The State of Our Chicago Wilderness

THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS

A REPORT CARD ON THE HEALTH OF THE REGION’S ECOSYSTEMS THE STATE OF OUR

CHICAGO WILDERNESS

AREPORT CARD ON THE

ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS

A REPORT CARD ON THE HEALTH OF THE REGION’S ECOSYSTEMS ��

��

Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature reserve that includes more than 225,000 acres of protected natural areas. It stretches from southeastern Wisconsin, through northeastern Illinois and into northwestern Indiana. The protected lands and waters of Chicago Wilderness include county preserves, state parks, federal preserves, and privately owned areas. There are also many unprotected natural areas within Chicago Wilderness.

The Chicago Wilderness consortium is an alliance of more than 180 organizations working to study, restore, protect and manage the natural ecosystems of the Chicago region in order to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity and enrich local residents’ quality of life. The Chicago Wilderness consortium thanks the Boeing Corporation, ComEd/Exelon, the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish & Wildlife Service for their generous support of this project.

Written and compiled by Arthur Pearson. Edited by Lucy Hutcherson, Elizabeth McCance, and Jon Voelz.

Citation: The Chicago Wilderness consortium. 2006. The State of Our Chicago Wilderness: A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the Region. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, Chicago, IL. THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... 5

Foreword ...... 7

Chapter 1: Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction...... 9 1.2 Overview of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan ...... 9 1.3 Development of the Report Card...... 9 1.4 How the Report Card is Organized ...... 10 1.5 Key Findings of the Report Card ...... 10 1.6 Report Card Recommendations ...... 10

Chapter 2: Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities 2.1 Introduction...... 12 2.2 Forest Communities...... 19 2.3 Savanna Communities...... 29 2.4 Prairie Communities ...... 33 2.5 Wetland Communities...... 38 2.6 Stream Communities ...... 42 2.7 Lake Communities ...... 49

Chapter 3: Animal Assemblages 3.1 Introduction...... 54 3.2 Bird Assemblages ...... 55 3.3 Reptile and Amphibian Assemblages ...... 67 3.4 Invertebrate Assemblages ...... 78 3.5 Fish Assemblages ...... 82 3.6 Mammals ...... 90

Chapter 4: Plant Species 4.1 Introduction...... 92 4.2 Plants of Concern ...... 92 4.3 Indicators ...... 94 4.4 Recommended Actions ...... 94

Chapter 5: Ecological Management, Research and Monitoring 5.1 Introduction...... 95 5.2 Ecological Restoration and Management Guidelines ...... 96 5.3 Controlled Burning ...... 97 5.4 Restoration and Management of Hydrology ...... 98 5.5 Reestablishment of Native Species ...... 99 5.6 Control of Invasive Plant Species...... 100 5.7 Management of Problem Wildlife ...... 102 5.8 Natural Resource Management Plans ...... 103 5.9 Research, Monitoring and Inventorying...... 103

3 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Chapter 6: Education and Communication 6.1 Introduction...... 109 6.2 Long-term Education Goals ...... 109 6.3 Chicago Wilderness Education & Communication Team Workshops and Programs ...... 113 6.4 Short-term Communication Goals ...... 114

Chapter 7: Sustainability 7.1 Introduction...... 120 7.2 Sustainability Recommendations from the Biodiversity Recovery Plan ...... 121 7.3 Highlights of Work Being Done to Address Sustainability Issues and the Recommendations of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan ...... 129

Chapter 8: Biodiversity Recovery Plan Progress 8.1 Introduction...... 144 8.2 Involve the Citizens, Organizations and Agencies of the Region in Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity ...... 144 8.3 Improve the Scientific Basis of Ecological Management ...... 146 8.4 Protect Globally and Regionally Important Natural Communities ...... 149 8.5 Restore Natural Communities to Ecological Health ...... 151 8.6 Manage Natural Communities to Sustain Native Biodiversity...... 151 8.7 Develop Citizen Awareness and Understanding of Local Biodiversity to Ensure Support and Participation ...... 152 8.8 Foster a Sustainable Relationship Between Society and Nature in the Region...... 152 8.9 Enrich the Quality of the Lives of the Region’s Citizens ...... 153

Chapter 9: Report Card Recommendations ...... 154

Literature Cited...... 156

Appendix A: Projects Funded by the Chicago Wilderness Consortium, 1998 – 2004 ...... 161

Appendix B: Members of the Chicago Wilderness Consortium and Corporate Council ...... 165

4 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Credit for the development of the Report Card goes Insects to the many Chicago Wilderness member organiza- R. Dan Gooch (M), Michelle Uting (N), Jim Bess, tions that conduct collaborative conservation work in Gareth Blakesley, Ron Panzer, Doug Taron, Wayne this region, and especially to those organizations’ Vanderploeg, Tom Velat staff members who served on the project team, participated in the various Report Card workshops, Prairies and Savannas served as section editors and otherwise provided Laurel Ross (M), Catherine Bendowitz (N), feedback on various drafts of this document. Deborah Antlitz, Marlin Bowles, Sue Elston, Brenda Molano-Flores, Bob Montgomery, Ron Report Card Project Team Panzer, Oliver Pergams, John Rogner R. Dan Gooch (Chair), Barbara Berlin, Steven Byers, Cindy Copp, Dennis Dreher, Kent Fuller, Karen Rare Plants Glennemeier, Peter Haas, Karen Hobbs, Lucy Laurel Ross (M), Rebecca Mann (N), Jane Balaban, Hutcherson, Kappy Laing, Elizabeth McCance, Chris John Balaban, Rachel Cook, Ken Dritz, Barbara Mulvaney, Debra Shore, Jon Voelz, Doug Widener Johnson, Ken Klick, Scott Kobal, Susanne Masi, Margo Milde, Laura Rericha, Gerould Wilhelm 2004 Natural Community and Taxonomic Workshop Participants Woodlands and Forests (M–Workshop Moderator, N–Workshop Note Taker) Steven Byers (M), Michelle Uting (N), Jane Balaban, John Balaban, Leslie Berns, Jeff Brawn, Amphibians and Reptiles Cindy Copp, Jennifer Filipiak, Karen Glennemeier, Mike Redmer (M), Lucy Hutcherson (N), Tom Scott Kobal, Wayne Lampa, Jon Mendelson, Anton, Jennifer Filipiak, Karen Glennemeier, Stephen Packard Karen Hobbs, Robert Sliwinski Thanks to those who provided additional, post- Aquatic Communities workshop feedback and information: Kent Fuller (M), Chris Mulvaney (N), Michael Ander, Jim Bland, Ed DeWalt, Dennis Dreher, Joel Amphibians and Reptiles Greenberg, Kelli Krueger, Holly Hudson, Bob Tom Anton, Robert Brodman, Karen Glennemeier, Kirschner, Stephen Pescitelli, Don Roseboom, Vic Dave Mauger, Mike Redmer, Alan Resetar, Dave Santucci, Greg Seegert Robson

Birds Aquatic Communities Dann, Karen Glennemeier, Karen Hobbs, Stephen Jim Bland, Ed Collins, Ed DeWalt, Kelli Krueger, Packard, Judy Pollock, Walter Marcisz, Bob Mike Retzer, Vic Santucci Montgomery, Robert Sliwinski, Doug Stotz, Jeff Walk Birds Steven Byers, Donald Dann, Tom Fredericks, Fish Karen Glennemeier, Karen Hobbs, Duane Heaton, Chris Mulvaney (M/N), Chris Anchor, Jim Bland, Jim Herkert, Walter Marcisz, Elizabeth McCloskey, Frank Jakubicek, Vic Santucci, Greg Seegert, Frank Bob Montgomery, William Moskoff, Judy Pollock, Veraldi, Philip Willink Eric Secker, Doug Stotz, Stephen Packard, Robert Sliwinski, Jeff Walk

5 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Fish Thanks to those who contributed significant sec- Frank Veraldi, Vic Santucci, Jim Bland, Stephen tions of the Report Card: Pescitelli, Mike Retzer Birds Insects Judy Pollock Gareth Blakesley, Ron Panzer, Doug Taron Education and Communication Plants Lucy Hutcherson, Andrew Kimmel, Michael Susanne Masi Pond, Carol Saunders, Doug Widener

Prairies and Savannas Examples of Management Jim Anderson, Marlin Bowles, Wayne Lampa, Wayne Lampa Brenda Molano-Flores, Stephen Packard, Steve Richter Indicators Kent Fuller Wetlands Marlin Bowles, Michael W. Ander Plants of Concern Margo Milde Woodlands and Forests Marlin Bowles, Karen Glennemeier, Scott Kobal, Sustainability Stephen Packard Dennis Dreher, Karen Hobbs, Steve Perkins

Sustainability Special Thanks Cindy Copp, Jean Flemma, Irene Hogstrom, To Chris Mulvaney of Chicago Wilderness, who Richard Mariner served as the information coordinator for the project; to Cindy Copp of the Center for Neighborhood Other: Technology who provided the maps for chapter Ders Anderson, Steven Byers, Alison Carney seven; and to the various forest preserve districts, Brown, Glenda Daniel, Marcy DeMauro, Kent conservation districts, and state agencies that pro- Fuller, Tara Gibbes, R. Dan Gooch, Marianne vided information on acreage increases since the Hahn, Lisa Haderlein, Geoffre Levin, Dan Lobbes, Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Don McFall, Robert Megquier, Bob Montgomery, Marianne Nelson, Oliver Pergams, Susan Post, Nancy Williamson, Marta Witt

6 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

FOREWORD

What is Chicago Wilderness? It is important to note that Chicago Wilderness also Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature reserve that benefits from an increasing awareness of conservation includes more than 225,000* acres of protected natu- principles and needs by local citizens throughout the ral areas. It stretches from southeastern Wisconsin, region. A steadily growing number of volunteers, through northeastern Illinois and into northwestern people from all walks of life, give generously of their Indiana. The protected natural areas of Chicago time and talents: they remove invasive species, sow Wilderness are forest preserves, state parks, federal seeds, count birds, monitor frogs, restore stream- lands, county preserves, and privately owned lands. banks, teach children, write letters to elected officials They are located in Kenosha County in Wisconsin; and engage in a host of other conservation activities. in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties in Illinois; and in Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana. What is biodiversity and why is it important? First coined by entomologist E.O. Wilson in 1986, the What is the Chicago Wilderness consortium? term biodiversity is short for biological diversity. In 1996, a diverse group of 34 organizations, calling Although a quick Internet search reveals dozens of itself the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, found attempts to flesh out its definition, the one approved much to celebrate in the region’s remaining natural at the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de areas, but determined that these areas were threat- Janero and subsequently adopted by most countries ened by development and neglect. The efforts of the is: “the variability among living organisms from all Council, now commonly known as the Chicago Wild- sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and erness consortium, were predicated upon the cer- other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological com- tainty that without active management, most if not all plexes of which they are part: this includes diversity of the region’s natural areas would disappear or within species, between species and ecosystems.” become so degraded as to retain little ecological or aesthetic value. The Chicago Wilderness consortium For all of the many benefits our built environment is now an alliance of more than 180 organizations affords us, much has been lost of our natural her- working together to protect, restore, study and man- itage. While 226,000 acres of natural areas may seem age the natural ecosystems of the Chicago region, con- like a lot, in truth they represent less than seven per- tribute to the conservation of global biodiversity, and cent of the 3,160,000 total acres within the region. enrich local residents’ quality of life. High quality remnants of natural areas are even more rare. In 1978, the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Recognizing that the business community also has a identified 25,700 acres of natural areas with signifi- profound influence on the region’s ecological health cant natural features throughout the entire state, rep- through its land use, management practices, politi- resenting just seven-hundredths of one percent of the cal activity and philanthropy, in 2002, members of total land and water area of Illinois (White 1978). the Chicago Wilderness consortium worked with 12 local businesses to launch the Chicago Wilderness Some unprotected natural areas have been lost since Corporate Council. As of this writing, the Corporate 1978. Even more are hanging on by a thread. Nature Council has 27 members committed to improving is resilient, but detailed studies show that unless our local environment and reaching out to other pub- actively protected and restored, what little remains of lic and private partners in the coming years.

*The Biodiversity Recovery Plan, published in 1999, cites “200,000 acres of protected conservation land.” This project documented a combined acquisition of 25,980 acres since 1999, yielding the rounded estimate of 226,000 of protected lands and waters.

7 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

our remaining ecological treasures will be irreparably edge which are being lost represent a living library degraded or lost altogether. of options available for adapting to local and global change. Biodiversity is part of our daily The Chicago Wilderness region is not alone in facing lives and livelihood and constitutes the resources this dilemma. Across the world, a growing number of upon which families, communities, nations and people are coming to understand how important it future generations depend.” is to protect and preserve natural communities in balance with human communities. As stated in the fore- As much as we depend upon the natural areas of word to the Global Biodiversity Assessment Summary the Chicago Wilderness region—for recreation, for for Policy Makers (Watson et al. 1995), the resources they afford and the functions they “Biodiversity represents the very foundation of perform, for their sheer beauty—they depend on us human existence. Beside the profound ethical and for their very survival. This report card measures aesthetic implications, it is clear that the loss of how well we are doing in holding up our end of biodiversity has serious economic and social costs. the bargain. The genes, species, ecosystems and human knowl-

8 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In support of on-the-ground recovery efforts, the 1.1 INTRODUCTION Biodiversity Recovery Plan discusses and outlines In 1996, the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, visions, goals and recommended actions related to now commonly known as the Chicago Wilderness public and private landowner protection measures; consortium, published An Atlas of Biodiversity. It pro- ecological management, research and monitoring; vided the general public an introduction to the education and communication; and the role of key region’s remaining wealth of natural communities— players, including governments, the private sector their beauty, their importance to the region and the and volunteers. world, the threats they face and the efforts to save them for future generations. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan distills the various component visions, goals and recommended actions In 1999, the consortium followed up by publishing the into eight major objectives: Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the purpose of which was • Involve the citizens, organizations and agencies to assess the condition of the region’s natural commu- of the region in efforts to conserve biodiversity nities and to outline region-wide objectives for their • Improve the scientific basis of ecological manage- protection and recovery to long-term viability. ment • Protect globally and regionally important natural The goals of The State of Our Chicago Wilderness— communities A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the Region, are • Restore natural communities to ecological health to assess changes in the condition of the region’s • Manage natural communities to sustain native natural communities since the publication of the biodiversity Biodiversity Recovery Plan, document the condition of • Develop citizen awareness and understanding of available data, measure progress toward achieving local biodiversity to ensure support and partici- Biodiversity Recovery Plan objectives and make pation recommendations for future report cards. • Foster a sustainable relationship between society and nature in the region • Enrich the quality of the lives of the region’s citizens OVERVIEW OF THE BIODIVERSITY 1.2 RECOVERY PLAN The condition of the region’s natural communities, as EVELOPMENT OF THE reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, was deter- D mined by regional experts convened in 1997. After 1.3 REPORT CARD developing classification systems for natural com- A project steering committee was formed to set munity and animal assemblage types found in the project goals and guide the development of the Chicago Wilderness region, experts rated each com- Report Card. This committee met regularly to shep- munity and assemblage by quantity, condition, bio- herd, shape and lend expertise to the project. To logical importance and global significance, then gather the necessary information to assess the health ranked them in order of conservation priority. For of the region’s biodiversity, many experts and stake- each community type, a broad vision and goals were holders were also brought into the process. In the outlined, along with an overarching set of recom- summer of 2004, more than 150 people were invited mended recovery actions for all terrestrial and to participate in workshops designed to provide aquatic communities. expert information regarding the region’s natural communities and species assemblages. One day of

9 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

workshops was held to evaluate animal groups—the KEY FINDINGS OF THE region’s bird, insect, fish, reptile and amphibian 1.5 REPORT CARD assemblages. A second day of workshops was held to The threats to our natural communities remain as assess forest, woodland, savanna, grassland, wet- described in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Major land, and aquatic communities, and plants of con- stressors include poorly planned urban expansion, servation concern. Draft findings were circulated the invasion of non-native species, excessive deer among workshop participants and other regional populations and the loss of natural processes due to experts for additional feedback. hydrological change and the lack of controlled fire. These stressors contribute to the Report Card deter- Numerous regional experts provided additional infor- mination that overall, the region’s natural communi- mation, particularly related to the non-biological goals ties and animal assemblages remain in a declining and objectives of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. or threatened state of health.

A draft of the entire Report Card was circulated to The good news is that there are notable exceptions. members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium. The Report Card features examples of well-managed Feedback was incorporated into several iterative natural areas that boast a significant recovery of drafts, culminating in the publication of the Report native biodiversity. Overall, the sites within the Card in the spring of 2006. Chicago Wilderness region that are being actively managed exhibit recovering communities of native HOW THE REPORT CARD plants and animals. Yet the majority of the region’s 1.4 IS ORGANIZED natural areas remain unmanaged or under-managed, To underscore the relationship between the Report which more than offsets the positive gains made at Card and the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the Report well-managed sites. Card generally subscribes to the format and order of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Note that where appro- However, there are many encouraging trends to priate, The Nature Conservancy’s global rankings of report. Since 1997, Illinois voters have approved natural communities are included in the Report Card, nearly two dozen conservation-related bond refer- as they were in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. As far enda totaling more than $540 million dollars. The as the Report Card team is aware, these rankings are acreage benefiting from controlled burns is increas- the most thorough available, and are included in this ing as shown in these totals from six forest preserve document to provide perspective on the global con- and conservation districts: 2002—4537 acres, 2003— servation importance of natural communities within 6190 acres, and 2005—6908 acres. Also encouraging is the Chicago Wilderness region. the fact that in 2003, the latest year for which information is available, estimates place the annual value In chapters one through three, included for each nat- of conservation volunteer hours in the Chicago ural community and animal assemblage is a Report Wilderness region at more than $1 million. In some Card Condition Ranking based on a four-tier system: respects, the region is leading the nation in sustainable development, with the passage of local govern- Poor ment ordinances, plans and development policies aimed at improving protections for habitat and nat- Fair ural areas.

Good REPORT CARD 1.6 RECOMMENDATIONS Excellent In spite of the many challenges confronting the region, the Chicago Wilderness consortium has made These are further defined in each chapter as they relate significant strides since the publication of the to each community type or assemblage.

10 CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Biodiversity Recovery Plan. The Report Card chronicles • Articulate specific goals for non-biological objec- those successes and outlines next steps toward the tives achievement of a healthier environment for all of • Schedule the development of the next Report Card the region’s rich diversity of plants, animals and peo- to aggressively spur the completion of the above ple. Following are the recommendations of this recommendations Report Card to members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium: These recommendations are discussed in more detail • Aggressively spur the development and region- in chapter nine. wide adoption of specific recovery goals, indicators and monitoring protocols for each Chicago Additionally, to promote a balance between contin- Wilderness natural community and assemblage ued population growth and the preservation of our type natural heritage, the recommendations of this Report • Utilize these goals, indicators and monitoring Card to members of the Chicago Wilderness consor- results to guide site-specific management plans tium, state and local governments, and other local and the collection of data decision-makers are: • Develop baseline data for each of the region’s natural communities and assemblages 1. Significantly increase the number of natural • Develop a repository for the region’s data areas under active management. • Coordinate the region’s data collection and reporting 2. Acquire or otherwise protect additional natural • Secure more broad-based participation through- areas to balance sustainable growth with the con- out the region servation of local biodiversity. • Clarify and potentially refine the boundaries of the Chicago Wilderness region These last recommendations are further discussed in • Come to region-wide consensus on a natural the Summary Report–The State of Our Chicago Wilder- community classification system ness: A Report Card on the Health of the Region’s Eco- systems, published as a supplement to this document.

11 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Natural Areas Inventory in 1976, the Chicago Wilder- 2.1INTRODUCTION ness survey provided important status, trend and Across the region, there are sites that serve as prime management information about high quality sites in examples of ongoing efforts to restore the region’s Illinois. 2) The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit, native biodiversity: Chiwaukee Prairie, Harms which established important baseline information in Woods, Ivanhoe Dune and Swale, Middlefork the first region-wide assessment of the condition of Savanna and Nippersink Creek, to name but a few. upland forests and woodlands. These examples, how- However, the majority of the region’s natural areas— ever, remain the exception rather than the rule. both those protected and unprotected—remain unmanaged or under-managed, resulting in an The lack of data, as it became clear in the course overall decline in the region’s biodiversity. Accord- of developing the Report Card, is directly related to the ingly, one of the key recommended actions of the lack of specific recovery goals, indicators and moni- Biodiversity Recovery Plan is also one of the key recom- toring protocols for each community type. Again, mended actions of the Report Card: increase the num- there is an exception. As recommended in the ber of acres under active management. Biodiversity Recovery Plan, in 2002 a conservation design was developed for woodlands. The conserva- In 1997, experts from throughout the Chicago tion design established measurable recovery goals Wilderness region convened to assess the region’s through 2025, with specific benchmarks in five-year natural communities. Participants assessed each increments. It also outlined a range of management community type utilizing four criteria: quantity, con- strategies based on specifically identified threats and dition, biological importance and distribution within also recommended parameters for monitoring proto- and beyond the Chicago Wilderness region. Their cols. As evidenced in the following sections, “The findings underpinned the assessments reported in Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for Wood- the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. lands” provides a solid framework for reporting progress toward specific woodland recovery goals. In 2004, experts again convened, this time primarily to assess the current condition of the region’s natu- This chanpter of the Report Card strives to provide the ral communities, as it was anticipated there would be following information: no changes in biological importance or distribution. Regarding quantity of natural communities, it was Overview of Findings hoped that sufficient data would be identified to A summary of the overall condition of the commu- assess changes in quantity, but a general lack of nity and recommended future actions. region-wide data precluded a precise quantity assessment. The lack of sufficient data likewise limited the Condition of Data ability to precisely quantify changes in the condition An overview of the available data that informed the of the region’s natural communities and assem- Report Card assessment. It should be noted that the blages, and therefore the majority of assessments are majority of data that were identified is concentrated based on observations of experts working in the field. primarily in Illinois. Some Indiana data are referenced. Very little data are referenced from Wisconsin. Notable exceptions to the lack of data included: 1) the This fact underscores a Report Card recommendation resurveys of high quality prairie and wetland sites in to increase the data collection from all three states 2000-2001 and upland forest sites in 1997-1998. located in the Chicago Wilderness region. Following up on sampling conducted by the Illinois

12 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

TABLE 2.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY TYPES IN THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Forested Communities Shrubland Communities Wetland Communities • Upland forest • Fine-textured-soil shrubland • Marsh o Dry-mesic o Dry-mesic o Basin o Mesic o Wet-mesic o Streamside ◊ Maple dominant+ • Sand shrubland • Bog ◊ Oak dominant+ o Dry-mesic o Graminoid o Wet-mesic o Wet-mesic o Low Shrub • Floodplain o Forested o Wet-mesic Prairie Communities • Fen o Mesic • Fine-textured-soil prairie o Calcareous o Wet o Dry o Graminoid • Flatwoods o Mesic o Forested o Northern o Wet • Sedge Meadow o Sand • Sand Prairie • Panne • Woodland o Dry • Seep and Spring o Dry-mesic* o Mesic o Neutral o Mesic o Wet o Calcareous o Wet-mesic • Gravel Prairie o Acid o Dry Savanna Communities o Mesic Cliff Communities • Fine-textured-soil savanna • Dolomite Prairie • Eroding Cliff o Dry-mesic* o Dry • Dolomite Bluff o Mesic o Mesic o Wet-mesic o Wet Lakeshore Communities • Sand Savanna • Beach o Dry • Foredune o Dry-mesic • High Dune o Mesic

+Recommended addition to classification system reported in Recovery Plan *Identified as globally important in the Recovery Plan

Community Description tions stem from those included in Appendix 1 of the A brief overview of the community “tree” types and Biodiversity Recovery Plan. sub-types. It should be noted that during the workshop, there was much discussion about the merit of Long-Term Vision and Goals refining the Chicago Wilderness terrestrial commu- An extrapolation of the long-term vision and goals nity type classification system. In advance of any for an entire community type embedded in the changes formally adopted by the Chicago Wilderness Biodiversity Recovery Plan. consortium, the Report Card community type defini-

13 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Indicators TABLE 2.2 Each workshop of natural community experts was AQUATIC COMMUNITY TYPES asked to identify indicators of community quality or health. It should be noted that the limited infor- IN THE HICAGO ILDERNESS C W mation provided underscores a Report Card recom- CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM mendation to develop specific indicators, along with recovery goals and monitoring protocols, for each of Stream Communities Lake Communities the region’s natural community types. Headwater Streams Natural Lakes • Continuous-Flow • Lake Michigan Report Card Condition Ranking o Coarse Substrate • Glacial Lakes The Report Card employs the following rankings to o Fine Substrate o Kettle measure each natural community’s condition. The • Intermittent-Flow o Flow-through first four are from the Biodiversity Recovery Plan: o Coarse Substrate • Bottomland o Fine Substrate • Vernal Pond Poor: rapidly losing biodiversity, • Low-order Streams • Manmade Lakes or little of good quality remaining o High-gradient o Naturalized o Low-gradient o Other Fair: quite a bit of biodiversity • Mid-order Streams remaining, but declining or moder- o High-gradient ate amount remaining o Low-gradient Good: much biodiversity survives and is fairly stable, but not all of high quality For each individual community type, the following information is provided: Excellent: much biodiversity survives and is fairly stable, much Description is high quality Each individual community description is based primarily on the definitions in the Biodiversity Recovery Undetermined Plan. The community types are listed in Tables 2.1 (for terrestrial communities) and 2.2 (for aquatic communities). Recommended Actions Listed for each community type is an overview of Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking potential avenues of research, monitoring and on- A summary of the four assessment measures used to the-ground efforts, refining or building upon the rec- inform the ranking within the five tiers of conserva- ommended actions of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. tion targets, the first tier being highest conservation Principal among the recommendations is the call to priority (see Table 2.4). develop a conservation design or similar instrument to provide specific, measurable recovery goals, indi- Recent Recovery Efforts cators and monitoring protocols. In addition to pro- Examples are provided of sites where management viding management guidance, such instruments has resulted in a stabilization or recovery of biodi- would provide a framework for measuring progress versity. Within some sections, sidebars provide toward the recovery of the region’s biodiversity. overviews of select sites. It should be noted that many more sites have undergone or are undergoing A final note: Information could not be obtained about active management, and these are but a few repre- cliff, lakeshore and shrubland communities. These sentative examples of such efforts. communities should be assessed in the next iteration of the Report Card.

14 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

TABLE 2.3 SUM OF ACRES IN PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND IN OTHER SIGNIFICANT NATURAL AREAS BY COMMUNITY TYPE—1999

Data are from Illinois and Indiana Departments of Natural Resources and County Forest Preserve/Conservation Districts and include only lands that had been identified by community type in 1999. Updated figures were not available at the time of publication of the Report Card. Even so, these data were not complete in 1999 and lack of acreage in a column does not imply zero acreage of a community type in a county. Minor variations between the Recovery Plan and Report Card versions are due to corrections.

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Grades (Taft et al.): Grade A: Relatively stable or undisturbed communities Grade B: Late successional or lightly disturbed communities Grade C: Mid-successional or moderately to heavily disturbed communities Grade D: Early successional or severely disturbed communities Grade E: Very early successional or very severely disturbed communities

Source: Florisitic Quality Assessment for Vegetation in Illinois: a Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity, John B. Taft, Gerould S. Wilhelm, Douglass M. Ladd and Linda A. Masters, Illinois Native Plant Society (no date on publication).

LAKE, IL2 COOK1 DUPAGE2 KANE2 LAKE, IN3 MCHENRY1 PORTER3 WILL1 FORESTED COMMUNITIES Upland forest Dry-mesic 739 374 101 5 20 496 Mesic 1157 350 452 18 22 75 350 Wet-mesic 32 10 30 Unclassified 30.0 946 Total 1928 734 452 101 53 22 95 1822

Floodplain forest Wet-mesic 34 59 10 20 304 Wet 544 80 766 43 Unclassified 605 78 179 Total 1149 113 825 88 20 526

Flatwood Northern 480 213 389 40 Sand 135 Unclassified 33 Total 513 348 389 40

Continued

15 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

LAKE, IL2 COOK1 DUPAGE2 KANE2 LAKE, IN3 MCHENRY1 PORTER3 WILL1 Woodland Dry-mesic 386 428 1368 3 83 Mesic 318 214 1308 Wet-mesic 127 Unclassified 909 76 103 55 Total 1740 719 1368 1414 83 55

TOTAL 5330 1913 3034 1642 73 105 95 2403

SAVANNA COMMUNITIES Fine-textured-soil savanna Dry-mesic 140 1111 44 20 24 Mesic 224 9 45 34 Wet-mesic 14 Unclassified 381 2362 10 35 Total 759 1120 2362 99 34 20 59

Sand savanna Dry 277 18 200 Dry-mesic 142 202 450 31 60 Mesic Unclassified 130 79 Total 419 202 598 231 139

Unclassified savanna 457 31 Total 457 31

TOTAL 1178 1321 2362 556 632 20 229

SHRUBLAND COMMUNITIES Fine-textured-soil shrubland Wet-mesic fine-textured-soil 1

Unclassified shrubland 2 410 44

TOTAL 3 410 44

PRAIRIE COMMUNITIES Fine-textured-soil prairie Dry 82 203 2 Mesic 329 377 974 83 73 23 33 Wet 96 170 315 10 5 19 5

Continued

16 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

LAKE, IL2 COOK1 DUPAGE2 KANE2 LAKE, IN3 MCHENRY1 PORTER3 WILL1 Unclassified 198 58 3 59 Total 705 547 1491 153 78 45 97 Sand prairie Dry 179 22 25 Mesic 603 147 27 33 95 Wet 375 178 183 26 Unclassified 141 30 Total 1157 325 373 33 176

Gravel prairie Dry 28 6 9 30 Mesic 21 Unclassified Total 49 6 9 30

Dolomite prairie Dry 1 2 Mesic 118 Wet 49 14 Unclassified 2 115 Total 49 3 249

TOTAL 1862 921 1547 165 451 75 33 522

WETLAND COMMUNITIES Marsh Basin 1375 554 Streamside 965 190 Unclassified 913 120 2481 377 301 100 471 Total 3253 120 2481 377 301 744 100 471

Bog Forested 149 Graminoid 4 8 Low shrub 12 10 Unclassifed Total 165 18

Fen Calcareous floating mat 76 51 Forested 6 120 23 10 1 Graminoid 65 44 78 10 63 2 Unclassified 8 37 35 27 1 Total 155 44 198 70 35 113 37 4

Continued

17 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

LAKE, IL2 COOK1 DUPAGE2 KANE2 LAKE, IN3 MCHENRY1 PORTER3 WILL1 Sedge meadow 355 317 520 254 40 417 89

Panne 67 73 1

Seep and spring Neutral 4 Calcareous 11 7 1 Sand 1 Unclassified 10 12 3 Total 10 12 19 5 3 2

TOTAL 4003 493 3272 719 377 1297 140 566

CLIFF COMMUNITIES Eroding bluff 5 Dolomite 2 6

TOTAL 5 2 6

LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES Beach 63 Foredune 102

TOTAL 165

CULTURAL COMMUNITIES Cropland 2258 1071 854 5 149 Tree plantation 469 3 677 146 Turf grass 243 14 251 10 Unassoc. growth–grass 2934 601 2432 1608 28 291 Unassoc. growth–shrub 604 16 2331 39 Unassoc. growth–tree 794 2278 60 Unclassified unassoc. growth 508 65 Unclassified cultural 140

TOTAL 7301 634 9297 2919 212 515

1 Data do not represent all natural areas in county. Data include INAI sites and some forest preserve/conservation district sites. 2 Data include all FPD sites and INAI sites. 3 Data do not include all natural areas in county.

18 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

2.2 FORESTED COMMUNITIES TABLE 2.4 CONSERVATION TARGETS FOR 2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ECOVERY ASED ON TATUS In spite of several individual recovery successes, R B S , indications are that the majority of the region’s IMPORTANCE AND DISTRIBUTION forests are in poor condition, primarily due to the lack of management. The widening disparity between First (highest) Tier managed and unmanaged or under-managed areas • Woodland (all moisture classes) underscores the principal recommended action of • Fine-textured-soil savanna (all moisture both the Biodiversity Recovery Plan and the Report classes) Card, which is to increase the number of acres under • Mesic sand savanna management. Several new recommended actions • Sand prairie (all moisture gradients in expand upon and refine select recommended actions dune and swale topography) of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Primary among them • Dolomite prairie (all) are calls to establish specific, measurable, region- • Panne wide recovery goals, indicators of community health • Graminoid fen and monitoring protocols. • Fine-textured-soil prairie (all moisture classes) 2.2.2 CONDITION OF DATA Since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, Second Tier a number of key efforts were completed, which • Dry sand prairie inform the Report Card assessment of the region’s • Gravel prairie (all) forested communities. The Chicago Wilderness • Basin marsh Woods Audit, conducted in 2002 and 2003, surveyed • Calcareous floating mat the condition of the region’s upland forests. Develop- • Calcareous seep ed, in part, as a means to track progress toward the • Sand prairie (other than those in dune specific recovery goals outlined in the “Conservation and swale topography) Design for Woodlands” (summarized below), the • Northern flatwoods audit provides the first quantified condition ranking • Streamside marsh of the region’s upland forests and woodlands, as well as baseline information against which to measure Third Tier future trends (Glennemeier 2002a). • Sand flatwoods • Dry-mesic sand savanna Several site-specific studies provide key insights into • Forested fen the management of select forested community types • Sedge meadow (Apfelbaum et al. 2000; Bowles et al. 2000; Bowles et al. 2003). Fourth Tier • Upland forest (all) Other data related to the region’s forested communities have yet to be sufficiently compiled and analyzed. Fifth Tier For instance, Illinois’ Critical Trends Assessment • Floodplain forest (all) Program and its sister volunteer program, Forest- • Bogs (all) Watch (until the latter was suspended in 2004 due to • Sand and neutral seep state budget cuts), have consistently monitored forest sites in the Chicago Wilderness region since 1997, but regional analysis of the data remains limited.

19 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

In spite of these advances in information, much of the maintain an appropriate continuum of canopy cover Report Card assessment of the region’s forested com- across the region to sustain viable populations of rare munities remains anecdotal. Data are needed to species and community assemblages. Broadly out- quantify the condition of all of the region’s forested lined goals include: communities and to establish baseline data against • Secure 50,000–100,000 acres of healthy forest and which to measure future trends. woodland complexes in the region, including as many as 20 good-quality sites larger than 500 acres 2.2.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION and several 800- to 1,000-acres sites, with appropri- The region’s forested communities are divided into ate land forms (slope, soils and hydrology) four types, each of which is further divided by sub- • Manage 90 percent of the highly fire-dependent type based on moisture content of the soil, except in forest and woodland communities with prescribed the case of flatwoods. Members of the forested com- burns on a rotating schedule munities workshop group recommend the differen- • Reduce deer density in forests and woodlands to a tiation between maple-dominant and oak-dominant level that, in combination with prescribed burns, mesic upland forests. The classifications are: would allow for the reproduction of canopy tree species and for the shrub and herbaceous under- Upland forest Flatwoods story layers to return to a healthy condition • Dry-mesic • Northern • Implement active restoration regimens, including • Mesic • Sand thinning, burning, weeding and planting, on many o Maple dominant* more forest and woodland sites o Oak dominant* Woodland • Wet-mesic • Dry-mesic The Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design • Mesic For Woodlands Floodplain • Wet-mesic Building upon the vision and goals of the Biodiversity • Wet-mesic Recovery Plan, which ranked woodlands in the first • Mesic tier of conservation targets, the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for Woodlands,” (Glennemeier *These are additions to the community differentiations in 2002a) a draft of which was completed in 2002, estab- the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. lishes specific benchmarks in five-year increments toward the realization of refined goals by 2025: 2.2.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALS • By 2025, the region will include a mosaic of wood- The long-term vision and recovery goals for the lands that sustains diverse communities and sta- region’s forested communities are broadly stated in ble populations of the flora and fauna that the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Unique to forested constitute native woodland ecosystems communities, however, is that subsequent to the pub- • By 2025, all woodlands will have been identified lication of the plan, a model policy and conservation and prioritized according to their restoration, design have advanced and refined goals for wood- management and/or acquisition needs and poten- land communities, as well as recommended indica- tial. All woodlands that are currently healthy tors and monitoring protocols. This progression of should receive highest priority post-Biodiversity Recovery Plan follow-up is an exam- • By 2025, all healthy sites will be sustainable as ple of the kind of effort needed for the balance of the such with a “maintenance level” of management region’s natural communities. that is much less labor and resource intensive than currently needed levels of restoration The Biodiversity Recovery Plan • Healthy woodlands shall consist of mature trees The Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s vision for the with 50 to 80 percent cover, a nearly continuous region’s forested communities is to improve condi- herbaceous layer that includes conservative tions and restore natural processes to allow canopy species, and a diverse assemblage of native tree species to regenerate (in viable numbers) and to animal and plant species overall

20 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

• By 2025, there will be a minimum of: gets, with the footnote that upland forests dominated o 3,000 acres of flatwoods by oak stands are of higher concern than those dom- o 15,000 acres of wet-mesic woodlands inated by maple stands. Dry-mesic upland forest o 25,000 acres of mesic woodlands rated fair for condition, but mesic and wet-mesic sub- o 8,000 acres of dry-mesic woodlands types rated poor. All three sub-types rated of medium biological importance with good distribution in the Conservation of Wooded Lands in the Chicago region and elsewhere. With the exception of the wet- Region: A Model Policy mesic sub-type, totaling only 72 acres in northeastern In November 2003, the Chicago Wilderness consor- Illinois (Table 2.3), upland forests rated moderate risk tium approved a policy paper entitled, “Cons- for quantity. Identified threats included lack of fire, ervation of Wooded Lands in the Chicago Region: A fragmentation, overbrowsing by excessive popula- Model Policy,” (Frankel and Mariner 2003) which tions of deer, encroaching development and invasive seeks to build consensus and foster implementation species, particularly buckthorn. of the recommendations in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan that relate to the region’s wooded communities. Recent Recovery Efforts Specific management recommendations for all of the Harms Woods in Cook County, Illinois and Maple region’s wooded communities include: Grove in DuPage County, Illinois are examples of • Manage consistently a sufficient number of well-managed sites, increasing in biodiversity. diverse sites for at least 20 years [to improve our understanding of these communities] Indicators • Develop site-specific management plans for all The experts convened in 2004 to assess the status of managed and unmanaged sites, even if that this community identified select species within the means developing only a simple monitoring plan shrub layer, including American hazelnut, witch for an unmanaged area. Taking into account what hazel, and viburnums, and oak reproduction, as community types were present historically on a possible positive indicators of quality for this commu- site, land management plans should address: nity. In its draft quality index, the Chicago Wilderness o The control of invasive trees and other invasive Woods Audit combines the Floristic Quality Index, plants canopy cover and four measures of invasive species. o The restoration of predator/prey balance o The control of white-tailed deer Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be o The management of the spread of gypsy moths formally identified and adopted for this community, in such a way that does not threaten other and this is a recommendation for future report cards. Lepidoptera species o The use of controlled burns Report Card Condition Ranking: o The restoration of natural hydrology Fair to Poor According to Glennemeier (2004, p.18), “Overall, CW 2.2.5 UPLAND FOREST wooded lands [which include upland forests] were Description characterized by few high quality plots, an abundance Upland forests historically developed under 80 to 100 of invasive species, and a changing character of the percent canopy cover. They have multi-layered struc- woodlands from oak-dominated to that dominated ture with canopy, sub-canopy, shrub and herbaceous by invasive species.” Taking into account floristic qual- layers. Canopy tree species are well represented in ity, canopy trees and four measures of invasive varying size classes from seedling to canopy-sized species, the audit rates 42 percent of the region’s oak individuals. There are three sub-types based on soil woods as poor, 38 percent as fair, 17 percent as good moisture: dry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic. and only four percent as excellent. Of high concern is the degenerating shrub layer in mesic upland forests, Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair to and the fact that oak woods are being replaced by Poor maple stands. Maple stands that derive from the The Biodiversity Recovery Plan ranked all sub-types of degradation of natural oak communities lose the bio- upland forests in the fourth tier of conservation tar- diversity characteristic of oak communities and do not

21 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

TABLE 2.5 COMPARISON OF ACRES IN CHICAGO WILDERNESS REGION BY COMMUNITY TYPE AND GRADE, 1999–2004

Data are from the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Natural Areas Inventory, 2004. Grade D and E lands are not included, which explains why the sum of Grades A, B and C acres do not always equal the amount of total acres.

