Spatula clypeata Wood Duck * USR Lagoons Aix sponsa Redhead UTV Lagoons Aythya americana Ring-necked Duck UTV Lagoons Aythya collaris Canvasback RTV Lagoons Aythya valisineria Greater Scaup UTV Lagoons Aythya marila Lesser Scaup FCTV Lagoons Aythya affinis Com. Goldeneye UTV Lagoons Bucephala clangula Bufflehead UTV Lagoons Bucephala albeola Oldsquaw RTV Lagoons Clangula hyemalis Ruddy Duck UTV, RSV Lagoons Erismatura jamai.censis 106 Hooded Merganser UTV Lagoons Lophodytes cucullatus Common Merganser UTV Lagoons Mergus merganser Red-br. Merganser RTV Lagoons Mergus serrator Turkey Vulture UTV Soaring overhead Cathartes aura N. Goshawk RTV In woods or flying Accipiter gentilis overhead Sharp-shinned Hawk CTV In woods or flying Accipiter striatus overhead Cooper's Hawk RTV In woods or flying Accipiter cooperii overhead Red-tailed Hawk UPR In woods or flying Buteo jamaicensis overhead Broad-winged Hawk CTV In woods or flying Buteo platypterus overhead Rough-legged Hawk FCWR Open country or flying Buteo lagopus overhead 3 Northern Harrier RTV Flying overhead Circus cyaneus Bald Eagle RTV Lagoon edge in trees; Haliaetus leucocephalus soaring overhead Osprey RTV Soaring overhead Pandion haliaetus American Kestrel * CSR, UWR Fields with a few trees 3 Falco sparverius Ruffed Grouse RPR Thick woods, brushy areas Bonasa umbellus Ring-necked Pheasant * UPR Marsh edges, grassy or Phasianus colchicus shrubby cover Gray Partridge RPR Fields Perdix perdix Sandhill Crane RTV Migrant flocks overhead Grus canadensis Virginia Rail * RSR Marshes & open water Rallus limicola 107 Sora Rail * USR Marshes & open water Porzana carolina Common Gallinule VRTV Marshes & open water Gallinula chloropus American Coot FCSR Marshes & open water Fulica americana Semipalmated Plover UTV Lagoon shore, mud flats, Charadrius hiaticula open areas Killdeer * FCSR Lagoon shore, mud flats, Charadrius vociferus open areas Greater Yellowlegs RTV Lagoon shore, mud flats, Totanus melanoleucus open areas Lesser Yellowlegs UTV Lagoon shore, mud flats, Totanus flavipes open areas Solitary Sandpiper RTV Lagoon shore, mud flats, Tringa solitaria open areas Willet RTV Lagoon shore, mud flats, Catoptrophorus semipalmatus open areas Spotted Sandpiper * FCSR Lagoon shore, mud flats, Actitis macularia open areas American Woodcock * FCTV, USR Thickets in low places Philohela minor Common Snipe UTV Good cover in marsh Capella gallinago Least Sandpiper RTV Lagoon shore, mud flat Erolia minutilla Pectoral Sandpiper RTV Lagoon shore, mud flat Erolia melanotos Stilt Sandpiper RTV Lagoon shore, mud flat Micropalama himantopus Herring Gull CSR, UWV Lagoons Larus argentatus Ring-billed Gull CSR Lagoons Larus delawarensis Bonaparte's Gull RTV Lagoons Larus philadelphia 108 Forster's Tern FCSV Lagoons Sterna forsteri Common Tern FCSV Lagoons Sterna hirundo Black Tern FCSV Lagoons Chlidonias nigra Rock Dove CPR Open areas Columba livia Mourning Dove * CPR All areas Zenaidura macroura Yellow-billed Cuckoo USR Woodland & brushy areas Coccyzus americanus Black-billed Cuckoo USR Woodland & brushy areas Coccyzus erythrophthalmus Screech Owl * CPR Woodlands Otus asio Great Horned Owl * CPR Woodlands Bubo virginianus Snowy Owl UWV Open areas Nyctea scandiaca Barred Owl VRTV Woodlands Strix varia Long-eared Owl UWV Evergreens Asio otus Short-eared Owl UWV Open areas Asio flammeus Saw-whet Owl UTV Woodlands Aegolius acadica Whip-poor-will RTV Open woodlands Caprimulgus vociferus C. Nighthawk CSR Seen catching insects in Chordeiles minor flight before sunrise & after sunset Chimney Swift CSR Seen catching insects in Chaetura pelagica flight Ruby-throated Hummingbird UTV Near flowering plants Archilochus colubris 109 Belted Kingfisher CSR Near lagoons Megaceryle alcyon Common Flicker * CSR Woodlands Colaptes auratus Red-bellied Woodpecker UTV Woodlands Centurus carolinus Red-headed Woodpecker * FCSR Woodlands Melanerpes erythrocephalus Yellow-bellied Sapsucker CTV Woodlands Sphyrapicus varius Hairy Woodpecker * FCPR Woodlands Dendrocopus villosus Downy Woodpecker * CPR Woodlands Dendrocopus pubescens Eastern Kingbird * CSR All areas Tyrannus tyrannus Western Kingbird VRTV-1974 Open areas with Tyrannus verticalis scattered trees Great Crested Flycatcher * CSR Open woodlands Myiarchus crinitus Eastern Phoebe UTV Lagoon edge, open Sayornis phoebe woodlands Yellow-bellied Flycatcher RTV Low woodlands Empidonax flaviventris Willow Flycatcher * USR Wet thickets Empidonax sp. Alder Flycatcher UTV Brushy wooded areas Empidonax sp. Least Flycatcher * FCSR, CTV Open woods Empidonax minimus Eastern Pewee * FCSR Woodlands Contopus virens Olive-sided Flycatcher RTV Woodlands Nuttallornis borealis Horned Lark VRTV Fields Eremophila alpestris 110 Tree Swallow * CSR Open areas, catching Iridoprocne bicolor insects in flight Bank Swallow FCTV Open areas, catching Riparia riparia insects in flight Rough-winged Swallow USR, FCTV Open areas, catching Stelgidopteryx ruficollis insects in flight Barn Swallow FCSR Open areas, catching Hirundo rustica insects in flight Cliff Swallow FCTV Open areas, catching Petrochelidon pyrrhonota insects in flight Purple Martin * CSR Open areas, catching Progne subis insects in flight Blue Jay * CPR Woodlands & open fields Cyanocitta cristata Northern Raven VRTV Woodlands & open fields Corvus corax American Crow * CPR Woodlands & open fields Corvus brachyrhynchos B1.-cap. Chickadee CWR, FCSR Woods & evergreens Parus atricapillus White-breasted Nuthatch * FCPR Woods & evergreens Sitta carolinensis Red-breasted Nuthatch VRWR Woods & evergreens Sitta canadensis Brown Creeper UTV, RSV Woods & evergreens Certhia familiaris House Wren * FCSR Woods & brushy areas Troglodytes aedon Winter Wren RTV Woods & brushy areas Troglodytes troglodytes Carolina Wren VRTV-1973 Woods & brushy areas Thryothorus ludovicianus Northern Mockingbird VRWV-1980 Woodland edge, brush Mimus polyglottos Gray Catbird * CSR Thickets Dumetella carolinensis Brown Thrasher * FCSR Woods & thickets Toxostoma rufum American Robin * UWR, CSR, CTV Lawns, woods Turdus migratorius Varied Thrush VRWV-1980 Woods, evergreens Ixoreus naevius Wood Thrush USR, FCTV Woodlands Hylocichla mustelina Hermit Thrush FCTV Woodlands Hylocichla guttata Swainson's Thrush CTV Woodlands Hylocichla ustulata Gray-cheeked Thrush FCTV Woodlands Hylocichla minima Veery FCTV, USR Low woods Hylocichla fuscescens Eastern Bluebird RTV Fields, wood edge Sialia sialis Blue-gray Gnatcatcher * RTV, RSR Open woods & thickets Polioptila caerulea Golden-crowned Kinglet CTV Evergreens & wood edges Regulus satrapa Ruby-crowned Kinglet CTV Evergreens & wood edges Regulus calendula Bohemian Waxwing RTV Seed bearing trees Bombycilla garrulus Cedar Waxwing * CPR Seed bearing trees Bombycilla cedrorum Northern Shrike UWV Open country with Lanius excubitor woody growth European Starling * CPR Buildings & open woods Sturnus vulgaris Yellow-throated Vireo UTV, RSV Open woods & clearings Vireo flavifrons Solitary Vireo FCTV Wood edge Vireo solitarius 112 Red-eyed Vireo * FCSR, CTV Woods Vireo olivaceus Philadelphia Vireo UTV Woods & edge Vireo philadelphicus Warbling Vireo * CSR, CTV Open woods Vireo gilvus Black & White Warbler CTV Woods Mniotilta varia Prothonotary Warbler UTV Swampy woodlands Protonotaria citrea Worm-eating Warbler VRTV Brushy edge Helmitheros vermivorus Golden-winged Warbler FCTV Woodland openings Vermivora chrysoptera Blue-winged Warbler UTV Brushland Vermivora pinus Tennessee Warbler CTV