CW category INAI community type Total no. of acres % Grade A % Grade B % Grade C

Lakeshore ...... Beach 63 76 24 0 Foredune 102 84 16 0

Cliff ...... Dolomite cliff 7.5 73 27 0 Dry-mesic barren 6 0 0 100 Eroding bluff 11.4 91 90

Forested ...... Dry-mesic upland forest 1236.5 15 46 25 Mesic floodplain forest 243 2 29 63 Mesic upland forest 980 19 50 26 Northern flatwood 92.9 0 93 2 Sand flatwood 261 0 8 87 Wet floodplain forest 32 0 100 0 Wet-mesic floodplain forest 34 0 76 24 Wet-mesic upland forest 50 0 100 0

Prairie ...... Dry gravel prairie 29 10 31 10 Dry sand prairie 179.2 68 9 23 Dry-mesic dolomite prairie 27 7 10 56 Dry-mesic gravel prairie 3 33 33 33 Dry-mesic prairie 19 26 53 21 Dry-mesic sand prairie 370.3 63 12 17 Gravel hill prairie 5.6 0 100 0 Mesic dolomite prairie 18 11 33 56 Mesic gravel prairie 22 41 41 14 Mesic prairie 417.9 9 44 39 Mesic sand prairie 477.1 22 18 39 Wet dolomite prairie 5 0 100 0

Continued

22 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

CW category INAI community type Total no. of acres % Grade A % Grade B % Grade C

Wet prairie 214.1 7 33 57 Wet sand prairie 293 27 25 33 Wet-mesic dolomite prairie 91 0 16 65 Wet-mesic prairie 277.5 11 22 58 Wet-mesic sand prairie 69.4 25 12 63

Shrubland ...... Shrub prairie 78.5 0 38 12

Savanna ...... Dry sand savanna 277 40 4 23 Dry-mesic sand savanna 388 11 27 42 Dry-mesic savanna 3 0 0 100 Mesic savanna 20 0 100 0

Wetland ...... Acid gravel seep 7 0 100 0 Calcareous floating mat 169 62 36 2 Calcareous seep 19.1 63 11 0 Forested bog 107 29 64 0 Forested fen 22.5 0 64 36 Graminoid bog 7 71 29 0 Graminoid fen 277.8 24 26 32 Low shrub bog 34 62 24 0 Low shrub fen 0.4 100 0 0 Marsh 2098 14 70 13 Panne 67 81 4 15 Sedge meadow 1018.3 16 31 42 Seep 28.6 41 35 10 Shrub swamp 12 42 8 50 Tall shrub bog 16 0 88 13

gain the biodiversity of healthy beech-maple forests. 2.2.6 FLOODPLAIN FOREST In spite of recent land acquisitions, many acres of Description upland forest—most in private holdings—remain Historically rare in the Chicago Wilderness region, unprotected and therefore threatened with develop- floodplain forests occur on the floodplains of rivers ment or further degradation. With the majority of both and streams. Developed under less than 80 percent protected and unprotected areas unmanaged or canopy cover, they are shaped by the frequency and under-managed, other threats remain unchanged and duration of flooding, by nutrient and sediment depo- include lack of fire, fragmentation, overbrowsing by sition and by the permeability of the soil. The under- excessive populations of deer, and invasive species, story in floodplain forests is more open due to the particularly buckthorn. (The Woods Audit found more frequency of flooding. Floodplain forests also pro- than 26 million buckthorn stems greater than 1 meter vide benefits to river systems by trapping sediment tall in the woods represented in the study, or an aver- and improving water quality, as well as slowing age of 558 stems per acre (Glennemeier 2004).) floodwaters. The soil moisture classes include wet- mesic and wet.

23 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair Both sub-types of floodplain forest, wet and wet- TWENTY-YEAR WOODY mesic, ranked in the fifth tier of conservation targets. VEGETATION CHANGES IN Both rated moderate risk for quantity, in fair condi- NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS tion, of medium biological importance and with UPLAND FORESTS good examples in the region and elsewhere. In 1999, a high percentage of remaining floodplain forests, The Biodiversity Recovery Plan ranked many of totaling 2,722 acres (Table 2.3), were protected in for- the region’s woodlands in the first tier of con- est preserve holdings. The principal threat identified servation targets, a principal concern being was altered hydrology—more frequent floods of that forest fragmentation and the absence of longer duration. Additional threats included sedi- fire were allowing for an increase in maples mentation and the suppression of fire. at the expense of oaks and overall forest diversity. To test whether such changes were Recent Recovery Efforts specifically occurring in upland forests of the No well-managed floodplain forest sites have been Chicago Wilderness region, Bowles et al. identified. (2000) resurveyed 28 high-quality forest stands originally studied by the Illinois Indicators Natural Areas Inventory in 1976. Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be identified for this community, and this is a recom- In brief, their findings suggest that woody mendation for future report cards. vegetation structural and compositional diversity have declined in both maple and Report Card Condition Ranking: oak stands in the past 20 years and that this Fair condition is apparently linked to changes in There is no change in the ranking of the region’s forest structure that began when fire sup- floodplain forests. The primary threat remains pression began. Because these stands repre- altered hydrology, with sediment loading contribut- sent the communities’ natural historical ing to their demise. Continued development is condition, they provide potential for restor- expected to exacerbate the frequency and duration ing former structure and biodiversity. The of flooding, which, along with the suppression of fire, researchers recommended that a high man- will further alter the composition of native plants and agement priority should be to prevent fur- encourage the spread of non-native invasive species. ther decline in oak stands by restoring Nutrient enrichment, including salt deposition, may natural disturbance processes and stand foster the growth of invasive species such as reed dynamics. They also recommended further canary grass and Phragmites. research to determine if canopy-level disturbance is needed to maintain openings that 2.2.7 FLATWOODS will allow for the maintenance of shrub layer Description species and oak regeneration in these forests. Developed under 50 to 80 percent canopy cover or Fire appears to be the management tool prin- less, flatwoods historically occurred on level or cipally needed, but it may have positive and nearly level soil that has an impermeable or slowly negative effects without supplemental con- permeable layer, which causes a shallow, perched trol of non-native species and fire-resistant water table. Northern flatwoods are found within the vegetation (Bowles et al. 2000). Valparaiso, Tinley and lake border morainic systems on poorly drained, nearly level ground. Sand flatwoods, more typical in the southern portion of the region, developed on soils with a meter or more of acidic sand over silty clay. Flatwoods are key amphibian breeding grounds and provide habitat for

24 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

a number of threatened and endangered species, Toward the conservation design goal of 3,000 healthy including purple-fringed orchid and dog violet. acres of flatwoods by 2025, the 2005 benchmark is 300 Vernal ponds within flatwoods support unique com- acres. In 2004, the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory munities of aquatic invertebrates. rated a combined total of 107 northern and sand flatwoods acres as Grade A and B (Table 2.5). (Illinois Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair Natural Areas Inventory Grades A and B are consid- Northern and sand flatwoods ranked in the second ered to be “healthy” with grades C – E progressively and third tier, respectively, of conservation targets. less so.) Data were not available on how many The Nature Conservancy ranked northern and sand healthy flatwoods acres there may be in the Wisconsin flatwoods as critically imperiled globally and imper- and Indiana portions of the Chicago Wilderness iled globally, respectively. Both sub-types rated high region (Tables 2.5 and 2.6). risk for quantity and of high biological importance, but widespread in distribution and in fair condition. Given the 1,290 total number of protected flatwoods Lack of fire, invasive species—particularly buck- acres identified in the Chicago Wilderness region in thorn—and an overabundance of white-tailed deer 1999, the conservation design goal of 3,000 acres of were identified as primary threats, along with healthy flatwoods by 2025 implies the need to changes in hydrology, as these communities are pos- markedly increase restoration management on pro- sessed of a delicate moisture balance. tected flatwoods and to identify and target non-protected flatwoods for similar treatment. Since the Recent Recovery Efforts publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, at least In northeastern Illinois, northern flatwoods are 25,980 acres of natural lands have been acquired in responding well to management. Specific examples northeastern Illinois, but most had not been classified of well-managed flatwoods include MacArthur by community type by the time this report was pub- Woods, Harms Woods and Dunklee’s Grove in Fischer Woods Forest Preserve (see sidebar). TABLE 2.6 Indicators Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be ILLINOIS NATURAL AREAS identified for this community, and this is a recom- INVENTORY GRADES mendation for future report cards. Grade A Report Card Condition Ranking: Relatively stable or undisturbed communities Fair There is no change in the ranking of the region’s flat- Grade B woods. Threats, as identified by Glennemeier (2002a) Late successional or lightly disturbed in the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for communities Woodlands,” include: • Excess shade and competition Grade C • Fragmentation and loss of habitat Mid-successional or severely disturbed • Changes in hydrology and microclimate, includ- communities ing chemical loading • Excessive browsing and grazing by overabundant Grade D deer Early successional or severely disturbed • Limited public understanding of the threats to communities woodlands • Lack of knowledge about the ecology, status and Grade E means of restoration for Chicago Wilderness Very early successional or very severely woodlands disturbed communities

25 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

DUNKLEE’S GROVE IN FISCHER WOODS FOREST PRESERVE

Located along Route 83, south of Bensenville, the Floristic Quality Index (FQI). After a signifi- Illinois, the Fischer Woods Forest Preserve was cant drop in the number of red oaks between 1979 established with an initial 72 acres in 1971. and 1989, this characteristic flatwood species has Eventually expanded to more than 100 acres, been steadily increasing ever since. much of the preserve is underlain with a poorly- drained clay subsoil, a hallmark of flatwoods. Additional monitoring is conducted by a local Dunklee’s Grove within the preserve is a 68-acre volunteer steward as part of the Chicago flatwoods, one of only a few wet forest sites in Wilderness Plants of Concern (POC) monitoring DuPage County. program. POC species monitored include Carex tuckermanii and Carex bromoides, bent-seeded hop According to Scott Kobal, a plant ecologist for the sedge and brome hummock sedge. In addition to Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, the these rare plants, the site boasts seasonal celebra- site has been actively managed by a dedicated tions of color typical of healthy flatwoods. Every volunteer corps since at least 1989. Along with spring there are trout lillies, woodland phlox, district staff, volunteers have cut and herbicided spring beauties, wild geraniums and Dutchman’s invasive trees and shrubs, and seeded and breeches. Summer and fall are accompanied by planted native herbaceous ground layer and goldenrods and asters. native shrub species. Limited prescribed burning occurred in 1993 and 1999. Kobal, who conducts much of the monitoring throughout the district’s holdings, emphasizes the The site appears to be responding well to man- need for sound management. “It’s simple. Where agement efforts. District staff established two we manage, we see natural communities at least one-acre monitoring plots in 1979, and beginning holding their own, many of them improving. in 1992 have periodically conducted additional Where we aren’t able to manage effectively, we random quadrat surveys. The data reveal a generally see a decrease in biodiversity—fewer steady and sizeable increase in the number of native species, lowered FQI, more non-native inva- native species and the percentage of ground- sive species. The effects of management vs. non- cover, and smaller, but still steady, increases in management couldn’t be clearer” (S. Kobal 2004).

lished. Neither was information available about the may be present in the best quality remnants. Wood- amount of flatwoods acres that may have been lands may differ from savannas in having signifi- acquired in the Wisconsin and Indiana portions of cantly higher populations of spring ephemerals. the Chicago Wilderness region. Woodlands are particularly important for biodiversity, being species-rich in amphibians, reptiles, mam- 2.2.8 WOODLANDS mals, invertebrates and especially birds. The better Description and larger examples harbor a number of endangered Woodlands developed historically under a canopy and threatened plant species, including northern cover between 50 and 80 percent. This community cranesbill, pale vetchling and buffalo clover. may have had a well-developed shrub layer, which Woodland and savanna insect assemblages are has become shade suppressed in modern times. A potentially globally significant. Woodland sub-types conservative woodland shrub and herbaceous layer are dry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic.

26 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor mined by the Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit, to All three sub-types of woodlands are ranked in the the 5,378 total acres of protected woodlands in the first tier of conservation targets. The Nature Conserv- Illinois and Indiana portions of the region (Table 2.3), ancy ranked wet-mesic woodlands as critically then there are approximately 1,130 acres of healthy imperiled globally. Of moderate risk for quantity, all woodlands within the Chicago Wilderness region— three sub-types rank in poor condition and of high more than 3,600 acres short of the conservation biological importance. design goal of 4,800. However, there may be more healthy woodland acres in the region, as the 14,595- Recent Recovery Efforts acre figure does not include woodlands from Prime examples of woodland recovery efforts Wisconsin, nor any that may have been acquired include Waterfall Glen in DuPage County, Illinois since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. and Swallow Cliff in Cook County, Illinois. Given the 5,378 total number of protected woodland Indicators acres thus far identified in the Chicago Wilderness Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be region, the future goal of 48,000 total acres by 2025 identified for this community, and this is a recom- of healthy woodlands implies the need to markedly mendation for future report cards. increase restoration management on protected woodlands and to identify and target unprotected wood- Report Card Condition Ranking: lands for similar treatment. Indications are that the Poor majority of the region’s remaining woodlands are The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit results pre- hardly recognizable as woodlands because they are sented in the condition ranking for upland forests so overrun by invasive of trees and shrubs. applies equally to woodlands: 42 percent of the region’s woodlands rank poor, 38 percent fair and a 2.2.9 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS combined 21 percent good or excellent. In spite of The primary recommendation is to increase the level several notable recovery efforts, the majority of the of restoration management for the region’s forested region’s woodlands remain unmanaged or under- communities, in particular oak woodlands and managed (Glennemeier 2004). Even in managed sites, forests. In the “Conservation Design for Woodlands,” however, there is concern about the lack of natural Glennemeier (2002a) recommends four principal oak regeneration. Threats, as identified by management actions for each of the six identified Glennemeier (2002a) include: threats: • Excess shade and competition • Re-open habitat through prescribed fire and inva- • Fragmentation and loss of habitat sive species control programs • Changes in hydrology and microclimate, includ- • Identify potential land for protection or purchase; ing chemical loading purchase or otherwise protect as much of this • Excessive browsing and grazing by overabundant identified land as possible deer • Develop specific hydrology restoration plans at • Limited public understanding of the threats to each site; increase size of buffer area of woodland woodlands sites where possible • Identify sites where deer are a problem and insti- Toward the conservation design goal of a combined tute deer control programs; establish standard 48,000 healthy acres of woodlands by 2025 (15,000 protocol for monitoring deer impacts wet-mesic, 25,000 mesic and 8,000 dry-mesic), the 2005 combined benchmark is 4,800 acres (1,500, 2,500 Cost estimates must become part of the recovery and 800, respectively, by sub-type). The Illinois effort equation. Toward a goal of restoring 70 per- Natural Areas Inventory does not identify wood- cent of the region’s existing 42,574 acres of upland lands as a forested community type. However, apply- forest, woodland and savanna in northeastern Illinois ing the percentage of excellent-rated (four percent) and the Indiana Dunes area, Glennemeier (2004, p. and good-rated (17 percent) oak wood plots, as deter- 21) estimates the need for between $10 million and

27 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

$48 million for restoration and recommends developing, “a solid, defensible estimate of restoration TWENTY-YEAR WOODY costs that we can use to seek large scale funding for VEGETATION CHANGES IN wooded lands restoration.” NORTHERN FLATWOODS AND MESIC FOREST AT RYERSON Concurrent with stepped up levels of restoration management, the Chicago Wilderness consortium ONSERVATION REA AKE C A , L must establish specific, measurable, region-wide COUNTY, ILLINOIS recovery goals, indicators and monitoring protocols for the region’s forested communities. A region-wide Related to the research undertaken to test the database should be created to provide for up-to-date maple, oak and overall forest diversity mapping of forested areas by forest community type, changes in upland forests, in 1997 Bowles et protected vs. non-protected and managed vs. al. (2003) resampled flatwoods and mesic unmanaged. The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit forest stands in the Ryerson Conservation or some comparable study should be expanded to Area, first sampled by the Illinois Natural include all forested community types and be Areas Inventory in 1976. repeated every five or 10 years in order to obtain trend assessments. The findings suggest that the decline in mid- sized oaks and shrub layers species in the Glennemeier (2002a) further recommends the follow- northern flatwoods are apparently due to ing: canopy closure, a process that probably • Educate public officials about woodland ecology started when fire began to be suppressed in and restoration; work with public agencies to the local landscape. In the sugar maple-dom- improve water laws and regulations; develop a inated mesic forest stand, the decline of oaks “forest preserve good neighbor” program may be less closely linked with fire suppres- • Identify priority research questions; develop fund- sion, and the increase in maple saplings ing mechanisms to support priority research; con- might have been triggered by more recent nect professional scientists, natural resource loss of canopy elms. Over-browsing by east- managers and volunteers for sharing of knowl- ern white-tailed deer could have enhanced edge and resources the decline of shrubs in both stands. The trends of increasing ash and maples in these Acknowledging the need to strengthen ties to the stands indicate that they will become less academic community, priority research recommen- diverse unless management can restore dations include, but are not limited to these: canopy structure that will maintain shrub • Improve understanding of the fire history of layer species and allow oak regeneration. forests in order to establish the most effective pre- Restoration goals and applied research are scribed burn regimens needed to guide recovery. Controlled fire • Study the impacts of fire on fauna—whether or appears to be the principal tool, especially not to burn and when and how often to burn to in flatwoods, but it may have positive and avoid unnecessary injury to and increase benefits negative effects (including the promotion of for animals some invasive species), and supplemental • Improve the understanding of shrub layers cutting of fire-resistant vegetation may be • Research wet-mesic upland forest, a rare, distinc- required (Bowles et al. 2003). tive community about which little is known • Research floodplain forests and how they are impacted by forces beyond forest boundaries, namely development and stormwater management, to be able to recommend appropriate management plans

28 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

• Monitor amphibian, bird and insect assemblages shrubby areas and the tree canopy may locally be for all forested communities greater or less than the above limits. Savannas often • Research lack of oak regeneration in managed have soils that are transitional between forest and forests prairie and they have distinctive plants and animals. • Identify examples of all forest communities and They were once common across the Chicago their management in each county Wilderness region, but few high quality stands • Monitor how fauna responds to fragmentation remain. Many acres of savanna are so degraded that (Glennemeier 2002a) they are barely recognizable as savannas. All savanna types are biologically significant due to their species richness and numbers of rare species. Individual 2.3 SAVANNA COMMUNITIES savanna sub-types are distinguished by soil moisture: • Fine-textured soil savanna 2.3.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS o Dry-mesic In general, sand savannas continue to fare better than o Mesic fine-textured soil savannas, primarily due to the fact o Wet-mesic that more sand savannas are managed. Nonetheless, • Sand savanna among all savanna types there is a widening dispar- o Dry ity in quality between managed sites and the balance o Dry-mesic of sites, which are unmanaged or under-managed. o Mesic Considerably more sites need to be managed, at a minimum with prescribed burns. It is also imperative 2.3.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALS to establish region-wide consensus on savanna recov- Recognizing a responsibility to preserve both fine- ery goals, management strategies, monitoring proto- textured and sand savannas—collectively one of the cols and research needs. most rare natural communities on earth—the vision is to dramatically improve the condition and 2.3.2 CONDITION OF DATA integrity of all remaining savanna types within the The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit includes sav- region. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan articulates not anna sites in its sampling, however not enough to be goals, per se, but a framework for determining future able to determine anything definitive about their con- goals, which include 1) focusing on the health of dition region-wide. Various savanna-related data are savanna communities, their ability to regenerate and available, including the work by Bowles and Mc- their role in a matrix of other natural community Bride (1998). This study identifies a possible manage- types, 2) the restoration of natural ecological pro- ment strategy for one of the few remaining tracts of cesses, such as fire, and 3) securing savannas of suf- original midwestern savanna at Wolf Road Prairie; ficient size, and managing them properly to sustain components of which could provide “a necessary ref- viable populations of birds, reptiles and amphibians. erence system for [savanna] community restoration.” However, most savanna-related data have yet to be Without providing any parameters, the Biodiversity sufficiently compiled and analyzed to inform cur- Recovery Plan acknowledges that small savannas can rent region-wide status and trends. Consequently, the have value if managed properly, but conjectured that following condition rankings of savanna community larger savannas would be most cost effective to man- types are based primarily on local experts’ observa- age and best able to allow landscape-scale processes, tions from the field. such as fire, to occur. To maintain viable populations of savanna reptiles and amphibians, the Biodiversity 2.3.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION Recovery Plan recommends the establishment of mul- Historically maintained by fire, savannas are wooded tiple savanna sites of between 200 and 500 acres with communities with graminoid groundcover, which functional connections for dispersal to other habitat developed historically under an average tree canopy types. between 10 and 50 percent. A savanna may have

29 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

VEGETATION CHANGE AFTER THIRTEEN YEARS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT OF A NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS OAK WOODLAND

To assess the long-term effects of fire, especially effect of shrub-layer removal could not be on how repeated burning affects ground-layer detected statistically, it may have contributed to composition, in 1986, Apfelbaum and others the increase in plot richness, especially if supple- (2000) established permanent transects in the mented by wide-scale removal of non-native Reed-Turner Woodland, part of the Reed-Turner shrubs. Removal of shrub-layer species may have Nature Preserve in Lake County, Illinois. The caused the loss of a potentially important struc- results suggest that long-term (13 years) fire-man- tural component of woodland diversity, and agement can change ground-layer composition repeated burning has probably enhanced the per- and structure and can result in increased ground sistence of invasive, non-native garlic mustard. layer species richness in oak woodland. This increase did not reflect dramatic increases in most These results suggest that fire management to species, but rather small increases in many restore richness of oak woodland ground-layer species. However, these cumulative changes led vegetation requires long term efforts. Supplemen- to important shifts in ground-layer structure, tary removal of shrub-layer species may enhance with increased graminoid and forb abundance, this process, but should focus on non-native and decreased woody abundance. species and tree saplings that have the capability of directly altering canopy structure. However, This increase was not detectable after six years, realistic goals for species composition and struc- after which removal of shrub-layer vegetation ture are not yet clear (Apfelbaum, et al. 2000). was initiated in treatment plots. Although an

2.3.5 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL SAVANNA threats to savannas included fragmentation, altered Description hydrology, the absence of fire, deer grazing and the Fine-textured soil savannas historically occurred as erosion of soils due to the presence of buckthorn and an ecotonal belt along streamside forests, as “islands” the shading of the ground layer. in prairie or forest and on extensive areas of hilly land. Three sub-types, based on soil moisture, are Recent Recovery Efforts dry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic. Several recovery efforts are underway in the region. Among those in Illinois are Somme Prairie Grove and Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor Bakers Lake Savanna in Cook County, Bluff Savanna All sub-types of fine-textured soil savannas ranked in at Waterfall Glen in DuPage County and Middlefork the first tier of conservation targets. In 1999, there Savanna in Lake County. were 4,453 acres of fine-textured soil savanna in northeastern Illinois, but only 23 acres listed in the Indicators Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and 2.5). The 2004 workshop group did not identify specific In Indiana, there were only 34 total acres (Table 2.3). indicators of quality for this community. However, Although the three sub-types rated differently for one regional expert suggested that the following are quantity—wet-mesic being at the highest risk—all some of the species that indicate the presence of a three rated in poor condition, of high biological high-quality fine-textured soil savanna: importance and significant for global conservation. • Aralia nudicaulis The Nature Conservancy ranked all fine-textured soil • Arenaria lateriflora savannas as critically imperiled globally. Identified • Corylus americana

30 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

• Danthonia spicata remaining sites, which include Indiana Dunes, • Luzula multiflora Illinois Beach State Park and Braidwood Dune and • Panicum latifolium Savanna. In 1999, in the Illinois and Indiana portions • Pedicularis canadensis of the Chicago Wilderness region, there were 885 acres of dry-mesic sand savanna, of which 388 were These indicator species should be reviewed and listed in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Table adopted if appropriate. In addition, other specific, 2.3 and Table 2.5). By comparison, there were only measurable indicators of quality may need to be 495 acres of dry sand savanna, which ranked in the identified for this community. These are recommen- second tier of conservation targets. Mesic sand dations for future report cards. savanna ranked in the first tier. Although what little remains is well managed, it is historically rare and Report Card Condition Ranking: occurs in a specific type of hydrology within a spe- Poor cific topography. Identified threats to this and all The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory reports an remaining savannas included fragmentation, altered increase in the number of fine-textured mesic savanna hydrology, the absence of fire, deer grazing, the ero- acres, from 23 in 1999 to 80 in 2004, which may indi- sion of soils due to the presence of buckthorn and cate a modest increase or improvement in manage- shading of the ground layer, and the presence of ment. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the region’s other invasive plant species. remaining fine-textured soil savanna sites remain unmanaged or under-managed, and consequently in poor health. The threats to savanna sites continue to be fragmentation, altered hydrology due to the devel- MIDDLEFORK SAVANNA opment of surrounding lands, the absence of fire, deer grazing, erosion and the presence of invasive species, About 20 years ago, a 30-acre remnant sav- including non-savanna trees. anna was “discovered” at the edge of a farm field along the channelized Middle Fork of 2.3.6 SAND SAVANNA the North Branch of the Chicago River. With Description funding provided by the Lake Forest Open Characterized by sandy soils, sand savannas are Lands Association and the Lake County associated with dune and swale topography and bond referenda to acquire open space, the beach ridges. Historically not as prevalent as fine-tex- protected site has grown to approximately tured soil savannas, sand savannas are among the 700 acres. During the past 10 years, forest most rare community types in the Chicago Wilder- preserve crews and a small army of volun- ness region. Most of the region’s remaining sand teers have hand cleared a high-quality 25- savannas are in southwestern Will County, Lake acre core savanna area, cleared more than County, Illinois and northwestern Indiana. The 150 acres of additional savanna acres, seeded herbaceous vegetation of a sand savanna is similar more than 150 acres with native plants, to that of sand prairies, with which it usually mixes. restored the natural hydrology to 200 acres, Three sub-types are distinguished by soil moisture: intensively managed for teasel, reed canary dry, dry-mesic and mesic. grass and purple loosestrife and conducted a regular fire management plan. To date, more Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair to than 300 plant species have been identified Good on site, along with numerous species of fish, The Nature Conservancy ranked dry-mesic sand frogs and birds, including shorebirds, war- savanna as imperiled globally. However, this sub- blers and even bald eagles (Parker 2004). type ranked in the third tier of conservation targets for the Chicago Wilderness region because of its relative abundance compared to other sand savanna types and the generally well-managed quality of

31 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Report Card Condition Ranking: Poor to Good BLUFF SAVANNA, In general, drier savannas rank in better condition WATERFALL GLEN than wet savannas. Although sand savannas are comparatively less susceptible to invasive species Totaling more than 700 acres, this community because their sandy soils are drier and less fertile, is a forest/woodland/savanna complex on unmanaged sites nonetheless become overgrown, top of the south facing bluff overlooking the which alters the delicate moisture gradient and leads Des Plaines River. Management of the bluff to a rapid loss of community structure and diversity. started in 1984 with the clearing of a 20-acre The drier environment, however, also makes it eas- section of the community. Since then, much ier for fires to burn, rendering this savanna type well of the bluff has been managed by a combina- responsive to prescribed burning as a management tion of clearing, herbiciding of invasive tool. Sand savannas also are susceptible to erosion species (such as buckthorn), prescribed burn- and loss of ground layer. The updated Illinois ing and deer control. During the last 20 years, Natural Areas Inventory lists a total of 612 acres of burning of any one area has taken place dry-mesic sand savanna, an increase of 224 over the approximately two of every five years. 1999 total (Table 2.5). However, although the num- Management of deer has been ongoing since ber of acres is increasing, the general consensus 1995. Two one-acre monitoring plots were among natural resource managers is that the status of established in 1985 and a third was added in these communities is declining. 1986. Monitoring has included vegetative sampling (by quadrat and total vegetation), 2.3.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR tree demography and light. The Bluff Savanna SAVANNAS exhibited reasonably good quality (INAI The Biodiversity Recovery Plan contains numerous rec- grade C) when the monitoring began. Man- ommendations for all terrestrial community types. agement during the last 20 years has lifted Primary among them is the need to increase the num- this quality to a grade B as exhibited in the ber of acres under management on public lands and overall quality rating. A slight dip in diver- those outside of existing preserves. This remains the sity was noted in the mid 1990s due to deer primary recommendation for savanna communities. browsing. This was reversed with the advent At a minimum, more savanna sites should be man- of a deer management program (Lampa 2004). aged with prescribed burns.

Equally important is the need to refine the Bio- diversity Recovery Plan’s broad savanna recovery Recent Recovery Efforts vision and develop specific, measurable, region-wide Recovery efforts include sites at Illinois Beach State outcomes. Key to this effort would be the develop- Park and Spring Bluff in Lake County, Illinois. ment of a conservation design or similar instrument, along the lines of the “Chicago Wilderness Conser- Indicators vation Design for Woodlands” (Glennemeier 2002a), The Biodiversity Recovery Plan offers the Karner blue which would be a step in the right direction toward butterfly, where it occurs, as a guide in defining man- establishing measurable recovery benchmarks, management goals for sand savannas. Indicators of a agement strategies and monitoring protocols. Part of lower-quality or less healthy site include the presence this effort should include identifying, compiling and of buckthorn, alien honeysuckle, alien thistles, reed analyzing what savanna data exist. In order to be canary grass, teasel and garlic mustard. able to quantify the future status and trends of the region’s savanna communities, all savanna areas A complete set of specific, measurable indicators of should be inventoried. quality for this community need to be identified, and this is a recommendation for future report cards.

32 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

soil moistures ranging from dry to wet. Trees may be PRAIRIE COMMUNITIES present, but less than 10% of the area has a canopy 2.4 cover. Prairies rate very high in biological importance due to their high levels of diversity, particularly of 2.4.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS plants and insects. Throughout the region, prairies There are no changes in the condition status of any exist today mostly in small, isolated remnants, very prairie community type—overall, all prairie types few of which are high quality. Primary classification remain in poor condition. As is the case with the is by soil type, with sub-types determined by soil region’s other community types, there are examples moisture: of significant biodiversity recovery at select sites that • Fine-textured soil prairie are well managed. However, the majority of the o Dry region’s prairie sites remain unmanaged or under- o Mesic managed, resulting in a further decline in quality. oWet This decrease more than offsets the gains made at the • Sand Prairie comparative handful of managed sites. The primary o Dry recommendation, therefore, is to manage more o Mesic prairie sites. Hand in hand with this recommenda- oWet tion is the need to develop specific indices of prairie • Gravel Prairie health, recovery goals and monitoring protocols to be o Dry able to quantify progress toward region-wide recov- o Mesic ery goals. • Dolomite Prairie o Dry 2.4.2 CONDITION OF DATA o Mesic There are several available data sets related to prairie o Wet communities. Among them are Ron Panzer’s 20-year survey of insects in sand prairies and sand savannas 2.4.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALS (Panzer 2005), and Marlin Bowles’ and Michael The Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines a broad vision Jones’ reinvestigation of 109 high quality prairie and to protect multiple examples of all indigenous prairie wetland sites identified and sampled by the Illinois types, and to manage and restore them in such a way Natural Areas Inventory in 1976 (Bowles and Jones that landscape-scale natural processes—such as fire, 2003). The Illinois Critical Trends Assessment hydrology and gene flow between populations—sus- Program (and its sister program PrairieWatch, until tain viable populations of all area-limited species and its suspension in 2004 due to state budget cuts) has formerly common species. The Biodiversity Recovery been monitoring sites throughout Illinois, including Plan calls for the active protection of all high-quality the Illinois portion of the Chicago Wilderness region, prairie remnants that are large enough to sustain since 1997. These and other data sets provide impor- native species far into the future, greatly increased and tant information, but regional analysis of the data improved levels of management of all prairie rem- remains limited. nants and other natural communities in a matrix of restored prairie and unrestored grasslands, and far 2.4.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION more acreage of restored prairie. As there remain espe- Historically widespread throughout the Chicago cially few examples of gravel and dolomite prairies, all Wilderness region, prairies have suffered more loss sub-types of these prairie types should be protected. than any other community type. In Illinois, only one- All remaining good-quality prairie sites, such as those hundredth of one percent of original high quality listed by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory as grade prairie remains (Critical Trends Assessment Project C or above, should be protected and improved. All 1994). Prairies include many types, all of which are prairie sites currently under protection should be vig- dominated by native grasses of differing heights and orously managed and, where possible, expanded to character on primarily mineral soils. They can be make management more efficient. found on all substrates from clay to gravel and have

33 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

2.4.5 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL PRAIRIE prairies on sandy loam are considered sand prairie Description only if they are acidic enough to support character- Historically the most abundant of the four prairie istic plants. Historically, sand prairies probably never types, fine-textured soil prairies are comprised of were large and occurred in complexes with dunes deep and fine-textured soils, usually silt loam or clay and other sand communities. They are found in loam derived from loess or glacial till, although these sandy outwash plains, lake plains and valley trains. prairies may also occur on alluvium. Soil moisture Sand prairie sub-types are classified by soil moisture, for these prairies ranges from dry to wet. which varies from dry to wet. Remaining examples are concentrated in the Indiana Dunes area, Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor Chiwaukee Prairie, Illinois Beach State Park and the According to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, fine-tex- Kankakee River Valley. tured soil prairies ranked in the first tier of conservation targets because 1) the region has so many Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor relatively large, high quality examples and so much All sub-types of sand prairies located in dune and adjacent land that is restorable, and in many cases swale topography ranked in the first tier of conserva- being restored, 2) the region has so many and such tion targets. All other sand prairies ranked in the sec- large restoration areas, 3) this prairie sub-type has ond tier. Along with fine-textured soil prairies, sand suffered the highest proportional loss of high qual- prairies rated very high risk for quantity, in poor con- ity acreage and 4) it is especially important as a gene dition, of high biological importance and as signifi- pool for agriculture since it produced the soils that cantly contributing to global conservation. are probably the Midwest’s long-term most important natural resource. Recent Recovery Efforts Among the region’s recovery efforts is Chiwaukee Recent Recovery Efforts Prairie State Natural Area in Kenosha County, There are several recovery efforts underway in the Wisconsin. region, some long term, some more recent, including Somme Prairie, Markham Prairie, West Chicago Indicators Prairie and Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in Indicators of higher-quality sites might include the Illinois. presence of small mammal species such as the prairie deer mouse. Indicators of lower-quality or degraded Indicators sites might include the presence of white-footed Indicators of higher quality sites may include prairie mice. A complete set of specific, measurable indica- drop seed and remnant-dependent insects like tors of quality for this community need to be identi- moths, butterflies and leafhoppers. A complete set of fied, and this is a recommendation for future report specific, measurable indicators of quality for this cards. community need to be identified, and this is a recommendation for future report cards. Report Card Condition Ranking: Poor Report Card Condition Ranking: There are no changes in the condition ranking. Poor According to the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Altered hydrology, concentration of pollutants, habi- between 1999 and 2004 there were slight decreases tat destruction, lack of management and the over- in the number of acres for two of the three sand population of white-tailed deer remain the primary prairie sub-types (Table 2.5). Altered hydrology, con- threats to these and all prairie types. centration of pollutants, habitat destruction, lack of management and the overpopulation of white-tailed 2.4.6 SAND PRAIRIE deer remain the primary threats to these and all Description prairie types. Sand prairies form on coarse-textured (sandy) substrates: sand, loamy sand and sandy loam. However,

34 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

2.4.7 GRAVEL PRAIRIE Description WEST CHICAGO PRAIRIE Naturally small and rare, gravel prairies formed on glacial deposits, which were never abundant in the This is a 305-acre site comprised of mesic, region or elsewhere. Extensively quarried, the few wet-mesic and wet prairie, as well as sedge remaining examples occur in the northern portion of meadow and marsh. The site is has been the region, with no examples ever having occurred in managed by prescribed fire and brush clear- Indiana. The gravelly, usually calcareous soils pro- ing for the last 25 years. In 1984, a monitor- vide rapid permeability, with the resulting sub-types ing transect, crossing all community types, ranging from dry to mesic. was laid out west to east across the prairie (approximately one mile in length). The Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor prairie was mostly a grade C/D when man- Both sub-types of gravel prairie ranked in the sec- agement began and generally a grade C ond tier of conservation targets. There are fewer than when the monitoring protocol was estab- 100 acres of gravel prairie identified in northeastern lished. (Grade A natural communities are rel- Illinois, only one acre of which is dry-mesic gravel atively stable or undisturbed while Grade E prairie (Table 2.3). Both sub-types of gravel prairie communities have been severely disturbed; rated poor in condition, of high biological impor- the other grades represent intermediate tance and important globally. The Nature Conserv- stages.) Management during the last 25 years ancy ranked both sub-types as globally imperiled. has increased the quality of the monitored portion of the site to grade B, reflecting gains Recent Recovery Efforts in the number of conservative species, the An example of a recovery effort is Chicago Ridge in number of native species and overall floristic Cook County, Illinois. quality. The average quadrat quality values between 1984 and 2002 for the prairie are as Indicators follows: conservatism = +3 percent, native The 2004 workshop group did not identify specific species = +68 percent, and FQI = +38 percent indicators of quality for this community. However, (Lampa 2004). one regional expert suggested that the following are some of the species that indicate the presence of a high-quality gravel prairie: • Agoseris cuspidata • Allium stellatum Report Card Condition Ranking: • Anemone patens wolfgangiana Poor • Asclepias lanuginose There are no changes in the status of either gravel • Aster ptarmicoides prairie sub-type. Altered hydrology, concentration • Aster sericeus of pollutants, habitat destruction, lack of manage- • Carex richardsonii ment and the overpopulation of white-tailed deer • Cirsium hillii remain the primary threats to these and all prairie • Linum sulcatum types. • Panicum wilcoxianum • Oenothera serrulata 2.4.8 DOLOMITE PRAIRIE Description These indicator species should be reviewed and The most rare prairie type in the region as well as adopted if appropriate. In addition, other specific, across the United States, this community occurs measurable indicators of quality may need to be where dolomite limestone is less than 1.5 meters identified for this community. These are recommen- below the surface. Certain common prairie plants are dations for future report cards. absent because of the shallow soils and high pH, but other species are restricted to dolomite prairies. Most

35 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

of the region’s dolomite prairies occurred by the lower reaches of the Des Plaines River and often as MIDEWIN NATIONAL patches within other prairies. Thus, they tend to be TALLGRASS PRAIRIE very small. Although the region retains some of the best remaining examples of dolomite prairie, most In 1993, the U.S. Army designated the 23,500- have been lost to mining and other development. acre Joliet Arsenal as excess federal land. In 1996, 19,000 acres were designated as the Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, the Ranked in the first tier of conservation targets, the nation’s first national tallgrass prairie, “to be vast majority of the region’s remaining 301 acres of managed as open space for ecosystem restor- dolomite prairie is located in Will County, Illinois ation and outdoor recreation” (Midewin (Table 2.3). All sub-types rated very high risk for National Tallgrass Prairie 2005). The recently quantity, of high biological importance and of global adopted Midewin Land and Resource importance. The Nature Conservancy ranked dry Management Plan calls for restoration, over dolomite prairie, of which sub-type there is but one 15 to 20 years, of the site’s native prairie and acre in the Chicago Wilderness region, as imperiled woodland communities, including 4,020 globally. acres of upland prairie. Among the 850 acres of prairie, savanna and wetland areas Recent Recovery Efforts restored to date is the 460-acre South Patrol Lockport Prairie in Illinois is under active manage- Road site. The Wetlands Initiative assisted ment. Also, at the Midewin National Tallgrass the USDA Forest Service in returning the for- Prairie, where the vast majority of remaining mer crop fields to native habitat through dolomite prairie remains, the recently adopted Mide- invasive species control and the removal of win Land and Resource Management Plan calls for field drain tiles, drainage ditches and old restoration, over 15 to 20 years, of the site’s native railroad beds. Fifty-three graminoid and 113 prairie and woodland communities, including 1,380 forb species have been planted, with addi- acres of dolomite prairie. tional species to be added through over-seed- ing and planting of plugs. Many of these Indicators species are cultivated at Midewin by a large Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be corps of volunteers, which includes students identified for this community, and this is a recom- in The Mighty Acorns program. More than 80 mendation for future report cards. species of native plants are in production at Midewin, with volunteers playing a critical Report Card Condition Ranking: role in planting, collecting and cleaning the Poor seed stock. As restoration efforts have moved There are no changes in the condition ranking for any forward at Midewin, increases in grassland of the region’s dolomite prairie sub-types. Altered and wetland wildlife have been noted. hydrology, concentration of pollutants, habitat Grasslands at Midewin currently provide destruction, lack of management and the overpopu- significant breeding and wintering habitat lation of white-tailed deer remain the primary threats for birds such as upland sandpiper, bobolink, to these and all prairie types. grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, northern harrier, and short-eared owls. 2.4.9 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR PRAIRIES The primary recommendation is to manage significantly more prairie sites throughout the region at least with periodic prescribed burning to preserve what quality remains until such time as additional resources become available to affect more intensive restoration efforts.

36 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

TWENTY-FIVE YEAR TRENDS OF CHANGE IN PRAIRIE AND WETLAND NATURAL AREAS IN THE CHICAGO REGION OF NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS

In 1978, Illinois became the first state to complete most vegetation types: a decreasing abundance of an inventory of its remaining natural areas. Of the characteristic graminoid and herbaceous prairie areas identified during the three-year process, and wetland species, coupled with an increasing Category I natural areas—those of high quality, abundance of woody vegetation, both native and relatively undisturbed areas of land and water— non-native. totaled 25,700 acres. This number represents just seven-hundredths of one percent of the total land Bowles and Jones (2003) primarily attribute the and water area of Illinois. Fully half of the areas negative changes to the small proportion of surveyed were threatened with destruction from prairies and wetlands being managed with con- changes in land use (White 1978). trolled burns frequently enough to maintain their compositions and structures. Factors contributing In 2001, Bowles and Jones (2003) reinvestigated to the negative changes may include increased 109 high-quality prairies and wetlands first sam- browsing from eastern white-tailed deer, and pled by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory in altered wetland hydrology, water chemistry and 1976. The objectives of the resampling were to 1) sedimentation rates. determine their present condition, 2) assess floristic changes over time, 3) correlate changes with Underscoring the importance of natural area fire management histories, and 4) project vegeta- management, their data suggest that in order to tion trends and make recommendations on man- maintain their compositions and structures, agement needed to maintain these important mesic and wet-mesic prairies should be managed natural areas. with controlled burns at least every two years and that graminoid fens and sedge meadows Twenty-five years later, Bowles and Jones (2003) require controlled burns at least once every five found that 77 percent of the reinvestigated natu- years. Additional research is needed to determine ral areas remained intact and that the majority of how combinations of fire management, supple- sites were stable over time with respect to meas- mental woody vegetation removal, and control of ures of native species richness. They also other environmental factors could maintain high observed, however, negative changes in vegeta- quality vegetation. tion structure and floristic composition across

Equally important is the need for quantitative assess- • Restore and recreate prairie on disturbed land to ment of the region’s prairies and the development of increase acreage of all types of prairie specific, region-wide recovery goals, indicators and • Improve species composition on low- and monitoring protocols. medium-quality prairies • Initiate reintroduction of rare, threatened and Refining and expanding upon the recommended endangered prairie plant and animal species (not actions for all terrestrial communities in the Bio- just invertebrates) diversity Recovery Plan, additional recommendations • Designate high-quality prairie sites as nature pre- include: serves • Identify all remaining unprotected prairie sites and plug them into regional land acquisition priorities

37 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE STATE 2.5 WETLANDS NATURAL AREA 2.5.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS The majority of the region’s wetland communities Located on the Wisconsin/Illinois state line, remain in fair to poor condition. The overriding the 250-acre Chiwaukee Prairie is character- threat continues to be altered hydrology due to ized as a “beach ridge complex,” a landscape development. In some instances, groundwater is alternating between dry, sandy ridges and being diverted from the site; in others, the principal wet swales. This combination of sand and concern is flooding, which brings with it the addi- clay soils gives Chiwaukee a rich and diverse tional problems of nutrification and invasive species. vegetation that ranges from vast expanses of grassland, occasionally interrupted by small islands of open-grown oaks, to wet prairie 2.5.2 CONDITION OF DATA plants in marshy shallows. Various data exist related to wetlands, but few have been sufficiently compiled and analyzed to inform The protection and the recovery of the site the current region-wide status and trends of the stems from a nearly 40-year partnership region’s wetland communities. For instance, the between the Village of Pleasant Prairie, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources’ Critical University of Wisconsin–Parkside, The Trends Assessment Program has monitored 29 wet- Nature Conservancy–Wisconsin, the Wiscon- land sites in northeastern Illinois since 1997, but sin Department of Natural Resources and the analysis of the data remains limited. Perhaps the Chiwaukee Prairie Preservation Fund, the most informative of the recent studies is the work by local preservation group that initiated the Bowles and Jones (2003). They provide a recent effort. Volunteer activism remains high, with assessment of condition status and trends of 109 high 12 work parties scheduled each year and quality prairie and wetland sites first sampled by the countless additional hours provided by a Illinois Natural Areas Inventory in 1976. In the dedicated core of individuals. absence of additional quantitative data, the following Report Card assessments are based largely on expert Ongoing threats to the site include the dis- anecdotal observations. ruption of hydrology due to surrounding development, the invasion of glossy buck- 2.5.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION thorn and the encroachment of native trees In spite of the wholesale loss of wetlands throughout and shrubs. Controlled burns have proved Chicago Wilderness, the region retains one of the most an effective management tool to encourage diverse assemblages of wetlands in North America. native species vigor and seed production Wetland communities have saturated or flooded soils and to top-kill shrubs and trees. Pending the for all or most of the year. This condition excludes or outcome of recent grant applications, the greatly reduces oxygen availability to plant roots and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources soil-dwelling animals and decomposers. This oxygen and The Nature Conservancy-Wisconsin deficiency is the most important factor determining plan to spend $100,000 on tree and brush the function and composition of wetlands. Primary removal and additional controlled burning factors differentiating the six recognized wetland com- through 2006 (S.Richter 2004). munities are fire frequency, water sources, water chemistry and topographic location: • Marsh o Basin o Streamside • Bog o Graminoid o Low Shrub o Forested

38 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

• Fen 2.5). Basin marsh ranked in a higher tier than its status o Calcareous and importance otherwise dictated because it was o Graminoid receiving significant conservation attention in the o Forested region and there was a great opportunity to do more. • Sedge Meadow • Panne Recent Recovery Efforts • Seep and Spring There are no specific recovery efforts identified. o Neutral o Calcareous Indicators o Acid The presence of Phragmites, cattails and purple loosestrife indicate lower-quality or degraded sites. A 2.5.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALS complete set of specific, measurable indicators of The goals established in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan quality for this community need to be identified, and are to "preserve all wetland types in viable examples this is a recommendation for future report cards. and to expand the amount of some wetland types for wildlife habitat and for the sake of other ecologically Report Card Condition Ranking: important functions" (Chicago Region Biodiversity Fair to Poor Counci1 1999, p.60). Toward these goals, the plan There are no overall changes in the condition status calls for eliminating or aggressively controlling inva- of the region’s marsh communities. Although more sive species, improving hydrological conditions by abundant than other wetland types—an additional managing surrounding lands in a manner that pro- 115 acres were added to the Illinois Natural Areas tects wetland integrity, fostering wetland complexes Inventory (Table 2.5)—hydrology remains a primary and embedding wetlands within a matrix of other factor in the health of both marsh sub-types and natural areas, which is essential to their functioning. needs to be managed both upstream of the site as well as at the marsh. 2.5.5 MARSH Description 2.5.6 BOG Marshes are hydrologically cyclical wetlands domi- Description nated by emergent reed, graminoids, cyperoids and Bogs are glacial relict wetlands restricted to hydro- aquatic plants. Their structure and water levels are logically isolated kettles. Precipitation, naturally determined by the interaction of short-term precipi- nutrient-poor, is the sole source of water. This factor, tation patterns, muskrat activity and fire frequency. the cool basin microclimate and the nutrient- and Spatial variation in vegetation and wildlife composi- water-absorption properties of its dominant ground- tion varies with water depth. The stages of the marsh cover, Sphagnum moss, combines to create a highly cycle form a continuum from closed 100 percent cover anaerobic, cold nutrient-deficient acidic substrate of by emergent vegetation to a ponded state in which Sphagnum peat and little biochemical decay. open water covers all but the marsh’s shallow edges. Prehistoric fires at bog edges and slow but gradual neutralization by calcareous seepages from mineral Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair to rich bordering glacial outwash have converted the Poor rims and even interior portions of many bogs to Both marsh sub-types ranked in the second tier of marshes and sedge meadows. Historically rare, there conservation targets. Although they rated differently remain fewer than 20 documented occurrences of for quantity, condition and distribution—streamside bog within the region. marsh of higher concern than basin marsh—both types rated high for biological importance. In 1999, Biodiversity Recovery Plan Condition Ranking: within the eight-county Illinois and Indiana portions Fair of Chicago Wilderness, there remained 7,847 acres of All sub-types of bog ranked in the fifth tier of con- marshland, of which 2,098 acres in Illinois were listed servation targets. Although exceptionally rare—only in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and 183 acres of bog remained within the eight-county

39 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Illinois-Indiana portions of Chicago Wilderness Recent Recovery Efforts (Table 2.5)—bogs did not rate of higher conservation Among the fen recovery efforts are those at Turner concern because it was determined that they are at Lake Fen in Lake County, Illinois, Boone Creek Fen in the edge of their range within the Chicago Wilder- McHenry County, Illinois and Bluff Spring Fen in ness region. Additionally, it was determined that Cook County, Illinois. most of the remaining sites were protected, faring sufficiently well and were the wetland type least Indicators threatened by outside impacts due to their small The presence of cattails may indicate a lower-quality watersheds. or degraded site. A complete set of specific, measurable indicators of quality for this community need to Recent Recovery Efforts be identified, and this is a recommendation for future There are no specific recovery efforts identified. report cards.

Indicators Report Card Condition Ranking: Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be Poor identified for this community, and this is a recom- Making no distinctions between the three sub-types, mendation for future report cards. all remain in overall poor condition. Although some fens continue to be discovered in the region, they Report Card Condition Ranking: continue to be lost directly and indirectly to devel- Fair opment. The Illinios Natural Areas Inventory (2004) Due to the limited amount of information available reports a loss of 117 acres of graminoid fen between during the development of the Report Card, there is 1999 and 2004 (Table 2.5). Additionally, fens are no recommended change to the status of bog com- slower to recover, even with management, than other munities. community types. Continuing threats include lack of fire, invasive species and altered hydrology. 2.5.7 FEN Description 2.5.8 SEDGE MEADOW Fens are created and maintained by the continuous Description internal flow of mineralized groundwater emanat- Sedge meadows are sedge-dominated grasslands ing from bordering upland calcareous sand and with wet prairie grass co-dominants on organic or gravel glacial outwash formations. An impervious sand substrates. Groundwater seepage and/or shal- layer of till below the outwash gravel forces cold, low flooding are their principal hydrological factors oxygen-deficient mineralized groundwater to seep and frequent fire is needed to retain their open struc- laterally at the base of upland slopes. Peat enriched tures. They are structurally homogenous dense with magnesium and calcium carbonates forms the matrices of either tussock-forming sedges, which are fen substrate, which supports many plants adapted often on calcareous organic substrates and grade into to high concentrations of dissolved alkaline minerals. fens, or shallowly flooded rhizomatous sedge stands that grade into marshes. Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Poor Graminoid, or grassy, fens ranked in the first tier of Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair conservation targets, calcareous floating mat in the Sedge meadows ranked in the third tier of conserva- second tier and forested fens in the third tier. tion targets. Of high biological importance and at Forested fen ranked lowest because it is at the edge of high risk for quantity, sedge meadows rated in fair its range in the Chicago Wilderness region. All three condition and were deemed fairly widespread within sub-types rated high risk for quantity, in poor condi- and beyond the region. In spite of the historical loss tion and of high biological importance. It was fur- of sedge meadows throughout the region, compared ther observed that, in general, fens were being lost to other wetland types, it was determined that many in the region at an alarming rate due to their excep- examples of sedge meadow remained and many tional sensitivity to hydrological changes. were protected. In the eight-county Illinois and

40 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Indiana portions of the region, there remained 1,992 acres, of which 1,018 were listed in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and 2.5). BLUFF SPRING FEN Identified threats to sedge meadows included altered Located in Elgin, Illinois, Bluff Spring Fen is hydrology, the absence of fire and the difficulty in one of the region’s most successful recovery restoring degraded sedge meadow sites. efforts. In 1979, the 90-acre site suffered from Recent Recovery Efforts extensive gravel mining, illegal dumping and off-road vehicle abuse. Within a decade, Boone Creek in McHenry County, Illinois is one it was dedicated an Illinois Nature Preserve. example of a well-managed sedge meadow site. Recovery efforts by The Nature Conservancy Indicators and a dedicated volunteer corps, Friends of the Fen, have included extensive trash The presence of Phragmites, cattails and purple removal (including 10 cars), brush removal, loosestrife may indicate a lower-quality or degraded controlled burns and the replanting of native site. A complete set of specific, measurable indica- species. In 1990, the fen gained nation-wide tors of quality for this community need to be identi- attention when Healy Road Prairie, which fied, and this is a recommendation for future report lay in the path of development, was “trans- cards. planted” to the site, further enriching the Report Card Condition Ranking: complex of habitat types that include fen, Fair dry gravel prairie, mesic fine-textured soil prairie, sedge meadow, oak-hickory savanna The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory reflects a loss of and marsh. Visitors to the site today are 25 acres of sedge meadow between 1999 and 2005 greeted by an informational kiosk and sea- (Table 2.3). Still more abundant than most other wet- son-specific brochures, inviting them to look land types, sedge meadows nonetheless remain at for white lady slipper orchids, marsh risk of decreasing quality, primarily due to the con- marigolds, spring beauties, hepatica, Dutch- tinued threat of altered hydrology. Other continuing man's breeches, rue, red trillium, trout lilies, threats include lack of fire and the presence of inva- silky aster, purple coneflower and marsh sive species. blazing star. The site provides breeding habitat for bird species such as willow flycatcher, 2.5.9 PANNE ruby crown and golden crown kinglets, Description Eastern phoebe, red-headed woodpecker, Panne communities are unique interdunal wetlands woodcock, wood duck and yellow-breasted on calcareous moist sands of the lake plain within chat. Several species of dragonfly also one mile of Lake Michigan. Rhizomatous sedges and inhabit the site, including the ebony jewel sedge relatives dominate this type of open-structured wing and the green darner. Butterflies seen at wetland, which has considerable florisitic overlap Bluff Spring Fen include purplish coppers, with fens and calcareous seeps. black swallowtail, viceroy, monarchs, spring azure and Eastern-tail blues. In 2002, 2003 Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Good and 2004, the Illinois critically endangered Ranked in the first tier of conservation targets, the swamp metalmark butterfly was translo- region’s 10 known panne sites, totaling 141 acres, cated to the site, where a small breeding were stable in the short term, but highly threatened colony has now been established (The Nat- long-term (Table 2.3). Of the 67 acres of panne iden- ure Conservancy 2004). tified in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory in 1999, most were protected and in good condition (Table 2.5). Even in a protected state, however, pannes are threatened by succession, lake erosion and Lake Michigan elevation changes. Because there are few, there is a high possibility of complete loss.

41 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Recent Recovery Efforts Indicators There are no specific recovery efforts identified. Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be identified for this community, and this is a recom- Indicators mendation for future report cards. Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be identified for this community, and this is a recom- Report Card Condition Ranking: mendation for future report cards. Fair to Poor Due to the limited amount of information available Report Card Condition Ranking: during the Report Card process, there is no recom- Poor mended change in the status of seep and spring com- Few in both the number of sites and total acres, it is munities. the consensus opinion of the region’s natural resource managers that panne communities continue 2.5.11 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR to decline in quality. However, since the condition of WETLANDS pannes is tied to the level of Lake Michigan, the over- The primary recommendation is to compile and ana- all decline might be part of a natural cycle. lyze existing wetlands-related data, and to develop specific measurable recovery goals, indicators and 2.5.10 SEEPS AND SPRINGS monitoring protocols. Further research is necessary Description to better define, understand, locate and map seep This community occurs where groundwater flows to communities. As consideration is given to refining the surface. A seep is an open area with saturated soil the classification system of the region’s natural com- caused by water flowing to the surface in a diffuse munities, seasonal wetlands should be considered as rather than concentrated flow. Seeps may have local an additional class of wetlands. areas of concentrated flow and the water usually collects in spring runs. Seeps are usually smaller than 0.1 acre and are most common along the lower slopes 2.6 STREAM COMMUNITIES of glacial moraines, ravines and terraces. A spring, as opposed to a seep, has a concentrated flow of 2.6.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS groundwater from a definite orifice. The various Since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, communities in this subclass are separated on the there has not been a marked change in the overall basis of water chemistry. condition of the region’s streams. In general, most continue to suffer substantial degradation from Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair to increased urban development. The majority of Poor streams in urban areas experience heavily altered Calcareous seeps ranked in the third tier of conser- hydrologic regimes, sedimentation and polluted vation targets, and sand and neutral seeps in the fifth runoff. Increased human populations, especially in tier. Although naturally small and the most rare wet- the rapidly developing western area of the region, land type in the region—in 1999 just 49 total seep has brought and will continue to bring about the acres remained in the eight-county Illinois and need to release more treated wastewaters. Increased Indiana portions of the region—seeps did not rank development also has increased the proportion of higher for conservation concern largely because they impervious surface cover in the region. Most esti- are at the edge of their range in the region; and being mates suggest that a threshold exists for the latter at small, they do not support distinctive faunal com- 10-20% cover, after which stream conditions begin a munities nor harbor many species (although calcare- continuous decline. ous seeps do support some restricted plants, including the forked aster, a candidate to be listed as On the positive side, dam removals are occurring in a federally endangered species). the region, as are efforts to increase the connectivity of the region’s stream ecosystems. Although threat- Recent Recovery Efforts There are no specific recovery efforts identified.

42 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

ened by urban sprawl, several good quality mid- 2.6.3 VISION AND RECOVERY GOALS IN THE order streams remain in the western areas of the BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN lower Des Plaines, the Fox, the Kankakee and the The Biodiversity Recovery Plan vision for the region’s Kishwaukee Rivers, where urbanization currently is streams is to achieve a desired biotic integrity and less intensive. Large rivers, such as the Kankakee, biological diversity. Of the 85 Illinois streams Kishwaukee and lower Fox Rivers appear to have assessed in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the 34 maintained a relatively natural aquatic fauna and streams receiving the highest rating are earmarked provide better Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores (a meas- for the highest recovery priorities: protection and ure of organic enrichment) than do smaller reference restoration. The remaining 46 streams are accorded streams in the region (DeWalt 2002, 2003). And in lower priorities of rehabilitation and enhancement. Illinois, the establishment of Conservation 2000 partnerships, a program of the Illinois Department of 2.6.4 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONS Natural Resources, has catalyzed numerous partner- Streams ships between public and private interests to protect The region’s streams fall into three general categories watersheds through the development and imple- based on the number of tributaries. Within each mentation of ecosystem-based management plans. group are sub-categories defined by flow, gradient and substrate: 2.6.2 CONDITION OF DATA • Headwater Streams The Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s condition assessment o Continuous-flow of the region’s streams stems from a Chicago ◊ Coarse Substrate Wilderness project called “Stream Biodiversity ◊ Fine Substrate Recovery Priorities” (Taylor 1998), which utilized o Intermittent-flow four criteria: Index of Biotic Integrity, the presence of ◊ Coarse Substrate species of concern, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index ◊ Fine Substrate and abiotic indicators. Additional data exist that • Low-order Streams might have provided for a quantified Report Card o High-gradient (relatively steep) assessment of the region’s stream communities, but o Low-gradient (relatively flat) the majority of data have yet to be sufficiently com- • Mid-order Streams piled and analyzed. For instance, the Illinois o High-gradient Department of Natural Resources’ Critical Trends o Low-gradient Assessment Program has monitored 23 stream sites in northeastern Illinois since 1997, but analysis of the 2.6.5 HEADWATER STREAMS data remains limited. Until it was disbanded in 2004 Description due to state budget cuts, RiverWatch—the volunteer Continuous-flow headwater streams are first-order citizen scientist complement to the Critical Trends streams with small drainage areas and little or no Assessment Program’s stream monitoring—had like- pool development. They are characterized by rela- wise collected critical stream data from the region’s tively stable, cool temperatures and consistent levels streams since 1997, but not enough to be able to iden- of dissolved oxygen. They have low habitat hetero- tify condition trends. geneity and low trophic complexity. Intermittent- flow headwater streams are first-order streams with Absent available data, the Report Card stream com- highly variable flows and temperatures. They are munity assessments are based primarily on expert inhabited by colonizer species with high reproduc- observations. However, whereas the Biodiversity tive rates or are largely abiotic. Recovery Plan assesses streams individually (and exclusively in Illinois), the Report Card takes a Condition of Data broader approach, assessing stream types within In general, there is not much data on intermittent watersheds from throughout the entire region. streams. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Illinois Environmental Protection

43 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Agency basin surveys for fish and macroinverte- fied for this community, and this is a recommenda- brates seldom sample headwater streams. The tion for future report cards. Critical Trends Assessment Program uses a random sampling program and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera Report Card Condition Ranking: and Trichoptera taxa to rate streams, but the number Overall: Fair to Poor of sampled sites probably is insufficient to fully char- In general, all types of headwater streams are highly acterize the condition of headwaters streams in the impacted due to urban or agricultural runoff. Most sub-basins. A vast historical database for Ephemer- are in tiles, grass runways or concrete drainage ways. optera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera exists at the They are more susceptible to toxins because there is Illinois Natural History Survey, as do identification less dilution. Seepage-fed headwater streams are at manuals for Illinois and surrounding states. a higher risk due to groundwater removal, exotic invasive shrubs that steal water (e.g., buckthorn), Recent Recovery Efforts sealing of watershed with impervious cover, and There are no recent, significant recovery efforts for change in thermal regimes. The biggest factors affect- headwater streams within the region. ing headwater stream communities are hydrologic change, channelization and urbanization. Because of Indicators wholesale hydrological changes in headwaters, The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the follow- downstream areas are experiencing a suite of prob- ing species as characteristic of headwater streams: lems: channel incision, bank erosion, inability to • Continuous-flow maintain woody debris in channels, and poor nutri- o Fish: sculpins, dace ent processing. o Macroinvertebrates: mayflies, stoneflies and caddis flies • Des Plaines River Watershed–Upper Three- o Plants: water cress, chara, water parsnip, berula Quarters: Poor to Fair • Intermittent-flow Because of intensive urbanization, streams in this o Bluntnose minnow and striped shiner area no longer have natural watersheds, where heavy rains are stored in marshes and in forest lit- Note that the 2004 workshop participants identified ter before entering stream channels. Urbanization the following fish species as tending to be found in produces many flat, impervious surfaces that shed higher quality seepage-fed headwater stream habi- water to stream channels rapidly. In fact, many of tats, although many can be found in lower quality these stream channels have their banks and chan- habitats as well: nel bottoms encased in concrete. While concrete Redside dace Northern redbelly dace keeps banks from eroding, it provides little habitat Longnose dace Brook trout for fish and invertebrates. While some exceptions Finescale dace Slimy sculpin can still be found, most small drainages do not Brook stickleback Mottled sculpin really function as streams anymore. Without significant recovery efforts, streams in this region will The 2004 workshop participants identified the fol- continue to degrade. Those streams that currently lowing fish species as tending to be found in higher support somewhat natural or unique communi- quality intermittent headwater stream habitats, ties, even if they are in or run through protected although many can be found in lower quality habi- areas, are at a high risk of catastrophic and ran- tats as well: dom events eliminating components of the com- Redside dace Brassy minnow munity. Those areas that are not protected will Blacknose dace Creek chubsucker decline further as development encroaches. Brook stickleback Southern redbelly dace • Des Plaines River Watershed–Lower Quarter: Specific, measurable indicators of quality, such as Fair to Good perhaps substrate, water quality, species richness, Lower Des Plaines River streams run through more and presence of species of concern need to be identi- recently and less intensively urbanized areas, and

44 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

benefit from having an overall higher gradient, next decade. Many small streams will be lost to which allows for greater oxygenation of water than concrete-lined ditches, offering no refuge for head- is found in the north. The addition of significant water species. groundwater inflow to many of these streams contributes to a unique fauna, including sculpins and • Chicago River Watershed: Undetermined sensitive insect species. Mottled sculpins and Indications are that the condition of this water- Southern redbelly dace utilize cold and cool head- shed is similar in quality to the upper three-quar- water streams in the region, but have recently been ters of the Des Plaines River watershed. However, taken only in the lower quarter of the basin (Smith some observers point out that the East Fork of the 2002). Many of the streams in this area will degrade North Branch receives the effluent from the because their watersheds have reached the limits of Clavey Road public-owned treatment works, impervious surface cover (10 - 20 percent). Yet, which should significantly degrade its quality and development pressure will continue because of the subject it to quite variable pollutant loads due to availability of open land. Where impervious cov- storm events. On the positive side, a number of erage has reached critical limits, extraordinary watershed recovery projects and studies have efforts (increasing and/or building the acreage of been completed along the North Branch of the wetlands/retention ponds) might help to turn the Chicago River (see sidebar). tide. Efforts must be made to rehabilitate headwaters, even those that are currently in agriculture, so • Calumet River Watershed: Undetermined that they might protect stream communities. Not enough information was available to make a Rehabilitation of corridors from the headwaters to ranking determination, however, indications are downstream areas is the best way to protect aquatic that the condition of this watershed is similar in communities. quality to the upper three-quarters of the Des Plaines River watershed. • Fox River Watershed: Poor to Fair There are some very high quality continuous-flow • Lake Michigan Watershed: Poor headwater streams in the Fox River watershed, All streams in this category within the Lake however, they are threatened and their conditions Michigan watershed should be considered to be in are declining. Many are spring fed and their poor condition. Human activity and pollution groundwater recharge areas are under threat from from runoff have severely degraded habitat and groundwater removal, increase in impervious water quality in these streams. cover, infiltration by agricultural and residential nutrients and pesticides. 2.6.6 LOW-ORDER STREAMS Description • Kankakee River Watershed: Undetermined High-gradient, low-order streams are second- to Most headwater streams within this watershed are fourth-order, small- to medium-sized creeks, often highly impacted due to channelization and tiling with distinct riffle and pool development. They have of fields. Large, coarse-bottomed streams rate more complex habitats and trophic characteristics more highly for both fish and insects. Several sen- than headwater streams. They fall more than three sitive taxa unique to the drainage still reside there. feet per mile and have coarse substrates, mostly cob- Biodiversity remains high. However, the water- ble, gravel and sand with some silt. Low-gradient, shed is highly threatened by urbanization and low-order streams are second- to fourth- order creeks agricultural drainage that changes stream hydrol- that fall less than three feet per mile and have pre- ogy, promoting channel incision and subsequent dominantly fine-textured substrates. bank erosion. The headwater streams in this watershed are experiencing development pressure Condition of Data in the vicinity of Peotone and Monee. It appears The Critical Trends Assessment Program data are that the I-57 corridor may be completely devel- probably more reliable for this stream type than for oped residentially and commercially within the headwaters, as this size probably has less variability

45 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

in condition. There are many more low-order stream • Des Plaines River Watershed: Poor to Good data available from the Illinois Department of Natural For high-gradient, low-order streams, the upper Resources/Illinois Environmental Protection Agency three-quarters of the watershed rate poor to fair basin surveys for fish and macroinvertebrates (Illinois and the lower quarter rates fair to good. Low- Environmental Protection Agency 2005). The United gradient, low-order streams throughout the Des States Geologic Service also has a good amount of Plaines River watershed rate as poor. High-gradi- data from its Upper Illinois River Basin study. Data ent streams in the lower quarter of the watershed for Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera rich- are not declining as rapidly as those in the upper ness and threatened and endangered species in low- three-quarters, due to the less intensive urbaniza- order Kankakee streams is readily available. tion. Low-gradient streams generally are more vulnerable to threats like sedimentation and high Recent Recovery Efforts nutrient loading. Many of the low-gradient streams There are no recent, significant recovery efforts for have sewage treatment plants along them and low-order streams within the region. tend to be more channelized. Threats include urbanization, hydrologic modification, organic Indicators enrichment (sewage treatment) and homogeniza- The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the follow- tion of communities. ing species as being characteristic of low-order streams: • Fox River Watershed: Poor to Excellent • High-gradient low-order streams Based on fish data, high-gradient, low-order o Fish: darters, stonerollers, horneyhead chub, streams in this watershed are of excellent quality. suckers, smallmouth bass However, based on insect data, the streams are • Low-gradient low-order streams only rated fair to good. The discrepancy reflects o Fish: creek chub, bluntnose minnow, redfin the fact that as conditions have recovered from the shiner, sunfish effects of agricultural practices and the release of o Plants: sago pond weed, water star weed, poorly treated domestic sewage, fish recolonized American pond weed streams much faster than sensitive insects, which generally have poor dispersal abilities. Low-gradi- Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be ent, low-order streams generally are of lower qual- identified for this community, and this is a recom- ity—poor to fair—because low-gradient streams mendation for future report cards. move more slowly, which exacerbates the threats of sedimentation, oxygen saturation level and Report Card Condition Ranking: nutrient loading. Additional threats include Overall: Poor to Good hydrologic disruption through channelization, an Overall, low-order, high-gradient streams represent increase in impervious land cover and the addi- the highest quality stream category and are very tion of sewage treatment plants. The hydrology of important to biodiversity. Unfortunately, the biggest these systems will become more variable with impact from existing and planned sewage treatment development. An increase in stream temperature plants occurs on low-order streams. These streams may also occur due to groundwater removal and are also threatened by hydrologic modification, non- urbanization that could eliminate many of the point source pollution, and poor water quality. Low- cool-water fish species (e.g., sculpins). order, low-gradient streams are in worse shape and rated poor to fair. Their water velocity is slower, so • Kankakee River Watershed: Good or Undeter- sedimentation is greater. Additional threats include mined channelization, high nutrient loads, and urban and Many high-gradient streams show the impacts of pesticide runoff. agricultural runoff with heavy algal growth and eroding banks. Most are channelized and the adjacent fields tiled, creating great fluctuations in

46 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

hydrology. However, several support luxuriant Condition of Data growths of Elodea and Potamogeton, excellent fish The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and Index of Biotic Integrity scores and composition, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency basin sur- and relatively high Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera veys (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2005) and Trichoptera richness. A few of these streams, have tremendous amounts of fish data from the such as Trim and Baker Creeks, are listed as bio- lower Fox River. However, the Critical Trends Assess- logically significant streams for the presence of ment Program has no sites on the Fox River of this mussels such as the Creek Heelsplitter, Ellipse and size and gradient type. The condition of data based Slippershell (Page et al. 1992). High-gradient on invertebrates cannot be assessed at this time. streams are ranked stable. Insufficient information is available about low-gradient streams to deter- Indicators mine their status and trends. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the following species as being characteristic of mid-order • Chicago River Watershed: Undetermined streams: There was not sufficient information available to • High-gradient make a determination of this watershed’s status, o Fish: smallmouth bass, northern hogsucker, however, the consensus among local experts is redhorse that some tributaries of the Chicago River, such as o Macroinvertebrates: Orconectes propinquus Plum Creek, still hold good species richness of • Low-gradient Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera o Fish: largemouth bass, bluegill, sunfish, pike, aquatic insects. carpsuckers, channel catfish o Macroinvertebrates: Orconectes virilis • Calumet River Watershed: Undetermined There was not sufficient information available to Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be make a determination of this watershed’s status. identified for this community, and this is a recommendation for future report cards. • Lake Michigan Watershed: Poor It is the consensus of regional experts that the Report Card Condition Ranking: streams in this watershed are in poor condition, Overall: Poor to Good with the exception of the Dead River in Illinois Most mid-order, high-gradient streams, like the Beach State Park. A very low-gradient stream Kankakee, Kishwaukee and lower Fox Rivers, are in caught between parallel glacial moraines/sand fair to good condition and are diverse in fish, mussels dunes, it and its surrounding marshes comprise and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera the best example of a freshwater estuary in the species. They are threatened by changes in headwa- region, historically supporting a unique assem- ter and low-order streams, by dams that prevent blage of aquatic insects. recolonization, and by acting as receiving waters for a wide range of discharges. Rivers in the heart of 2.6.7 MID-ORDER STREAMS urbanized areas are, of course, in much worse condi- Description tion. Mid-order, low-gradient streams are in worse High-gradient, mid-order streams are fifth- to eighth- shape and rated poor. Siltation, sags in oxygen con- order, large creeks to medium-sized rivers with rela- centration from high nutrient loads, and accumula- tively stable flows and temperatures, and high tion of pollutants are threats to these systems. habitat diversity. With coarse substrates and falling more than three feet per mile, they have the most • Des Plaines River Watershed: Poor complex habitats, are highest in species diversity and All of the fifth- through eighth-order streams in harbor abundant predators. Low-gradient, mid-order the Des Plaines River watershed are in very poor streams differ in that they fall less than three feet per condition from the effects of heavy urbanization. mile and have finer substrates.

47 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

High-gradient streams are stable, but in very poor • Calumet River Watershed: Undetermined shape. Low-gradient streams are declining in There was not sufficient information available to quality. make a determination of this watershed’s status.

• Fox River Watershed: Poor to Fair • Lake Michigan Watershed: Poor There are some high quality, high-gradient sec- It is the consensus of regional experts that all of the tions of the lower Fox River, based on fish com- streams in this watershed are in poor condition, munities, although much of it is generally poor to with the exception of the Dead River. The Dead fair overall. These sections’ conditions based on River historically supported a unique assemblage invertebrates can not be assessed at this time. of aquatic insects, especially large caddis flies, and Regarding low-gradient sections of the Fox River, is the best example of a freshwater estuarine, or pooled and impounded sections of the upper Fox nursery habitat, in the region. Because its water- River have poor Index of Biotic Integrity scores, shed is protected within Illinois Beach State Park, while the tail water sections have good Index of it probably still supports this fauna, although it is Biotic Integrity scores. The mussel assemblage of time to reevaluate this assemblage. Otherwise, all the upper Fox River is poor. Overall, there have of the other streams are impaired and have dams not been many improvements within this water- on them. shed since the Biodiversity Recovery Plan was published. A few dams are set for removal—North 2.6.8 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR STREAMS and South Batavia Dams and North Aurora For future reporting purposes, the primary Report Dam—which would increase river connectivity, Card recommendation is to develop specific recov- perhaps improving both fish and especially mus- ery goals for all of the stream types in each watershed sel assemblages. However, the addition of sewage throughout the entire region. It is also recommended treatment plants with their increased loading of that region-wide consensus be reached on indicators organic and inorganic nutrients is a continuing and monitoring protocols. Additionally, those recom- threat as the area becomes more urbanized. mended actions listed in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan remain in effect: • Kankakee River Watershed: Undetermined There was insufficient information available to Reduce hydrological alteration make a determination of this watershed’s status. • Continue to identify watersheds with streams that have exceptional aquatic biological integrity to • Chicago River Watershed: Undetermined inform planning efforts and set priorities The North Branch of the Chicago River receives • Limit development in some high-priority subwa- effluent from the water reclamation district’s north tersheds side plant via the North Shore Channel. This dis- • Direct development into areas that limit hydrolog- charge greatly increases the volume of water in the ical alteration river below this junction and the materials in this • Promote cluster development effluent significantly change the character of the • Require stormwater detention that effectively con- river below this point. In addition, much of the trols the full range of flood events river is subject to unmonitored and uncharacter- • As an alternative to storm sewers, promote natural ized effluent from combined sewer overflows and drainage to increase infiltration other discharges. While the combined sewer over- • Create buffer strips and greenways along streams flow discharges are intermittent and variable in • Acquire additional land for conservation volume, they can be very large when they occur, • Develop stormwater management plans and they have a major effect on the quality of the • Enforce erosion control measures on new con- river. At this time, they control the quality of water struction in the river, and their regular occurrence limits the • Create or restore streamside wetlands extent of possible recovery of the river. • Educate decision-makers about development patterns and the effects of land uses on streams

48 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Reduce deterioration of habitat quality tant, restorable or other (unlikely to support sensitive • Remove unnecessary dams species) based solely on the biodiversity in the lakes. • Retain or restore emergent and near-shore vegeta- The Report Card assesses lake types within watersheds tion throughout the entire Chicago Wilderness region. For • Re-meander channelized streams the sake of consistency within the Report Card, lake • Restore riffles, pools, sandbars and other elements types are ranked as excellent, good, fair or poor, of in-stream habitat which roughly correspond to the rankings utilized in • Study the effects of riparian management the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Assessments, although • Survey how people use aquatic resources and more broadly based than those of the Biodiversity study the economic impacts of uses such as fishing Recovery Plan, remain largely driven by the observa- and recreational boating tions of experts working in the field and underpinned • Use bioengineering solutions to control stream- by their familiarity with existing data. No specific bank erosion data were referenced in the assessment of the region’s lake types. Reduce deterioration of water quality • Rigorously enforce non-degradation standards 2.7.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION • Develop and implement best management prac- The region’s lakes fall into two broad categories: nat- tices to control soil erosion, sedimentation and ural and manmade. Of the various sub-categories, stormwater runoff The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies glacial lakes • Find alternatives to new and expanded effluent as the primary focus for conservation efforts due to discharges to high-quality streams their being the most biologically diverse lake type. • Re-examine standards and practices for sewage • Natural Lakes treatment o Lake Michigan • Promote effluent polishing through constructed o Glacial Lakes wetlands for all discharges to moderate- and high- ◊ Kettle quality streams ◊ Flow-through • Encourage pollution-control regulators to use o Bottomland biocriteria for water quality standards o Vernal Pond • Gain community support for watershed manage- • Manmade Lakes ment o Naturalized • Evaluate insects as indicators of water quality o Other • Evaluate the need for improved water quality standards 2.7.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALS • Encourage volunteer monitoring As reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the vision for lakes rated as exceptional (in excellent condition) is to manage all of them for maximum aquatic 2.7 LAKE COMMUNITIES biodiversity. Goals include: • No loss of native species, particularly endangered 2.7.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS or threatened species The overall condition of the region’s lakes ranges • No decline in condition widely from poor to excellent to undetermined due • Manage all as part of their watersheds to the lack of information. Regardless of their condition, the long-term health of all lake types is in jeop- The vision for lakes rated as important (in good con- ardy, primarily due to the increasing and intensified dition) is to manage all of them for maximum aquatic effects of development. biodiversity and improve their conditions so that most of them move up to the category of exceptional 2.7.2 CONDITION OF DATA lakes. Goals are the same as for exceptional lakes. In the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, individual lakes, and only those in Illinois, are rated as exceptional, impor- The goal for lakes rated as restorable (in fair condition) is to control invasive species and sources of

49 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

impairment effectively and improve their conditions Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be so that most of them move up to the category of identified for this community, and this is a recom- important lakes. mendation for future report cards.