Woodlands Vermivora peregrina Orange-crowned Warbler FCTV Woodland openings Vermivora celata with undergrowth Nashville Warbler CTV Woodland edge Vermivora ruficapilla N. Parula Warbler UTV Woodland Parula americana Yellow Warbler * CSR, CTV Open, brushy areas Dendroica petechia Magnolia Warbler FCTV Woodland edge Dendroica magnolia Cape May Warbler CTV High bushes & small Dendroica tigrina trees Black-throated Blue Warbler UTV Woodland Dendroica caerulescens Yellow-rumped Warbler ATV Woodlands, marshes Dendroica coronata Black-throated Green Warbler CTV Woodlands Dendroica virens 113 Cerulean Warbler RTV Open woodlands Dendroica cerulea Blackburnian Warbler FCTV Woodlands Dendroica fusca Chestnut-sided Warbler FCTV Young woodlands Dendroica pensylvanica Bay-breasted Warbler CTV Young woodlands Dendroica castanea Blackpoll Warbler CTV Woodlands Dendroica striata Pine Warbler RTV Woodlands Dendroica pinus Palm Warbler CTV Usually on ground or Dendroica palmarum low shrubs Ovenbird RSV, CTV On ground in woodlands Seiurus aurocapillus Northern Waterthrush CTV Lagoon edge Seiurus noveboracensis Kentucky Warbler RTV Low woodlands Oporornis formosus Connecticut Warbler UTV Low woodlands, shrubs Oporornis agilis Mourning Warbler * USR, UTV Dense shrubs Oporornis philadelphia C. Yellowthroat * FCSR, CTV Marshy areas Geothlypis trichas Yellow-breasted Chat RTV Thickets Icteria virens Wilson's Warbler FCTV Swampy thickets or Wilsonia pusilla roadside brush Canada Warbler FCTV Young woodlands Wilsonia canadensis American Redstart USV, CTV Brush, wet woodlands Setophaga ruticilla House Sparrow * APR Usually near buildings Passer domesticus 114 Eastern Meadowlark * USR, UTV Grassy fields Sturnella magna Yellow-headed Blackbird USR, UTV Marshes Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Red-winged Blackbird * ASR, ATV All areas Agelaius phoeniceus Northern Oriole * CSR, CTV Open woodlands Icterus galbula Rusty Blackbird FCTV Low woodlands, marshes Euphagus carolinus Brewer's Blackbird FCTV Low woodlands, marshes, Euphagus cyanocephalus fields Common Grackle * ASR, ATV All areas Quiscalus quiscalus Brown-headed Cowbird * CSR, CTV Open areas Molothrus ater Scarlet Tanager RTV Woodlands Piranga olivacea Western Tanager HYP-5/10/76 Piranga ludoviciana Summer Tanager ACC-5/16/80 Piranga rubra Northern Cardinal * CPR Woodland, shrubs Richmondena cardinalis Rose-breasted Grosbeak * RCSR, CTV Woodlands with brush Pheucticus ludocicianus Indigo Bunting * FCSR, CTV Brushy areas with trees Passerina cyanea Dickcissel VRTV Grassy fields Spiza americana Evening Grosbeak FCWV Seed trees, feeders Hesperiphona vespertina Purple Finch FCWV, FCTV, VRSR Seed trees, feeders Carpodacus purpureus Pine Grosbeak RWV Seed trees, feeders Pinicola enucleator 115 Common Redpoll UWV Feeders, evergreens, Acanthus flammea shrubs Pine Siskin FCWR, FCTV Conifers, weedy fields Spinus pinus American Goldfinch * CPR Shrubs, open areas with Spinus tristis weedy growth Red Crossbill VRWV Conifers, box elders, Loxia curvirostra apple trees White-winged Crossbill VRWV Conifers, box elders, Loxia leucoptera apple trees Rufus-sided Towhee FCTV Thickets Pipilo erythrophthalmus Savannah Sparrow UTV Grassy fields Passerculus sandwichensis Grasshopper Sparrow RTV Grassy fields Ammodramus savannarum Vesper Sparrow RTV Grassy fields Pooectetes gramimeus Northern Junco CWR, ATV On ground, shrubby areas Junco hyemalis American Tree Sparrow CWR, CTV Wood edge, openings Spizella arborea Chipping Sparrow * USR, CTV Lawns, woodland clearings Spizella passerina Clay-colored Sparrow RTV Brushy woodland openings Spizella pallida Field Sparrow FCTV Grassy fields Spizella pusilla White-crowned Sparrow FCTV On ground under shrubs Zonotrichia leucophrys White-throated Sparrow ATV, RWV On ground under shrubs Zonotrichia albicollis Fox Sparrow FCTV Woodland thickets Passerella iliaca Lincoln's Sparrow VRTV Marshy land Melospiza lincolnii 116 Swamp Sparrow UTV Marshy land Melospiza georgiana Song Sparrow * CSR, CTV Brushy cover Melospiza melodia Snow Bunting RWV Open areas, fields Plectrophenax nivalis 117 3 ~~~~~~~~~~APPENDIX H DUCK POPULATION STUDIES AT BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 3 ~~~~Duck counts were obtained by one or two staff members counting the ducks individually in the water areas adjacent to: the Nature Center, Parking Lot, Manager's residence, Marsch Road, and Sanctuary Road. Male and female mallards and black ducks were counted separately except during molt period. lOx5OX and 7x35X binoculars were used. All of ,the counts fell between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. with about 83% occurring between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. Counts were made twice a month throughout the year except during the summer months when only one count was taken per month. 3 ~~~~Highest concentrations of ducks were reached during the Winter months (late November through March). Gradual increases in September, October, and early November lead up to the high winter numbers. Lowest numbers occur in the summner months (April through August). A sudden decrease occurs during March. This decrease seems to be mainly caused by two factors: I ~~~~1) An increase in daylight which brings about normal hormonal changes in waterfowl, initiating pair bonding and subsequent nesting activities. 2) Warmer weather and Spring rains melting the snow cover and creating puddles in many other areas, dispersing the flock 3 ~~~~~out of the Sanctuary. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 APPENDIX H DUCK POPULATION STUDIES AT BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Duck Count Summary Sheet - 25 Total Counts From 3/16/79 To 6/21/80 DATE MALLARD MALLARD BLACK TOTAL TAKEN MALES FEMALES DUCKS DUCKS 3-16-79 1429 774 611 2814 3-31-79 273 135 229 637 4-13-79 188 62 112 362 4-28-79 181 14 5 200 6- 2-79 193 7 11 211 6-17-79 267 17 30 314 7-14-79 FLIGHTLESS PERIOD 267 8-11-79 462 9-15-79 MOLT 1049 9-29-79 1063 10-13-79 1329 10-27-79 920 592 338 1850 11-12-79 1194 948 460 2602 11-29-79 934 568 313 1815 12-19-79 1303 763 368 2434 1-3-80 1095 734 348 2177 1-21-80 1097 877 466 2440 2-18-80 1338 694 370 2402 3-13-80 982 636 379 1997 3-20-80 388 147 220 755 3-28-80 312 187 209 708 4-10-80 231 91 146 468 4-24-80 188 49 37 274 5-22-80 88 7 8 103 6-21-80 288 16 19 323 119 APPENDIX H Graph I DUCK POPULATIONS FOR THE SANCTUARY 1979-1980 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I 0 0 OOU- -I,> 0- 0 0 2 500 a ~I cc ii u 2000 Number of 1500 Ducks 1000 - * M 0 - - Mar. A M J J A S 0 N 1 J F M A M J J Months - 1979 1980 APPENDIX I BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE CANADA GEESE AT WILDLIFE SANCTUARY History of Sanctuary Geese Prior to the settlement of the Lower Green Bay the Canada Goose was a fairly common breeder in this area. However, due to habitat destruction, egg gathering and year-round hunting, the Canada Goose was extirpated as a local breeder by 1900. In 1932 Louis Barkhausen bought 3 pair of Giant Canada Geese (Branta canadensis maxima) from the Jack Miner Game Sanctuary in Kingsville, Ontario and shipped them to his refuge on the west Shore of Green Bay. In 1938 Barkhausen gave 6 geese to the Wildlife Sanctuary, and in 1939 he gave 3 more. The Sanctuary produced its first young geese in 1941. Geese were first banded at the Sanctuary during the summer of 1965; 167 were banded at this time. The Sanctuary flock has continued to increase