The vision for lakes placed in the “other” category Report Card Condition Ranking: (those of poor condition), from a biodiversity per- Fair spective, is to utilize them for recreational and cul- Lake Michigan holds many native fish and inverte- tural services that do not jeopardize the biodiversity brate species that occur in no other aquatic habitats in goals for other lakes. A goal is to have all of them con- the Chicago Wilderness area. However, this system is tribute positively to their watersheds’ overall quality, under siege by a host of exotic species entering either through water-quality or stormwater manage- through ballast water in freight ships (e.g., round ment. goby and river ruffe), through direct introduction for sport fishery (i.e., Pacific salmonids), or from aqua- 2.7.5 LAKE MICHIGAN culture facilities (bighead and silver carp). Some Description exotic species, such as the spiny water flea, have got- The second largest Great Lake by volume, Lake ten worse since the publication of the Biodiversity Michigan’s drainage basin is twice as large as its Recovery Plan, while some, such as the zebra mussel, 22,300 square miles of surface water. The basin have possibly declined in abundance. These exotic includes portions of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and invasive species have a significant impact on native Michigan. The Chicago Wilderness shoreline of Lake species through competition for food and spawning Michigan has been substantially filled and built up, substrates or through outright predation. The long- eliminating coastal wetlands. Structures installed to nose sucker and emerald shiner are two near-shore protect harbors and lakefront development have, in native species whose abundance has declined many cases, interrupted movement of sand or recently, possibly through interactions with exotic deflected it into deep water where it is lost from the species. We can expect more introductions of exotic beach-nourishment process. Its fish communities are invasive species in the future. in a state of flux due to several factors, including the introduction of exotic species. Although some major 2.7.6 GLACIAL KETTLE LAKES pollution issues have been resolved, the bioaccumu- Description lation of persistent toxic substances in fish remains a Remnant glacial features, kettle lakes or pothole lakes, problem for human health. are found mostly in isolated basins in Lake County, Illinois and southeast Wisconsin, with smaller con- Recent Recovery Efforts centrations in select locations throughout the rest of An electronic barrier currently is being erected in the the Chicago Wilderness region. Examples include Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the passage of Lake Elizabeth, Cedar Lake and Defiance Lake. several types of Asian carp, a particularly destructive exotic species, from entering Lake Michigan from the Recent Recovery Efforts Illinois River. It is not known if this technical solution There are no recovery efforts identified. will work. Indicators Indicators Dominant species identified in the Biodiversity Dominant species identified in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan include: Recovery Plan include: • Fish: brown bullhead, lake chubsucker and war- • Fish: sculpin, barbot, yellow perch salmonids mouth (introduced and native species) ale wives (intro- • Macroinvertebrates: Procambarus duced) and smelt (introduced) • Plants: water shield, eel grass • Macroinvertebrates: zebra mussels (introduced) • Reptiles and Amphibians: common map turtle, mudpuppy

50 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be Asian carp, rusty crayfish, etc.) have opportunities identified for this community, and this is a recom- to enter these systems since they are connected to mendation for future report cards. streams and because flow-through lakes are heavily used for recreational purposes. Report Card Condition Ranking: Good to Excellent 2.7.8 BOTTOMLAND LAKES There is a wide range of conditions for kettle lakes, Description but generally they are in good to excellent shape. Bottomland lakes generally are associated with large However, like all systems, they are experiencing seri- floodplain rivers, such as the Mississippi and the ous threats such as urbanization, herbiciding to Illinois Rivers. Historically, they had vast beds of reduce aquatic vegetation, eutrophication, isolation aquatic macrophytes, providing habitat and promot- due to water control structures, and habitat loss. ing water clarity and nutrient cycling. Most, how- Kettle lakes have been developed for a long time and ever, have been cut off from riverine flood pulses by so they are not experiencing as rapid a rate of change levies. Examples within the Chicago Wilderness as other lakes. Being isolated, their diversity is less region include Lyons Marsh and Saganashkee than flow-through lakes, but kettle lakes boast Slough. unique taxa and the highest number of imperiled fish species of any aquatic systems in the state. Recent Recovery Efforts There are no recovery efforts identified. 2.7.7 FLOW-THROUGH LAKES Description Indicators Flow-through lakes differ from kettle lakes by being Dominant species identified in the Biodiversity connected to a stream system and by having larger Recovery Plan include: watersheds. Examples include Fox Chain O’ Lakes • Fish: topminnows, pike bullheads, bowfin and Loon Lake. • Macroinvertebrates: snails • Plants: emergent plants, lotus, duckweed, algal Recent Recovery Efforts blooms There are no recovery efforts identified. Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be Indicators identified for this community, and this is a recom- Dominant species identified in the Biodiversity mendation for future report cards. Recovery Plan include: • Fish: northern pike, largemouth bass, yellow bass, Report Card Condition Ranking: bluegill, pugnose minnow Poor • Macroinvertebrates: mussels Many of these lakes are under public ownership and • Plants: lotus, grass-leaved pondweed so their protection is generally good. However, hav- • Reptiles and Amphibians: Blanding’s turtle ing lost their historic connections to rivers (due to levies) during flooding, sediment has accumulated, Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be reducing their overall depth. Exotic fish species have identified for this community, and this is a recom- uprooted much of the vegetation, leading to turbidity mendation for future report cards. and the dieback of plants. The hydrology of these systems has also been disrupted as their water levels Report Card Condition Ranking: have been controlled to maintain year-round water- Poor to Good fowl habitat. Widely variable in their conditions, all flow-through lakes are declining. Threats include organic and 2.7.9 VERNAL PONDS/POOLS nutrient enrichment that lead to algal blooms, and Description dense stands of non-native, invasive vascular plants. Vernal ponds are generally small, seasonally inun- Other non-native, invasive species (zebra mussels, dated depressions. Historically they were viewed as

51 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

a nuisance and therefore drained. Due to their sea- tion elsewhere. Some created wetlands may be deep sonal nature, they contain no fish, but they can sup- enough to mimic ecological functions of natural gla- port tremendous densities of invertebrates. They are cial lakes, although recent sampling of many mitiga- also very important as breeding areas for amphib- tion wetlands in the region suggests that they ians, which are experiencing declines throughout the support primarily tolerant species of fishes. The con- world. Examples remain in Ryerson Woods, Deer dition of these lakes is largely unknown because they Grove, Busse Woods, Thorn Creek Woods and Plum are not monitored routinely. Creek Greenway. Recent Recovery Efforts Recent Recovery Efforts There are no recovery efforts identified. There are no recovery efforts identified. Indicators Indicators The Biodiversity Recovery Plan indicates that man- Dominant species identified in the Biodiversity made naturalized lakes are marked by a high diver- Recovery Plan include: sity of amphibians. However, specific, measurable • Macroinvertebrates: crayfish indicators of quality need to be identified for this • Plants: sedges, stranded aquatics, mermaid weed community, and this is a recommendation for future report cards. Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to be identified for this community, and this is a recom- Report Card Condition Ranking: mendation for future report cards. Undetermined There is not enough information available to assess Report Card Condition Ranking: the condition of manmade naturalized lakes. Undetermined However, it is assumed they are declining in condi- There was not enough information available during tion, as are the region’s other lake types. the development of this report to assess the overall condition of the region’s vernal ponds and pools. 2.7.11 OTHER LAKES What is known is that some of these ponds are pub- Description licly owned, but many are not, which places them at There are approximately 10,000 to 20,000 retention extreme risk. There is also some question as to ponds in the region. Unknown is how important they whether vernal ponds on public lands are being man- are to the biodiversity of the region. Certainly, they aged. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many vernal can support some species such as migratory birds, ponds are likely filling in with buckthorn and other fish and amphibians. However, toxins from runoff non-native species. It is important to maintain the also accumulate in these ponds. It therefore becomes natural hydrology of these ponds. difficult to assess their condition and trends. Retention ponds often are stocked with sport fish 2.7.10 MANMADE NATURALIZED LAKES such as sunfish and largemouth bass, and may pose a Description threat to native stream fish communities in receiving Manmade naturalized lakes can function in a similar waters by providing large numbers of juveniles dur- fashion to natural lakes, and as such can support ing overflow periods. This potential threat has not aquatic communities that protect the biodiversity of been investigated fully. There have certainly been the region. Many of the region’s gravel pit lakes, for more ponds added since the publication of the instance, have similar water quality and habitat con- Biodiversity Recovery Plan, but it is hard to say ditions as natural glacial lakes. Additionally, gravel whether their conditions are improving or declining. pit lakes often support similar species as glacial lakes, although overall diversity of fishes is typically lower. Recent Recovery Efforts Some naturalized lakes have been used to culture There are no recovery efforts identified. threatened and endangered species for reintroduc-

52 CHAPTER 2 TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

Indicators • Investigate and mitigate the threat of salinization If retention ponds are determined to be important for • Investigate and prepare for the possibility of rein- biodiversity conservation, then specific, measurable troduction of native species indicators of quality need to be identified for this • Strengthen laws protecting species and their habi- community, and this would be a recommendation for tats future report cards. • Integrate biodiversity concerns into laws, policies and guidelines Report Card Condition Ranking: • Clarify ambiguous laws relating to lakes and their Undetermined management There is not enough information available to assess • Increase public understanding of lake biodiversity the condition of retention ponds. issues • Increase public involvement in lake management 2.7.12 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR LAKES and protection For future reporting purposes, the primary recommendation is to develop specific recovery goals for Since Lake Michigan is significantly unique, the all of the lake types throughout the region. It is also Biodiversity Recovery Plan lists these distinct recom- recommended that region-wide consensus be devel- mended actions for it: oped on indicators and monitoring protocols. • Identify information gaps concerning the Lake Additionally, those recommended actions listed in Michigan shoreline in the region with respect to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan remain in effect: surviving habitat and opportunities for habitat • Develop specific recovery plans for species and restoration, so that practical guides can be devel- lakes of concern oped • Develop better mechanisms to control the invasion • Identify key site-specific aquatic habitat restora- of non-native species tion opportunities to support local and lake-wide • Plan, protect and manage lakes at the watershed biodiversity level • Identify site-specific opportunities to provide • Develop a region-wide process to track and study shoreline protection that also provide improved threats to lakes habitat • Conduct research to better understand the habitat requirements of aquatic species

53 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

4.9). Taxonomic workshops for other animal assem- 3.1INTRODUCTION blages followed a similar approach. Beyond a The region’s animal assemblages rank from poor to global/local ranking, however, the four 1997 taxo- good condition, with the majority tending toward the nomic workshops yielded different terms for condi- lower end of the spectrum. For some assemblages, tion rankings. Bird assemblages were rated “poor,” there is a sufficient amount of information to provide “suboptimal” and “optimal.” In the Biodiversity quantified assessments. For most, however, the avail- Recovery Plan, only reptile and amphibian assem- able data has yet to be sufficiently compiled and blages rated “declining” are listed. Similarly, only analyzed. The majority of animal assemblage assess- insect assemblages rated “of concern” are identified ments, like those of the region’s terrestrial and (Biodiversity Recovery Plan Table 4.8). The 2004 ani- aquatic communities, therefore, is largely anecdotal. mal taxonomic workshops also yielded different It should be noted that a great deal of the currently terms for condition rankings. However, given their relevant data is derived through volunteer efforts, general correlation with a four-point assessment sys- underscoring a key objective of the Biodiversity tem (the “excellent” rating being seldom used), the Recovery Plan, which is to “maintain and strengthen following terms were used to provide consistency volunteer participation in stewardship and re- throughout the Report Card: poor, fair, good and search.” The Butterfly Monitoring Network has been excellent. This is intended to facilitate the relating of collecting butterfly data in the region since 1987. The Report Card assessments to stakeholders and the gen- Bird Conservation Network Census has collected eral public. region-wide bird data since the inception of Chicago Wilderness and is but one of a complementary array The lack of a consistent ranking system is sympto- of local and national volunteer bird monitoring matic of the lack of specific recovery goals, indicators efforts that operate throughout the region. and monitoring protocols for nearly all animal assemblages. The exceptions are for grassland birds and The main focus of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan was savanna herpetofauna, for which conservation to report on terrestrial and aquatic communities, designs have been completed. As discussed later in with select information related to animal assem- this chapter, these conservation designs, building blages woven into the various community assess- upon the broad goals in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, ments. The Report Card accords each animal provide measurable recovery targets and measurable assemblage an independent assessment, utilizing management strategies based on specific threats. information derived from animal assemblage taxo- Conservation designs or some similar vehicle are nomic workshops held in 1997 and 2004. needed for each animal assemblage to guide management and data collection throughout the region, In the 1997 taxonomic workshop on birds, partici- which in turn would allow for a quantified and more pants used five criteria to assess the status of the thorough assessment of the region’s biodiversity. region’s various bird assemblages: condition of the habitat in the Chicago Wilderness region, condition In spite of the data limitations, the Report Card strives of the habitat globally, distinctiveness of the avian to provide the following information: community, perceived threats to the avian community, and the status of the community in Chicago OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS Wilderness. Based on these categories, assemblages This chapter of the Report Card strives to provide the were ranked as globally critical, globally important following information: or locally important (Biodiversity Recovery Plan Table

54 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

CONDITION OF DATA REPORT CARD CONDITION RANKING For each assemblage type, this section provides a Each animal assemblage was assigned a condition summary of the available data that informed the ranking of “poor,” “fair,” “good” or “excellent” to Report Card assessment. It should be noted that the describe its current status as viewed by regional majority of identified data were concentrated prima- experts familiar with that assemblage. Due to the rily in Illinois, although some Indiana data are refer- availability of data, the section on birds also includes enced (relatively few data are referenced from trend assessments, which, in every determinable Wisconsin). This underscores a Report Card recom- instance, is declining. mendation to increase the data collection from all three states in the Chicago Wilderness region. Poor

ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTION Fair For each individual assemblage, the following information is provided: Good

DESCRIPTION Excellent Each individual assemblage description is culled from information in various sections of the Bio- diversity Recovery Plan, supplemented by feedback RECOMMENDED ACTIONS from experts on the region’s animal assemblages. It should be noted that for each assemblage type, it is recommended that a specific instrument be devel- 1997 TAXONOMIC WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT oped, if one does not already exist, to gauge the sta- Because the Biodiversity Recovery Plan provides few tus of the community and set specific recovery goals, details about the assessed condition of the various based on the community’s importance within the assemblages, information was derived primarily region in contributing to the conservation of local from the 1997 workshop minutes. biodiversity.

BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN GOALS A final note: As reported in the Biodiversity Recovery A summary of the broad goals identified in the Plan, mammals do not aggregate into assemblages. Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s chapter on terrestrial com- Very little information was available about individ- munities. ual mammal species, with the exception of the Franklin’s ground squirrel, which is briefly reported upon in this section. The next Report Card should RECENT RECOVERY EFFORTS include an updated assessment of all of the region’s A list of efforts or sites where management has mammal species. resulted in a stabilization or recovery of biodiversity. Within some sections, sidebars provide overviews of select sites. It should be noted that many more sites have undergone or are undergoing active manage- 3.2BIRD ASSEMBLAGES ment than are highlighted here. 3.2.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS INDICATORS The majority of the region’s bird assemblages remain Each workshop of animal assemblage experts was in poor or fair condition and are trending toward a asked to identify indicators. It should be noted that decline in overall quality. This assessment mirrors this was not always fully possible due to the lack of national and, in some cases, global trends. The excep- adequate data on certain assemblages. This under- tions are wetland bird species, which are faring well scores a Report Card recommendation to develop spe- nationally but not within the Chicago Wilderness cific indicators, along with recovery goals and region, due to the extensive local loss of wetland monitoring protocols, for each of the region’s natu- areas. For each bird assemblage, there are specific rec- ral community and assemblage types. ommended actions. However, the overriding recom-

55 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

mendation for priority assemblages is the develop- The Illinois Spring Bird Count data set and the Bird ment of a conservation design or another tool that Conservation Network Census may pick up some would include specific, measurable recovery goals, trends that the Breeding Bird Survey misses because indicators and monitoring protocols, and against certain species are too rare, not found along road- which progress could be measured over time. sides or are otherwise poorly sampled. Additionally, the areas sampled are somewhat different. The 3.2.2 CONDITION OF THE DATA Breeding Bird Survey routes are placed at random During the past five years, the majority of data gath- throughout the landscape. In Illinois, for the most ering and bird-related habitat recovery efforts—both part, this means agricultural land. In general, the planning and on-the-ground—have been guided by Illinois Spring Bird Count and the Bird Conservation the prioritization of bird assemblages in the Biodiv- Network Census observations are focused on patches ersity Recovery Plan, with grassland birds ranked of of protected land, and the matrix surrounding these highest conservation concern. Recent national data habitat patches is under-surveyed. The extensive and has led to shrubland birds being identified as being complex data set of the Bird Conservation Network of very high conservation concern, an observation Census database would yield a wealth of information seconded by local experts within the Chicago if a method of analysis were developed in conjunc- Wilderness region. Assessments of the region’s bird tion with a wildlife statistician. assemblages are based on a considerable amount of data drawn from different sources. These include: 3.2.3 ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTION • Partners in Flight, a national partnership organi- The Report Card identifies the following bird assem- zation, which just published the “North American blages, ordered by level of threat, from highest to Landbird Conservation Plan.” The plan contains lowest: national trend information and species prioritiza- • Birds of moist* grasslands without shrubs tion based on a number of sources. (Rich et al. • Birds of moist* grasslands with shrubs 2004). • Dry grassland birds • The Breeding Bird Survey, a long-standing • Savanna birds national volunteer effort with a well-studied data • Open woodland birds set. The Breeding Bird Survey trends given in this • Hemi-marsh birds report are for the entire state of Illinois. (Sauer et • Shoreline birds al. 2005). • Closed upland woods birds • The Illinois Spring Bird Count, a day-long volun- • Closed bottomland woods birds teer effort very similar to the Christmas Count. • Pinewood birds The Spring Bird Count is held in early May and the data gathered are compiled by county. Cook *Moist refers collectively to wet, wet-mesic and mesic County results and statewide results were considered for this report. Although Spring Bird Count 3.2.4 GRASSLAND BIRDS data are not specifically designed to measure Description breeding populations, for many species the vast Historically, a mix of prairies and wetlands blanketed majority of the birds counted on the Illinois Spring the region, supporting an abundance and diversity of Bird Counts are from breeding populations. These grassland species. However, bobolinks, Henslow’s patterns appear to correlate well with the breeding sparrows, dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows, populations (Kleen 2003; Duane, unpublished; once very familiar residents, are now limited to hay- Stotz, unpublished). fields and protected grasslands. The greater prairie • The Bird Conservation Network Census, a six-year chicken, once abundant, has vanished completely point count, transect and checklist study of mainly from the region. Upland sandpipers, once extremely protected lands, conducted primarily during the common, now hang on in two locations. Regular res- breeding season, within the Chicago Wilderness idents of wet prairie habitats that have vanished from region (Bird Conservation Network 2004). the region include swallow-tailed kites, long-billed curlews and whooping cranes. Currently, native

56 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

prairies large enough to support a highly diverse Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals suite of grassland bird species do not exist. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan does not differentiate between the three grassland sub-types, but calls for Grasslands with shrubs provide habitat for a range of 10 to 12 large sites throughout the region, each species, some preferring thickets and others clumps approximately 3,000-4,000 acres in size, to sustain of shrubs. Studies suggest that the particular shrub viable populations of grassland birds and other species is not as significant as the overall structure. prairie species. These large sites should consist of Historically, shrubland habitats were found in dif- native vegetation in mosaics of grasslands, savannas ferent areas at various points in time, as fire impacted and wetlands in order to contribute to the conserva- woody growth, and the shrubland bird community tion of all prairie community elements. was an important part of the avifauna. Loggerhead shrike, once a very common shrubland bird, is now The conservation design (Glennemeier 2002b, pp. 1- only found in a very few locations. 2) states that through the management of currently protected grasslands, the acquisition or protection of 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment additional grasslands, and restoration of newly pro- • Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs: Poor/ tected grasslands, by 2025 the following acreage of Globally Critical grasslands can be achieved with high quality bird Nearly all characteristic species have declined in communities: the Chicago Wilderness region. This is primarily • At least 9,000 acres of dry and dry-mesic grassland the result of habitat destruction, along with inten- (characterized by grasshopper sparrows), with at sification of agricultural practices. Nearly all least 2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500 native grassland habitats in the region have been acres destroyed. There are few high quality sites left. • At least 9,000 acres of mesic grassland (character- Some species can use agricultural lands, especially ized by bobolinks and northern harriers), with at pastures and hayfields. However, these species are least 2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500 very sensitive to the management of the hayfields, acres and they fare poorly in these agricultural lands. A • At least 9,000 acres of wet and wet-mesic grass- number of the species in moist grasslands are very land (characterized by sedge wrens and king sensitive to the size of habitat patches, and are rails), with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites of absent from small ones. This means that few sites at least 500 acres in the region have significant population sizes. • At least five grassland habitat complexes of at least 4,000 acres in size • Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs: Fair/ Globally Critical For the following species of highest conservation Several shrub-using species are declining through- concern, by 2025 the following can be achieved out their ranges, but other species associated with regionally: shrubby grasslands are doing rather well. There • Henslow’s sparrow–at least 500 breeding pairs is little remaining habitat in the region. • Bobolink–at least 2,500 breeding pairs Characteristic species are relatively tolerant of • Upland sandpiper–at least 20 breeding pairs at degraded habitat. Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie; at least one breeding population elsewhere • Birds of dry grasslands: Fair/Locally Important • Sedge wren–at least 1,000 breeding pairs There is no specific information on trends in this • Northern harrier–breeding in the region at least region, but declines are not evident. There is little five years out of every 10 remaining habitat in the region, but it was rela- • Grasshopper sparrow–at least 2,500 breeding pairs tively rare in this area even historically. Most of the • King rail–at least 20 breeding pairs remnant habitat is degraded. Characteristic • American bittern–at least five regularly breeding species are relatively widespread, and most are pairs tolerant of degradation. • Sandhill crane–at least 200 breeding pairs

57 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

TABLE 3.1 TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES IDENTIFIED FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING

Bird Assemblages Insects Assemblages Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs* Fen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects** Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs* Marsh insects Birds of dry grasslands Dry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects** Open woodland birds Foredune insects Hemi-marsh birds Dry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects** Closed upland woods birds Bog insects Closed bottomland woods birds Blacksoil savanna and woodland insects** Pinewood birds Floodplain forest insects

Reptile and Amphibian Assemblages Mammals Black Soil Savanna reptiles and amphibians** The mammals of the Chicago Wilderness region Sedge meadow, fen and dolomite prairie do not aggregate into assemblages. reptiles and amphibians** Forest and woodland reptiles and amphibians Grassland reptiles and amphibians Sand savanna and sand prairie reptiles and amphibians Marsh reptiles and amphibians** Panne reptiles and amphibians High gradient stream reptiles and amphibians River, lake and pond reptiles and amphibians

*Recommended addition to classification system reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan *Identified as globally critical in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan **Identified as globally important in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan

• Common snipe–breeding in the region at least five include Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Spring- years out of every 10 brook Prairie, Spring Creek Valley, Rollins Savanna, and the Bartel and Orland Grasslands. Recent Recovery Efforts Restoration of grasslands with a goal of increasing Indicators bird habitat has been an important focus of Chicago The following species were identified during the Wilderness consortium members’ work during the 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species last five years, and the results have been encourag- of conservation concern: ing. Removal of woody vegetation has been success- • Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs ful in increasing numbers of birds. A number of o Willow flycatcher, brown thrasher, field spar- projects are underway which study or experiment row, yellow-breasted chat, bell’s vireo with herbaceous species composition that is benefi- • Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs cial for these species. On-the-ground examples of this o American bittern, northern harrier, king rail,

58 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

TABLE 3.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN CHICAGO WILDERNESS CONSERVATION DESIGN FOR GRASSLAND BIRDS 2025 POPULATION TARGETS FOR CONSERVATIVE SPECIES OF CONCERN AND 2004 ESTIMATED POPULATIONS BASED ON THE 2004 GRASSLAND BIRD BLITZ DATA.

Grassland Species of 2025 Goal 2004 Estimate (based on Conservation Concern Grassland Bird Blitz)

Henslow’s sparrow At least 500 breeding pairs 258 individuals

Bobolink At least 2,500 breeding pairs 1,653 individuals

Upland sandpiper At least 50 breeding pairs at Midewin; at 14 individuals at least one breeding population elsewhere Midewin, 7 elsewhere

Sedge wren At least 1,000 breeding pairs 233 individuals

Northern harrier Breeding in the region at least five years 3 individuals out of every 10

Grasshopper sparrow At least 2,500 breeding pairs 457 individuals

King rail At least 20 breeding pairs 0 individuals

American bittern At least five regularly-breeding pairs 0 individuals

Sandhill crane At least 200 breeding pairs 37 individuals

Common snipe Breeding in the region at least five years 1 individual out of every 10

short-eared owl, sedge wren, savannah spar- Report Card Condition Ranking: row, Henslow's sparrow, grasshopper sparrow, Fair to Poor dickcissel, eastern meadowlark, bobolink • Status • Birds of dry grasslands with shrubs o Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs: Fair o Loggerhead shrike, vesper sparrow, lark spar- o Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs: Poor row o Dry grassland birds: Fair • Birds of dry grasslands without shrubs • Trends o Upland sandpiper, horned lark, grasshopper o Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs: sparrow, western meadowlark Declining o Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs: Specific indicators of success for this assemblage, Declining perhaps building on the goals of the conservation o Dry grassland birds: Declining design, need to be formally identified and adopted. This is a recommendation for future report cards.

59 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Grassland bird numbers today are a tiny fraction of what they were a hundred years ago, in the Chicago Wilderness region and nationally. Despite many BARTEL GRASSLAND promising efforts, the region is full of examples of When the Forest Preserve District of Cook grassland habitat that is degrading and sites where County acquired the 585-acre Bartel Grass- bird populations have been declining. Invasive plants land in Matteson, Illinois in the 1960s, the and urbanization are other significant problems for majority of the site was fallow farm field. this group. Grassland habitat on the outer edges of the Historically, much of the area had been wet- region has vanished in the development boom of the mesic prairie. Through a recent partnership last 15 years. between the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, Audubon-Chicago Region, Cor- The overall decline in numbers of birds in moist grass- Lands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, lands with shrubs is partly due to factors that are not Thorn Creek Audubon and the Bartel well understood. Lack of clear research-based guide- Grassland Volunteers, drain tiles were dis- lines for maintaining the longer disturbance schedule abled, more than five miles of interior these birds require may contribute to the problem. fencerow trees removed and native prairie Recent national research has identified shrubland plant species seeded and planted. Although birds as the second-fastest declining group of birds in Eurasian and Asian grasses still dominate the country after grassland birds (Butcher 2004). the site, surveys conducted in 2001 and 2002 reveal that the number of grassland birds has However, as evidenced by the grassland recovery risen dramatically—populations of Hens- efforts listed above, some grassland bird species gains low’s, grasshopper, and savanna sparrows, are being realized, as Table 3.2 demonstrates. as well as bobolinks, have risen between 30 and 300 percent. The goal is to continue to In addition to these increases in conservative grass- restore the native vegetation, which should land species, the clay-colored sparrow, a shrubland further support the recovery of these grass- species, has returned to the region in the last five land birds and other birds, amphibians and years, establishing nesting sites at five local grassland insects. In September 2003, the Illinois preserves. Nature Preserves Commission dedicated the site as a Land and Water Reserve (Forest Toward the conservation design goal of having at Preserve District of Cook County 2004). least five grassland habitat complexes of at least 4,000 acres in size by the year 2025, as of 2004, there is one such complex at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.

Recommended Actions tat in the Chicago Wilderness region and one that • Develop a conservation design or a similar tool for is more common in other areas of Illinois, Indiana shrubland bird species to develop recovery goals, and Wisconsin indicators and monitoring protocols • Designate shrubland birds, following the lead of In addition to the recommended actions developed the Bird Conservation Network, as a second by the experts in the 2004 report card workshops, species of conservation priority over the next five Glennemeier (2002b) includes in the “Chicago years Wilderness Conservation Design for Grassland • Maintain sufficient amounts of habitat for both Birds,” a summary of threats and management goals: grassland and shrubland birds • Consider leaving shrubland habitat in large grass- Threat: Habitat degradation and succession land nesting sites Management Goal: Reduce groundcover by woody • De-emphasize large-scale restoration efforts of dry shrubs and trees, through prescribed fire and inva- grassland habitat, a historically uncommon habi- sive species control.

60 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Threat: Loss of breeding habitat from early mowing munity types, savannas do have distinctive inhabi- Management Goal: Reduce or eliminate the practice tants, particularly birds, reptiles and amphibians. of mowing grasslands before August 1. The plan calls to dramatically improve the region’s savanna communities. Threat: Loss of large grasslands due to fragmentation, development and succession Recent Recovery Efforts Management Goal: Remove fencerows, prevent A study of the impacts of restoration on savanna development within grassland habitats and increase birds in Illinois, including Chicago Wilderness region the size of existing grassland habitats. study sites, showed that restoring savannas by open- ing the canopy and reinstituting burning as a distur- Threat: Herbaceous species composition that does bance mechanism is a promising method for not benefit grassland birds. increasing savanna bird populations (Brawn, 1998). Management Goal: Determine the native herbaceous species assemblages that are most beneficial to grass- Indicators land birds and increase the regional acreage planted The following species were identified during the with these assemblages. 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species of conservation concern: In a paper from the Bird Conservation Network, • With Shrubs Heaton (2000) provides a compilation of current best o Black-billed cuckoo, eastern towhee, blue- practice recommendations for grassland bird habitat winged warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Ameri- in the region. can goldfinch, red-tailed hawk, barn owl, red-headed woodpecker, northern flicker, east- 3.2.5 SAVANNA BIRDS ern kingbird, eastern bluebird, Baltimore oriole, Description orchard oriole Historically, savanna bird habitat was widely distrib- • Without Shrubs uted throughout the region. Wild turkey and sharp- o Red-tailed hawk, barn owl, red-headed wood- tailed grouse are two species that were common in pecker, northern flicker, eastern kingbird, east- this habitat. Although wild turkeys are returning to ern bluebird, Baltimore oriole the region, the nearest sharp-tailed grouse population is in northern Wisconsin. Specific indicators of success for this assemblage need to be identified, and this is a recommendation 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/ for future report cards. Globally Important In 1997, in general, populations of savanna birds in Report Card Condition Ranking: the Chicago region were assessed as being rather Fair large. However, nest predation and parasitism may • Status: Fair be limiting reproductive success of these birds. Oak- • Trends: Declining, with the exception of the savannas were the predominant vegetation type in Baltimore oriole and the blue-gray gnatcatcher, the Chicago region, and effectively none survive which are increasing today. Small patches of oak-savanna have been restored, and significant tracts of additional habitat One particularly interesting Chicago Wilderness can be restored. Savanna birds for the most part have region savanna resident is the Swainson’s hawk, a been able to survive in secondary habitats that mimic species of great concern nationally. The small popu- the structure of oak-savannas. lations of this species in Kane and McHenry Counties, Illinois, are the only Swainson’s hawks east of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Mississippi. Mirroring national trends, proposed There were no bird assemblage-related recovery housing developments are the principal threats to its goals in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, which nonethe- limited habitat in Illinois, posing a serious threat of less acknowledged that while fewer animal species, extirpation of this species from the region. in general, depend on savannas than on other com-

61 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

TABLE 3.3 NATIONAL, STATE. REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRENDS FOR SELECT SAVANNA BIRD SPECIES

Partners Bird Spring Bird Spring Bird Bird Conservation in Flight Breeding Count Count on Network Survey Illinois Cook Co. Census

National Regional State Local Regional

Black-billed Declining Declining Low Declining cuckoo numbers

Swainson’s Watchlist Low Low Low hawk numbers numbers numbers

Red-headed Watchlist Declining Large Large Declining woodpecker declines declines

Blue-gray Stable Increasing Large Increasing gnatcatcher increases

Blue-winged Watchlist Increasing Increasing Increasing Low warbler numbers

Recommended Actions 3.2.6 OPEN WOODLAND BIRDS • Develop a conservation design or similar instru- Description ment for savanna bird species to develop recov- For birds, woodlands and savannas are the most ery goals, indicators and monitoring protocols important of the region’s forested communities. (due to the overlapping nature of savanna and Declining breeding species include black- and yel- open woodland bird assemblages and their habi- low-billed cuckoos, red-headed woodpeckers and tats, a joint instrument to set and measure goals blue-winged warblers. The woodlands of the for both savanna and open woodland birds might Chicago Wilderness region also provide critical be advisable). stopover habitat for landbird migrants, many of them • Establish savanna study areas since savanna habi- declining neotropical species. Wooded communities tats are rare and therefore not always included in with and without shrubs each provide habitat for an the current surveying methods. important group of birds. The open woodland bird • Undertake restoration efforts on even small community has suffered fewer losses than grassland savanna sites. Indications are that savanna bird or wetland species, however, formerly common open species respond favorably to well-managed woodland species including ruffed grouse, wild savanna recovery efforts. turkey and redheaded woodpecker are absent or not

62 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

as common today. Conversely, a number of open eastern wood-peewee, cedar waxwing, indigo woodland birds that are common today, including bunting, yellow-throated vireo, blue-gray northern cardinal, Carolina wren and red-bellied gnatcatcher, rose-breasted grosbeak, Baltimore woodpecker, were historically rare or absent. oriole

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/ Specific indicators of success for this assemblage Globally Important need to be identified, and this is a recommendation The removal of fire from the ecosystem has dramati- for future report cards. cally changed the distribution and aspect of the region’s open woodlands. In the absence of periodic Report Card Condition Ranking: fires that maintained these communities for millen- Fair nia, the region’s woodlands have filled with invasive • Status: Fair brush and lost much of their herbaceous understory, • Trends: Declining a food-rich vegetation layer that is an important Although woodland bird communities have not resource for birds. Oaks, the primary trees of the shown the same overall decline as the grassland bird woods, which provide food and shelter for breeding species, there is very serious concern about a num- and migrant bird species, are slowly being replaced ber of these birds. The Cooper’s hawk, blue-gray by less useful trees. gnatcatcher and the Baltimore oriole have increased while the red-headed woodpecker and black-billed Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals cuckoo have decreased. Blue-winged warbler num- The goals are to maintain viable populations of bers are low in the Chicago Wilderness region, and woodland bird species, particularly sensitive species this bird is a Partners in Flight Watchlist species. such as the red-headed woodpecker, as well as a number of locations that provide the structural habi- Condition of Data tat required by forest-interior species and popula- Distribution and trend data appear adequate. tions of migrating birds. Recommended Actions Recent Recovery Efforts • Develop a conservation design or a similar tool for Woodland restoration is taking place in many sites open woodland bird species to develop recovery around the region. Efforts usually include removal of goals, indicators and monitoring protocols (due invasive shrubby vegetation, restoration of a diverse to the overlapping nature of savanna and open understory, and the return of light conditions ade- woodland bird assemblages and their habitats, a quate for oak reproduction. In the few cases where joint savanna and open woodland conservation this has been studied, these changes appear to have design might be advisable). a beneficial effect on bird species. • Research the impacts of open woodland restoration on local breeding and migrant bird popula- Indicators tions and develop best practices for habitat The following species were identified during the restoration. 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species of conservation concern: 3.2.7 HEMI-MARSH BIRDS • With Shrubs Description o Blue-winged warbler, towhee, black-billed Hemi-marshes exhibit a ratio of 1:1 open water to cuckoo, cooper’s hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, wetland vegetation. The large number of these and eastern wood-peewee, cedar waxwing, yellow- numerous other wetland types historically present throated vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, rose- in the Chicago Wilderness region once provided crit- breasted grosbeak, Baltimore oriole ical habitat for tens of thousands of migrant shore- • Without Shrubs birds. Now, these breeding birds and habitat has been o Cooper’s hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, red- all but lost. Sadly, some of the best shorebird habitat headed woodpecker, great crested flycatcher, in the region is now found in sewage lagoons.

63 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Wetland bird species are adapted to nesting in a par- planned with biodiversity in mind. Features include ticular part of the wetland community, from dense wetland creation or expansion, drain tile removal to shoreline vegetation to emergent plants to mats of restore natural hydrology, and removal of invasive floating vegetation, and find food in a similar range species. Published in 2002, a first phase Ecological of locations from muddy shores to the deep water at Management Strategy for the Calumet region, which the middle of some wetlands. As weather conditions includes some of the most ecologically significant vary from year to year, habitat conditions change. wetlands in Illinois in spite of the industrial degrada- Often nearby wetlands of varying sizes and depths tion, outlines specific recovery objectives related to function as a complex, affording habitat choices to the needs of wetland birds. Birds tend to respond species across years of very different weather condi- conspicuously well to well-planned efforts. On the tions. Once common to the region, hemi-marsh birds other hand, traditional wetland mitigation projects, such as Wilson’s phalaropes and LeConte’s sparrows as a general rule, tend to be of poor value for birds. have vanished as local breeders. Black rails, black terns, blue-winged teals, American bitterns, Wilson’s Indicators snipe and Forster’s terns are exceedingly rare. The following species were identified during the 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment of conservation concern: • With Shrubs • With Shrubs: o Good/Locally Important o Green heron, black-crowned night heron, wil- • Without Shrubs low flycatcher o Fair/Locally Important • Without Shrubs: The Lake Calumet complex historically was a vitally o Pied-billed grebe, American bittern, least bit- important site for hemi-marsh birds, but is now tern, blue-winged teal, ruddy duck, Virginia greatly degraded through pollution, habitat loss, rail, sora, common moorhen, American coot, invasion by exotic plants, and disruption of the black tern, Forster’s tern, marsh wren, yellow- hydrology. Elsewhere in the Chicago region, the var- headed blackbird ious small to medium-sized marshes that previously maintained significant populations have also been Specific indicators of success for this assemblage badly degraded. need to be identified, and this is a recommendation for future report cards. Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals The Biodiversity Recovery Plan urged the increase of Report Card Condition Ranking: breeding populations of wetland birds and the Fair improvement of wetland management, so that wet- • Status: Fair lands can sustain bird populations through droughts. • Trends: Declining On a national level, wetland bird populations are Recent Recovery Efforts fairly stable. However, there are few high-quality In the last five years, two wetland species that had wetlands in the state of Illinois and many wetland been extirpated from Illinois have been restored, the species are on the Illinois endangered or threatened osprey and the Forster’s tern. Two pairs of osprey list. Many of the highest quality wetlands are in the have nested to date, and platforms are in place in sev- Chicago Wilderness region. Blue-wing teal, which is eral other sites to encourage the populations to experiencing serious national declines, is vanishing expand. Both recreational boating activity and great from the region along with the ruddy duck. The horned owl predation seriously threaten one Forster’s marsh wren is increasing. tern colony. Another species, the little blue heron, has returned to the Chicago Wilderness region, establish- Recommended Actions ing a nest site in the Lake Calumet area. • Develop a conservation design or a similar tool for hemi-marsh bird species to develop recovery There are a number of successful examples of wet- goals, indicators and monitoring protocols land restoration projects around the region that were

64 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

• Create clusters of wetlands to sustain populations cess for this assemblage need to be identified, and of hemi-marsh birds through wet and dry years this is a recommendation for future report cards. • Maintain consistent water levels in hemi-marsh bird habitat as bird populations fluctuate with Recent Recovery Efforts droughts and/or flooding, especially the Forster’s A section of Montrose beach in Chicago has been tern allowed to revert to more natural conditions and pro- • Aggressively control habitat-reducing invasive vides good shorebird habitat. In a cooperative effort species such as reed canary grass and purple between the Illinois Department of Natural Re- loosestrife sources, volunteers and the United States Navy, the • Consider establishing a few sites where water lev- common tern has been restored to the state at Great els can be manipulated to provide habitat for Lakes Station. The piping plover last nested here in migrant shorebirds, such as has been attempted the 1970s. The Chicago Wilderness region lakefront is with some success at McGuinness Slough designated potential breeding habitat in the federal recovery plan for Great Lakes population of this 3.2.8 SHORELINE BIRDS species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Description Historically, common terns and the federally-endan- Report Card Condition Ranking: gered piping plover were once common along the Poor shoreline, along with a wide variety of migrant • Status: Poor shorebirds. Today, the Chicago Wilderness region • Trends: Undetermined shoreline is largely developed, but a few sections of The undisturbed shoreline that these birds need is natural beach remain. These are used by small num- almost non-existent, although common terns have bers of migrant shorebirds and a few unique nesting become established in one location. species. Recommended Actions 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/ • Create additional undisturbed shoreline sites, Locally Important where possible, for migratory birds A small number of bird species historically bred • Manage habitat to reduce disturbance to shoreline along the beaches of the Lake Michigan shore and on birds, thwart predation and maintain beaches in the shores of other area lakes. These habitats have natural conditions been much altered by human activities and are sub- • Develop a specific recovery plan for the piping ject to extreme levels of recreation-related distur- plover bances, especially during the birds’ breeding season. Only in areas especially protected from this distur- 3.2.9 BIRDS OF CLOSED UPLAND bance can shoreline species exist. Increasing popula- WOODLANDS tions of mammalian predators have also taken a Description heavy toll on breeding populations. The consensus in Birds of closed upland woodlands, unlike those of the 2004 workshops was that the 1997 workshop open woodlands and savannas, require large blocks assessment should have been poor rather than fair. of habitat. Studies have shown that nest success is impaired by cowbird parasitism and predation in Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals blocks of less than 500 acres. The success of bird pop- There are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals related to ulations in closed woodlands is better addressed in shoreline birds. areas of the country with large forest tracts. Efforts in the Chicago Wilderness region will not contribute Indicators significantly to the future of this group of birds. The following species were identified during the Nonetheless, and no less significantly, all of the 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species woodlands play an important role in sustaining birds of conservation concern: piping plover, spotted sand- on their migratory journeys. piper, and common tern. Specific indicators of suc-

65 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/ Recommended Actions Locally Important • Restore upland forests to improve value to birds This habitat likely has increased in the Chicago and other wildlife region during the past 50 years, as abandoned farmland and earlier successional-stage habitats have 3.2.10 BIRDS OF CLOSED BOTTOMLAND grown into this vegetation category. However, inva- WOODLANDS sion of exotic species, and changes in species com- Description position over time (because of disruption of natural The river valleys of the Chicago region provide habi- ecological processes), have degraded many of the tat for a diverse array of species. However, most of habitat tracts in the region. The birds that use this the species that are characteristic of this habitat are vegetation type are generally widespread, both geo- widespread in various wooded habitats, or are near graphically and ecologically. Nevertheless, because the northern limit of their breeding ranges. of habitat fragmentation, many birds of closed upland woodlands have poor reproductive success. 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/ The remaining closed upland forest blocks in the Locally Important region are likely too small to sustain viable breeding The riverine woodlands of the Chicago region have populations of forest-interior birds. largely been destroyed. Little primary woods remain. However, fairly tall woods have re-grown along por- Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals tions of the floodplains of the Des Plaines and Fox The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommends the main- rivers, and locally in other drainages. These wood- tenance of a number of locations that provide the lands are usually limited to narrow strips along the structural habitat required by forest-interior (closed rivers. Immediately adjacent uplands have mostly upland woodland) bird species, as well as for popu- converted to agriculture, industrial or residential lations of migrating birds. development. Most major streams have been greatly altered hydrologically, disrupting natural flood Indicators regimes and affecting the vegetation of the floodplain The following species were identified during the forests. The avifauna of this habitat is largely intact in 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species the Chicago region in the high-quality sites. Many of of conservation concern: broad-winged hawk, hairy the bird species characteristic of this community also woodpecker, veery, wood thrush, rose-breasted gros- use closed upland woods, and are widespread in the beak, scarlet tanager, ovenbird, and red-eyed vireo. Chicago region. However, habitat fragmentation has Specific indicators of success for this assemblage affected many species severely through cowbird par- need to be identified, and this is a recommendation asitism and increased nest predation. It is likely that for future report cards. for most bird species breeding in this community, the Chicago region is a population sink maintained by Recent Recovery Efforts immigration from less fragmented parts of their There are no recovery efforts identified. ranges. The consensus in the 2004 workshops was that the 1997 workshop assessment should have been Report Card Condition Ranking: fair rather than good. Good • Status: Good, but not through local efforts Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals • Trends: No change There are no specific Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals The region has had poor reproductive success with related to this assemblage. these bird populations, due to the fragmented nature of the closed forests. Populations of birds such as Recent Recovery Efforts veery and wood thrush appear stable, but this is There are no known recovery efforts related to this likely because of immigration of new birds into the assemblage. region and not successful nesting.

66 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Indicators primary breeding ranges. There are no data on the The following species were identified during the 1997 condition of breeding populations in these habitats. and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species of conservation concern: red-shouldered hawk, barred Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals owl, Acadian flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, hairy There are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals related woodpecker, brown creeper, veery, cerulean warbler, specifically to this assemblage. American redstart, prothonotary warbler, and red- eyed vireo. Specific indicators of success for this Recent Recovery Efforts assemblage need to be identified, and this is a recom- There are no known recovery efforts related to this mendation for future report cards. assemblage.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Indicators Fair The following species were identified during the • Status: Fair 1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species • Trends: Declining of conservation concern: cooper’s hawk, chipping Local habitat for this assemblage is increasingly dam- sparrow, and black-throated green warbler. aged, and although closed bottomland woodland habitat hosts an interesting and unique variety of Report Card Condition Ranking: birds, because larger concentrations of this habitat Fair exist outside of the Chicago Wilderness region, it is • Status: Fair locally a lower priority for action. • Trends: Not determined Being non-native, this assemblage is a very low pri- Condition of Data ority. The few remaining examples of this habitat type in the region are not well monitored. Condition of Data The few sites that exist are not well monitored. Recommended Actions • Develop a specific instrument to set recovery Recommended Actions goals, indicators and monitoring protocols As this assemblage is non-native, the development of • Identify sites that still contain a large percentage of a dedicated conservation design for pinewood birds closed bottomland woodland indicator species is not a high priority. and create specific management plans to safe- guard the habitat REPTILE AND AMPHIBIAN 3.3ASSEMBLAGES 3.2.11 PINEWOOD BIRDS Description 3.3.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS This assemblage is not native to the region. A variety According to the 1997 taxonomic workshop that of pine plantations dot the Chicago Wilderness region, assessed the condition of the region’s reptile and which have attracted characteristic bird species. amphibian assemblages, most were determined to be in a declining state. The current assessment finds no 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/ overall change, however declines may be regional, Locally Important local or temporal (e.g. cyclic) in some species. The Historically, there were few native pine woodlands in declining condition of local species mirrors the status the Chicago Wilderness region. As a result, few regu- of amphibians worldwide. As reported in the jour- larly-breeding species in this region are associated nal Science, a recent study provides new context to with pines. Pine plantations have greatly increased the the well-publicized phenomenon of amphibian habitat available for this bird community. A number of declines. Amphibians are more threatened, and are species occur irregularly as breeders, south of their declining more rapidly, than either birds or mam-

67 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

mals. Although many declines are due to habitat loss 3.3.3 DESCRIPTION and over-utilization, other, unidentified processes The Report Card identifies the following reptile and threaten 48 percent of rapidly declining species, and amphibian assemblages: are driving species most quickly to extinction. • Fine-textured soil savanna reptiles and amphib- Declines are non-random in terms of species’ ecolog- ians ical preferences, geographic ranges and taxonomic • Sedge meadow, fen and dolomite prairie reptiles associations, and are most prevalent among and amphibians Neotropical montane, stream-associated species. The • Forest and woodland reptiles and amphibians lack of conservation remedies for these poorly under- • Grassland reptiles and amphibians stood declines means that hundreds of amphibian • Sand savanna and sand prairie reptiles and species now face extinction (Stuart, et al. 2004). amphibians • Marsh reptiles and amphibians As is the case with the other assemblage types, spe- • Panne reptiles and amphibians cific, measurable recovery goals and monitoring pro- • High gradient stream reptiles and amphibians tocols need to be developed. A significant step in this • River, lake and pond reptiles and amphibians direction is the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for Savanna Herpetofauna,” (Glennemeier The species listed in each assemblage’s “Indicators” 2002c) (summarized below) developed in 2002, section were selected as good indicator species for which refines and augments the recovery goals and their assemblages because their presence generally recommended actions broadly outlined in the indicates high quality habitat with a number of other Biodiversity Recovery Plan. species present. However, it is important to note that their absence does not necessarily indicate that a 3.3.2 CONDITION OF DATA given site is not important for the assemblage or not The following assessments are based primarily on species-rich. It is also worth noting that over time expert observations, underpinned by their familiarity richness may not change, but composition will, so with various data. There are several sources for rep- composition must also serve as an indicator. tile and amphibian data, but few, if any, have been sufficiently compiled and analyzed to inform region- 3.3.4 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL SAVANNA wide status. Alan Resetar of the Field Museum, for REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS instance, has approximately 3,000 data sheets, each Description containing detailed habitat and microhabitat infor- The following species are found in fine-textured soil mation on one individual amphibian or reptile. upland, lowland savanna and shrubland: Approximately 1,300 of these records are in a data- Eastern tiger salamander American toad base (the remainder are not). Trends are difficult to Western chorus frog Brown snake establish due to the general lack of historical data. Cope’s gray treefrog Milk snake However, Audubon-Chicago Region, in coordination Northern leopard frog Redbelly snake with the Chicago Wilderness Habitat Project, has Common garter snake begun conducting a Chicago Wilderness frog survey. Using trained volunteer monitors, this project will 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ provide for the tracking of long-term trends by col- Globally Important lecting data from the same sites, year after year. At As of 1997, savanna assemblages appeared to be the end of 2004, the project had amassed three years’ declining due to a lack of management, insufficient worth of data from 47 frog monitoring locations. This preserve size, and/or lack of connective habitat. figure compares favorably with the Glennemeier Indications were, however, that trends could reverse (2002c) goal of consistently monitoring 30 sites of at quickly with proper conservation efforts. Some pop- least 50 acres by 2005. ulations on managed areas appeared to be stable or increasing, but remained of conservation concern because only a small percentage of sites were being managed.

68 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Kankakee Sands areas in the Grand Prairie Division, The Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines the need for consisting of three sites totaling nearly 1,200 acres. savanna sites of between 200 and 500 acres, the need According to the Forest Preserve District of Will for multiple sites with functional connections for dis- County, which owns the sites, more than 900 of the persal, and the need for management to be under- 4,500 total acres were acquired since the publication taken to improve savanna quality and structure. of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

Following up on a key recommendation of the Bio- Additionally, as more acreage has been acquired dur- diversity Recovery Plan, the “Chicago Wilderness ing the last five years, the oak savanna, marsh, sand Conservation Design for Savanna Herpetofauna” was prairie, high dune and associated anthropogenic completed in 2002 (Glennemeier 2002c). The plan calls grassland and wetland areas on the border of Lake for a suite of mosaics that sustain diverse communi- and Porter Counties in Indiana have developed into ties and stable populations of herpetofauna, as well as a substantial-sized unit of approximately 2,200 acres. the associated other fauna and flora that constitute Contributing sites include Miller Woods, Inland native savanna ecosystems. By 2025, there are to be: 1) Marsh, West Beach, Ogden Dunes, Woodlake Dune, 100 monitored sites of at least 50 acres throughout the the Savanna and Marquette Trail portions of the region, 80 percent of which are to experience no loss Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, the John Merle or decline in relative abundance for any of the 27 tar- Coulter Sand Prairie Nature Preserve, and the ISG get species listed in the conservation design and 2) at (formerly Bethlehem Steel) restoration site. least one large (800 acres or more) habitat complex— consisting of multiple habitat types—in each of the Indicators five Chicago Wilderness natural divisions: Grand Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic Prairie, Western Morainal, Kettle Moraine, Lake Plain workshops include the Eastern tiger salamander and and Gary Lake Plain/High Dune/Ridge and Swale. milk snake. These were selected as good indicator The plan sets five-year benchmarks toward the attain- species for this assemblage because their presence ment of these goals. generally indicates high quality habitat with a number of other species present. However, it is important Also by 2025, 100 percent of savanna mosaic sites are to note that their absence does not necessarily indi- to have written, approved, active plans to address cate that a given site is not important for the assem- invasive species, prescribed fire management, blage or not species-rich. hydrology, and fragmentation and dispersal. Invas- ive plant coverage is to be controlled at 15 percent of Report Card Condition Ranking: all savanna acres. Fifty percent of sites are to have 25 Fair percent of their acreage burned in four of the five pre- In general, this assemblage is stable, as most savanna vious years and 40 percent of the sites are to have an amphibians and reptiles are generalists and do not average Floristic Quality Index per quadrat of at least necessarily need savanna habitat. However, this 10. There are additional 2005 benchmarks related to ranking should not be taken as a reflection of fine- education, regulation, acquisition, large sites, fund textured soil savanna habitat itself, which is ranked raising, research and management. in poor condition.

Recent Recovery Efforts 3.3.5 SEDGE MEADOW, FEN AND DOLOMITE Pursuant to the conservation design goal of preserv- PRAIRIE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS ing and maintaining at least one large habitat com- Description plex in each of the region’s five natural divisions, the The following species are found in sedge meadow, working group identified 1) the Plum Creek green- calcareous floating fen, graminoid fen, low shrub fen way in the Northeast Morainal Division, comprised and upland and lowland dolomite prairie: of five sites, totaling approximately 2,200 acres, 2) American toad Western chorus frog Thorn Creek Woods, also in the Northeast Morainal Green frog Pickerel frog Division, comprised of about 1,100 acres and 3) the

69 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

STATUS OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN SAVANNA HABITATS AND SAVANNA MOSAIC COMMUNITIES OF THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS REGION

From May through October of 2004, several At two-thirds of the savanna sites, the presence organizations within the Chicago Wilderness and relative abundance of western fox snakes, consortium conducted in-depth surveys of eastern gray treefrogs, Fowler’s toads, tiger sala- amphibians and reptiles at 15 savanna and manders, blue-spotted salamanders, bullsnakes, savanna mosaic communities within the Chicago slender glass lizards, eastern garter snakes, and Wilderness region. They found 30 species of green frogs were associated with high amphib- amphibians and reptiles, including 15 species that ian and reptile biodiversity. The survey team sug- are considered to be of high conservation value. gests that these species are also indicators of high Most notably, they found Kirtland’s snakes, spot- quality savanna habitat. ted salamanders, smooth green snakes, and Eastern box turtles at one site, and cricket frogs The data gathered will be used to determine the at another. Other species of high conservation distribution and status of species and to provide value included spring peepers (found at 12 sites), baseline data that is necessary to design manage- eastern gray treefrogs (at 10 sites), blue-spotted ment plans to conserve and foster the recovery of salamanders and Fowler’s toads (each at four native biodiversity in unique and threatened com- sites), blue racers and slender glass lizards (each munities. The data will also be used as bench- at three sites), and eastern newts, bullsnakes, marks to evaluate the success of the Chicago eastern hognose snakes and six-lined racerunners Wilderness conservation design for savanna (each at two sites). amphibians and reptiles (Brodman et al. 2005).

Blanding’s turtle Northern leopard frog Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Smooth green snake Northern water snake Because the complex life cycles of amphibians Queen snake Brown snake require several different habitats, the Biodiversity Common garter snake Recovery Plan calls for the establishment, protection and management of habitat mosaics, including 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ marshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes and Globally Important seeps. Across the region, different wetlands should It was determined in the 1997 workshop that this be at different stages at the same time. To benefit wet- assemblage was declining overall, although there land reptiles and amphibians, as well as wetland was a north/south division in how these species birds, the plan also calls for the establishment of were faring. In the north part of the region (Lake and 1,000-acre natural area complexes, with several McHenry Counties, Illinois), they were faring better, marshes of 100 acres or more and with smaller wet- perhaps even increasing, due to management and lands and ephemeral pools. protection. Throughout the region, specialists within this assemblage were declining, with only a few Recent Recovery Efforts species hanging on. This was primarily due to frag- There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts mentation, isolation and the presence of invasive identified. species such as purple loosestrife, which eliminates needed habitat structure. Found in rare habitat types, Indicators species in this assemblage were of concern. Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic workshop include the northern leopard frog,

70 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Blanding’s turtle and the smooth green snake (or was needed at the habitat level, particularly regard- queen snake instead of smooth green snake for ing invasive buckthorn, the presence of which unfa- dolomite prairie). These were selected as good indi- vorably alters forest and woodland understory. cator species for this assemblage because their presence generally indicates high quality habitat with a Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals number of other species present. However, it is The Biodiversity Recovery Plan calls for a sustainable important to note that their absence does not neces- population of forest and woodland amphibians and sarily indicate that a given site is not important for reptiles with opportunities for gene flow among sep- the assemblage or not species-rich. arate sub-populations. Goals include securing approximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres of healthy for- Specific indicators of success for this assemblage est and woodland complexes, with as many as 20 need to be identified, and this is a recommendation good quality sites larger than 500 acres, and main- for future report cards. taining enough sites to provide for a wide range of quality breeding habitat (including a variety of wet- Report Card Condition Ranking: lands within woodland sites). Poor With few changes since the publication of the Recent Recovery Efforts Biodiversity Recovery Plan, this assemblage remains There are no specific on-the-ground recovery efforts in poor condition. identified for this assemblage. However, beginning in October 2004, Indiana had banned the collection of 3.3.6 FOREST AND WOODLAND REPTILES AND eastern box turtles. AMPHIBIANS Description Indicators The following species and one hybrid salamander are Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic found in upland forest, floodplain forest, northern workshop include the gray treefrog and spring flatwoods, upland woodland and lowland wood- peeper. These were selected as good indicator species land: for this assemblage because their presence generally Eastern newt Gray treefrog indicates high quality habitat with a number of other Blue-spotted salamander Spring peeper species present. However, it is important to note that Marbled salamander Wood frog their absence does not necessarily indicate that a Smallmouth salamander Eastern box turtle given site is not important for the assemblage or not Four-toed salamander American toad species-rich. Eastern rat snake Ringneck snake Eastern milk snake Spotted salamander Specific indicators of success for this assemblage Five-lined skink Tiger salamander need to be identified, and this is a recommendation Northern redback salamander for future report cards. Polyploid ambystomatids (or Amystoma hybrid complex) Report Card Condition Ranking: Fair 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ Most species in this assemblage do well in protected, Locally Important managed habitats. Some have lost habitat or have As of 1997, forest species were fairly common at the become extirpated, or there is no information avail- extreme eastern periphery of the region, but occurred able on their status. The condition of select individual as relic populations elsewhere within the Chicago species is as follows: Wilderness region. Overall, this assemblage was • The eastern newt remains in isolated populations. declining and there was concern regarding the sur- Susceptible to infringement on habitat, this species vival of the remaining small populations. The habitat is stable if its habitat is not lost. was broken up into small, isolated patches and there • The blue-spotted salamander has benefited from were significant barriers to dispersal. Management increased habitat and is ranked in excellent condition.

71 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• 2004 surveys conducted for the marbled salaman- Recent Recovery Efforts der did not locate the species. David Beamer, There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts Donna Resetar and Alan Resetar conducted the identified. surveys at some of its historic locations in the Indiana Lake Michigan Coastal Zone. Indicators • The four-toed salamander is a specialized species, Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic susceptible to disturbance and intrusion on habi- workshop include the smooth green snake and plains tat, and more abundant in Indiana preserves. In garter snake. These were selected as good indicator Illinois, to date it has only been found in Will species for this assemblage because their presence County. generally indicates high quality habitat with a num- • The northern redback salamander is stable in ber of other species present. However, it is important Indiana, and is being found at additional new sites to note that their absence does not necessarily indi- in Lake County. Although it may be extirpated in cate that a given site is not important for the assem- northeastern Illinois, suitable habitat exists in blage or not species-rich. extreme eastern Will County. Specific indicators of success for this assemblage 3.3.7 GRASSLAND REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS need to be identified, and this is a recommendation Description for future report cards. The following species are found in upland and lowland prairies: Report Card Condition Ranking: American toad Western fox snake* Fair to Poor Western chorus frog Smooth green snake There remains a disparity in the condition of grass- Plains leopard frog Plains garter snake lands throughout the region, with the majority being unmanaged or under-managed. The condition of *The western fox snake has been reclassified from the amphibian and reptile assemblages generally mirrors savanna assemblage. the condition of their habitats. Particularly distressing are such instances as the pending development in 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ Indiana of a site that harbors a sizable population of Locally Important the green snake, an Indiana state-endangered species. This assemblage consists of three species that are generalists and in 1997 were considered stable, and 3.3.8 MARSH REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS three that are restricted and were determined to be Description in decline at that time. This species assemblage includes: American toad Western chorus frog Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Green frog Northern leopard frog To conserve all of the region’s grassland reptiles and Snapping turtle Painted turtle amphibians, the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recom- Blanding’s turtle Northern water snake mends the creation of as many medium-sized (500- Western ribbon snake Graham’s crayfish snake 1,000-acre) grassland sites as possible. These sites Common garter snake Tiger salamander should consist of core natural areas within a land- Spring peeper Blue-spotted salamander scape that allows them to function as breeding habitat Bullfrog+ Plains leopard frog+ for these species. A priority should be to expand as Newt+ Spotted turtle+ many existing 80- to 200-acre prairie remnants as pos- Additions recommended by 2004 workshop participants sible to 500- to 1,000-acre sites, providing opportuni- + ties for recolonization of species. These sites should 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Relatively be managed with a diversity of processes to create the Stable/Globally Important variety of habitats needed by different species. An additional goal is to conserve the smooth green During the 1997 workshop, it was assessed that those snake, which is restricted to grassland habitats. reptile and amphibian species that can persist in monotypic habitats were surviving, while those that

72 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

need diverse habitats were declining. Principal fish snake, which hasn’t been recorded in multiple threats to marsh reptile and amphibian species counties for nine to 15 years. included the development occurring around marshes and the invasion of purple loosestrife and cattails. Indicators Species were suffering, too, under management Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic regimes that prevented the cycling of water. It was workshop include the northern leopard frog and questionable the extent to which wetland restoration Blanding’s turtle. These were selected as good indi- sites were aiding the condition of amphibians. cator species for this assemblage because their presence generally indicates high quality habitat with a Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals number of other species present. However, it is Because the complex life cycles of amphibians important to note that their absence does not neces- require several different habitats, the Biodiversity sarily indicate that a given site is not important for Recovery Plan calls for the establishment, protection the assemblage or not species-rich. and management of habitat mosaics, including marshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes and Specific indicators of success for this assemblage seeps. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommends need to be identified, and this is a recommendation that across the region, different wetlands should be at for future report cards. different stages at the same time. To benefit wetland reptiles and amphibians, as well as wetland birds, the 3.3.9 PANNE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS plan also calls for the establishment of 1,000-acre nat- Description ural area complexes, with several marshes of 100 Panne is a distinct and globally rare plant commu- acres or more and with smaller wetlands and nity, but experts are not certain if there is a distinct ephemeral pools. To connect existing wetlands, the reptile and amphibian assemblage found in pannes. plan calls for many more relatively small wetland According to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the fol- complexes, particularly in the southern and western lowing species comprise this assemblage: parts of the region. Fowler’s toad Northern cricket frog* Green frog Western chorus frog Recent Recovery Efforts Blanding’s turtle Northern leopard frog The National Park Service is conducting a large-scale Northern water snake Common garter snake project to restore the natural drainage to a former marsh complex (Great Marsh) in northern Porter *The northern cricket frog has been reclassified from the County, Indiana. marsh assemblage.

The East Branch of the Grand Calumet River and the At least one expert believes that there are distinct Indiana Harbor Canal System is poised to benefit panne habitats in Indiana based primarily on topo- from a $53 million settlement to restore natural graphic features. The assemblages listed below rep- resources injured by contaminants in the river and resent current occurrences in each habitat. The canal sediments. About 233 acres of land in western assemblages seem distinct but this may be an arti- Lake County, Indiana will be set aside for habitat pro- fact of site histories (disturbance, origin, etc.), site size tection, including property containing marshes, sand and the number of sites remaining. prairies, sand savanna and pannes. High dune-associated pannes: Report Card Condition Ranking: Fowler’s toad Western chorus frog Fair to Poor Green frog Eastern hognose snake Marsh areas have become more stabilized in the last five years because hydrology management has Ridge and swale (Toleston Strandplain)-associated improved, but development and invasive species pannes: continue to threaten the long-term viability of this American toad Green frog assemblage. Of particular concern is Graham’s cray- Western chorus frog Eastern tiger salamander

73 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Northern cricket frog Eastern newt cates high quality habitat with a number of other Northern water snake Blanding’s turtle species present. However, it is important to note that Spotted turtle Painted turtle its absence does not necessarily indicate that a given site is not important for the assemblage or not Illinois pannes: species-rich. Western chorus frog Green frog Northern leopard frog Blanding’s turtle Report Card Condition Ranking: Northern water snake Common garter snake Fair Painted turtle Common snapping turtle The fact that a relatively substantial amount of the Tiger salamander region’s remaining acreage of panne habitat is under protection affords the related amphibian and reptile 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Stable/ assemblage a degree of stability. However, encroach- Locally Important ments persist. A proposed expansion of the Gary, The 1997 workshop participants rated this assem- Indiana airport would impact part of the core area of blage as stable, but of conservation concern. There ridge and swale Toleston Strandplain-associated had been a number of historical losses—notably in pannes. Illinois Beach State Park and Lake County, Indiana— so the 1997 condition represented a depleted condi- 3.3.10 SAND SAVANNA AND SAND PRAIRIE tion. The remaining examples of this assemblage REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS were in preserves. Threats included human distur- Description bance, especially collection. This species assemblage includes: Eastern tiger salamander Fowler’s toad Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Six-lined racerunner Eastern racer Because the complex life cycles of amphibians Western ribbon snakeBullsnake require several different habitats, the Biodiversity Common garter snake Gray treefrog Recovery Plan calls for the establishment, protection Blue-spotted salamander DeKay’s snake and management of habitat mosaics, including Eastern hognose snake+ Milk snake marshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes and Slender glass lizard seeps. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommends that across the region, different wetlands should be at +Addition recommended by the 2004 workshop participants different stages at the same time. To benefit wetland reptiles and amphibians, as well as wetland birds, the Species within two potential sub-assemblages, plan also calls for the establishment of 1,000-acre nat- Kankakee sands and Lake Plain sands, include the ural area complexes, with several marshes of 100 following: acres or more, and with smaller wetlands and ephemeral pools. To connect existing wetlands, the Kankakee sands: plan calls for many more relatively small wetland Six-lined racerunner Fowler’s toad complexes, particularly in the southern and western Slender glass lizard Bullsnake parts of the region. Western ribbon snake Eastern racer Common garter snake Ornate box turtle Recent Recovery Efforts Eastern hognose snake Blanding’s turtle There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts Eastern tiger salamander identified. Blue-spotted salamander (Indiana)

Indicators Lake Plain sands: Participants in the 1997 taxonomic workshop identi- Eastern tiger salamander Fowler’s toad fied the Fowler’s toad as an indicator species. This Blue-spotted salamander Gray treefrog species was selected as a good indicator species for Six-lined racerunner Slender glass lizard this assemblage because its presence generally indi- Common garter snake DeKay’s snake

74 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Western ribbon snake Eastern racer Report Card Condition Ranking: Eastern hognose snake Blanding’s turtle Fair There is a fair amount of habitat under protection. 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ Of concern, however, are bullsnakes and racers, each Locally Important of which requires large, at least 500-700-acre, sites. Reflecting the rare nature of sand savannas and sand Racers have experienced higher road mortality near prairies, the related reptile and amphibian assem- developed areas as well as at the Indiana Dunes in blage was deemed equally rare during the 1997 the autumn. The western ribbon snake, which is sta- workshop. Overall, it was determined that remaining ble in Indiana, may be extirpated in Illinois. The spot- habitat suffered from heavy fragmentation and iso- ted and Blanding’s turtles are the targets of collectors lation. Additional threats to species within this at the best remaining sites in Indiana, and also suffer assemblage, particularly large snakes, included high road mortality. The slender glass lizard is more heavy collection at the best remaining sites. vulnerable to fire mortality than other species in this assemblage. Prescribed burns must be timed to peri- Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals ods when this lizard is in hibernation. Fires during its Acknowledging that savannas support distinctive activity period, even on inclement days, can cause assemblages of reptiles and amphibians, the Bio- mortality, because the lizard may shelter under dried diversity Recovery Plan outlines the need for savanna vegetation lying on the surface instead of in burrows. sites of between 200 and 500 acres, for multiple sites One formerly robust population of glass lizards in with functional connections for dispersal, and for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore may have management to be undertaken to improve savanna declined, as indicated by the failure to find individ- quality and structure. To maintain viable populations uals in a subsequent survey. of prairie reptiles and amphibians, the Report Card calls for the creation of as many medium-sized (500- 3.3.11 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF HIGH- to 1,000-acre) grassland sites as possible. All sites GRADIENT STREAM COMMUNITIES should include functional connections for dispersal, Description i.e., powerline rights of way managed as habitat. This species assemblage includes: Green frog Pickerel frog Recent Recovery Efforts Northern water snake Queen snake There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts Southern two-lined salamander identified. 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/ Indicators Locally Important Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic It was determined in 1997 that some species within workshop included the eastern tiger salamander. this assemblage, i.e. the pickerel frog, had been elim- This was selected as a good indicator species for this inated from the region. Some, including the two- assemblage because its presence generally indicates lined salamander, were severely restricted in high quality habitat with a number of other species distribution and their populations stressed. Threats present. However, it is important to note that its included siltation, urban runoff, pollution and absence does not necessarily indicate that a given site groundwater alteration. There was a high potential of is not important for the assemblage or not species- further decline for this assemblage. rich. Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals Specific indicators of success for this assemblage There are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals specific need to be identified, and this is a recommendation to reptiles and amphibians of high-gradient stream for future report cards. habitats. Nonetheless, the following recommended actions for stream communities would impact this assemblage:

75 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• Reduce hydrological alteration Threats included ground water alterations and the • Reduce deterioration of habitat quality release of non-native turtles, which are difficult to • Reduce deterioration of water quality distinguish from native populations.

Recent Recovery Efforts Biodiversity Recovery Plan Goals There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts As is the case with the high-gradient stream assem- identified. blage, there are no river, lake and pond recovery goals specific to reptiles and amphibians in the Indicators Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Nonetheless, among the Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic several recommended actions for the region’s aquatic workshop include the green frog where it is the dom- communities, the following are particularly relevant inant species and queen snake, which is very rare or to this assemblage: localized. These were selected as good indicator • Reduce hydrological alteration species for this assemblage because their presence • Reduce deterioration of habitat quality generally indicates high quality habitat with a num- • Reduce deterioration of water quality ber of other species present. However, it is important • Develop specific recovery plans for species and to note that their absence does not necessarily indi- lakes of concern cate that a given site is not important for the assem- • Investigate and prepare for the possibility of rein- blage or not species-rich. troduction of native species

Specific indicators of success for this assemblage Recent Recovery Efforts need to be identified, and this is a recommendation There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts for future report cards. identified.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Indicators Fair Indicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomic Although threats to high-gradient stream habitat are workshop include the mudpuppy, common map tur- severe, species within the related assemblage are not tle (rare, but possibly increasing in some areas in the restricted to this habitat community. northern part of the region) and spiny softshell, which is found in habitats of varying quality. These 3.3.12 RIVER, LAKE AND POND REPTILES AND were selected as good indicator species for this AMPHIBIANS assemblage because their presence generally indi- Description cates high quality habitat with a number of other This species assemblage includes: species present. However, it is important to note that Mudpuppy Northern cricket frog their absence does not necessarily indicate that a Green frog Common snapping turtle given site is not important for the assemblage or not Bullfrog Common musk turtle species-rich. Painted turtle Common map turtle False map turtle Slider Specific indicators of success for this assemblage Spiny softshell Northern water snake need to be identified, and this is a recommendation Queen snake+ Blanding’s turtle+ for future report cards.

+Addition recommended by the 2004 workshop participants Report Card Condition Ranking: Fair 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Stable, but This assemblage appears stable, but additional not confirmed/Locally Important research is needed. Woody plant succession on During the 1997 workshops, most of the species exposed banks used for ovipositon is a serious man- within this assemblage were deemed common, but a agement issue. The effect of introduced invasive few were of concern, particularly cricket frogs, species such as the round goby should be monitored. Blanding’s turtles, map turtles and queen snakes.

76 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Potential effects on mudpuppies, anuran larvae and To date, DuPage, Will, and Lake Counties, Illinois, even hatchling turtles should be determined through have tailored management to accommodate the spe- dietary analysis at sites such as Wolf Lake in south cial needs of amphibians and reptiles. Management Chicago and Hammond, Indiana. agencies throughout the region, however, need to fine-tune prescribed burn protocols to do the least 3.3.13 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS harm to amphibians and reptiles while at the same Along the lines of the “Chicago Wilderness time maintaining effective control over the open Conservation Design for Savanna Herptofauna” canopy habitats that some species need. A recent (Glennemeier 2002c), specific, measurable region- report on fire mortality in a prairie reptile and wide goals—along with monitoring protocols—need amphibian assemblage in Missouri is sobering. In to be established for each of the region’s amphibian this paper, Frese (2003), notes the following mortality and reptile assemblages. Other data and monitoring- observed during a 1999 post-fire survey of a 33- related recommendations include: hectare site: • Analyze existing unpublished reports • 20 of 42 Terrapene carolina • Share data across the region, preferably with some • 4 of 7 Terrapene ornata central repository • 2 of 2 Ophisaurus attenuatus • Identify and fill data gaps, i.e., data are needed on • 3 of 3 Coluber constrictor the relationships of reptiles and amphibians to • 12 of 12 Lampropeltis calligaster their habitats, and in particular, how dependent the milk snake may be on savanna habitat Pursuit of the various recommended actions for the • Monitor reptile and amphibian population health region’s terrestrial and aquatic communities would against restoration and management efforts also benefit amphibian and reptile populations. • Train more professionals to verify and analyze col- Assemblage-specific recommendations include: lected data • Establish professional training for land managers • Increase volunteer training in pertinent areas on management protocols for reptiles and amphib- • Monitor the same sites over time ians, similar to the Chicago Wilderness consor- • Expand presence/absence surveys to include pop- tium’s prescribed burn training. This training ulation assessments, demography, etc. should cover such topics as basic identification, • Conduct specialized surveys throughout the entire habitat needs, sources for gathering further infor- Chicago Wilderness region for species that are dif- mation, and how to rigorously evaluate transloca- ficult to survey, such as mudpuppies, wood frogs, tion proposals. It should help land managers Graham’s crayfish snakes and Kirtland’s snakes further their basic understanding of our local • Conduct rapid assessments over time intervals, species and provide a better understanding of why perhaps two to five years, to get some baseline reptiles and amphibians are not distributed homo- trend measurements geneously over all “suitable looking” habitat. Furthermore, such training should provide more Recommended research actions include: insight into some idiosyncratic aspects of verte- • Research the role of mitigated wetlands, because brate population ecology and behavior, especially more wetlands are being restored or “created” and as they apply to reptiles and amphibians. because mitigation design has changed • Conduct feasibility studies before species’ reintro- • Create habitat design parameters for target species ductions, and conduct ongoing monitoring of rein- that can be incorporated into mitigation or restora- troduction successes, including an evaluation of tion designs the effects of reintroductions on source popula- • Increase research on the effects of restoration on all tions. An extremely important component of any wildlife, including reptiles and amphibians feasibility study should be an investigation into • Research and demonstrate reptile, amphibian and whether a reintroduction is even appropriate for other wildlife responses to restoration activities that time and place, because failed reintroductions over long periods of time can cause more harm than good.

77 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• Establish a reptile and amphibian reintroduction Overall, the ratings for the region’s assemblages of task force within the Chicago Wilderness Natural conservative insect species range from poor to good. Resource Management Team. Although trends are difficult to quantify, indications • Identify where opportunities exist to meet the are that populations of conservative insect species are Biodiversity Recovery Plan and conservation design stable but threatened. The development of specific goals related to the establishment of large habitat recovery goals and monitoring protocols for each of complexes. the region’s invertebrate communities—including • Evaluate the possibility of planting native shrubs those not classified in the Report Card—is necessary in the restoration of wet-shrub savanna in relation to guide recovery efforts and to be able to report to massasaugas, spotted turtles, five-lined skinks, more detailed, quantified assessments of individual Kirtland’s snakes and eastern ribbon snakes. invertebrate classifications in future report cards. Kirtland’s snake is found only in wet meadows, grasslands, and other habitats that have shrub Condition of Data components. There are two data sets of note: Northeastern Illinois • Consider species such as mudpuppies, common University's 20-year study of insects on select sites map turtles, red-eared sliders, snapping turtles, throughout the Chicago Wilderness region, and sur- spiny softshell turtles and perhaps the northern vey records from the Illinois Butterfly Monitoring water snake in the Lake Michigan Action Plan cur- Network, which includes data from southeastern rently being developed by members of the Wisconsin and Northwestern Indiana as well as Chicago Wilderness consortium. northeastern Illinois.