dramatically and presently contains about 670 geese. -_ ~~~~~~~~j Z _ , 121 121 TABLE 1 NESTING SUCCESS OF CANADA GEESE AT THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 1976-19801 Number of Nests Number of Successful Nests Number of Young Produced Gander- Gander- Gander- Landers Ground Total Landers Ground Total Landers Ground Total Year 1976 18 23 41 12 16 28 48 76 124 1977 22 30 52 13 16 29 46 81 127 1978 23 47 70 8 29+ 37+ 36 151+ 187+ 1979 26 29 55 19 24 43 176 1980 22 30 52 20 27 47 165+ Average brood/successful nest = 5.23 young 1Source: D. F. Brinker, R. C. Hawley unpublished data TABLE 2 CANADA GEESE BANDED AT BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY (1965-1980) No. Young No. Adults Total Total Cumulative Year Banded Banded Geese Geese Total Banded Retraps Handled Banded 1965 53 114 167 0 167 0 1966 78 29 107 44 151 151 1967 64 24 88 98 186 337 1968 64 28 92 70 162 499 1969 81 44 125 75 200 699 1972 66 95 161 63 224 923 1973 72 36 108 80 188 1,111 1974 90 24 114 56 170 1,281 1975 89 69 158 125 283 1,564 1976 129 72 201 134 335 1,899 1977 125 145 270 245 515 2,414 1978 141 112 253 245 498 2,911 1979 158 138 296 286 582 3,493 1980 181 225 406 264 670 4,163 TOTALS 1,391 1,155 2,546 1,785 4,331 4,163 APPENDIX I Graph I TOTAL NUMBER OF CANADA GEESE HANDLED AT BAY BEACH'WILDLIFE SANCTUARY DURING SUMMER BANDING 700 - 600 - Total Number ---------- of 500 ---- Geese Handled 300 - 200 - 100 - 1965 66 67 6,8 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80, Year APPENDIX I GRAPH 2 Yearly Cycle and Populations of Canada Geese at the Wildlife Sanctuary 1976-1980* t t I , I I I * I I * * I * I 1300 -- - 1300 1200 - / A - - 1200 1100 1100 -- ,,. , 3 count 1000 -9 1100 moving Ip average 900 .- / o/ 90 0-- of number / at Sanctuary o - \ _ 8 700 - - \ 7 h 4. t AA- 700 700 - 00 oo- 400 300 - - - - 300 200 200 100 --- 1 -- -100 JAN FEB MAR APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC KEY TO SYMBOLS: 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 *Graph explained on following pages, adapted from D. Brinker 1976-1979, and R. Hawley 1979-1980, unpublished notes - m1 mL mI m 3Interpretation of Graph 2 Yearly Cycle and Populations of Canada Geese at the Wildlife Sanctuary 31976-1980. Three Count Moving Average. The data graphed is not the actual counts taken but each point represents an average of 3 counts; the count taken one week prior to that point, the count taken on the date of that point and the count taken one week after the date of that point. It is believed that this method more accurately shows the actual number of geese in the area during the count period by reducing extreme fluctuations due to bias. It is also I ~ ~~believed that this graph shows trends which can be more easily inter- preted and understood than if the actual counts themselves were graphed. I) The Winter Population is relatively stable from mid-January to mid-March. It very closely represents the total Sanctuary population which is less migratory than northern populations (Also see Table 4.) 2) Nesting initiated; geese disperse over Sanctuary and lower Bay to set up breeding territories, counts do not cover back areas of Sanctuary and Bay, therefore, the numbers on the graph drop. 13) Slight peak due to a small influx of geese migrating North from wintering grounds in southern Illinois. 1 ~~~~4) Most of the geese are on nests at this time except for a non- breeding flock of about 150. 5) Most of the broods appear at this time, many geese bring their broods back into main feeding area - gang broods form. 6) Population counts increase as more geese bring their broods Uinto Sanctuary from the surrounding lower Bay area. 7) Banding - about 90% of the Sanctuary Geese and many from the lower Bay which are at the Sanctuary are banded. The significant increase in the total number of geese handled each year at this time shows the increase in the local population through I ~ ~~~~~nesting success. 8) The Summer flightless period. This is due to the molt of all fligh~t feathers at once. 9) The population increases sharply as Fall migration begins. Weather has a great effect on the size of the population during I ~ ~~~~Fall, and the time of peak numbers. 10) Peak Fall migration usually occurs during late October or early November. The Fall of 1979 was very mild with no snow cover. This might be one reason so many geese remained until early 126 January. Few counts taken during September and October of 1979 may have caused curve to be low for Fall of 1979.I A peak count of 1180 was recorded on October 25. (Table 3). 11) The Sanctuary lagoons freeze over, except an area in the3 feeding lagoon which is aerated. Most of the Bay freezes about one week later except for an area near the mouth of the Fox River which remains open throughout the Winter. Most of the Sanctuary's waterfowl roost here each evening.I Most of the migrant geese leave during this period causing a sharp drop in the population.3 12) Some of the local geese from Green Bay migrate South during late December. The Winter of 1979-1980 was not typical due to the mild weather with very little snow cover.I 127~~~~~~~ TABLE 3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF GEESE USING SANCTUARY EACH MONTH MONTH 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 January 416 (4) 486 (4) 727 (4) 778 (4) February 355 (4) 479 (3) 753 (4) March 375 (5) 372 (5) 615 (5) April 323 (4) 301 (4) 222 (4) 90* 126* May 265 (4) 198 (4) 223 (4) 121* June 337 (2) 462 (3) 594 (4) 482 (2) 337* July 371 (5) 542 (4) 665 (4) (0) August 578 (4) 587 (4) 609 (4) 779 (2) September 734 (4) 901 (5) 1,026 (4) 608 (1) October 1,186 (4) 1,040 (4) 1,101 (3) 885 (2) 1,286* 1,180* November 852 (4) 1,008 (4) 971 (5) 730 (4) 1,166' 1,259* December 576 (5) 590 (5) 740 (4) 997 (4) ( ) Number of Counts taken during month *Extreme high or low counts for year TABLE 4 WINTER POPULATIONS OF CANADA GEESE USING THE SANCTUARY 1977-1980 YEAR POPULATION JAN. & FEB. # OF COUNTS 1977 396 8 1978 478 8 1979 737 8 1980 778 4 128 APPENDIX JI FRIENDS OF THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY ORGANIZATION3 U ~Friends of the Wildlife Sanctuary3 Sanctuary Road, PO Box 945 Green Bay, Wisconsin 543051 The first organizational meeting of the "Friends of the Bay Beach3 Wildlife Sanctuary Inc." was held in December of 1978; a Board of Directors was elected and the organization's goals and objectivesI were outlined. The "Friends" organization was established to help preserve and enhance the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary through public involve-I ment. Membership is open to all persons. The principal officers3 are President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. The business affairs of the Corporation are managed by its Board of3 Directors. A complete set of "Friends" By-laws can be found in the Sanctuary Policy.I The "Friends" have been an extremely helpful organization. Activities3 such as the Art and Craft Fair, Trout Boil, and Bird Seed Sale, have created more public support and have raised money for many items notI available through the normal Sanctuary budget.3 129I APPENDIX K TRAILS OF THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Goose Refuge Trail This trail is a 3/4* mile loop, located on an island. It is available to small groups during Ithe winter, fall and summer months and requires a naturalist guide. This was the first trail established at the Sanctuary (completed in 1970). IThe trail