Ron Panzer and his colleagues have surveyed one or 3.4INVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES more insect groups on 69 prairies and savannas within the greater Chicago Wilderness region. The 3.4.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS data (roughly 20,000 element occurrences represent- The Report Card advances a substantial revision of the ing 2,300 species) reside in Panzer’s personal data- terrestrial insect classification system used in the base, and Northeastern Illinois University currently Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Experts who participated has roughly 12,000 voucher specimens (Panzer 2005). in the development of the Report Card concurred that the original 14 categories identified in the Biodiversity The Illinois Butterfly Monitoring Network records Recovery Plan are too narrow and do not correspond date back to 1987. Each record is one Pollard walk (a well with insect distribution in the region. Aquatic standard method of counting butterflies). As of the insects and other invertebrate species are not yet clas- end of the 2004 monitoring season, there were more sified. than 5,000 records in the database. There are more than 150 sites entered into the database, however, Unlike the other assemblages and communities, the fewer than 50 have data that run for 10 consecutive Report Card provides a collective assessment of all years or longer. There is also variation in the quality of insect assemblages rather than assessment by indi- the data, reflecting variant skill levels of the data col- vidual assemblage. This reflects the lack of data and lectors. The data resides in a database. analysis, and is the approach established in the 1997 taxonomic workshop for invertebrates, and therefore Long-term Vision and Goals followed here. Additionally, there is no listing of indi- Although recovery goals for the region’s insect com- vidual species within each insect assemblage, prima- munities fall within the parameters of recovery goals rily due to the sheer number of the region’s insect for the region’s other species reported in the species, estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000. Biodiversity Recovery Plan, for point of information, Another reason is that the majority of insect species the insect recovery goals identified during the 1997 are fairly stable and ubiquitous throughout the taxonomic workshop process included: region. It is recommended, therefore, that recovery • Establish more prairie community sites of at least efforts be focused on conservative insect species. 100 acres

78 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

• Expand existing prairie sites by 25 percent over • Dry and fine-textured soil savanna and woodland the next 10 years insects

Assemblage Description Threats common to all insect assemblage types The insect assemblages identified in the Biodiversity include: Recovery Plan are: • The suppression of fire results in an unfavorable • Dry and mesic fine-textured soil prairie insects* change in structure and homogenization of fire- • Dry and mesic sand prairie insects* dependent plant communities, which negatively • Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects impacts insect habitat. • Wet prairie insects* • Hydrology disruption is a problem for wetland- • Dry fine-textured soil savanna and woodland dependent communities and the assemblages that insects depend upon them. • Wet fine-textured soil savanna and woodland • Introduced plant species may eliminate habitat insects and therefore threaten insect assemblages. • Sand savanna insects* • Some invasive insects, such as the Chinese man- • Fen insects tis, may be a problem, but more information is • Marsh insects needed to determine how much of a problem non- • Sedge meadow insects native insects may be for native insects. • Bog insects • Fragmentation is a problem in that small sites lose • Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects species. • Marsh insects • Lack of colonization is a long-term problem for • Floodplain forest insects insects—restored sites do not necessarily attract • Upland forest insects insects. • Foredune insects • Mosquito abatement is a potential threat, as may be gypsy moth control efforts. *Those assemblages with an asterisk were identified as • Infrastructure development practices often pose globally important in 1997. problems for insect communities, i.e., the place- ment of sewer and power lines often are incom- The revised Report Card categories are: patible with management practices. • Fen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects • Light pollution is a threat to moths; sodium vapor • Marsh insects and mercury vapor lights are a particular problem. • Dry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects • Bug zappers may be a threat, but the extent of the • Foredune insects problem is not sufficiently understood. • Dry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects • Bog insects Recent Recovery Efforts • Blacksoil savanna and woodland insects As described in various community sections, there • Floodplain forest insects have been a number of prairie and wetland restoration efforts throughout the region, which have recov- 1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment ered suitable habitat for conservative insect species. The following assemblages were ranked “of concern However, whereas many common species have or in an overall declining condition” primarily returned, in general conservative species have not. In because the plant communities on which they are accordance with the Biodiversity Recovery Plan rec- based are threatened: ommendation that translocation and reintroduction • Dry and mesic fine-textured soil prairie insects may be essential to establish prairie invertebrates • Dry and mesic sand prairie insects successfully, the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museum • Wet prairie insects has initiated several butterfly translocation efforts • Sand savanna insects and the Indiana chapter of The Nature Conservancy • Fen insects has led an effort to re-establish a population of the • Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects federally endangered Karner blue butterfly on a site • Marsh insects

79 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

where it had been extirpated by wildfire. A 2004 federal court ruling has paved the way for the mandated habitat protection plans for the federally endangered THE HINE’S EMERALD Hine’s emerald dragonfly. DRAGONFLY

Indicator Species In September 2004, a federal judge ordered Although the Report Card experts convened to assess the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide the region’s invertebrate assemblages, they debated critical habitat designation for the Hines the value of indicators for insect assemblages with- emerald dragonfly. This action not only com- out arriving at a clear consensus. Potential indica- pels the agency to develop a habitat protec- tors that emerged include butterflies, moths and tion plan for one of the most endangered leafhoppers. Of these three, butterflies may be the species in the nation, it makes it far more dif- best candidates as they are diurnal, large, annual ficult for remaining habitat to be developed. species that are easy to see and monitor. Additionally, Extirpated from many of its historic locations 33 percent of all butterfly species in the region are due to fragmentation and destruction of conservative. A limiting factor is that conservative habitat, the Hines emerald dragonfly was butterflies are often scarce or absent from important listed as an endangered species in Illinois in sites, particularly smaller ones. 1991 and a federally endangered species in 1995. Breeding populations remain in only a Report Card Condition Ranking: few select sites in northeastern Illinois, Poor to Good Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan. A majority of the insects that inhabit natural area remnants in the Chicago Wilderness region also The Hines emerald dragonfly requires a par- occur, sometimes in large numbers, throughout the ticular complex of wetland habitat to sustain modern regional landscape and are relatively secure. its life cycle. Larvae need cool, shallow, slow- However, many experts agree that several hundred moving waters, spring-fed marshes, and species, comprising 15-20% of the local insect fauna, seepage sedge meadows. Mature larvae require reasonably intact prairies, savannas and crawl from the water onto emergent vegeta- other remnant habitats. These conservative species, tion to support them as the skin splits on the along with conservative plants, comprise consider- back of their heads and thoraxes, and the ably more than half of the threatened biodiversity in adult dragonfly emerges. After a few days, this highly fragmented region. the young adult’s brown eyes turn a bright, metallic emerald green. Nearby meadows Research initiated in 1982 suggests that approxi- and fields with scattered groups of shrubs in mately 95 percent of conservative insect species that proximity to breeding habitat are preferred once inhabited this region persist on at least a few hunting grounds for adults, which feast on Chicago Wilderness sites. Approximately one-third mosquitoes and other small flying insects of the region’s surviving remnant-requiring species (Illinois State Museum 2004; Matre 2004). have been recorded on at least 10 sites (in some cases, species can be found on as many as 40 sites) and are apparently secure. At the other extreme, 40% have tors, such as spring weather conditions, which are not been found on five or fewer sites and are considered directly related to the ecological health of the assem- to be imperiled. Many of these species are known to blage. Nonetheless, the data from the Illinois Butterfly be uncommon or rare throughout much or all of their Monitoring Network reveal no discernable examples ranges (Panzer pers. comm.). of species decline within the decade. On the contrary, there are a few instances of possible increases in pop- Trends among insect assemblages are difficult to ulations of certain remnant-reliant species. However, establish. Butterfly populations, for instance, can vary the increases hover right at the limits of statistical sig- widely from year to year based on a number of fac- nificance, therefore it would be premature to report

80 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

RESTORING THE BUTTERFLY TAPESTRY

In July, 2002, Doug Taron of the Peggy Notebaert Such assisted reintroductions, or translocations, Nature Museum collected six female swamp are important parts of butterfly conservation. metalmark butterflies from fen remnants in east- Studies by researchers such as Ron Panzer at central Wisconsin. These were to become the Northeastern Illinois University show that some nucleus of a restored population near Elgin, butterflies, termed remnant-reliant species, Illinois. The swamp metalmark hadn’t been require intact habitats like prairies and wetlands. recorded at the Elgin site since 1939, and the But data from the Illinois Butterfly Monitoring species disappeared from Illinois entirely in the Network suggest that remnant-reliant species do mid-1980s. not spontaneously reappear, even after careful management improves a site’s conditions to the That summer and the next, Taron and a team of point that it again becomes suitable habitat. scientists from the Peggy Notebaert Nature Translocations, closely integrated with well-exe- Museum collected fertile eggs from the female cuted land management plans, physically place metalmarks, raised them and transferred more them in the few places they can still survive. As than 100 larvae to the new site. In July of 2003, the ecological restoration brings back more of these team spotted the first two adult metalmarks. In places in the Chicago Wilderness region, butterfly early spring of 2004, Taron found larvae in the restoration can be expected to thrive as well. rosettes of the swamp thistle on which the metalmarks feed, and the team remains hopeful that Adapted from “Restoring the Butterfly Tapestry,” by this is the beginning of an established population. Doug Taron, Chicago WILDERNESS Magazine, Spring, 2004

an increase with confidence. Nonetheless, these as those targeted at controlling gypsy moths and the trends do suggest compatibility of these species with spread of West Nile Virus. Most of such programs current management techniques. have proven ineffective in achieving their pest control goals while proving injurious to populations of Based on the available data and expert observations, many beneficial insects. the following condition rankings apply: • Fen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects (Fair) Recommended Actions • Marsh insects (Poor) As the condition of the region’s insect assemblages • Dry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects is intimately linked to habitat, all terrestrial and (Good) aquatic fauna would benefit from implementation of • Foredune insects (Fair) the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommended actions • Dry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects for terrestrial and aquatic communities. Affirming (Poor) and expanding upon the sole insect-related recom- • Bog insects (Undetermined) mended action of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, it is • Blacksoil savanna and woodland insects (Fair) important to re-establish conservative insect species • Floodplain forest insects (Fair) on all habitat types, both remnant and restored.

In addition to the negative effects inherent in contin- To monitor the recovery of the region’s invertebrate uing development, threats to the region’s insect assemblages, it is critical to develop region-wide spe- assemblages include the recent cutback in land man- cific, measurable recovery goals and monitoring pro- agement by some government agencies and non- tocols for all of the region’s invertebrate assemblages. profit organizations, and the effect of programs such Additional recommended actions include:

81 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• Ascertain a complete list of invertebrates in the • Glacial lake assemblage region • Wetland assemblage • Focus heavily on those species known to inhabit • Intermittent headwater stream assemblage five or fewer sites in the region • Seepage fed headwater stream assemblage • Review insect populations more thoroughly for • Lake Michigan assemblage potential listing as state endangered species • Small river assemblage • Big river assemblage

3.5FISH ASSEMBLAGES Under each assemblage section below, the lists of fish species typical of each aquatic community type and 3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS indicator fish species should not be viewed as defin- In general, most fish assemblages are in poor condi- itive. Within each list, there may be a lack of consen- tion. Although some assemblages appear relatively sus about the listing of a few species. stable, no assemblage is improving, due to ongoing development and alteration of habitat, hydrology 3.5.4 GLACIAL LAKE ASSEMBLAGE and surrounding watersheds. In general, pursuit of Description recovery goals for the region’s wetlands, streams and The species within this assemblage include those lakes will benefit the region’s various fish assem- adapted to the clear water, sandy substrates, and blages. The recommended actions for individual fish abundant submersed vegetation typically found in assemblages listed in the sections below represent a natural glacial lakes. Historically a common feature wide range of options. Yet to be developed are spe- in northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin, cific recovery goals for individual fish assemblages, the majority of the region’s remaining glacial lakes which would guide the development of refined have been drained or filled. Of the more than 30 gla- recovery action recommendations, indicators and cial lakes left in Illinois, concentrated within the Fox monitoring protocols. River and Des Plaines River drainages, prime examples include Deep Lake, Cedar Lake, Wooster Lake, 3.5.2 CONDITION OF DATA East and West Loon lakes, Little Silver Lake and No specific indicators or indices have been developed Bangs Lake in Lake County; and Lake Defiance and to assess the condition of the region’s fish assem- Lake Elizabeth in McHenry County. blages for the Report Card. The Illinois Natural History Longnose gar Bowfin Survey, in conjunction with Northeastern Illinois Spotfin shiner Golden shiner Planning Commission, carried out detailed regional Pugnose shiner Blackchin shiner fishery surveys in 1978. Surveys were not specific to Blacknose shiner Sand shiner major habitat types but spatial coverage was exten- Mimic shiner Pugnose minnow sive and covered all six Chicago area counties in Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Illinois (Brigham et al. 1978). Information about other White sucker Lake chubsucker data, as it relates to specific individual fish assem- Black bullhead Yellow bullhead blages, is included in the sections below. In general, Brown bullhead Tadpole madtom fish data exist, but an insufficient amount have been Grass pickerel Northern pike compiled and analyzed. Therefore the Report Card Central mudminnow Pirate perch assessments for the region’s fish assemblages are Banded killifish Green sunfish based primarily on the observations of experts work- Starhead topminnow Pumpkinseed ing in the field. Warmouth Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie 3.5.3 ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTION Black crappie Iowa darter The region’s fishes are divided into the following Least darter Johnny darter assemblages: Yellow perch

82 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Recent Recovery Efforts seawalls,) elimination of natural riparian and shore- In 2000, Liberty Prairie Foundation, Integrated Lakes line vegetation, lack of connectivity between lakes Management and the Illinois Department of Natural due to water level control structures (i.e., small dams Resources cooperatively established a sanctuary for and spillways), reduction in attached wetlands, and Illinois endangered and threatened fishes. From lakes the introduction of exotic species, including common within the Des Plaines River drainage, the team cap- carp, Eurasian milfoil and zebra mussels. Although tured approximately 200 individuals of five separate individual exceptions may occur, the higher quality species—banded killifish, blacknose shiner, black- glacial lakes are in southeastern Wisconsin and chin shiner, pugnose shiner and Iowa darter—and northeastern Illinois, and poorer quality lakes are at translocated them to the three-acre Sanctuary Pond at the southern end of Lake Michigan. As development Prairie Crossing. Predator species had been removed continues to increase throughout the region, the from Sanctuary Pond prior to transfer, and subse- effects of development decrease the ecological quent years of monitoring have confirmed robust integrity of glacial lakes. Many of the glacial lake population numbers in the thousands to tens of thou- indicator species are rare and declining. A recent sands for each of the translocated species. study comparing the historic and present locations of the blackchin shiner reveal that it is present in two- While there have been some general and isolated thirds of its historic locations that were surveyed habitat recovery efforts such as removing septic (Burr et al. 2005). fields and sewer discharges from lakes, by and large there have been no major water quality, fringe zone Condition of Data or littoral zone restoration or protection efforts. It is The condition of species within glacial lakes assem- anticipated that Integrated Lakes Management will blage was and is difficult to determine quantitatively do some additional stocking of lakes on the Des due to limited sampling in standard fisheries surveys Plaines River drainage to expand the reintroduction and the scarcity of many of the indicator species. of the five target species present at Prairie Crossing. Private ownership of many glacial lakes in Illinois limits the ability of the Illinois Department of Natural Indicators Resources and other agencies to survey and manage In general, the following species tend to be found in these lakes. Illinois Natural History Survey reports higher quality habitats, although many can be found indicate that the blacknose shiner, the pugnose shiner, in lower quality habitats as well: the blackchin shiner and the banded killifish have not Longnose gar Pugnose shiner appeared in stream collections on the Des Plaines Blackchin shiner Blacknose shiner drainage for many years; lake records mirrored this Pugnose minnow Lake chubsucker condition (Page and Retzer 2002; Retzer 2005). Brown bullhead Banded killifish Starhead topminnow Iowa darter Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation and Southern Least darter Illinois University conducted life history work on blacknose and blackchin shiners and determined the Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be conservation status in Illinois of the banded killifish, identified, and this is a recommendation for future blacknose shiner and blackchin shiner. The distribu- report cards. tion of all three species has declined in Illinois and other states in the Midwest. The most dramatic Report Card Condition Ranking: decline is that of the blacknose shiner, which has Fair to Poor experienced major declines in rivers where it was With little active habitat management, the glacial lake found historically (Burr et al. 2005). fish assemblage continues to suffer from a reduction of submerged aquatic vegetation due to herbiciding, The University of Illinois–Chicago is also currently nutrient enrichment from septic systems and lawn conducting a study of the genetic integrity of black- fertilizer runoff, sediment disturbance from power chin and blacknose shiners in Illinois. boating, shoreline alteration (i.e., sheet piling and

83 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Recommended Actions Black crappie Iowa darter • Develop indices to assess ecosystem integrity of Least darter Johnny darter glacial lake habitats Bluntnose darter Bowfin • Preserve high quality lakes Banded killifish • Restore fringe and littoral zones • Reintroduce glacial lake species if conditions are Recent Recovery Efforts suitable No recovery efforts of any magnitude were identified • Preserve or restore the delicate balance of min- during the development of this report. nows, sunfish and perches in glacial lakes, which would benefit other species, including bowfin, gar, Indicators pikes and catfish In general, the following species tend to be found in higher quality habitats, although many can be found 3.5.5 WETLAND ASSEMBLAGE in lower quality habitats as well: Description Pugnose minnow Weed shiner The wetland fish assemblage includes species Ironcolor shiner Lake chubsucker adapted to living among very dense stands of sub- Brown bullhead Iowa darter merged and emergent aquatic vegetation. Starhead topminnow Least darter Historically abundant, wetlands throughout the Brook stickleback Bluntnose darter region were indiscriminately drained for conversion Banded killifish to human use, primarily as agricultural lands. The percentage loss of original wetlands in Indiana and Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be Illinois is estimated at 85 and 90 percent, respectively. identified, and this is a recommendation for future Examples of remaining high quality wetlands report cards. include Fish Lake Marsh and Broburg Marsh in Lake County, Illinois, Powderhorn Lake Marsh in Cook Report Card Condition Ranking: County, Illinois, Lake Elizabeth Marsh in McHenry Poor County, Illinois, Kankakee River backwaters, and There are only a handful of good quality wetlands in sloughs in Indiana and the Momence Wetland of the the Chicago Wilderness region and all of them are Kankakee River. threatened by altered hydrology, pollution, reduced connectivity to large, deeper bodies of water, and the Wetlands that support large fish communities usu- influx of invasive plants and animals. In spite of some ally are connected directly to natural glacial lakes or isolated wetland restorations and wetland mitigation streams. Whereas many species may use wetlands efforts, any site-specific gains have been more than attached to lakes or streams as breeding and nursery offset by the continued draining or filling of these areas, the following list of species are frequently asso- habitats and the prevention of fluvial geomorphic ciated with wetlands as adults: processes. The health of the wetland fish assemblage Spotfin shiner Golden shiner generally mirrors the health of its habitat. Pugnose minnow Bluntnose minnow Fathead minnow Bluegill Condition of Data Weed shiner Ironcolor shiner Few wetland fish data are available. Scientists from White sucker Lake chubsucker the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation sampled fish, Black bullhead Yellow bullhead invertebrates, birds and herpetofauna at 38 mitiga- Brown bullhead Tadpole madtom tion and 18 natural wetlands in the Chicago Grass pickerel Pirate perch Wilderness region (C. Paine and V. Santucci, in prep- Northern pike Brook stickleback aration). The Field Museum has records of fish sam- Starhead topminnow Pumpkinseed ples from Kankakee River wetlands and backwater Central mudminnow Green sunfish sloughs. The Illinois Department of Natural Blackstripe topminnow Warmouth Resources has data from the Kankakee River near the Largemouth bass White crappie Momence Wetland.

84 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Recommended Actions Indicators • Preserve functioning backwaters, side-stream wet- In general, the following species tend to be found in lands and headwater wetlands higher quality habitats, although many can be found • Restore hydrologic and fluvial geomorphic in lower quality habitats as well: processes of floodplains and headwaters Redside dace Brassy minnow • Reduce unnatural effluent Southern redbelly dace Blacknose dace Creek chubsucker Brook stickleback 3.5.6 INTERMITTENT HEADWATER STREAM ASSEMBLAGE Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be Description identified, and this is a recommendation for future This assemblage occupies first-order streams that report cards. seasonally run intermittently or completely dry. Spring freshets and summer storms are the primary Report Card Condition Ranking: sources of stream flow. The structure of intermittent Poor headwater streams usually consists of terrestrial or A few first-order streams remain in good condition, wetland emergent plants due to seasonal hydrology; but the vast majority are manipulated or highly substrates of clay hard pan, gravel or cobble. The sea- degraded, which negatively impacts the related fish sonal hydrology also accounts for their usually assemblage. The increasing rate of development poorly developed stream channels. Historically a poses a continued threat to this habitat and its assem- common and abundant riverine feature, intermittent blage type. headwater streams often were found on the outskirts of catchment valleys, usually in areas of little or no Condition of Data groundwater discharge. Remaining examples include In 1980, Dr. William Mitch did detailed condition most of the headwater (first order) streams of the Fox rankings of five Chicago area intermittent streams, and Des Plaines Rivers. including Willow Way Brook and St. Joseph Creek (DuPage River), and Stony Creek and Crooked Creek The fish species listed below usually take refuge dur- (Des Plaines River). ing dry periods in higher order streams or in isolated pools: Recommended Actions Central stoneroller Redside dace • Develop indices for assessing headwater streams Largescale stoneroller Brassy minnow • Keep developers from affecting the seasonality of Spotfin shiner Striped shiner these first-order streams Common shiner Hornyhead chub • Study the structural and functional characteristics Golden shiner Bigmouth shiner of remaining and functioning first-order streams, Southern redbelly dace Bluntnose minnow assess their regulatory status and determine how Fathead minnow Blacknose dace best to preserve as many as possible White sucker Creek chubsucker • Restore prairies and uplands where these streams Black bullhead Yellow bullhead originate Tadpole madtom Grass pickerel • Restore prairie slough channels and habitat Central mudminnow Brook stickleback Blackstripe topminnow Green sunfish 3.5.7 SEEPAGE FED HEADWATER STREAM Bluegill Largemouth bass ASSEMBLAGE Johnny darter Description This assemblage occupies small first order streams Recent Recovery Efforts that are cold and clear all year round, nutrient-poor There have been isolated restoration efforts, but noth- and groundwater-fed with riffle and pools present. ing close to a general recovery of this habitat and its Species within this assemblage require gravel and associated fish assemblage. cobble or sand and vegetation to reproduce, and most importantly the upwelling of cold ground water. The

85 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

most rare fish assemblage in the region historically, it Recommended Actions has become even more rare in the wake of intensive There are no specific recommendations for this development of its habitat. Examples of good quality assemblage type. habitat today include tributaries to Dutch Creek, Jelkes Creek, Boone Creek (Fox River) and the Little 3.5.8 LAKE MICHIGAN ASSEMBLAGE Kankakee River headwaters. Description Central stoneroller Largescale stoneroller Lake Michigan is a large, inland freshwater sea Redside dace Northern redbelly dace formed by the retreating Pleistocene glaciers. Finescale dace Blacknose shiner Historically, its fish assemblage was not particularly Longnose dace Creek chub diverse, but plankton and freshwater amphipods Brook trout Brook stickleback supported vast schools of select gamefood species, Mottled sculpin Slimy sculpin including whitefish and yellow perch. For more than Fantail darter Orangethroat darter a century, Lake Michigan and its resident fish assem- Johnny darter blage have been altered extensively from their original condition by human activities, particularly the Recent Recovery Efforts introduction of numerous non-native species of There are no specific assemblage recovery efforts fishes and invertebrates and the filling of many of its identified. shoreline wetlands.

Indicators Today, within the Lake Michigan assemblage are In general, the following species tend to be found in three distinct sub-assemblages: nearshore, pelagic higher quality habitats, although many can be found and benthic. Nearshore species such as the small- in lower quality habitats as well: mouth bass, pumpkinseed, and yellow perch inhabit Redside dace Northern redbelly dace the shallower waters of the lake’s nearshore areas, Longnose dace Finescale dace harbors, and lagoons. Offshore species such as Brook trout Brook stickleback bloater, lake whitefish, lake chub, and lake trout Mottled sculpin Slimy sculpin inhabit the vast open water regions of the lake. Benthic fishes include the numerous species of Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be sculpins, lake sturgeon, and longnose sucker. All identified, and this is a recommendation for future species are adapted to cool or coldwater conditions. report cards. Silver lamprey Lake sturgeon Lake chub Emerald shiner Report Card Condition Ranking: Spottail shiner Sand shiner Poor Bluntnose minnow Longnose dace The condition is due mostly to temperature warm- Longnose sucker White sucker ing, caused primarily by the removal of terrestrial Silver redhorse Shorthead redhorse vegetation, and development that utilizes these Channel catfish Longjaw cisco streams as a conveyance for stormwater. Given cur- Lake herring Lake whitefish rent development practices, this assemblage will con- Bloater Deepwater cisco tinue to decline as development increases. European Kiyi Blackfin cisco brown trout has replaced native brook trout in the Shortnose cisco Shortjaw cisco majority of these streams. Round whitefish Lake trout Northern pike Troutperch Condition of Data Great Lakes muskellunge Mottled sculpin There are no specific data referenced for this assem- Slimy sculpin Spoonhead sculpin blage type. Deepwater sculpin Burbot Pumpkinseed Warmouth Smallmouth bass Black crappie

86 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Yellow perch Logperch Report Card Condition Ranking: Walleye Freshwater drum Fair Spottail shiner The current Lake Michigan fish community is very different from what it was originally. Although most Recent Recovery Efforts of the deep lake species are still present, some have In October 2004, the federal government approved 75 been reduced. The lake still supports a multi-billion percent of the $9.1 billion needed to complete an elec- dollar sport fishing industry and there are probably tronic barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal more species actually present in the lake than histor- in order to keep non-native Asian carp from enter- ically, however many of those are non-native. Of ing the Great Lakes system. According to the U.S. recent concern is the prospect of additional non- Environmental Protection Agency, the increased native species, namely Asian carp and the northern funding means the permanent electric barrier under snakehead, which threaten to greatly alter the com- construction on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal position of the current assemblage. Trends for this can be built as originally planned. It will stretch two assemblage are difficult to ascertain due to the con- rows of electrodes across the canal, which will pulse sistent introduction of non-native species of fishes DC current into the water, and fishes will turn back (e.g., sea lamprey, round goby, ruffe, alewife, smelt, rather than pass through the electric current. The and Pacific salmon) and invertebrates (e.g., zebra funding will also cover construction of a second mussel and spiny water flea). Populations of species control house so that the two sets of electrodes— such as the smallmouth bass are experiencing popu- primary and backup—can be operated simultane- lation growth in Illinois waters. Yellow perch, lake ously. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004). whitefish, lake chub, longnose sucker, and lake sturgeon have experienced population declines and lake In November 2004, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich trout populations persist because of hatchery intro- announced plans for Illinois to join the federal ductions. Native benthic species may be threatened Coastal Management Program. Illinois is the only by the exotic round goby. state among the 36 eligible to participate in the program that has not yet enrolled. By joining the Coastal Condition of Data Management Program, Illinois could stand to reap There are no specific data referenced for this assem- up to $2 million per year for protecting and enhanc- blage type. ing its stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline. Potential projects could include protecting beach health and Recommended Actions improving fish habitat. The large size of Lake Michigan, its economic importance to the shipping and transport industries, and its Indicators man-made interconnectivity with the Atlantic Ocean Some of the following species either are extremely and Mississippi River combine to make managing rare or extirpated from southern Lake Michigan: this aquatic resource and its associated fish assem- Silver lamprey Lake sturgeon blage extremely difficult. For these reasons, the Lake chub Longnose sucker Report Card workshop group conjectured that per- Lake herring Lake whitefish haps only radical actions could have a positive Bloater Kiyi impact. Such actions would be extremely difficult to Blackfin cisco Round whitefish achieve, but include: Great Lakes muskellunge Lake trout • Stop stocking non-native Salmonids Trout perch Mottled sculpin • Start reducing the abundance of non-native Slimy sculpin Spoonhead sculpin species Deepwater sculpin Log perch • Restore coastal wetlands • Remove coastal structures that impeded the lit- Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be toral drift identified, and this is a recommendation for future • Pose heavy restrictions or stop commercial navi- report cards. gation • Stop unnatural diversions

87 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

3.5.9 SMALL RIVER ASSEMBLAGE Banded darter Johnny darter Description Yellow perch Logperch Historically abundant throughout the Chicago Blackside darter Slenderhead darter Wilderness region, this fish assemblage had different levels of diversity depending on the river sys- Recent Recovery Efforts tem. The Fox and Kankakee River systems flowed The number of stream restoration efforts is increasing, over diverse geomorphology and topographic relief, but most of them appear not to be successful because providing a multitude of different habitats and flow they do not take site geomorphology into account. A velocities and therefore supporting more diverse fish successful effort is the remeandering of a channelized assemblages. Streams in the Chicago Lake Plain such portion of the upper reaches of Nippersink Creek as the Upper Des Plaines, Chicago and Calumet below Wonder Lake, led by The McHenry County River systems flowed over low topographic relief Conservation District. Completed in 2001, this effort and did not have much habitat diversity, causing marks one of the most ambitious stream restoration their fish assemblages to be less diverse. Examples projects in northeastern Illinois. While results are pre- of remaining good quality medium to high-grade liminary, indications are that there has been an streams include Big Rock Creek, Horse Creek, Dead increase in fish and macroinvertebrate diversity. River, Galien River and Brighton Creek. Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lamprey The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Silver lamprey American brook lamprey the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, The Bowfin Gizzard shad Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the Illinois Central stoneroller Largescale stoneroller State Water Survey, the North Shore Sanitary District Red shiner Spotfin shiner and the Waukegan Park District undertook a coop- Steelcolor shiner Brassy minnow erative effort to address undermining of a sewage Striped shiner Common shiner pipe that spanned the Waukegan River. The project Redfin shiner Hornyhead shiner involved the installation of various types of stream Golden shiner Bigeyed chub bank stabilization structures, reconfiguration of flood Silverjaw minnow Bigmouth minnow plain boundaries, installing riffle complexes and Ozark minnow Roseyface shiner detailed monitoring. The Waukegan River project has Sand shiner Suckermouth minnow been monitored extensively with some positive Finescale dace Northern redbelly dace results for fish and macroinvertebrate biodiversity Bluntnose minnow Southern redbelly dace (White et al. 2003). Fathead minnow Blacknose dace Creek chub Quillback Indicators White sucker Creek chubsucker In general, the following species tend to be found in Northern hogsucker Golden redhorse higher quality habitats, although many can be found Greater redhorse Black bullhead in lower quality habitats as well. Yellow bullhead Channel catfish Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lamprey Slender madtom Stonecat Silver lamprey American brook lamprey Tadpole madtom Grass pickerel Brassy minnow Bigeyed chub Pirate perch Central mudminnow Ozark minnow Northern redbelly dace Mottled sculpin Blackstripe topminnow Finescale dace Slender madtom Rock bass Green sunfish Mud darter Rainbow darter Pumpkinseed Warmouth Iowa darter Least darter Bluegill Orangespotted sunfish Logperch Slenderdarter Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Largemouth bass Black crappie Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be Mud darter Rainbow darter identified, and this is a recommendation for future Iowa darter Fantail darter report cards. Least darter Orangethroat darter

88 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

Report Card Condition Ranking: der and bedrock. Over-harvesting, and eventually Fair to Poor dams and pollution, significantly altered the makeup In the past several years, species within the small river of the associated fish assemblages and habitats. There fish assemblages have declined significantly, espe- remain no examples of free-flowing or unconfined cially intolerant and specialized species and those that large rivers in the region. Areas of high diversity have a naturally low abundance. Streams, especially occur on the Kankakee River below the Wilmington low-gradient ones, are becoming more and more Dam and various other spots from the Indiana bor- degraded as development spreads and agricultural der to the confluence with the Des Plaines River due practices go unchecked. Small river fish assemblages to better water quality and natural temperatures. in the Kankakee and the Fox River watersheds are in Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lamprey the best shape. Although the small river assemblage Silver lamprey American brook lamprey is rated excellent in the Kankakee watershed, the con- Lake sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeon dition ranking is relative to other watersheds today, Paddlefish Spotted gar not to the Kankakee’s original condition. The small Longnose gar Shortnose gar river assemblage in the Lake Michigan watershed is Mooneye Goldeye stable, but in poor condition and not improving. American eel Skipjack herring Gizzard shad Central stoneroller Condition of Data Spotfin shiner Gravel chub There exist good data for certain Illinois Department Silvery minnow Pallid shiner of Natural Resources stations, but there are gaps, as Silver chub Hornyhead chub data are not always collected from the same stations. Golden shiner Emerald shiner River shiner Ghost shiner Recommended Actions Spottail shiner Sand shiner • Preserve sections of streams with intact active Mimic shiner Suckermouth minnow floodplains and fluvial geomorphic dynamics Bluntnose minnow Bullhead minnow • Remove fish passage blockages, i.e., dams and cul- Creek chub River carpsucker verts Quillback Highfin carpsucker • Remove structures that prevent natural fluvial White sucker Northern hogsucker processes, i.e., levees and poorly designed bridges Smallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffalo • Prevent point source and non-point source dis- Black buffalo Silver redhorse charge Black redhorse Golden redhorse • Restore less-degraded and degraded streams and Shorthead redhorse Channel catfish active floodplains Stonecat Freckled madtom • Enhance urban streams to improve water quality Flathead catfish Northern pike • Control non-native fishes Troutperch Blackstripe topminnow White bass Yellow bass 3.5.10 BIG RIVER ASSEMBLAGE Rock bass Green sunfish Description Pumpkinseed Warmouth The big river fish assemblage is found in the region’s Bluegill Orangespotted sunfish major rivers: the Des Plaines, the Illinois, the lower Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Fox and the Kankakee. Historically, the scale and rich Largemouth bass White crappie diversity of the river system habitats made the big Black crappie Western sand darter river assemblage the most diverse in the region. All of Rainbow darter Banded darter these rivers were flanked by vast floodplains com- Yellow perch Logperch prised of wetland complexes and backwaters. Blackside darter Slenderhead darter Defining features of the rivers included very deep Walleye Freshwater drum pools, large woody debris and large undercut banks. River redhorse Their substrates were silt, detritus, sand, gravel, boul-

89 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Recent Recovery Efforts would benefit from implementation of the There have been no significant recovery efforts for Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommended actions for this assemblage in the region. aquatic communities. It is also important to establish additional resources for the reintroduction of Indicators native species. In general, the following species tend to be found in higher quality habitats, although many can be found Additionally, specific region-wide recovery goals in lower quality habitats as well. need to be developed for each fish assemblage within Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lamprey each watershed, with an emphasis on devoting Silver lamprey American brook lamprey resources and protection to aquatic communities that Lake sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeon are already doing well. Too often, resources are Mooneye Goldeye applied to aquatic communities that are doing Western sand darter American eel poorly. As a result, good aquatic communities Gravel chub Silvery minnow decrease in quality and poor ones improve only Pallid shiner Silver chub slightly. In the end, there is a sort of homogenization River redhorse Freckled madtom of aquatic communities such that all are of only fair Trout perch quality, without the continued health of some that are of exceptionally high quality. The same could be said Indicators of success for this assemblage need to be of all the region’s natural communities. In any case, identified, and this is a recommendation for future a region-wide index by which to assess the health of report cards. fish assemblages and monitoring protocols need to be developed to be able to assess progress toward Report Card Condition Ranking: recovery goals. Poor to Excellent The big river fish assemblage within the Des Plaines River watershed is rated as poor. Within the Fox 3.6MAMMALS River watershed, the fish assemblage is rated fair to The Report Card team was unable to convene experts good, but channel confinement and dams restrict to assess the status of the region’s mammal species. riverine functions. Additionally, nutrient loading is However, new information has been garnered on the becoming a major issue because of the lack of treat- Franklin’s ground squirrel, which was added to the ment for phosphorus. The Kankakee River fish Illinois endangered and threatened species list in assemblage boasts a rating of excellent relative to the 2004. other assemblages, but is a faint echo of its historic condition. The historic range of the Franklin’s ground squirrel includes the northern two-thirds of the Chicago Condition of Data Wilderness region. It is now very rare because of There are no specific data referenced for this assem- habit loss and other unknown factors. A recent sur- blage type. vey by the Illinois Natural History Survey verified only one population in the Chicago Wilderness Recommended Actions region (O. Pergams 2004). There may be another pop- • Remove all dams, lock and dam structures and ulation in the area, but this is currently unverified. other structures preventing floodplain activity There are only four to six known populations in the • Restore riparian corridors through the active entire state, which led to its being added to the floodplains Illinois endangered and threatened list in 2004. It was added to the World Conservation Union’s Red List in 3.5.11 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR ALL 2003. The first Franklin’s Ground Squirrel FISH ASSEMBLAGES Symposium was held at Brookfield Zoo in August As the condition of the region’s fish assemblages is 2004, and various conservation and research recom- intimately linked to their habitats, all aquatic fauna mendations came out of the symposium. These are

90 CHAPTER 3 ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

1) comparing the life history of the Franklin’s ground Management recommendations include 1) conduct- squirrel with the successful 13-lined ground squir- ing surveys to determine its current distribution in rel, 2) studying its dispersal in view of habitat loss the Chicago Wilderness region, 2) planning reintro- and fragmentation, 3) determining if there is a rela- ductions using the closest large populations (proba- tionship between global warming and reduced for- bly from Minnesota) to appropriate sites in Chicago aging time, 4) determining its habitat preferences Wilderness as determined by research, and 3) involve through a database approach, and 5) increasing pub- Brookfield Zoo and/or Lincoln Park Zoo in captive lic awareness through an education campaign. breeding and education campaigns.

THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 4 PLANT SPECIES

• Design monitoring programs to provide feedback 4.1INTRODUCTION to adapt management activities and approaches The Biodiversity Recovery Plan reports a total of 237 • Institute a region-wide monitoring program for plant species, 15 percent of the region’s total native rare species plant species, as endangered or threatened. The plan • Expand ex situ programs for endangered and also includes an index, based on Illinois and Indiana threatened species so that adequate seed or plant Natural Heritage databases, that divides endangered material is available for appropriate reintroduc- and threatened plant species into six priority group- tions as more sites are restored ings. The number of species within in each grouping • Develop recovery plans for both federally-listed appears parenthetically below. These categories are species and state-listed species that have been not mutually exclusive. Some species occur in more identified as priorities than one category. • Globally rare (17) • Great Lakes endemic species or those whose criti- 4.2PLANTS OF CONCERN cal ranges are within the Chicago Wilderness Chicago Wilderness has made progress toward the region (8) realization of several of the recommended actions for • Species that are disturbance dependent or do not endangered and threatened plant species listed in the fall within a well-defined community type (17) Biodiversity Recovery Plan, including 1) the acquisition • Species that have fewer than 50 percent of their of additional natural areas, some of which were dis- known element occurrences in protected sites (37) covered to contain previously unknown populations • Species with particular taxonomic or reproductive of threatened and endangered species only after the problems and/or needing life history research, lands were acquired; 2) the ongoing development of and those whose survival or reproductive success ex situ programs for endangered and threatened is seriously compromised by external factors (26) species by the Center for Plant Conservation, a joint • Species that may be adequately protected or stable program of the Chicago Botanic Garden and The but are restricted to rare communities within the Morton Arboretum and part of a national network of region (80) America’s leading botanical institutions, the purpose of which is to prevent the extinction of America’s The Biodiversity Recovery Plan acknowledges that imperiled, native flora; 3) the Chicago Park District’s some endangered and threatened species will always increasing self-policing and protection of its sand require special management attention, accompanied dunes; and 4) model protection efforts of endangered by well-designed monitoring programs. Additional and threatened species on private properties, includ- recommended actions include: ing those owned by Abbott Labs, ComEd, the Boone • Acquire more public lands to increase the size and Creek Alliance and several railroads. number of available habitats • Enact stronger legislation for the protection of rare The most notable progress toward the Biodiversity native plants Recovery Plan goals for endangered and threatened • Increase the levels of protection for unprotected or species is the development of a region-wide monitor- semi-protected sites with known occurrences of ing program and common database for rare species. endangered and threatened species In 2001, a long-term Plants of Concern monitoring • Work with private landowners to protect endan- program was piloted, one that established standard- gered and threatened species on their properties. ized monitoring protocols for the region. During the • Specifically address endangered and threatened next two years, the program was refined and species in management plans expanded to provide managers with the scientifi-

92 CHAPTER 4 PLANT SPECIES

cally-acquired information needed to address man- to identify some longer-term trends for 26 subpopu- agement problems on their sites and also to facilitate lations representing 18 different species. Of the 26 regional collaboration in developing and implement- subpopulations, 11 increased or remained the same, ing management strategies to ensure the presence of while 15 decreased in numbers. Of the species having these species on a sustainable basis. measurable long-term trends, six showed numerical increases or remained unchanged, while twice that Species chosen for monitoring were selected both for many showed decreases. As is the case with current their position on the rare species priority list in the trends, these are actual increases or decreases in each Biodiversity Recovery Plan and according to the indi- subpopulation, and are not the result of increases or vidual priorities of regional landowners. The pro- decreases in Plants of Concern monitoring activity gram incorporates five interrelated elements, all (Milde 2004). equally important to its success: • Monitoring of rare plants (particularly state-listed The monitoring also provides census data about species) over time to discern population trends invasive species. When invasive species were within a community context (Level 1) and selected lumped together by genus, the most commonly cited species targeted for more intensive demographic genera was Rhamnus, representing 24.5 percent of all monitoring (Level 2) invasive citations, up from 19 percent in 2002. • Monitoring of rare species in relation to manage- Lonicera (6.7 percent) is the second most cited genus ment activities to form a feedback loop for adap- followed, by Cornus (5.2 percent), and Rosa (4.8 per- tive management, leading to both short-term and cent). Monitors identified 99 different species of inva- long-term responses sive plants. Of all monitored subpopulations, 73.2 • Using, for the first time, standardized protocols percent had at least one invasive species present in throughout the region to gain uniform data on a 2003 (Milde 2004). regional basis • Training volunteers as citizen scientists to leverage As reported to the Chicago Wilderness consortium, significant opportunities to monitor rare species, “Management implications of Plants of Concern at the same time creating an informed con- monitoring are already becoming apparent. At both stituency individual population locations and region-wide, • Working collaboratively with public and private Plants of Concern is recording the types and levels landowners, land managers and agencies to gen- of threats, including invasive species, which impact erate a shared approach to regional monitoring populations. This information has value for long- term planning on a regional basis; for example, the Comparisons between pre-2001 data with data response of certain species to fire may help determine collected by the Plants of Concern program starting fire management for those species. It also has a short- in 2001, even for the same populations, should term problem-solving benefit; for example, monitor- be made with caution because different protocols ing reports are helping managers respond to were used and methods of counting plants may have immediate problems, such as the protection of been different. Amelanchier species from fire and deer browse or rerouting a trail around a Tomanthera auriculata popu- At its most basic level, the Plants of Concern program lation” (Masi, 2004, p.6). gathers census data about the status and trends of individual populations. In its fourth year, already Over time, the program is intended to correlate per- some trends are apparent. For example, of the 215 formance and trends of rare species with manage- subpopulations of monitored plants, 106 showed ment of community types within the region. increases while 109 showed decreases. When Although no strong conclusions can be made at this grouped into species, there are 57 that have measur- time, management appears to be on the rise. Based able short-term trends—26 showing increases and 31 on monitors’ observations, 51 percent of Plants of showing decreases. Since the Plants of Concern data- Concern populations showed evidence of manage- base contains certain records for select species from ment activity in 2003, up from 34 percent in 2002. the early 1980s through the early 1990s, it is possible Preliminarily, in some instances, as in the case with

93 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Viola conspersa, which has increased 10.5 percent from ◊ Cypripedium candidum 1999 to 2004 and 125 percent since the early 1980s, ◊ Eleocharis spp. increases or decreases in subpopulations do not seem ◊ Triglochin spp. to correlate directly with any management activity or ◊ Valeriana uliginosa threat. However, monitors of significantly declining o Gravel Prairie species, including Triflolium reflexum and Arenaria pat- ◊ Cirsium hillii ula, which decreased 100 percent and 69 percent, ◊ Ranunculus rhomboideus respectively, surmise that the lack of fire or other o Dolomite Prairies management tools may be the reason for the precipi- ◊ Isoetes butleri tous decline in numbers. ◊ Arenaria patula ◊ Dalea foliosa o Remaining habitats were not covered 4.3INDICATORS • Loss/gain of deer-sensitive species Regional experts convened in 2004 to assess the o Trillium spp. region’s plants of concern. They identified the below o Platantera psycodes as indicators of general status and trends for endan- o Lilium philadelphicum var. andinum gered, threatened, and other rare plant species: o Lilium michiganense • New occurrences o Arising new populations, due to natural spread or due to positive effects of management 4.4RECOMMENDED ACTIONS o New observations, which might occur during • Clarify the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recom- new land acquisitions or increased monitoring mended action, “Rotate and diversify manage- efforts ment treatments in order to maintain a variety of • Flowering/Reproductive status/Seed set and via- habitats needed by many species” bility • Create a list made of the possible rare plants that • Redefining of historically lost sites can occur in the various Chicago Wilderness com- • General habitat improvement or degradation; munity types—this might help in selecting com- more/less stabilized ecological interactions munities that are especially important to protect involving the species in question because of their rare plant potential • Loss/gain of habitat • Protect any plant community with a mean conser- • Loss of indicator species, for example: vatism value of 3.8 or greater o Cirsium muticum • Create recovery plans for each rare, endangered or o Gentiana spp. threatened species o Festuca obtusa • Reorganize and clarify the priority species list o Panicum spp. • Create a watch list of all species in decline o Helianthus spp. • Define criteria for what additional non-rare, o Aster spp. endangered or threatened indicator species should o Silene virginica be added to the Plants of Concern monitoring pro- o Legumes gram • Additional species that may indicate higher-qual- • Determine which plant groups should be added to ity sites include, by habitat: the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, i.e., lichens, liver- o Bogs worts, mosses, fungi and aquatic species ◊ Menyanthes trifoliata • Add an additional category to the priority species ◊ Chamaedaphne calyculata list: species that are rare and remnant but are com- ◊ Vaccinium oxycoccus mon in restorations, (i.e., Ratibida pinnata, Ratibida ◊ Sarracenia purpurea purpureum, Heuchera richardsonii) and those which ◊ Drosera spp. are commonly used but haven’t done well in o Fens restorations, (i.e., Baptisia leucophaea) ◊ Cirsium muticum ◊ Utricularia spp.

94 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

stabilization and restoration, stream re-meandering 5.1INTRODUCTION and ravine restoration. Sites visited included James A major conclusion of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan is Woodworth Prairie, Boone Creek Fen and Clark and that increased management of both protected and Pine Nature Preserve. unprotected natural areas is essential to preserve this region’s biodiversity. The Report Card findings rein- A variety of projects have come under the auspices of force the same conclusion. The member organizations the Natural Resources Management Team. Examples of Chicago Wilderness are working on a variety of include the following: fronts to effect change, including increased manage- • Plants of Concern ment of natural areas. For example, since the publica- A program that monitors threatened and endan- tion of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the Chicago gered plant populations throughout the region, Wilderness Natural Resources Management and discussed below and in chapter four. Science Teams, often working in conjunction with each other, have initiated a number of efforts in line with • Conservation Designs the management, research and monitoring actions rec- Since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery ommended in chapter nine of the plan. After the brief Plan, which recommends the development of con- overview of the Natural Resources Management and servation designs for the region’s natural commu- Science Teams below, there follows an overview of nities and animal assemblages, conservation progress made toward these recommendations. designs have been developed for woodlands, grassland birds, and savanna herpetofauna. These instruments outline recovery goals, threats, man- 5.1.2 CHICAGO WILDERNESS NATURAL agement strategies and monitoring protocols, RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TEAM which provide a framework for quantifying recov- The mission of the Natural Resources Management ery progress and may facilitate management. Team is to promote, coordinate and facilitate the Specific conservation designs are discussed in restoration and management of existing and future chapters two and three. preserves, including the identification of stewardship priorities. The 100-member team currently oversees • Data Resources Inventory, Data Compatibility the work of two task forces. The aquatics task force Assessment and Planning Process for a Regional was established in December of 2003 to promote the Chicago Wilderness Information Management protection and management of the region’s aquatic System resources. The regional monitoring task force has This project established an online database of the been working to develop a comprehensive plan for region’s ecological data sources. The system main- ecological monitoring in the region. tains metadata type information (i.e., database platform, type of data collected, years, etc.) on the Each year, the team holds a series of restoration ecological databases of contributing member roundtables, each a forum for natural resource pro- organizations within the Chicago Wilderness con- fessionals to exchange information on restoration sortium. The link is currently housed on the techniques and view project sites throughout the Chicago Wilderness member web site and allows region. Roundtables in 2004 included sessions on users to search existing records or input and aquatic indices, aquatic invasive species, shoreline update their information.

95 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• Chicago Wilderness Woodlands Audit • Impact of European buckthorn on soil properties This project gathered the first region-wide data on This project revealed that areas dominated by the condition of forests and woodlands through- buckthorn have higher levels of carbon and nitro- out Chicago Wilderness, providing baseline data gen, higher pH values, and increased soil mois- to establish future trends. This effort is discussed ture. In addition, higher densities of buckthorn in chapter two. support larger populations of invasive earth- worms, which rapidly incorporate buckthorn leaf • Historic landscape vegetation patterns of the litter into the soil, further altering other inverte- Chicago Wilderness region based on U.S. Public brate populations. Land Survey records This multi-staged project has created historic • Long-term changes in Chicago region prairie veg- vegetation maps for DuPage, Will and Cook etation Counties. Maps are currently being prepared for This project re-sampled prairie stands originally Kane, McHenry and Lake Counties. sampled in 1976 by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. It also correlated changes in species rich- • Wetlands Conservation Strategy ness, composition and structure with fire frequency This project is creating a model to identify critical to identify appropriate burning regimes. The results wetlands within the Chicago Wilderness region of this research are discussed in chapter two. based on a number of criteria, such as wetland bird habitat and the distribution of amphibians • Biodiversity and distribution of bats and reptiles. This project assessed the distribution of bat species within Cook and McHenry Counties. It also cor- 5.1.3 CHICAGO WILDERNESS SCIENCE TEAM related landscape characteristics with bat activity Closely linked to the work of the Natural Resources to determine the effects of urbanization on bat bio- Management Team, the Science Team pursues a mis- diversity. sion to: • Provide scientifically sound input to assist deci- • Restoration effects in an oak-woodland commu- sion-makers in devising policy and action con- nity at Swallow Cliff Woods cerning the protection, acquisition, restoration, Using pre- and post-restoration inventories of a and management of natural areas. variety of taxonomic groups at an oak-woodland • Establish a research agenda to enhance and facili- site, investigators examined the effects of cutting tate the protection of biodiversity of the Chicago and burning on a variety of taxonomic groups. Wilderness region. • Foster region-wide communication and coopera- ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AND tion among the scientific community to expand 5.2MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES our knowledge base and encourage understand- The Biodiversity Recovery Plan relates that the Chicago ing and appreciation of the region's biodiversity. Wilderness Land Management Team (now known as the Natural Resources Management Team) had initi- Currently, the Science Team’s efforts are focused pri- ated the task of developing ecological restoration and marily on the development of a natural science management guidelines. Accomplished and adopted research agenda that will identify and prioritize the to date are model policies related to the management consortium’s scientific research needs related to bio- of woodlands (summarized in chapter two) and the diversity conservation. The invasive species task use of prescribed burns (also known as controlled force also operates under the Science Team. burns and summarized below). Currently in draft form are guidelines for native seed, covering the fol- A partial list of the research efforts conducted by lowing issues: a philosophy of using wild seed, Science Team members and funded by the Chicago where and how seed should be collected, how it Wilderness consortium includes the following: should be handled and processed and how its pro-

96 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

duction should be amplified. Also being drafted by courses, but is modified to specifically focus on mid- Chicago Wilderness members is the Lake Michigan western ecosystems as opposed to those in the West. Action Plan, a supplement to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan that will address biodiversity conservation as it A Model Policy relates to the water and shores of Lake Michigan. In 2003, Chicago Wilderness developed and approved “Natural Fire and Controlled Burning in the Chicago Wilderness Region: A Model Policy” (Frankel 2003). 5.3CONTROLLED BURNING Intended to aid decision-makers in developing and Most of the region’s natural landscapes originally implementing controlled burn regimens, the model developed in response to regular, seasonal fires. The burn policy provides an overview of the scientific Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies controlled burn- importance of fire to the region’s natural communities ing as the single most important management tech- and the resulting public benefits of healthy ecosys- nique at the disposal of the region’s land managers. tems. Controlled burns control invasive woody and Several studies completed in the past few years sup- herbaceous species, support fire-adapted native habi- port the importance of using controlled burns as a tats, foster the survival of woodland trees and com- management tool. Apfelbaum et al. (2000) reported the munities and benefit the soil. Healthy ecosystems beneficial effects of fire management in restoring the significantly contribute to clean water and clean air, richness of oak woodland ground-layer vegetation; conserve soil, reduce global climate change, provide albeit over a long time period and perhaps in concert habitat for native species and aesthetic value for cur- with the removal of shrub-layer species, specifically rent and future generations. “[non-native] species and tree saplings that have the capability of directly altering canopy structure.” In line with the Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s overall emphasis on developing region-wide standards and In their 2001 re-assessment of 109 grade A and B practices, the model burn policy outlines safety prac- prairie and wetland stands originally sampled in 1976 tices to minimize any negative impacts of controlled by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Marlin Bowles burning and regionally-accepted controlled burning and Michael Jones determined that their data support procedures in the major habitat types. The policy rec- the conclusion that fire is a critical factor in maintain- ommends that any agency developing policies and ing the composition and structure of midwestern procedures for controlled burns incorporate the fol- prairies and graminoid wetlands (Bowles & Jones lowing guidelines: 2003). In a later publication they assert that controlled • Develop a controlled burn plan for each site burning conducted roughly biennally is necessary to • Obtain all required permits and abide conscien- maintain the composition and structure of mesic and tiously to all related guidelines wet-mesic prairies, although few sites are burned at • Follow the Illinois EPA air quality and safety regu- this rate, causing the long-term deterioration of many lations to protect the public sites. They also propose that increased use of fire as a • Conduct controlled burns only when weather con- management tool will be needed to maintain local nat- ditions fall within the range set in the site’s fire ural areas (Bowles and Jones 2004). plan • Notify local police and fire departments in 5.3.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN RECOM- advance and again on the day of the burn MENDED ACTION: DEVELOP A TRAINING • Notify people living near natural areas scheduled for controlled burns PROGRAM FOR PRESCRIBED BURNING A Model Training Program • Assign equipment and trained personnel com- mensurate with the size and condition of the con- In 2001, the Chicago Wilderness Burn Training Task Force developed the Midwest Ecological Prescription trolled burn site Burn Crew Member Training program to increase the • Maintain detailed and accurate records of all con- number of staff and volunteers qualified to partici- trolled burns conducted on public lands pate in prescribed burns. This two-day course is • Minimize the production of smoke and the drift- modeled after the U.S. Forest Service 130 and 190 ing of smoke into residential and commercial areas

97 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

• Prohibit controlled burns on ozone action days in • Develop outreach programs to educate local offi- the summer cials, fire chiefs, preserve neighbors, etc., about the use of fire in managing natural ecosystems The policy also lays out a range of general controlled • Cooperate to improve knowledge about research burn procedures, including the monitoring of all sites questions such as: to document the effects of management, or lack o What are the positive and negative effects of thereof, and recommends controlled burn intervals prescribed burning on endangered, threatened for various habitat types, depending on their condi- and watch species? tion. The entire document is available online at o What is the optimum timing and frequency of www.chicagowilderness.org/biodiversity/policy/ fire to conserve designated ecological targets? index.cfm. o What are the effects of various prescribed-burning regimens on native shrubs? A Nascent Database of Controlled Burns o What are the best uses of fire to control invasive Since 1999, Chicago WILDERNESS Magazine has pub- species? lished the number of acres burned per season on the region’s public lands. This listing is not comprehen- RESTORATION AND sive and it fluctuates from year to year, depending on 5.4MANAGEMENT OF HYDROLOGY which agencies submit reports. Trends are not readily As development increases throughout the region, discernible due to the fact that the number of acres hydrology altered by draining land, increasing the burned annually depends on weather conditions, amount and rate of runoff, and changing the flow of which are highly variable. Nonetheless, on average streams, becomes more of a central concern to the the number of acres burned per year since 1999 is long-term health of the region’s natural areas. As 7,351. This represents roughly 3.5 percent of the total reported in chapter two, increased development has acreage held in public trust in the region. A number increased the proportion of impervious surface cover of the Report Card working groups strongly recom- in the region. Most estimates suggest that there exists mended that significantly more acres be managed at a threshold of 10-20 percent of impervious surface a minimum with controlled burns until such time as cover, after which point, stream conditions begin a additional resources become available to implement continuous decline. Additionally, impervious sur- more comprehensive management. faces prohibit rainwater from seeping naturally into the ground and recharging aquifers. Other human 5.3.2 ADDITIONAL BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY activities further alter the region’s hydrology. A pro- PLAN RECOMMENDED ACTIONS posed mining operation adjacent to Bluff Spring Fen The Natural Resources Management and Science in Elgin, Illinois would seriously interrupt the Teams will be examining the the following Bio- hydrology to the highly sensitive site, an Illinois diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they Nature Preserve and one of the region’s premier eco- relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur- logical recovery stories. rent strategic plan. The recommended actions will be evaluated to determine which, if any, fit into the Countering these negative effects are a number of broader spectrum of the strategic plan, and, if so, wetland restoration efforts, many of which, as a first how each might be accomplished. step, require the modification or disabling of drain • Procure sufficient equipment and workforce so tile systems. Beginning in the late 1800s, drain tiles that enough natural areas can be managed with were installed extensively throughout the midwest to controlled burns within the appropriate time peri- drain wet acreage for agricultural purposes. As ods to achieve the goals of this plan reported by Brown (2004, p.14), by “1935, farmers • Monitor and participate in the development of had laid enough drain tiles in Illinois to circle the new legislation that affects prescribed burning in world six times.” Whereas in the beginning of the Illinois; work with state environmental protection 20th century, hundreds of drainage districts were agencies as they develop air-quality regulations formed to move water off-site into drainage ways, to facilitate prescribed burns streams and rivers as fast as possible, today “a grow-

98 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

ing number of communities and counties tax them- • Identify large, artificially drained wetlands and selves to protect and restore open space that was prioritize them for restoration once farmed. They seek to return water to the land • Develop additional education and outreach pro- in order to welcome back nature, recreating wetlands grams on wetland ecosystems, making use of that once harbored egrets, black-crowned night demonstration and restoration projects herons, snakes, crayfish, and frogs; and the wet • Address key research questions, such as: prairies that once favored northern harriers and o How do off-site factors affect hydrology and short-eared owls” (Brown 2004, p.14). what are best methods to restore hydrology? o What are the best methods for restoring hydrol- At the Geneva Park District’s Peck Farm, drain tiles ogy, and when should they be implemented? are being removed by trenching. The Village of • Create a database of current hydrological data Sleepy Hollow has left drain tiles in place at its Jelkes from restoration and mitigation projects Creek Wetland, but has plugged them at strategic o The Stream Restoration Assessment Project has points. The restoration of the Bartel Grasslands, inventoried and followed up on a variety of detailed in chapter three, required drain tiles to be stream restoration efforts throughout the region valved, which allows on-site soils to be rehydrated with the goal of identifying factors for success. while allowing floodwaters to pass through to neigh- boring sites. As reported by Parker (2004), the REESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE Middlefork Savanna restoration effort in Lake 5.5SPECIES County (detailed in chapter two) has included the The Biodiversity Recovery Plan advocates for the rein- removal of miles of drain tiles, allowing for the troduction of native species where natural dispersal hydrological recovery of approximately 200 acres of patterns have been disrupted. Some species, such as wetland area. This effort, in concert with a suite of birds and mammals, or select plants whose seeds related recovery efforts, has resulted in the model have lain dormant in the soil, return unaided to reestablishment of a rare complex of wetland, prairie restored natural areas. Conservative species, espe- and savanna habitat. cially less mobile species such as insects, reptiles, amphibians and some plant species, often do not. As As summarized in chapter three, the McHenry noted in chapter three, the translocation of rare but- County Conservation District has remeandered a terfly species is in process at select Illinois sites. channelized portion of the upper reaches of Chapter three also relates information about the Nippersink Creek below Wonder Lake. translocation of five Illinois endangered and threatened fish species. 5.4.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The Center for Plant Conservation, a joint program The Natural Resources Management and Science of the Chicago Botanic Garden and The Morton Teams will be examining the the following Bio- Arboretum, is part of a national network of America’s diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they leading botanical institutions, the purpose of which relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur- is to prevent the extinction of America’s imperiled, rent strategic plan. The following recommended native flora. In addition to monitoring rare, threat- actions will be evaluated to determine which, if any, ened and endangered plants, participating institu- fit into the broader spectrum of the strategic plan, tions conduct horticultural research and learn how to and, if so, how each might be accomplished: grow the plants from seed or from cuttings, which • Standardize methods for collection of hydrological are then available for restoration efforts in the wild. data, including the use of remote data-sensing equipment 5.5.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN • Provide training to landowners and land managers RECOMMENDED ACTIONS in techniques for identifying hydrological distur- The Natural Resources Management and Science bances, locating and removing agricultural field Teams will be examining the the following Bio- tiles and installing groundwater-monitoring wells diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they

99 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur- treatment and control areas; and resprouting had rent strategic plan. The following recommended actually increased shrub-layer stem densities. Only actions will be evaluated to determine which, if any, after the subsequent use of cutting and herbiciding to fit into the broader spectrum of the plan and, if so, remove shrub-layer species was an increase in plot how each might be accomplished: richness of native ground-layer species observed. • Develop in-house native nurseries “Although an effect of shrub-layer removal could not • Expand seed and plant exchanges be detected statistically, it may have contributed to • Donate or exchange the use of facilities to build up the increase in plot richness, especially if supple- the number of available propagules mented by wide scale removal of [non-native] • Conduct propagation research shrubs” (Apfelbaum et al. 2000, pp. 6-7). As with • Work with home gardeners to develop native many recovery efforts, the results of this study imply nurseries the need for additional research.

CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANT 5.6.2 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL 5.6SPECIES Aesthetically pleasing with its clusters of deep pur- The Biodiversity Recovery Plan attests that the invasion ple blossoms, but biologically destructive for its of aggressive species is an international conservation highly invasive nature, purple loosestrife (Lythrum issue of the most serious concern, because it threat- salicaria) has come to dominate many of the region’s ens native biodiversity across the globe. The Chicago wetland areas, which has significantly reduced their Wilderness Woods Audit seems to substantiate this biodiversity. Introduced to the United States early in (Glennemeier 2004). It provides the estimate of 558 the 1800s, today it is found throughout the Chicago stems (sapling size) of buckthorn (Rhamnus cathar- Wilderness region, but especially in Kane, Lake, tica and R. frangula) per acre, which translates into McHenry, Cook and DuPage Counties in Illinois. To more than 26 million stems in the region’s woodlands combat this non-native invasive species, two beetle overall. Furthermore, the greatest number of buck- species, which feed exclusively and voraciously on thorn stems is located in Cook, DuPage and Lake purple loosestrife, have been imported. Counties, suggesting a strong geographic pattern. In 1998, the Illinois Natural History Survey, with par- The Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines three primary tial funding support from the Chicago Wilderness methods of invasive species control: physical, biolog- consortium, developed an educational curriculum, ical and chemical. Physical controls include controlled which included the rearing of purple loosestrife bee- burns and certain types of hydrological restorations, tle larvae and the releasing of adults into purple which are addressed in preceding sections. loosestrife-infested wetland areas. Since the development of this program, more than 350 educators have 5.6.1 PHYSICAL CONTROL been trained in this curriculum, 325 in the Chicago Throughout the Chicago Wilderness region, a variety Wilderness area. of physical controls are utilized as part of management efforts—from schoolchildren hand-pulling gar- Prior to the development of the program, the Illinois lic mustard to professional land managers utilizing Natural History Survey began partnering with agen- earth moving equipment to remeander the flow of cies throughout the state to institute purple looses- streams. Often times, physical controls are needed to trife beetle release programs. In northeastern Illinois, complement other control methods. In their study, the number of beetles released between 1994 and Apfelbaum et al. (2000) suggest that controlled burns 2004 are listed in Table 5.1. alone may be insufficient to affect a positive change in the ground-layer composition and structure of In general, the number of beetles sent by the Illinois woodlands. During the first six years of a 13-year Natural History Survey to northeastern Illinois part- study period, the management units at Reed-Turner ners is decreasing after having peaked in 1999 due Woodland Nature Preserve in Lake County, Illinois to the fact that the beetles have reproduced success- were only managed with controlled fire, with no fully enough that they may be harvested from ear- resulting differences in plot species richness between lier release sites and released at new sites.

100 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

TABLE 5.1 THE NUMBER OF PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE BEETLES RELEASED IN COUNTIES WITHIN THE ILLINOIS PORTION OF CHICAGO WILLDERNESS, 1994–2004

Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Will

1994 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 1995 250 300 750 500 1996 25,000 17,000 25,000 48,600 44,700 1997 60,061 34,825 43,275 109,500 119,300 1998 76,075 49,676 27,000 184,400 106,050 1999 121,950 27,500 53,300 199,900 67,500 6,000 2000 94,730 20,100 26,000 122,160 44,775 2,000 2001 47,174 2,000 885 74,620 31,250 2002 54,395 67,960 27,825 3,100 2003 1,200 5,300 53,630 3,000 2004 18,950 3,000 40,000 4,200

Total 500,785 159,401 270,390 818,090 442,900 11,100

Among the many sites where released beetles have District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army had a significant effect in controlling purple looses- Corps of Engineers, St Charles Park District, Palatine trife are: Lake Powderhorn and Beaubien Preserve Park District, Fox Valley Park District, Crystal Lake in Cook County, Weingart Road Sedge Meadow Park District, Bolingbrook Park District, Max Nature Preserve in McHenry County, and Fox Valley McGraw Wildlife Foundation, Chicago Botanic Preserve and Hosa Prairie in Lake County, Illinois. Garden, Village of Lake Zurich, Harper College, Lake Bluff Open Lands, Lake Forest Open Lands, Chicago Illinois Natural History Survey measurements of Department of the Environment, Glenview Airbase flower stems and dry weights over a several year Redevelopment Office and several environmental period at Weingart Road Sedge Meadow reveal that consulting firms. purple loosestrife no longer flowers at the site and has just become a background plant, resulting in a 5.6.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL rebound of native vegetation (Post 2004). As reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, selective use of herbicides, most often in combination with Key partners in the beetle release program have been physical or biological controls, is an effective means the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, the of establishing a balanced condition in which natu- Forest Preserve Districts of Cook, DuPage, Kane and ral processes such as fire and competition by native Lake Counties, McHenry County Conservation plants are sufficient to control non-native species.

101 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Interviews with several land managers suggested the mesic forests at Ryerson Conservation Area, need for a database that could be updated to reflect MacArthur Woods, Wright/Lloyd’s/Half Day the development and application of new herbicide Woods and St. Francis Woods. These exclosures are products. monitored both inside (where only deer are excluded) and outside where deer are free to browse 5.6.4 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR CONTROL on vegetation. The district uses great white trillium OF INVASIVE SPECIES (Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browse The Natural Resources Management and Science pressure on mesic forests. Researchers record stem Teams will be examining the the following Bio- density, percent cover and proportion flowering diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they (Anderson 1991). relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s current strategic plan. The following recommended Outside the exclosures the data are generally incon- actions will be evaluated to determine which, if any, clusive on whether deer reduction programs have fit into the broader spectrum of the plan, and, if so, been sufficient to benefit the vegetation. This may be how each might be accomplished: due to the short term of the study (three years) or the • Develop and share cost-effective protocols for con- fact that extra deer may be attracted to the area trolling targeted invasive species because of the more lush growth within the exclosure, • Monitor species locally and regionally to identify accounting for high herbivory on the trilliums out- and anticipate problems before they reach epi- side. However, inside the exclosures, all parameters demic proportions are significantly higher. This indicates that a greater • Develop region-wide collaborative efforts to con- reduction in deer numbers would lead to a significant trol invasive species on all public land, including recovery in vegetation. For the four sites, trillium stem utility and transportation rights of way heights average 32 percent greater within the exclo- • Develop and promote native landscaping recom- sures. Relative importance values—a combination of mendations for residential and commercial prop- relative cover and abundance—are 100 percent higher erties that strongly discourage the use of inside the exclosures (Anderson 1991). potentially invasive species Continued deer management over time likely would MANAGEMENT OF PROBLEM show an overall recovery of trillium and other species 5.7WILDLIFE preferentially browsed by the deer throughout the On land and in the water, an overabundance of both sites. Studies in other counties show similar results. native and non-native species can have a devastating effect on the region’s biodiversity. The Biodiversity 5.7.2 AN ELECTRONIC BARRIER FOR ASIAN Recovery Plan identified several problem species, CARP including the zebra mussel, round goby, rusty craw- The fish composition of Lake Michigan is very dif- fish, common carp, Canada goose, brown-headed ferent from what it was historically, and it remains cowbird, white-tailed deer, feral cats, and even, in in a near-constant state of flux due to the size of the some instances, raccoons, skunks and opossums. water body and the steady spate of potential threats. The lake supports many non-native fish species, 5.7.1 LAKE COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE many purposefully introduced for food and sport, DISTRICT DEER MANAGEMENT STUDY which support a multi-billion dollar commercial and Pursuant to the white-tailed deer objectives of the recreational industry. Other non-native species, Biodiversity Recovery Plan and the conservation including the sea lamprey, round goby, zebra mussel design and model policy for woodlands, the Lake and spiny water flea, have not been so beneficial. As County Forest Preserve District in Illinois has estab- reported in section 2, an electronic barrier is being lished deer exclosures at a number of sites to help erected in the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the quantify the impact that deer have on vegetation and passage of yet another potentially destructive non- to monitor vegetation recovery following deer man- native fish species from entering Lake Michigan from agement. These exclosures are located within mature the Illinois River. Experts predict that Asian carp, with

102 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

their voracious appetites and prolific breeding habits, counties and other land managers based on their par- could have a devastating impact upon the already ticular policies and needs. stressed fish assemblage of Lake Michigan. To provide a region-wide cohesiveness in the man- 5.7.3 OTHER RECOVERY PLAN agement of the region’s natural lands, the Chicago RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Wilderness consortium has approved model policies The Natural Resources Management and Science for the conservation of wooded lands and controlled Teams will be examining the the following Bio- burning. These policies are discussed in chapters two diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they and five, respectively. relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s current strategic plan. The recommended actions will RESEARCH, MONITORING AND be evaluated to determine which, if any, fit into the 5.9INVENTORYING broader spectrum of the plan, and, if so, how each The Biodiversity Recovery Plan reinforces the interre- might be accomplished. lated nature of research, monitoring and inventory and moreover, their collective linkage to manage- Deer ment. Although the term conservation design may • Harvest deer regularly until effective alternative mean different things to different people, the plan methods become available, to support a balance asserts that as “a process for deriving conservation that sustains a full range of native plants and pro- goals and strategies directly from assessment of bio- vides diverse habitat for birds and other animals. logical values and the threats to those values,” it is a • Disseminate to land managers any new informa- means to focus the efforts of research, monitoring tion on alternative control methods. and inventorying “so that they contribute directly to • Disseminate to land managers models that pre- conservation action” (Chicago Region Biodiversity dict responses of deer populations to management Council 1999, p.113). and encourage their widespread use. • Develop more effective deer census methods. 5.9.1 CONSERVATION DESIGN As related in the community and assemblage sec- Zebra mussels and the round goby tions, to date, region-wide conservation designs have • Support continued research on limiting the spread been completed for grassland birds, savanna her- of zebra mussels and the round goby. petofauna and woodlands—all ranked of highest • Provide more public outreach and education call- conservation concern in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. ing for boat owners to take responsibility for clean- Essentially, these designs expand upon and refine the ing boats and boating equipment prior to general goals and objectives in the Biodiversity transporting them from one water body to another. Recovery Plan, setting specific targets for habitat, number of species and number of sites monitored in Feral cats five-year increments over a 25-year period. The con- • Lead a public education effort explaining the servation designs also outline more specific threats problems caused by feral cats and advocating for and recommended management actions to counter feral cat control and keeping domestic cats threats, again with specific, measurable benchmarks indoors. in five-year increments over 25 years.

NATURAL RESOURCE As should be evident in the community or assem- 5.8MANAGEMENT PLANS blage sections, having measurable objectives, such The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recognizes several tiers as those provided by conservation designs, greatly of management plans. At the broadest level, the facilitates the reporting process and ultimately allows Biodiversity Recovery Plan provides the overall man- land managers, elected officials and the general pub- agement vision for the region. At the other end of the lic to chart the progress of recovery efforts locally as scale lie specific management plans for each individ- well as on a region-wide basis. For example, in 2004, ual site. In between may be a variety of plans by there were 1,216 breeding pairs of bobolinks

103 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

recorded in the region, nearly halfway toward the even human health. It gives a clue about the “bigger 2025 goal of 2,500 breeding pairs. On the other hand, picture” by looking at a small piece of the puzzle, or with only 316 breeding pairs of grasshopper spar- at several pieces together. rows recorded in 2004, we are less than 13 percent toward our goal of 2,500 breeding pairs (Glennemeier Atmospheric pressure is an indicator of the weather. 2002b; Audubon Chicago Region 2004). Such data To a doctor, blood pressure provides a clue about the may tell us that we are doing a good job managing overall health of the patient. To an economist, the for bobolinks, but that additional research and/or Gross Domestic Product (GDP) gives a snapshot of refined or even different management practices may the state of the country’s economy. Each of these indi- be necessary to facilitate the recovery of grasshop- cators provides information about conditions at a per sparrows. particular point in time. To be fully useful, however, we need indicators to give us information about 5.9.2 INDICATORS trends over time. Is the barometric pressure rising, There has been little progress made in the develop- falling or remaining the same? Is our blood pressure ment of region-wide indicators. The Biodiversity higher or lower than the last time we checked? Is the Recovery Plan makes the case for utilizing indicators GDP growing or shrinking? to “measure change toward a goal/objective or in completing a strategy/action. Outcome indicators One of the best ways to track trends in the condition show whether we are reaching our threat-related of a system, such as an ecosystem, is through devel- management goals and objectives; performance indi- opment of a suite of indicators. By looking at a num- cators show whether we actually have implemented ber of indicators, together we can see in which the strategies and actions that we devised to accom- direction a system is moving. plish these goals” (Chicago Region Biodiversity Council 1999 p.114). Although there may be occa- So why do we need indicators for biodiversity of the sions when a single indicator suffices to measure Chicago Wilderness region? Simply put, we need progress toward a goal, in most instances a suite of indicators to get the big-picture perspective for some- indicators would be the norm. thing as big and complex as our region and the state of nature within it. Developing a suite of indicators For each indicator, there are to be established thresh- will enable the regional community—government olds, which, when crossed, trigger one or more and non-government organizations, industry and responses from a pre-planned range of management individual citizens—to work together within a con- options. Knowing what to look for and when to inter- sistent framework to monitor and assess changes in vene should inform the design and implementation of the state of the regional ecosystem. sampling protocols and monitoring programs. Indicators can be used to: As is evident in the community and assemblage sec- • Assess changes in the state of the ecosystem and tions, to date no true indicators have been identified progress in protecting and restoring its biodiver- in accordance with the methodology outlined in the sity Biodiversity Recovery Plan. One of the challenges iden- • Gain a clearer understanding of existing and tified during the 2004 natural community and taxo- emerging problems and their solutions nomic workshops was the disparity of perceptions • Better understand how our actions affect the and opinions about what constitutes an indicator and ecosystem and biodiversity and to determine the what indicators’ values are for the region. types of programs, regulations, and policies needed to address problems For the purposes of this report, an indicator is • Provide information that will help managers bet- defined as a type of information that tells us some- ter assess the success of current programs thing about the conditions of concern. It is a tool that • Provide information that will help set priorities for can provide information about the state of complex research, data collection, monitoring and manage- systems—such as the environment, the weather or ment programs

104 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

Additionally, looking at the Chicago Wilderness con- points can indicate a trend. But the system is very sortium’s goal to protect the natural communities of complex and multiple bits of information are needed the Chicago Region and restore them to long-term to provide a reasonable picture of what is happening. viability, a three-layer illustration helps to provide One way of integrating large amounts of data and perspective in developing indicators (Figure 5.1). multiple variables is to create an index, which combines information into a simplified representation, The upper layer includes the health of living com- usually a score of some kind. munities and species. Their numbers, genetic diversity and long term viability are the top measures of A widely recognized index is the Index of Biotic success. Integrity (IBI), which combines multiple factors. As another example, the State of Illinois RiverWatch pro- The middle layer consists of habitats that provide gram (suspended in 2004 due to budget cuts) had essential support for the communities. Three kinds of boiled down its stream monitoring results for each habitats—physical, chemical and biological—provide segment into two scores: a biological (species/com- the essential food and shelter required for survival. munity) score and a habitat score. These scores com- • Physical habitat includes shelter, substrate, water, bine other complex scores into a single comparative minimum spatial size and connectedness, which value. The biological score combines five factors: The provides the means of dispersal Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index, taxa richness (based • Chemical habitat includes nutrients, pollution lev- on 37 indicator taxa), EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecop- els and the quality of air, water and soil tera, and Trichoptera) taxa richness (based on the • Biological habitat includes non-native species, the number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa pres- food web, predation, disease and the biological ent), taxa dominance, and percent worms. activity needed to support various species. As Glennemeier (2004) advances a draft definition of habitat factors, these biological aspects are distinct wooded lands quality, an index of wooded lands from the health of communities and species health, by assessing Floristic Quality Index (FQI), included in the top layer canopy trees and four measures of invasive species.