offers waterfowl management areas, nesting sites (gander landers), diverse vegeta- tion, a deer yard and our Indian site used in the I ~ ~~~~~~~~"Time Tunnel" program. Gray Fox Trail This trail is a I mile loop constructed in 1977, and named after the gray fox which resides at the Sanctuary. Starting at the nature center, this trail crosses the footbridge, continues along the Ilagoon, passes a cattail pocket, meanders through a park like area into a partially forested area and eventually winds back to the Nature Center. A guide booklet is available for this trail. Large numbers of students use this site for hiking, out- door education and other environmental studies. In the winter months it is used as part of the cross- Icountry ski trail. A variety of animal and plant life can be observed along this trail, including deer, gray fox, warblers, sumac, cattails, tamarack, Iand mulberry. Hussong Memorial Trail Established in 1978 as a memorial to the late Ienvironmentalist, Clara H-ussong, by the Green Bay Bird Club and the Northeastern Wisconsin Audubon Chapter. A guide booklet is also available for I ~ ~~~~~~~~this trail, pointing out the four plant communities present; forest, marsh, old field and pond. This is an excellent study and exploration area for outdoor education programs. Wildflowers, birds, aquatic life and mammals are found along this trail. This trail is also part of the cross-country ski route. Woodchuck Trail This trail illustrates the re-vegetation process and plant succession found on a disturbed site. I ~ ~~~~~~~~Numerous pioneer species adapted to stress areas are present. This 3/4 mile trail is a testimony to man's impact on the environment. Animal life present includes woodchucks, deer, pheasant, and cavity-nesting birds. The cross-country ski route includes the Woodchuck Trail. 130 Mockingbird Trail This 1/2 mile trail is the newest and most specialized trail. Used only for snowshoeing, it requires a naturalist guide at all times. The trail was called Mockingbird Trail because of an unusual mockingbird sighted in the winter of 1979-80. Habitat management, Sanctuary history, winter twig identification and wildlife signs areI items of discussion when snowshoeing. Snowshoes are available for a nominal fee at the Nature Center. New Trail In the construction stages now, this trail will be located near the Nature Center and will include special landscaping effects, a stream, footbridge,I amphitheater, fire circle, special plant material, handrails, braille guides and signage. A Community Development Grant has supplied the necessary fundsI to develop this trail, designed as a trail for the handicapped, but will be available to all visitors. 131~~~~~~~ IAPPENDIX L SANCTUARY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS INaturalist's Guided Nature Trail Is an informal walk along the Sanctuary trail system. The naturalist encourages everyone to actively participate in topics Iof discussion which include wildlife manage- ment, vegetation management, fauna and flora. Self-Guided Nature Trail Consists of a trail guided by means of a booklet that follows a series of numbered posts. Emphasis has been placed on habitat and management practices. Group leaders have the freedom to modify this program to fit their needs. An area orientation bya natural ist precedes the hike. Animal Program H-as been designed for small children and scout troops. This program consists of a brief area orientation and a short "live animal" presentation. Lecture Series Entails a variety of slide programs on various Isubjects. These are available on site or in the classroom. In addition, naturalists are available for answering questions. INature Series There are many exhibits, both live animals and nature displays available in the Nature Center. jNaturalists are available for interpretation. Waterfowl Feeding Cans of corn can be purchased to help feed the waterfowl population. ISaturday Classes Naturalists and volunteers from the community offer a wide selection of topics on various Saturdays during the year. Examples are: I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~cross country skiing, photography, edible plants, backpacking, beekeeping, star gazing, maple sugaring, birds of prey, and more. Sunday Movies In an effort to continue to carry out our growing role as an environmental educator, the Sanctuary initiated a new program in I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~January, 1980. With the cooperation of the Brown Co. Library, DNR, and UWGB Interlibrary Loan Department, the Sanctuary offers a series I ~ ~~~~~~~~~~of movies to the publi'c each Sunday. Movie selection has been based on a number of criteria: quality, educational value, and public interest. I ~~Summer Park Naturalist Program Through the Summer Park Naturalist program, youngsters participate in games, role playing, show and tell and other activities at the city parks. The climax to the program is a field trip to the Sanctuary where they play games, hike, explore and help with various work projects. I ~~~~~~~~~~~It has provided a hands-on experience for the children. In addition, it exposes them to the total Sanctuary program. 132 APPENDIX MI VISITOR COUNTS FOR 1979-80 AT THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Visitor counts were taken by three methods: 1. By Volunteers, Coastal Management Personnel, or Sanctuary3 Naturalists - Counts taken by these people were the most accurate and dependable and formed the main basis forI visitor estimates.3 2. By Concessionaires - Counts taken of people who entered the Nature Center Building by the personnel selling corn and other concessions. These counts were generally good on "slow" days,3 poor on busy days. Many counts were unreliable and inaccurate and were discarded. Some individuals were more responsible in3 taking counts than others. 3. Automatic car counter - Counter located at entrance to Nature Center Parking Lot. Generally good counts but only indicatedI number of vehicles using parking lot; needed to be checked daily for malfunction. The following graphs show typical visitor usage at the Sanctuary forI year, seasons, days, and parking lot use.3 133U *I - I - - APPENDIX M Graph 1 NUMBER OF MONTHLY VISITORS AT THE WILDLIFE SANCTUARY 1979-1980 40,000 - 35,000 -- 30,000 o 20,000 - 0 0 15,000 -- o 10,000 -- 5,000 -- I I ~I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I II Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Months 1979 1980 O Number of people using Nature Center Facilities (total for year 207, 209) v Number of people using entire Sanctuary Area (total for year 242,400) June and July are estimates based on May and August counts. APPENDIlX M Graph 2 EXAMPLE OF TYPICAL NUMBER OF SUNDAY VISITORS AT SANCTUARY DURING EACH SEASON 6bo -- 500 -- /2 400 - Number of People Each 300 -- Hour ... . . 200-- 100 -- I TI I I I I I I I I I I 8a.m. 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 p.m. Time Symbols: / Aug. (total for day 2,373) O Oct. (total for day 1,189) Sanctuary closes at 5 p.m. Fall and Winter Location Symbols indicate number of people * Jan. (total for day 679) who entered Sanctuary during each one hour interval. April (total for day 1,374) APPENDIX M Graph 3 -.- COMPARISON-OF NUMBERS OF SANCTUARY VISITORS ON - A WEEKDAY, A SATURDAY, A SUNDAY DURING APRIL 1980 500 -- o00 -- Number of People 300 -- Visiting Sanctuary Each Hour 200 -- 100 -- 8 a.m. 9 J0 l1 12 1 3 4 p.m. Time Symbols: � Weekday (total 274), O Saturday (total 1136), O Sunday (total 1846) APPENDIX M Graph 4 Number of Cars Using Sanctuary Parking Lot, April 20, 1980 350 300 -- ac l 0 0 Cars Q ao Entering 250�n X Sanctuary o D - Parking Lot _ _ m During Each 200 U Two Hour Period * 150 100 -- L� 100 ---0 o @L.M o 50 co 8 a.m.10 12 2 4 6 8 P.m. Time of Day Total people 2,481; total cars 727; average # persons/car 3.41 _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ I I I APPENDIX N I An Example of the Questionnaire Mailed to a Random I Sample of Brown County Residents I I I I I I I I I I I I 138 I THIS PROJECT IS SPONSERED BY THE WISCONSIN COASTAL MANAG&EENT PROGRAM 1. Have you ever visited the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary? Yes No If No, do you plan on visiting the Wildlife Sanctuary in the near future? Yes No Do you know where the Wildlife Sanctuary is located? Yes No Not sure IF YOUR ANSWER TO QUESTION I IS NO, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION NUMBER 18 2. How often do you visit the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary? Once every few years 1-2 times a year - ,3-4 times a year More than four times a year 3. How did you learn of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary? (Please list) 4. During what season (a) have you visited the Wildlife Sanctuary? - Spr ..ing_ Fall Summer Winter 5. On what days do you usually visit the Wildlife Sanctuary? Weekend, Weekdays Both 6. During what time of day were most of your visits? Mornings Afternoons Evenings 7. What is the average length of your visits to the Wildlife Sanctuary? Less than one hour 2-3 hours 1-2 hours More than three hours 8. When coming to the Wildlife Sanctuary did you take a . . Bicycle Walk Automobile Bus Motor bike Other 9. How far did you travel to visit the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary? . 0-5 miles 16-30 miles 6-15 miles More than 30 miles o10. 0.: the average, approximately how much did you spend during the day of your visit to the Bay- Beach Wildlife Sanctuary? (Include cost of gas, food, fees, and any purchases made at the Wildlife Sanctuary or surrounding Green Bay area) 0- $5.00 $16-$20 $6-$10 More than $20 $11-$5 11. Did you visit any other attractions in the Green Bay area the day (s) of your visit to the Wildlife Sanctuary? Yes No IF YES. PLEASE LIST THEN 3 �1 . m39 139 12. What were your reason (a) for visiting the Wildlife Sanctuary? Fun Educational Relaxation Other , Curiosity PLEASE SPECIFY 13. What activities did you participate in on your last visit to the Wildlife Sanctuary? Picnic Participate in a Class Fish Take a Guided Tour Hike the Nature Trails Ski or Snowshoe Feed the Waterfowl View the Nature Center View the Animal Exhibits Other PLEASE SPECIFY 14. Was the area crowded at the time of your visit (s)? . , ot. at all ,, Slightly - Moderately Very 15. I consider'the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary . . --. --- -- A natural area where the wildlife and forest form a pleasant _< .- . rustic setting. A recreational area where I can enjoy vigorous outdoor' activities. An area where educational and recreational activities are mixed. - An area where too many conflicting activities are taking place. 16. In your opinion, which of the following characteristics are the most important features of the Wildlife Sanctuary? PLEASE RANK ALL OF THEM WITH #1 BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT AND #8 THE LEAST. Different plant communities " Natural areas Trails, boardwalks, and oberservation Lagoons and ponds decks - Size of the Sanctuary Waterfowl - Other (PLEASE SPECIFY Wildlife 17. The following items have been mentioned by users in previous interviews as possible problems at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. Please rank all of these with #1 being the one you feel is most important and #8 being the least. Litter Facilities lacking or out of date Noise Too many birds - Water pollution Lack of parking space Area too crowded Other (PLEASE SPECIFY) 18. The following statements reflect possible practices or preferences. Please read each statement carefully and check each answer to your interest or preference. A. It is important to have large areas set aside which are not availiable to the public for wildlife and nesting birds. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE / , / B. There should be more naturalist led hikes and programs. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW ' AGREE AGREE 140 C. Additional recreational facilities(trails, buildings, picnic areas) would harm the Wildlife Sanctuary. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE D. It is important to have caged exhibit animals on display.- STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE E. It is important to hold outdoor education classes for area school I children at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY. DISAGRE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE- AGREE 3 F. A nominal fee should be charged to cover the costs of special programs and activities. 1 -STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE / / / / G. Programs -and facilities should be updated and enlarged to better accomodate present and future visitors. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE IN0OW AGREE ' AGREE H. Public monies, bonds, and tax revenues should be used for program expansion at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY 3 DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE ? / / I j I. Private funds and donations should be used for program expansion at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary., STRONGLY DON'T STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE KNOW AGREE AGREE / / ,, / 19. Which of the following programs and facilities would you use or participate in if they were offered at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER THAT IS BEST SUITED TO YOUR OPINION FOR EACH ITEM. DEFINITELY DON'T DEFINITELY WOULD NOT USE KNOW WOULD USE Naturalist guided nature programs and hikes 1 2 3 4 5 Historical programs 1 2 3 4 5 Special programs (fish boils, arts and crafts fair, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 Family oriented programs 1 2 3 4 5 Saturday morning nature classes 1 2 3 4 5 Junior naturalist programs 1 2 3 4 5 #19 CONTINUED ON OTHER SIDE 141 I #19 CONTINUED DEFINITELY DON'T DEFINITELY WOULD NOT USE KNOW WOULD USE Bicycle trails 1 2 3 4 5 Self-guided nature trails 1 2 3 4 5 Cross country ski trails 1 2 3 4 5 Snowshoe trails 1 2 3 4 5 Observation decks I 2 3 4 5 Wildlife observation blinds 1 2 3 4 5. Drinking fountains 1 2 3 4 5 -Picnic areas 1 2 3 4 5 .. ..... -Rest areas along the trails I 2 3 4 5 . Grills and fire rings iL the I picnic areas 1 2 3 4 5 '- ..Areas for- fishing 1 2 3 4 5 - Bait and. sport shop 1 2 3 4 5 Nature center'-exhibits 1 2 3 4 5 .Guided boat tours 1 2 ,3 4 5 Live native Wisconsin animal . .- exhibit I....i. 1 2 . 3 4 5 .Randicapped facilities I 2 3 4 5 Small boat rental 1 2 3 4 5 Childrens zoo I 1I 2 3 4 5 /. .Domed botanical gardens I 2 3 4 5 20. If an admission fee was charged to see a native live animal exhibit at the Wildlife Sanctuary,-what would be the maximum you would be willing to pay? 21.. What is your occupation (OPTIONAL) 22. What is the last year of school you completed? (OPTIONAL) THE FOLLOWING SPACE HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMENTS YOU MHAY LIKE TO HAKE REARDING THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY OR THIS SURVEY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR - TIME AND CONSIDERATION. 142 I I I APPENDIX 0 An Example of the Questionnaire Used on Site I at the Sanctuary to Inventory User Preferences.I I I I I I I I I I I I I 14L3 I BAY BEACH WILDLIF SAITUA ON SITE SmFEY SPOROHIED BY THE WCOSIN COASTAL MANAGUEL PROGRAM Date 1. Where do you live? Ton _ _ _ __ State _ . 2, How far did you travel to visit the WLS? 0 - 10 miles 30 - 60 miles 11 - 30 miles _ore than 60 miles 3. When coming here, did you take a car bus walk - bicycle = motor bike = other F4. How often do you visit the WMS? this is the first time 3 - 4 times a year I 1 - 2 times a year - more than 4 times a year If this is your first visit, how did you learn of the ELS? 5. When do you use the WLS on weekends only - weekdays only both weekends and weekdays 6. During what season(s) have you visited the ?IS? .spwring fall sumner inter 7. Did you come as a __. family . mixed group U couple single 8. What activities do you plan on participating in while here at the Sanctuary? 9. Dd you or do you plan on visiting any other attractions'in the Green Bay area today? _ yes no If yes where? The Bay Beach Amusement Park .. yes no The UWGB Cofrin Arboretuln __ yes no 10* Do you feel the area is crowded? not at all _ moderately slightly very 11. What is your occupation? _= ;:. What was the last year of school you completed? 144 APPENDIX P SURVEY RESULTS TABLE 1 OCCUPATION PERCENT Student 28.2 Blue Collar 17.7 Professional 15.4 White Collar 14.5 Housewife 12.0 Retired 2.6 TABLE 2 YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED PERCENT Four .6 Five .3 Six 2.3 Seven 1.4 Eight 1.7 Nine .6 Ten 3.1 Eleven 4.3 Twelve 24.8 Thirteen 5.4 Fourteen 7.4 Fifteen 1.7 Sixteen 14.2 Seventeen 1.4 Eighteen 2.3 Nineteen .6 Twenty .0 Twenty One 2.3 No Response 24.9 TABLE 3 PLACE OF RESIDENCE PERCENT Green Bay 67.0 Outside of Brown County 18.5 Out of State 10.5 Brown County 2.8 145 TABLE 4 DISTANCE (MILES) TRAVELED TO SITE PERCENT 0 - 10 64.1 11 - 30 14.5 30- 60 6.6 More Than 60 14.2 TABLE 5 TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION PERCENT Car 91.5 Bike 4.0 Walk 2.8 Bus 1.1 Other .6 Motor Bike .0 TABLE 6 PER CENT BREAKDOWN OF DISTANCE TRAVELED WITH TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION MOTOR MILES CAR BIKE BUS BIKE WALK OTHER 0 - 10 57.31 3.72 .57 .00 2.58 .29 11 - 30 13.75 .29 .29 .00 .00 .29 30 - 60 6.59 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 Over 60 13.75 .00 .29 .00 .00 .00 TABLE 7 TYPE OF GROUP (USER GROUPS) PERCENT Family 50.4 Mixed Group 30.8 Couple 12.3 Single 5.4 No Response 1.1 TABLE 8 NUMBER OF VISITS TO SANCTUARY/YEAR PERCENT First Visit 17.7 1 to 2 Times/Year 15.4 3 to 4 Times/Year 16.0 More Than 4 Times/Year 49.6 146 TABLE 9 SOURCE OF INFORMATION PERCENT Through Friends or Relatives 10.8 Television 2,0 Came with Friends or Relatives 1.7 Area Residents 1.1 Brochures .6 Former Resident .3 TABLE 10 DAY USE PERCENT Both Weekends and Weekdays 62.1 Weekends 26.5 Weekdays 4.0 TABLE 11 SEASONAL USE PERCENT Spring 72.1 Summer 72.1 Fall 77.2 Winter 62.4 TABLE 12 ACTIVITIES PARTICIPATED IN PERCENT Feeding Waterfowl 45.9 Observing Wildlife 20.5 Hiking Trails 16.2 Observing Exhibits 6.8 Cross Country Skiing 4.6 Bird Watching 3.1 Programs, Saturday Classes, etc. 3.1 Take Pictures 2.6 Picnicking 1.7 147 TABLE 13 CROWDING PERCENT Not Crowded at all 39.0 Slightly Crowded 20.8 Moderately Crowded 11.1 Very Crowded 2.6 No Response 26.5 TABLE 14 OCCUPATION PERCENT Blue Collar Worker 24.6 White Collar Worker 20.6 Professional 13.5 Retired 12.9 Housewife 5.8 Student .6 TABLE 15 EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND (YEARS) PERCENT Eight 3.1 Nine .9 Ten 1.2 Eleven 1.5 Twelve 36.3 Thirteen 6.2 Fourteen 8.9 Fifteen 1.5 Sixteen 13.5 Seventeen 2.2 Eighteen 2.8 Nineteen .O Twenty .O Twenty One .3 Twenty Two .3 TABLE 16 SOURCE OF INFORMATION PERCENT Resident 49.2 Word of Mouth 17.8 Drove By It 11.4 Newspaper 4.3 Television .9 Brochure .9 Came With Relative or Friend .3 148 TABLE 17 TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION PERCENT Car 94.5 Bike 11.7 Walk 4.6 Motor Bike 2.5 Bus 1.6 Other .6 TABLE 18 DISTANCE (MILES) TRAVELED TO SANCTUARY PERCENT 0-5 4.3 6- 15 47.1 16 - 30 43.7 More Than 30 4.9 TABLE 19 SEASONAL USE PERCENT Spring 60.9 Summer 88.3 Fall 59.7 Winter 30.2 TABLE 20 DAY USE PERCENT Weekends 45.5 Weekdays 12.3 Both 36.9 TABLE 21 TIME OF VISIT PERCENT Morning 12.3 Afternoon 86.5 Evenings 9.4 149 TABLE 22 LENGTH OF VISIT PERCENT Less Than 1 Hour 23.7 1 - 2 Hours 64.9 2 - 3 Hours 7.1 Over 3 Hours .0 TABLE 23 NUMBER OF VISITS TO SANCTUARY PERCENT Once a Year 20.6 1 - 2 Times Per Year 37.6 3 - 4 Times Per Year 20.0 Over 4 Times Per Year 16.9 TABLE 24 REASON FOR VISITING THE SANCTUARY PERCENT Relaxation 68.0 Fun 57.2 Education 48.3 Curiosity 21.5 TABLE 25 ACTIVITIES PARTICIPATED IN PERCENT View Animal Exhibits 78.8 Feed Waterfowl 76.9 View Nature Center 44.6 Picnickinq 21.2 Hiking Trails 18.5 Fishing 6.8 Skiing or Snowshoeing 3.7 Participating in Classes or Programs 1.5 Guided Tours 1.2 TABLE 26 CROWDING PERCENT Not At All 19.1 Slightly 25.5 Moderately 40.0 Very Crowded 7.1 150 TABLE 27 VISITOR'S PERCEPTION OF SANCTUARY PERCENT Natural Area With a Rustic Setting 71.4 Recreation Area 8.6 Educational and Recreation Area 45.8 An Area Where There Is Too Many Conflicting Activities 1.5 151 TABLE 28 IMPORTANT FEATURES FEATURES WEIGHTINGS TOTALS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Wildlife 768 1008 180 136 44 3 8 -- 2147 Waterfowl 1152 602 192 30 20 27 -- -- 2023 Natural Areas 408 168 534 316 116 36 12 8 1598 Lagoons and Ponds 152 217 366 425 200 78 10 1 1449 Trails, Boardwalks, & Observation Decks 136 91 168 160 244 213 80 5 1097 Different Plant Communities 16 14 84 160 176 252 152 12 866 Size of The Sanctuary 88 49 60 85 200 144 224 10 860 TABLE 29 PROBLEM AREAS PERCEIVED BY VISITORS FEATURES WEIGHTINGS TOTALS 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Litter 536 378 228 120 88 39 12 5 1406 Water Pollution 456 371 198 185 120 48 8 6 1392 Lack of Parking Facilities 496 231 150 100 116 81 56 12 1242 Facilities Lacking or Out of Date 344 175 192 180 68 141 50 7 1157 Area Too Crowded 144 182 180 180 180 111 34 10 1021 Noise 96 182 234 180 152 90 52 8 994 Too Many Birds 72 70 84 96 76 78 180 29 685 TABLE 30 POSSIBLE FUTURE PRACTICES AND/OR POLICIES SUBJECT -2 -I VALUES1 2 TOTAL Outdoor Education Class at Wildlife Sanctuary -2 -8 189 178 357 More Sanctuary Lands Should Be Set Aside -20 -19 138 204 303 Private Funds & Donations Should Be Used For Sanctuary Expansion -2 -19 198 42 219 Programs & Facilities Should Be Updated & Enlarged -16 -26 166 62 186 Fees Should Be Charged For Programs, etc. -28 -37 192 40 167 Public Monies, Taxes & Bonds Should Be Used For Expansion Purposes -26 -36 152 60 150 Important To Have Caged Exhibits Of Educational Purposes -26 -57 166 56 139 Should Have More Naturalist Led Hikes & Programs -8 -31 116 36 113 Additional Recreational Facilities Would Harm the Sanctuary -18 -81 92 74 67 TABLE 31 POSSIBLE PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES VALUES SUBJECT -2 -1 1 2 TOTAL Drinking Fountains -14 -10 128 244 348 Live Native Wisconsin Animals -34 -9 124 224 305 Domed Botanical Gardens -44 -14 104 236 282 Nature Center Exhibits -20 -11 135 166 270 Picnic Areas -42 -14 112 196 252 Observation Decks -38 -10 137 154 243 Rest Areas Along Trails -44 -16 106 192 238 Childrens Zoo -78 -15 99 206 212 _3 Self Guided Nature Trails -60 -14 129 152 207 Wildlife Observation Blinds -62 -12 96 164 186 Special Programs -74 -19 99 132 138 Grills in Picnic Areas -90 -27 82 152 117 Family Orientated Programs -76 -32 91 102 85 Guide Boat Tours -106 -22 79 108 59 Naturalist Guided Nature Programs & Hikes -88 -28 87 76 47 Historical Programs -62 -33 90 48 43 Fishing Areas -144 -29 85 88 0 Bike Trails -172 -29 76 78 -47 Ski Trails -188 -43 45 106 -80 Small Boat Rentals -186 -26 70 62 -80 Saturday Classes -142 -48 55 42 -93 Junior Naturalist Program -146 -50 53 38 -105 Bait & Sport Shop -210 -42 50 30 -172 Handicapped Facilities -250 -25 31 80 -164 Snowshoe Trails -230 -52 34 44 -204 TABLE 32 ADMISSIONS CHARGE PERCENT No Charge 5.8 51� - $1.00 24.0 $1.25 - $1.50 4.6 $1.75 - $2.00 10.5 More Than $2.00 4.9 Family Rate 2.8 Whatever Asked .6 TABLE 33 DOLLAR AMOUNT SPENT PERCENT 0 - 5 71.1 6 - 10 18.8 11 - 15 3.1 16 - 20 1.2 More Than 20 1.5 156 APPENDIX Q3 COMPARISON OF FACILITIES AT THE BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY TO SEVERAL OTHER3 NATURE CENTERS BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY Background InformationI Address: Sanctuary Road, Green Bay, WI 54302 Sponsoring Agency: City of Green Bay, Park and Recreation DepartmentI Acreage of Nature Center: 350 Number of Staff: Full time permanent: 2; Full time temporary - 6 months: 4; Part time: 7; Volunteer: 2 - 6 for short periods of time Annual Visitation at Nature Center Bldg.: 207,000 Total Usable Square Footage of Buildings (4): 3,125 sq. ft.3 a) Workshop-Bathroom Bldg: Total 546 sq. ft. Workshop; 396 sq. ft. Bathrooms: 150 sq. ft.I b) Butler Bldg. (Storage): Total 360 sq. ft. c) Animal Care Center: Total 819 sq. ft. Office & Workroom: 380 sq. ft. Indoor cages and walk-in freezer: 439 sq. ft.I d) Nature Center Interpretive Building: Total 1400 sq. ft. Offices: 210 sq. ft. Exhibit and Multi-purpose areas: 1190 sq. ft. BERGEN COUNTY WILDLIFE CENTER Background Information3 Address: Crescent Avenue, Wyckoff, New Jersey 07481 Sponsoring Agency: Bergen County Park Commission Acreage of Nature Center: 81 Number of Staff: Permanent: 18; Part-time: 5; Volunteer: 33 Annual Visitation: 280,000 Date Interpretive Building Opened: June 1967 Usable Square Footage in Building: 4,200 157 ROGERS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER Background Information Address: Box Q, Sherburne, New York 13460 Sponsoring Agency: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Acreage of Nature Center: 580 Number of Staff: Permanent: 5; Part time: 17 - 20 (summer); Volunteer: 6 - 8 (short periods of time) Annual Visitation: 200,000 plus Date Interpretive Building Opened: June 11, 1968 Usable Square Footage in Building: 4,500 WOOD LAKE NATURE INTERPRETIVE CENTER Background Information Address: 735 Lake Shore Drive, Richfield, Minnesota 55423 Sponsoring Agency: City of Richfield Acreage of Nature Center: 150 Number of Staff: Permanent: 6; Part time: 7; Volunteers and interns: 50 Annual Visitation: 70,000 Date Interpretive Building Opened: May 1971 Usable Square Footage in Building: 4,656 ROCKY RIVER TRAILSIDE INTERPRETIVE CENTER Background Information Address: Rocky River Reservation, Cleveland Metroparks Valley Park Drive, North Olmsted, Ohio 44070 Sponsoring Agency: Cleveland Metropark System Acreage of Nature Center: 100 within 4,000-acre regional park Number of Staff: Permanent: 6; Part time: 3 - 4; Volunteer: 60 - 80 in training Annual Visitation: 116,250 Date Interpretive Building Opened: October 1971 Usable Square Footage in Building: 6,000 158 LOWRY NATURE CENTER Background Information Address: Route 1, Box 690, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Sponsoring Agency: Interpretive building constructed with private funds; operational costs met by Hennepin County Park Reserve District Acreage of Nature Center: 400 within 3,800-acre Carver Park Reserve Number of Staff: Permanent: 9; Part time: 3; Volunteer: 2 - 4 Annual Visitation: 60,000 Date Interpretive Building Opened: February 1969 Usable Square Footage in Building: 10,000 SCHLITZ AUDUBON CENTER Background Information Address: 1111 East Brown Deer Road, Milwaukee, WI 53217 Sponsoring Agency: National Audubon Society Acreage of Nature Center: 186 Number of Staff: Permanent: 5; Part time: 0; Volunteer: 100 Annual Visitation: 50,000 Date Interpretive Building Opened: June 1974 Usable Square Footage in Building: 13,000 SCHUYLKILL VALLEY NATURE CENTER Background Information Address: 8480 Hagy's Mill Road, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19128 Sponsoring Agency: Schuylkill Valley Nature Center, Inc. (private, nonprofit corporation) Acreage of Nature Center: 550 Number of Staff: Permanent: 16; Part time: 8; Volunteer: 60 Annual Visitation: 65,000 Date Interpretive Building Opened: October 1968 Usable Square Footage in Building: 16,336 159 APPENDIX R PLANS FOR FUTURE EXPANSION AT 3 ~~~~~~~BAY BEACH WILDLIFE SANCTUARY] 3 ~~~1) Live Mammal Exhibit Complex and New Nature Center Location. 2) Artist's Rendering of New Nature Center 3) First Floor Plan 4) Second Floor Plan ('Plans designed by Surplice Associates, Inc.) U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6 P8~~~~~EESRT YARDG O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' o 4jA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~FTR EXANPARKNGSLO Bay Beach Wil~~~~DlieSntaySRLC Green~~~~~~~~~'FEDN Bay.WiscNsi m - m ~ - ------ m - mBm / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4 Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary SURPLIE RS5IES Green Bay, Wisconsin GREENHOUSE* NERSURRAR SCOPE SCOPE TABLE SINK SEED WATERSHED TABLE CLASSROOM 32'x20A MODEL SRI S SINK ~~~STOR. --TS TRAYS LdLLM~~lJJV I2 POTAL WR TALE STORAGE CLA2SROOM 27'x 2 O' 3420 27x 20' CASH~~~~~~~Di WI COUNTER TOPS SEED STORAGE CABINETS FLATS KITCHEN LB GARAGE 26dx34 L1bTOG 00 OUMS- TO.E MULTI. PURPOSE ROOM Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CABINETS SISPLAY D I SPLAY WIORK CASE WORK CASE YARD ~~~~~~~~~RE, SINKS TABLETAE YARD STOR. -U SI FOOD STORAGE FREEZ I0 FREE S~~~~~~~~~~OLOING CASESS..N FOOD F I N ' ICIMEN PREP. QUARANTINER : LI. 12x22 WALK IN 5rx22K CANTE is FREEZER CA FOSE FURNACE ROOM BUTCHER STORAGE - ES 26'x22' EZZI JANITOR FIRST FLOOR PLAN SURPLICE ASSOCIATES, INC. Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary Green Bay. Wisconsin m inmmmmm m n GENERAL OFFICE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UPPER PART OF 26~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~x~~ ~ ~ IGREENHOUSE WORK ROOM, EARJ 2(o23 ~~~~CONFERENCE OFFICE -e BVROOSRETAEOTANY ARALAS0 26X 14 4dx0 I ~~~~~~ ~DISPLAY AE ERRU is DSPLAY- MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN C OASOIET AU.LU VE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~STAENGL CEWONES N ~~~~~~~~~~DISPLAY AREA 0 & EN ERTOMOLOGY ICHTHYDLOOY EMALAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN SURPLICE ASSOCIATES, INC. Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary Green Bay. Wisconsin APPENDIX SI COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROJECT MAPPING3 Previous maps of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary had not been accurate enough for detailed plant and wildlife studies. TheI establishment of a measured grid-coordinated system had been a goal of Sanctuary Management for several years. As part of the Coastal Management Project, the area owned by the Sanctuary, as of 1979, was field surveyed using a level-transet, sightU pole and measuring tape scored in meters. A 100 meter x 100 meter grid-coordinate system was measured and metal poles were driven into the ground at the corners of the grid areasU (grid points). The map entitled Site Plan - Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary and 100 m Grid System has been designed as a working, rather thanU final map of the Sanctuary site. It represents a composite of information accumulated from earl ier maps, Department of Trans- portation maps for 1-43 Highway. and measurements taken in theI field from grid points to key landmarks such as lagoon shore- lines, existing trails, fences and roads, recorded in a field survey journal. Future ground proofing for additional revisionsI will insure a more accurate final map. Generally, the grid coordinated mapping of the Wildlife Sanctuary site will enable the Sanctuary's staff to do a much better andI more professional job of managing the Sanctuary as the very valuable coastal zone area that it truly is. Out of such mapping should come detailed documentation of all future management proposalsI concerning such vital interests as: rehabilitation of severely disturbed areas; controlling vegetative succession; evaluating resident and migratory wildlife populations; or improving lagoonI circulation and water quality. Each new map developed from the Coastal Management Project basic site map will enrich and enhance the Wildlife Sanctuary as a unique urban wildlife sanctuary and as an extremely valuable scientific study site. 165 How To Read Map and Use the Grid System Each area is 100m x 100m (10,000 sq. meters). To determine grid points (grid posts) and grid areas: Read down (south) letters A, B, C, etc., and Right (east) numbers 1, 2, 3, etc. EXAMPLE: To locate Grid point A-1 On the map follow the north-south line from the number one (1) at the top of map, down (south), until it crosses the east-west line running east from the capital letter A on the left hand edge of the map. At the intersection of these two lines is grid point A-1. At this point in the field a metal pole was driven into the ground to a height of 1.5 feet above the surface of the ground, in the park area these poles were driven flush with the ground. Grid Area A-1 is the area (10,000 sq. meters) immediately southeast of grid post A-! (The shaded area in the example). 4RlD ~ COMPASS hto~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rE~~~[-O, , ,2' __ I~~~~~~~~. ERI~~~D 4D (D 0 0 CA C7 TYR WA7ET 4- 'TRAIL� 1,\ M6 -6PROPOSED -wzl~r MAPP ox.) ~~~AO, II 0v < 9 4 -'-lA---I _ 166 . 17< I I I I I SOIJRC ES I I I I I I I I I I I I LITERATURE SOURCES Anonymous. Creation of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. Sanctuary Honker, Spring, 1978. Baumann, T., Wildlife Sanctuary Policy. 1978. Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Brief Story of Green Bay Wildlife Sanctuary. November, 1956. Green Bay Park and Recreation Department Files. Brinker, D. F. and Hawley, R. C., Unpublished Notes on Canada Geese in the Lower Bay, 1976-1980. Brue, J. A., Conversion of Buckthorn Thickets to Canada Goose Grazing and Loafing Areas at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. 1978. Unpublished. Burt, W., Mammals of the Great Lakes Region. 1972. The University of Michigan Press. Curtis, J. T., The Vegetation of Wisconsin. 1959. The University of Wisconsin Press. Day, G., Indians and the Forest: the Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Wisconsin Forest. 1953. Ecology, Vol. 34, p. 329-346. Department of the Army, Chicago District Corps of Engineers. Announcement of a Public Meeting to Discuss Alternative Plans for a Recreational Boat Harbor at Green Bay, Wisconsin, 1977. Dorney, J., The Vegetation Pattern Around Green Bay in the 1840's as Related to Geology, Soils, and Land Use by Indians with a Detailed Look at the Townships of Scott, Green Bay and Suamico. 1975. UWGB Senior Distinction Project. Egerton, F., Limnology in Wisconsin. 1977. Arno Press Inc., New York. Federal Security Agency NYA. 1947, Brochure on the Wildlife Sanctuary Green Bay, Wi., Green Bay Wildlife Sanctuary Inc. Fries, R., Empire in Pine: The Story of Lumbering in Wisconsin 1830-1900. 1951. Madison, Wisconsin. Habeck, J. and Curtis, J., Forest Cover and Deer Population Densities in Early Northern Wisconsin. 1959. Hole, F., Soils of Wisconsin. 1976. University of Wisconsin Press. Hubbs, C. and Lagler, K., Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. 1964. The University of Michigan Press. 167 Hunt, R., Sanctuary Geese Banding Records. Unpublished, D.N.R. Horicon, Wisconsin. Hunt, R.A. and L. R. Jahn., Canada Goose Breeding Populations in Wisconsin. 1966. Wisconsin Conservation Dept. Tech. Bull. No. 38. Hussong, C. The Green Bay Wildlife Sanctuary, pp. 75-76. Jackson, H., Mammals of Wisconsin. 1961. The University of Wisconsin Press. Ladowski, J. A., Effects of Waterfowl Populations and Sludge Removal on Water Quality of Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. 1973. Unpublished Senior Distinction Project, UWGB. Lapham, I., Knapp J. and Crocker, H., Report on the Disastrous Effects of the Destruction of Forest Trees Now Going So Rapidly in the State of Wisconsin. 1857. Madison, Wisconsin. Maes, M. J., The History of Brown County and DePere, Wisconsin. 1975. The Brown County Democrat, St. Norbert College, DePere, Wi. pp. 1-4. Martin, D.B., History of Brown County, Wisconsin Past and Present. 1913, The S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., Chicago, Ill., pp. 7-12. Neville, A.C., Historic Sites about Green Bay. The Landing of Nicolet, 1634; Green Bay, Green Bay Historical Bulletin Vol. 2, Published by the Green Bay Historical Society, Green Bay, Wi., pp. 1-17. Neville, E. H., Martin, S. G. and Beaumont, M.D., Historic Green Bay 1634-1840. Milwaukee: Publisher Press of Evening Wisconsin Company, 1893, pp. 1-24. Paull, R. K. and Paull, R.A., Geology of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan. 1977. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, Iowa. Peterson, J.0. et al., Eutrophication Control: Nutrient Inactivation by Chemical Precipitation at Horseshoe Lake, Wisconsin. 1973. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin. Peterson, S.A., Full-Scale Harvest of Aquatic Plants: Nutrient Removal from a Eutrophic Lake. 1974. Journal Water Poll. Control, Fed., 42, 657. Robbins, C., Bruun, B. and Zim, H., Birds of North America. 1966. Golden Press, New York. The Sanctuary Honker, Creation of the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, Spring 1978 Vol. 1 No. 2, Green Bay, Wi. Shine, H. E., Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary. Reprint from Conservation Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 5, May 1956. 168 Simonds, M. G., Developing Water Areas in Parks. 1950, pp. 1-5. On file in Green Bay Park Dept. Simonds, M. G., Letter to Mr. Thomas C. Dwyer, City Attorney. Survey Methods Based on a Social Survey done by University of Wisconsin, Madison Recreation Site Planning Class, 1978 at St. Croix River. Wiersma, J., Letter of Communication to Ty Baumann, Sanctuary Manager, regarding water quality results of two samples from Sanctuary Lagoons. September 30, 1976. Williams, B., The Composition and Dynamics of a Beech-Maple Climax Community, 1936. Ecological Monographs, Vol. 6(3), PP. 317-4*08. I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~6