The bottom layer consists of human activities, which Creating indices that summarize and integrate multi- support or threaten long-term viability. The positive ple factors gives up precision, but has the advantage activities include those such as acquisition and man- of vastly simplifying complex information. It also agement of natural areas, which are intended to sup- leaves room for much debate about the appropriate- port the goal. There are some activities, such as ness of weighting given to various factors. physical aspects of urban development, which have direct negative impacts. There are also a vast array 5.9.3 REGION-WIDE MONITORING EFFORTS of activities which have unintended indirect conse- Plants of Concern quences, mostly negative. The Plants of Concern project follows the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommendation to institute a region- Indicators are needed at each level in the three-lay- wide monitoring program for rare species. Over a ered model, ranging from living species through four-year period, the program piloted and refined habitats to human activities. One view of this is that region-wide monitoring protocols and collected cen- they must range from green (living) to gray (pro- sus data about not only the status and trends of rare gram) ends of the spectrum. Regardless of the species, but of invasive species, as well. The ultimate nomenclature, it is not an either/or situation. purpose of the program is to “provide managers with Progress needs to be tracked at all levels. the scientifically-acquired information needed to address management problems on their sites and Indicators can be simple facts, simple summaries of also to collaborate, on a regional scale, in adapting, facts, or complex summaries, often based on mathe- developing and implementing management strate- matical models. At one extreme, a single data point gies that will ensure the presence of these species on can be said to indicate something. A series of data a sustainable basis” (Masi 2004, p.3). As of 2004, the

105 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

LIVING COMMUNITIES biodiversity and biological health

HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT physical chemical biological

HUMAN ACTIVITY

Figure 5.1. Three-layer illustration that places ecosystem health in the contet of human activity. program had utilized 177 volunteers to monitor a o Authorized/unauthorized trails total of 149 different species at 144 separate sites. o Other types of threats, including insect damage, drought stress, human trampling, human Among the information the project collects are: theft/damage, damage from all-terrain vehi- • Population Information cles, nearby development and other land uses o Number of stems that would negatively impact the population o Population size • Management within the population o Percent reproductive o Burning o Juveniles present o Buckthorn, brush, or invasive tree removal o Plant distribution o Herbaceous invasive plant removal ◊ Uniform o Mowing ◊ Clustered o Other ◊ Random • Associate species information (the most numerous Critical Trends Assessment Program dominant native plants within the population and According to the Illinois Natural History Survey’s within one to two meters of the population) Critical Trends Assessment Program Web site, since • Threats to the population 1997, the Critical Trends Assessment Program o Invasive species, including: (CTAP) has monitored “the condition of forests, wet- ◊ Invasive brush encroachment (one meter tall lands, grasslands, and streams throughout the state or less) of Illinois. This project seeks to assess changes in eco- ◊ Invasive large brush/tree encroachment logical conditions as well as to serve as a baseline (greater than one meter tall) from which to compare regional and site-specific pat- o Deer browse terns throughout Illinois. This program is unique o Erosion because it is the first-ever attempt at a state-wide

106 CHAPTER 5 ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

comprehensive assessment undertaken by a state 5 Grassland Sites: natural resource organization” (Illinois Natural 2 Successional field History Survey 2004). In undertaking this effort, 1 Mesic prairie CTAP has developed specific monitoring protocols, 1 Cultural-developed land which could be used or adapted for the region’s 1 Wet prairie restoration developing ecosystem monitoring efforts. 11 Wetland Sites: 2 Successional field For forests, grasslands and wetlands, the CTAP 9 Marsh measures: • Plant species richness in ground layer, shrub layer • Birds and tree layer 7 Forest sites • Dominant species percentage coverage in all lay- 6 Grassland sites ers 29 Wetland sites • Number of species and percentage coverage of introduced plant species • EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera) • Floristic Quality Index (FQI), the weighted aver- 23 stream sites: age of individual plant species’ coefficient of con- 4 in Cook County (Willow, Long Run, Plum, servation value) Butterfield) • Terrestrial insect species richness (Index of rarity 6 in Kane County (Fox River, two at Ferson, and endemicity for leafhoppers, spittlebugs and Blackberry, tributary of Brewster, Tyler) treehoppers) 2 in Lake County (Sequoit, Bull) • Diversity and density of habitat dependent (e.g., 3 in McHenry County (three at Kishwaukee wetland-dependent) and area-sensitive bird River) species that need a minimum area in which to 8 in Will County (tributary of DuPage River, breed DuPage River, North Branch Rock Creek, • Presence of threatened and/or endangered bird Trim, Terry, two at Plum, Jackson) species Within the six-county region of northeastern Illinois, For streams, the program measures: the EcoWatch Program had the following number of • EPT index, which is the number of Ephemeroptera sites where data had been collected: (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera • ForestWatch (caddisflies) 21 in Cook County • Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index or HBI, which is the 6 in DuPage County weighted average of individual species’ tolerances 6 in Kane County to organic pollution and general disturbance 3 in Lake County • Habitat Quality Index, which includes 12 param- 3 in McHenry County eters measuring the ability of a stream to provide 2 in Will County shelter and food for aquatic organisms • Selected water chemistry parameters (tempera- • PrairieWatch ture, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity) 4 in Cook County 4 in DuPage County Within the six-county region of northeastern Illinois, 1 in Kane County the CTAP has the following number of sites where 6 in Lake County data is collected: 2 in McHenry County • Plants 1 in Will County 7 Forest Sites: 6 Dry-mesic upland forest • RiverWatch Upland mesic-wet/mesic/dry-mesic 92 sites on 27 different streams in Cook County 34 sites on 11 different streams in DuPage County

107 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

31 sites on 14 different streams in Kane County fessional scientists. The INHS professional sci- 39 sites on 16 different streams in Lake County entists conduct detailed surveys at each habitat. 23 sites on 9 different streams in McHenry County The EcoWatch citizen scientists monitor more 36 sites on 16 different streams in Will County sites but conduct a subset of procedures done by the professionals, using less taxonomic res- According to the CTAP Web site: olution, at random and from volunteer-chosen Between 1997-2001 the CTAP professional sci- locations. The combination of both data sets entists of the Illinois Natural History Survey will allow us to have a better understanding of (INHS) conducted surveys at 140 forest, 139 the quality and quantity of our habitats (Illinois wetland, 126 grassland, and 149 stream sites. Natural History Survey 2004). These 554 sites (approximately 30 sites per year per habitat) were randomly selected from Unfortunately, although CTAP survived recent state across the state on both public and private budget cuts, the EcoWatch program lost all of its lands. During this first five-year cycle, data on funding in the 2005 fiscal year. birds, insects and herbaceous and woody vegetation were collected. Several ecological indica- The Development of Region-wide Monitoring tors such as species richness, diversity, Standards dominance of native vs. non-native taxa, and In early 2005, the Illinois Natural History Survey presence of threatened and endangered species facilitated a process to further the development of a were measured at every site. In the case of regional monitoring plan. Building upon previous birds, we also collected data on cowbird abun- efforts of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, includ- dance. In streams, aquatic insects were the pri- ing the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the draft Report mary assemblage used as indicators of quality. Card and the work of the Regional Monitoring Currently, CTAP is in its second five-year cycle Taskforce, goals of the process include: (2002-2006). During this cycle we will resample • Develop a prioritized list of natural communities, all the sites that were visited from 1997-2001. It species assemblages and species to be monitored was the initial intent of the program that a total in the Chicago Wilderness region, derived from of 150 sites (30 sites per year per habitat) be the lists in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan sampled per five-year cycle. During the second • Identify potential roles for professional scientists five year cycle, additional sites will be added and volunteer citizen scientists in regional moni- to bring us up to this goal. toring • Initiate discussions of the indicators that will be The success of CTAP data collection depends on monitored for each community, assemblage, and a cooperative effort between INHS profession- species, and protocols that could be used to moni- als and EcoWatch citizen scientists. EcoWatch tor these indicators citizen scientists are part of the Illinois • Gather information on monitoring already under- EcoWatch Network (RiverWatch, ForestWatch, way within the Chicago Wilderness region that PrairieWatch, and UrbanWatch) a statewide can be used to address the priorities of the Chicago volunteer monitoring initiative collecting scien- Wilderness consortium tific data on Illinois streams, forests, prairies • Identify individuals with expertise who can con- and urban green spaces. Protocols for this pro- tribute to developing or reviewing the complete gram are complementary to those of the pro- monitoring plan

108 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

• Develop a long-term process for evaluating the 6.1INTRODUCTION effectiveness of biodiversity education and out- The community and assemblage assessments in the reach activities. previous sections attest to the variety of pressures • Increase and diversify public participation in con- that continue to impinge upon the region’s ecological servation activities, including stewardship, advo- health. Addressing biological issues alone is insuffi- cacy, and support for funding. cient to meet these challenges. Reaching out to the • Develop mechanisms for professional develop- general public and the full spectrum of decision- ment opportunities and capacity-building for makers—those who establish policy priorities, devise team members. ordinances and laws and allocate resources—is needed as well. Today, environmental issues compete with a seeming inexhaustible number of other issues, 6.2LONG-TERM EDUCATION GOALS but people continue to consider environmental pro- Although the Chicago Wilderness education and tection a priority. A recent Chicago Wilderness sur- communication efforts often work hand-in-glove vey of the public’s attitudes toward prescribed burns with each other, the Biodiversity Recovery Plan broadly found that a core of support for natural area restora- outlined separate goals and recommended actions tion exists in the greater region of southwestern Lake for each, divided primarily along the lines of time- Michigan (Miller et al. 2002). The survey also found frame; communication goals being more immediate that a general understanding of ecosystem restora- and education goals more long-term. tion and management issues is lacking among individuals who oppose controlled burns and fur- Goal 1: Ensure that every student graduating from thermore, that there are not great differences in value a school system in the Chicago Wilderness region orientations and attitudes between those who sup- is “biodiversity-literate.” port or oppose controlled burning, so that the promotion of information on restoration and man- Recommendation: Develop a commonly held defini- agement can influence attitudes toward controlled tion of “biodiversity literacy”—what knowledge, burns (Miller et al. 2002). Education and communica- skills, attitudes and experiences are essential to help tion, therefore, are key to recovering the biological people make informed decisions and participate in health of the region. biodiversity protection.

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION TEAM The Education and Communication Team is engaged Starting out with a handful of dedicated educators in the first part of a multi-phased study to establish in the late 1990s, the Chicago Wilderness Education a common definition of biodiversity literacy by sur- and Communication Team now boasts more than 200 veying conservation professionals to determine how members and five active task forces. The team works key elements of their knowledge, skills, attitudes, to increase and diversify public participation in and and behaviors contributed to their entering the con- the understanding of the region’s biodiversity by servation field. Other phases will include further developing collaborative education and communi- data collection, research on various socio-economic cation programs, events and professional develop- groups and how they relate to environmental issues, ment opportunities. The goals of the team are to: and analysis and research of national and regional • Increase level of local biodiversity programming studies on environmental literacy to establish a com- throughout the Chicago area. mon baseline definition. The team then plans to review Chicago Wilderness, regional, and national

109 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

public opinion data on environmental literacy to The Chicago Wilderness Teacher Training Hub determine the areas of biodiversity-related topics Project has established five regional collaborations most critical to present to various audiences. Existing of Chicago Wilderness member organizations that Chicago Wilderness education and communication offer biodiversity-related teacher training programs tools then will be evaluated to determine the effec- and professional development workshops for edu- tiveness of current tools and to identify gaps in pro- cation staff from Chicago Wilderness member organ- gramming or audience(s). izations. Several workshops have been held regarding the integration of biodiversity-related best Recommendation: Increase the visibility of biodiver- practices into the Chicago public schools’ Reading sity concepts and issues in state education standards and Math + Science Initiatives, Illinois learning stan- to encourage teachers to integrate biodiversity con- dards and performance descriptors, and teacher re- tent into other programs. certification. Additionally, the Education and Communication Team hosts 12 workshops per year The Illinois learning standards, adopted by the to build the professional capacity of the staff of Illinois State Board of Education in 1997, include Chicago Wilderness member organizations in biodi- extensive coverage of the aspects of the life, physical versity-related content, share current trends in edu- and earth/space sciences related to the environment cational research and policy, and provide exposure to and biodiversity. The science standards also make various pedagogical techniques. repeated reference to understanding the interconnec- tion between human actions and the environment. Goal 2: Expand the scope of existing and future pro- In 2003, the Illinois State Board of Education pub- grams in biodiversity education to include compo- lished performance descriptors as a tool for helping nents for attitudes, skills and participation in teachers apply the Illinois learning standards to class- curricular design. room curricula and instruction. The performance descriptors suggest many environmental and biodi- Recommendation: Determine the effectiveness of versity-related examples. existing biodiversity education programs for achieving biodiversity literacy, and use successful programs Recommendation: Give school staff the incentive to as models. devote precious instructional time to biodiversity topics by demonstrating to teachers how using biodiver- This recommended action is to be included in a sity as a unifying theme can improve test scores. future phase of the biodiversity literacy project and is outlined as a major goal in the Chicago Wilderness The Education and Communication Team’s teacher consortium’s strategic plan. training hubs, discussed in more detail below, offer collaborative biodiversity-related professional devel- Recommendation: Foster professional development opment programs for teachers. Many of the pro- for organizations inaugurating biodiversity educa- grams model for teachers how to integrate tion, and increase the number of pre-service and in- environmental and biodiversity-related themes into service opportunities for teachers to strengthen their standards-based math, science, social studies, art and qualifications to teach about biodiversity. reading and language arts curricula. The Education and Communication Team hosts pro- Recommendation: Support state plans that integrate fessional development and capacity building work- environmental education into schools. In particular, shops on a variety of education and communication work to support the passage of the Environmental topics related to the goals outlined in the Biodiversity Education Literacy of Illinois Master Plan. Develop Recovery Plan. Workshops are held every other month best practices for teacher training, such as the pack- and are hosted by member organizations of the age being produced for the Mighty Acorns youth Chicago Wilderness consortium. Additionally, the stewardship education program. Interpretive Training Task Force has undertaken a multi-phased effort to train interpreters from

110 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

Chicago Wilderness member institutions on how to The Education and Communication Team estab- interpret regional biodiversity to various audiences. lished a Higher Education Task Force in 2000 to The teacher training hubs, described earlier, offer a address the above recommendation. To date, the variety of professional development opportunities team as a whole has made little progress in this area, for teachers regarding biodiversity-related topics. In although individual members, most recently the 2000, the Education and Communication Team also Chicago Botanic Garden, have had some success. The hosted a two-day conference for Chicago Wilderness team acknowledges that developing a degree pro- members on biodiversity education and the educa- gram involves working with science departments at tion goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. area universities. The team has identified this goal as a collaborative endeavor with the Science Team, Another program that addresses this goal is the and this will be an area of future focus. Mighty Acorns youth education program. In- augurated in 1993, Mighty Acorns helps young peo- Goal 4: Expand and improve the use of existing ple in the greater Chicago metropolitan area become tools for biodiversity education, and create new land stewards and citizen scientists, as well as learn tools as needed. the value of biodiversity. The curriculum is comprised of three levels, for grades four through six, Recommendation: Work toward the better distribu- and meets Illinois state standards developed by the tion of existing tools by forming a distribution cen- Illinois State Board of Education. Each level includes ter and investing in publicity about the center. educational activities that take place before, during and after field visits to a Chicago Wilderness natural Chicago Wilderness has published several documents area. Each level involves discussion of biodiversity designed for use by educators, decision-makers and but there are key foci for each as well. Level one, for interested members of the general public, such as the fourth graders, focuses on adaptations and interrela- Atlas of Biodiversity. To date, more than 25,000 copies tionships. Level two deals with competition and of the Atlas have been distributed to local elementary interdependence. Level three focuses on biodiversity: schools, high schools, colleges, and other institutions, what is it, how we impact it both negatively and pos- as well as to individual members of the public. The itively and how we value it. As of 2004, the Chicago publications are advertised through the Chicago Wilderness Mighty Acorns program had 16 active Wilderness web sites, through the member organiza- partners, located in the six collar counties of Chicago tions of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, and at and northwest Indiana. The program serves approx- various special events throughout the region. The imately 8,000 students, taught by 325 teachers in 80 Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, as a mem- schools and involves more than 250 volunteers. The ber of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, now children in approximately 70 percent of participat- serves as the distribution center for most Chicago ing schools are considered underserved or at risk. Wilderness publications, including the Atlas.

Goal 3: Make biodiversity in Chicago Wilderness a Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of tools component of the degree programs of local colleges for reaching their target audiences. and universities. The Education and Communication Team has devel- Recommendation: Survey existing course selections oped a matrix to map the five essential elements of at local universities. Identify courses that effectively environmental education as described in the and thoroughly communicate key information about Biodiversity Recovery Plan to determine the extent and local biodiversity and work to increase their visibility. types of tools to be offered. This matrix is intended Develop a degree program in restoration ecology at a to help identify further areas for tool development. local university with an accompanying field station. It has been used to create new tools and areas of audi- Promote practicum opportunities by linking univer- ence focus including the Asset-Based Community sities with professional land managers in the region. Development Project and the Biodiversity Basics curriculum project conducted in partnership with the

111 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

World Wildlife Fund. Work in this area will be linked Build effective tools to track the success of recruiting to a future phase of the biodiversity literacy project. techniques, and use the effective techniques to expand the reach of volunteer-recruitment programs. A subsequent analysis of program breadth and depth of programs offered, as well as the diversity of audi- The Education and Communication Team estab- ences served, will be conducted in the future as part lished the Volunteer Managers Task Force to provide of the implementation of the Chicago Wilderness a venue for volunteer managers for sharing resources consortium’s strategic plan. on recruiting and retaining volunteers. As mentioned above, the task force is currently involved in a project Recommendation: Create new tools for groups start- to better train volunteers from Chicago Wilderness ing community-based, non-school projects in biodi- member organizations in biodiversity-related mes- versity education. For example, create a biodiversity sages and content. program primer with a list of potential partners. Additional Recommendations to Achieve Goal 5: The Community-Based Programs Task Force has cre- • Create a diverse base of spokespeople, including ated a manual for using the Asset-Based Community professionals and volunteers, who can serve as Development model to develop biodiversity-related ambassadors for biodiversity to a wider variety of programs in various communities. Also, the Volun- communities. teer Managers Task Force is producing a workbook • Produce tools and materials in multiple lan- for training volunteers on how to communicate on guages. biodiversity. This workbook is a part of the task • Develop collaborations between Chicago Wild- force’s current project to train volunteers at Chicago erness member organizations and cultural, ethnic, Wilderness member organizations on common biodi- and arts and humanities organizations to foster versity content, messages, and strategies for commu- the exploration of nature through cultural nicating these messages. avenues. • Improve the infrastructure within conservation Goal 5: Increase the number of communities being agencies and organizations to better support com- reached with non-school-based programs in biodi- munity-based biodiversity conservation projects. versity education. • Develop links between school-based biodiversity- related programs and community projects. Recommendation: Foster neighborhood and com- • Find new ways of providing urban populations munity-based programs aimed at improving the with opportunities to become aware of and environment and biodiversity locally to unify differ- explore the region’s natural communities (for ent cultural groups for concerted community action. example, a “biodiversity bus” to bring urban residents to outlying natural areas). The Community-Based Programs Task Force con- • Encourage the providers of non-formal education ducted a two-phase project to develop a biodiversity- programs to recruit and employ professional edu- related program in four diverse communities based cators who reflect the diversity of the communities on their respective resources and interests. The Asset they serve. Based Community Development model was used in Waukegan (IL), Bartlett (IL), Gary (IN) and Jackson The Education and Communication Team will be Park in Chicago. Chicago Wilderness representatives examining these recommendations as they relate to and community leaders collaboratively planned and the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s strategic plan. implemented biodiversity-related programming in The goals will be evaluated to determine which, if each location. Now that the project is complete, the any, fit into the broader spectrum of the strategic plan, model needs to be expanded to other sites. and if so, how each goal will be accomplished. It is important to note that many Chicago Wilderness Recommendation: Devote more effort to recruiting member institutions conduct programs and activities citizen scientists from more diverse communities. that support each of these recommendations. Indeed,

112 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

the majority of the goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan are accomplished each day through the activi- TABLE 6.1 ties of individual member institutions. To better high- NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDING light the work of individual organizations in helping HICAGO ILDERNESS DUCATION to achieve Chicago Wilderness’ education and com- C W E munication goals, a survey is currently underway to AND COMMUNICATION TEAM collect attendance data from each member who offers WORKSHOPS AND INTERPRETER education programs. This information will be pro- PROGRAMS vided in future reports to augment the collective work of the Education and Communication Team and to identify specific leaders in cultural and ethnic com- Year Number of Attendees at munities who can inform educators and communica- Workshops/Interpreter Programs tors and serve as partners for collaborative programs. Education Interpreter Goal 6: Measure local citizens’ understanding of Workshops Programs biodiversity by developing appropriate gauges for long-term effectiveness of education programs. 2000 94 N/A Recommendations: Create appropriate gauges and 2001 136 N/A gather baseline data on targeted communities. 2002 141 N/A Gather data at set intervals to measure long-term change. Disseminate findings to agencies and organ- 2003 322 85 izations involved in biodiversity education. 2004 148 77 The Education and Communication Team established the Evaluation Task Force to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of biodiversity-related programming offered collaboratively and by individual member organizations. This is a future goal related to the SHORT-TERM COMMUNICATION implementation of the strategic plan and is related, 6.4GOALS in part, to a later phase of the biodiversity literacy Public support is a critical component of conserva- project. tion efforts, and is therefore crucial to successful implementation of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. To CHICAGO WILDERNESS foster public support, in 2001 the Chicago Wilderness EDUCATION & COMMUNICATION Steering Committee approved a public communica- 6.3 tion plan that is based on, and expands upon, the TEAM WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMS communication goals set forth in the Biodiversity The Education and Communication Team provides Recovery Plan. The public communication plan lists multiple workshops and interpreter programs each five key areas in which the consortium wishes to year for the staff and volunteers of Chicago achieve communication results: Wilderness member organizations. Workshops are held every other month and are designed to build 1. Increase understanding of our regional biodiver- capacity in relation to the education and communica- sity: where it’s found, why it’s important, how it’s tion goals outlined in Chapter 10 of the Biodiversity threatened, and what people can do to help Recovery Plan. Interpreter programs, which highlight address the threats. Inform, involve and influence recent trends in the interpretive field, are three-hour target audiences on regional biodiversity issues, mini-workshops open to all members. Table 6.1 sum- including support for land management pro- marizes the number of people who have attended grams. (Knowledge goal) team workshops or interpreter programs during the past five years.

113 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

2. Create a sense of regional pride, a sense of belong- sition bond campaigns, to determine gaps in the ing, and feelings of connection to and valuing of understanding of public values and perceptions. our regional biodiversity. (Affective goal) Commission professional market research locally to better inform communication strategies and mes- 3. Provide opportunities for involvement and moti- sages. Disseminate research findings to decision-mak- vate target audiences to take part in local nature ers and conservation agencies and organizations. activities and conservation efforts. (Behavior goal) To address these recommendations, Chicago Wilder- 4. Promote awareness within targeted audiences of ness members have engaged in two audience re- the Chicago Wilderness consortium, its mission search projects. The first was the Chicago Wilderness and activities. (Marketing goal) Prescribed Burn Communication Project. The project involved conducting surveys and focus groups on 5. Build the capacity of Chicago Wilderness member area residents’ attitudes and knowledge related to organizations to inform and engage their audi- prescribed burns, as well as residents’ preferred com- ences with biodiversity-related information and munication cues related to this topic. Survey results activities. (Internal goal—strengthen the consor- revealed that slightly less than three-fourths of tium’s communication capacity) respondents supported controlled burning in at least some cases, and more individuals support burning in To achieve these goals, the communication plan out- all cases than total opposition combined. The greatest lines five key areas of endeavor recommended for the difference between those supportive and those Chicago Wilderness consortium: opposed to prescribed burns was in their level of • Create celebrations of biodiversity knowledge of restoration practices and management • Conduct targeted outreach of natural areas, as well as experience with burns and • Build Chicago Wilderness members’ capacity to other restoration activities. Moreover, burn support- communicate on issues of biodiversity conserva- ers were more supportive of other restoration prac- tion tices in general than were those opposed to burning. • Create and maintain a communication infrastruc- Individuals opposed to burning were more support- ture ive of leaving natural areas alone and were more • Evaluate communication programs and tools likely to see other restoration or management practices (such as the removal of non-native trees or Below are descriptions of much of the communica- shrubs) as degrading natural areas (Miller et al. tion work that has been undertaken both in support 2002). The full research results are available on the of the goals outlined in the communication plan and Chicago Wilderness member web site and were of the recommendations within the Biodiversity shared during a daylong workshop held at DePaul Recovery Plan. However, since the Report Card is a University in 2002. The workshop also included pre- measure of progress against Biodiversity Recovery Plan sentations on public communication efforts related to goals and recommendations, not all of the work restoration efforts at the Chicago Botanic Garden and undertaken in the Chicago Wilderness communica- The Grove National Historic Landmark. Workshop tion program is described within this document. For participants also engaged in message development more information on Chicago Wilderness’ commu- sessions. The messages were later used to develop nication activities, contact the Chicago Wilderness template communication tools, now available for communication office at 708-485-0263, ext. 253. Chicago Wilderness members to use in communicating about controlled burns. Goal 1: Gain a better understanding of the views of a broader segment of the Chicago-area population In 2002, Chicago Wilderness members embarked on biodiversity issues such as ecological restoration. upon a second and more expansive project, the Chicago Wilderness Audience Research Project. This Recommendations: Compile existing local market project was designed to help Chicago Wilderness research, including that gathered through land-acqui- communicators be more effective in reaching their

114 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

target audiences, continually improve their commu- 1. General awareness and attitudes toward biodiver- nication processes and products, and measure their sity conservation issues collective success in achieving the communication goals listed at the beginning of this section. The proj- 2. Perceived quality of life as it relates to nearby ect is also designed to provide baseline audience nature and open space characteristics that can be measured over time and reported as part of the Report Card. 3. Level of participation/involvement in conservation events and activities The project has been conducted in several phases: • A literature review of existing local audience In September 2004, telephone interviews were con- research (completed) ducted with 803 residents of the Chicago Wilderness • Identification of gaps and trends in existing service area (Richard Day Research 2004). The key research and recommendation of possible audi- findings are: ence segmentations (completed) • Chicago Wilderness issues (those related to local • Development of an audience monitoring tool biodiversity and its conservation) are rated some- (completed) what important, but below some other issues fac- • Refinement of the monitoring tool and periodic ing area residents. Safety from crime is very repetition of its use (currently underway) important. Issues related to air and water quality are very important. As information from existing sources was collected • In terms of awareness of biodiversity: 26% of those and analyzed during the first two phases of work, surveyed had heard about the issue of loss of bio- some interesting trends emerged. Most notably, resi- diversity and were able to provide a definition, dents of the Chicago Wilderness region generally fell 19% said they have heard of the issue but were into one of four groups: unable to define the term, and 55% had not heard • The Core Supporters (16% of the total population) of the issue of loss of biodiversity. This compares These people disagree a little or disagree strongly to a national study conducted by Belden with the statement, “There is too much concern for Russonello & Stewart (2002): the percentage that the environment,” and are members of, volunteers had not heard of the loss of biodiversity was 80% for or donors to conservation organizations. in 1996 and 68% in 2002. • The Periphery (33% of the total population) • In terms of self-reported knowledge: 49% of These people disagree a little or disagree strongly respondents said they were somewhat or very with the statement, “There is too much concern for knowledgeable about plants and animals that live the environment,” but are not members of, volun- in this region. Of those, 35% said they were very teers for, or donors to conservation organizations. proud to live here because of the region’s nature, • The Uninterested (47% of the total population) and 55% said they were somewhat proud to live in These people agree a little, or neither agree nor this region because of its nature. disagree with the statement, “There is too much • In terms of attitudes about nearby nature: 65% of concern for the environment,” and are not mem- area residents value the idea of having natural bers of, volunteers for, nor donors to conservation areas and open space “a great deal,” and 27% say organizations. it matters “somewhat.” Area residents support • The Anti’s (4% of the total population) preserving open space by a substantial margin. The people in this group strongly agree with the Fifty-five percent of area residents strongly sup- statement, “There is too much concern for the port preserving open space, 11% support it, but environment,” and are not members of, volunteers not strongly. for, nor donors to conservation organizations (The • In terms of attitudes about removing invasive Moran Group 2003). species: When asked, “ Do you support or oppose volunteers and staff at Forest Preserves and other The next phase of the project was to create a survey conservation areas removing plants and animals tool to help fill in knowledge gaps and measure that are not native to this area?” Forty-two per- change in key benchmarks over time:

115 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

cent supported it, 38% opposed, and 20% were not • The 52% that are not concerned about Chicago sure. When those who opposed it were asked the Wilderness issues and have not acted would be the follow-up question, “Would you support remov- most difficult to reach. These people are typically ing non-native plants and animals if it improves the least active outdoors, are younger, have an habitat for native plants and animals?” the num- income under $30,000, are African-American, are bers changed: 65% of respondents supported it, renters living in urban areas, and are not regis- 11% were still opposed, and 24% were not sure. tered to vote. (Richard Day Research 2004) • Respondents were segmented into one of four groups, depending on their degree of concern with Results from this study were presented at the Chicago Wilderness issues and whether or not they Chicago Wilderness Congress in November 2004. have acted environmentally (been a member, volunteer or donor to an environmental organization, The survey instrument will continue to be modified or volunteered their time to help the environment to improve its ability to monitor knowledge, atti- through clean ups, restoration or recycling). tudes and behaviors related to biodiversity and Have Not Have Chicago Wilderness. Likely additions include more Acted Acted questions about the way different audiences value Above Average 16% 9% the natural world, and new ways to document envi- Concern with ronmental literacy that have been successfully used Chicago Wilderness in other states. Issues Goal 2: Increase the public’s understanding of the Less Concern 52% 23% role of management in natural areas. with Chicago Wilderness Issues Recommendation: Craft a common lexicon that describes restoration efforts, and create methods to • The 9% that are concerned about Chicago Wilde- evaluate and adapt the messages to improve their rness issues and have acted are a committed effectiveness. group. People in this group tend to be very active outdoors, age 44-52, have a high income, and As mentioned earlier in this section, the burn com- many are female Caucasians with no young chil- munication project resulted in researched-based lan- dren in the household. guage and communication tools for use by Chicago • The 16% that are concerned about Chicago Wilderness members. In addition, several workshops Wilderness issues and have not acted might be dif- mentioned in this section have been conducted to ficult to engage but provide an opportunity to improve teachers, volunteers and others’ ability to build on their interest. Many people in this group communicate about biodiversity and its conserva- are African-American or Hispanic females, age 53 tion. That said, there are opportunities to develop or older, have lower levels of education, have an further specific language on a variety of restoration income under $50,000, and are renters who live in and natural resource management-related topics and Chicago and Lake County, Illinois. further increase the use of a common lexicon by • The 23% that are not concerned about Chicago Chicago Wilderness members and volunteers. Wilderness issues but have acted are potentially a fruitful group. They tend to look like the commit- Recommendations: Foster the delivery of essential ted group (higher income, suburban) but just message points not only through conservation agen- don’t care as much about Chicago Wilderness cies and organizations, but also through a broader issues. These people tend to be very active out- range of institutions and channels. Engage and edu- doors, age 35-43, have some college education, cate those who interpret conservation issues for the have an income over $50,000, and live in McHenry public, including community leaders, media, and County and suburban Cook County, Illinois. elected officials.

116 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

Multiple projects have been targeted at these audi- The Chicago Wilderness communication infrastruc- ences. These are described in sections 6.2 and 6.3, and ture includes a media relations program conducted in chapter seven. by the communication staff members. The staff regularly works with local media outlets to increase and Goal 3: Improve communication with those imme- improve media coverage of restoration and land diately affected by management decisions. management topics, as well as other topics related to biodiversity conservation. More than 90 percent of Recommendations: Ensure that restoration efforts, the coverage resulting from these efforts has been particularly in new areas, include plans for commu- positive in its approach. nications to local residents, and that resources are available for efficient and appropriate communica- Recommendation: Review current mechanisms for tion efforts. Create a communication guide that public involvement in land-management decisions restoration agencies can use to help develop these and make improvements, using models that are suc- plans, including resources that already exist and successful in other arenas. cessful examples from other agencies. No projects yet have been undertaken to address this In 2001 and 2002, a Chicago Wilderness-funded proj- recommendation specifically. ect involved developing a public communication plan for wetland, prairie, and woodland restoration Recommendation: Create a structure for collaborat- efforts scheduled to take place at The Grove National ing partners not only to react quickly but also to Historic Landmark. The project was successful in anticipate issues that arise in the public forum. building public support for the restoration efforts and alleviating area residents’ concerns through out- In 2002, the Chicago Wilderness communication reach and education, and culminated in a guidebook staff, in conjunction with an advisory group com- for communicating with nearby residents about prised of Chicago Wilderness members, created a cri- restoration efforts at natural areas. sis communication plan for the Chicago Wilderness consortium. Recommendation: Conduct direct outreach to organizations in local communities, such as block clubs Goal 4: Communicate documented benefits of local and religious groups that are interested in environ- restoration efforts, especially those of most value to mental work. humans.

As mentioned in the education section above, the Recommendation: Gather data on the results of Community-Based Programs Task Force of the restoration efforts, translating the data into easily Education and Communication Team created a man- understood benefits. ual for using the Asset-Based Community Develop- ment model to develop biodiversity-related programs The Report Card is the best example of work being in various communities. done to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: Engage advocacy organizations Recommendation: Create communications tools that that work on environmental issues (such as air and connect restoration results to core values: the beauty water quality or sprawl) and educate them about bio- and wonder of nature, our responsibility to future diversity loss. generations and the desire for a healthy environment.

No projects yet have been undertaken to address this The Chicago Wilderness Education and Commun- recommendation specifically. ication team held workshops in 1998 and 2004 on values-based communication to build Chicago Recommendation: Seek opportunities to inform Wilderness members’ capacity to communicate with journalists and increase media coverage of restora- the public on issues of biodiversity conservation. In tion and land management.

117 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

2002 the team held a similar workshop focused Recommendation: Provide support for volunteers specifically on communicating about prescribed who interact with the public, and offer training in pub- burns. All of these workshops included multiple pre- lic speaking, ecological concepts, interpretation, etc. sentations on why communicating through values is effective, audience research that’s been conducted in As mentioned in the education section above, the this area, public communication techniques and mes- Education and Communication Team established the sage development exercises. Volunteer Managers Task Force to provide a venue for volunteer managers to share resources on recruit- Recommendation: Include illustrations of restora- ing and retaining volunteers. The task force is cur- tion results in programs, nature walks, signs and rently involved in a project to better train volunteers other communication vehicles. from Chicago Wilderness members in biodiversity- related messages and content. As described earlier, the last phase of the burn communication project involved producing images of Recommendation: Emphasize the public service pro- prescribed burns and before and after shots of burn vided by volunteers and the leverage of public funds sites that demonstrate the value of controlled fire as a through donated time. Ensure that decision-makers restoration and land management tool. Many are aware of the value of conservation volunteers. Chicago Wilderness member organizations are using these and other types of illustrations in their pro- Much outreach has been conducted to decision-mak- grams, signage and other communication vehicles. ers (see chapter seven) and key messages often include the value of volunteers’ donated time. Recommendation: Develop innovative campaigns and programs that position habitat restoration in Goal 6: Improve communication about biodiver- mainstream culture (such as museum exhibits, ad sity with key decision-makers such as elected offi- campaigns, and retail promotions). cials and their staff, land managers, and planners.

In 2003, the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s com- Recommendations: Assess current tools and pro- munication program sponsored several events cen- grams to inform key decision-makers for content, tered on habitat restoration. These included a public availability and effectiveness in increasing under- celebration at Bartel Grassland and a restoration bus standing of the importance of local biodiversity. tour of Chicago parks. Both events included tours of Survey, as necessary, to assess key decision-makers’ natural areas that highlighted the benefits of restora- knowledge, attitudes and information needs. tion and active land management. Programs with similar themes are planned for the future. In 2002, the Chicago Wilderness Sustainability Team convened an advisory group of Chicago Wilderness Goal 5: Improve the credibility and public percep- members and local elected officials to address the tion of the people involved in restoration efforts. challenges in conducting outreach to elected officials and other decision-makers. The group conducted a Recommendation: Seek trusted local spokespeople survey of those target groups on their preferred who represent the sound, scientific thinking behind methods of receiving information, and gained insight restoration and/or exemplify the role of the local vol- into the more effective ways of reaching out to these unteer. audiences.

No projects yet have been undertaken to address this Recommendation: Develop vehicles to keep deci- recommendation specifically. sion-makers regularly informed, such as tours, literature, up-to-date scientific information and contacts for further information.

118 CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

In 2001, Chicago Wilderness funded a full-time person In 2004 the team created a web portal featuring infor- to conduct outreach to local governments through pre- mation to promote sustainable development in local sentations and consulting on specific projects. communities. This online resource includes best practices, tools and techniques that individuals, busi- In 2003, the Chicago Wilderness Sustainability Team nesses, governments and other organizations can convened a series of roundtables that brought implement in the areas of biodiversity and natural together developers, elected officials, conservation- habitat conservation, conservation design, sustain- ists and others to develop a set of guidelines for pro- able development, natural landscaping, and water moting sustainable development in the region. The resource protection. roundtables culminated in the publication of “Sus- tainable Development Principles for Protecting The team also formed a Sustainable Watershed Nature in the Chicago Wilderness Region” (Chicago Action Team to provide technical assistance and Region Biodiversity Council 2004), a guidebook con- guidance to local governments in implementing sustaining eight key recommendations and correspon- tainable development principles. ding implementation checklists. The publication is now available for use by Chicago Wilderness members as an outreach tool to local officials, land-use planners and developers.

119 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

Openlands Project and the Metropolitan Planning 7.1INTRODUCTION Council recently released a report that examined how The issue of sustainability is a complex one. There is these population and land use changes affect just two no clear consensus on exactly what sustainability factors that impact biodiversity: water quality and means, although most people agree with the defini- supply. The report, “Changing Course: Recommend- tion, “meeting the needs of the present generation ations for Balancing Regional Growth and Water without compromising the ability of future genera- Resources in Northeastern Illinois,” shows that tions to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987, despite improvements in wastewater treatment and p.43). Regardless of the definition, most experts also combined sewer overflow control, the conditions in agree that sprawling development is one of the great- the majority of the region’s streams are too disturbed est threats to sustainability. It causes us to be overly to support high quality fish communities in urban dependent on automobiles, increasing pollution. It and suburban stream watersheds (Goldstein et al. also destroys open space, natural areas and farmland, 2004). Given the population projections for the and contributes to a range of serious social problems, region, these conditions are likely to continue. including the need for new infrastructure even as existing infrastructure is not fully utilized. Another impact of population growth and sprawl is on the region’s land cover, i.e. vegetation, bare soil, Throughout the Chicago Wilderness region, the rock, sand and water. The state of Illinois analyzed amount of developed land is growing faster than the land cover composition in 1995 and again in 2000, population. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show the change in showing increased urbanization of the land in the population and land coverage since 1970. As you can Chicago metropolitan region. This analysis showed see, since 1970, the population in the Chicago metro- that: politan region increased approximately 16 percent, • In 1995 agricultural land and & rural grassland (1 with today’s population covering approximately 81 million acres, or 42 percent of total land) combined percent of the land. Additionally, since 1970 the acres to be the highest types of land cover of unpopulated land have decreased by 20 percent. • In 2000 urban built-up and urban open space (1.1 Along with fewer areas with no population, the total million acres, or 45 percent of the total land) had land area comprising the highest level of density has become the dominant land cover also decreased. • In 2000 agricultural land and rural grassland had fallen to 900,000 acres or 38 percent of the total The next series of maps demonstrate population pro- land jections through 2030. They examine the relationship • Between 1995 and 2000, the six-county area com- between existing protected open space and both cur- prising the Illinois portion of the Chicago metro- rent and projected population. It is anticipated that politan region lost 53 percent of lands classified an additional 1.7 million people—21.6 percent of the as wetlands (Luman et al. 1996; USDA National population—will live in the Illinois portion of the Agriculture Statistics Service et al. 2002) Chicago Metropolitan region, for a total of 9.8 million people in 2030. The maps in Figures 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 Table 7.6 lists land cover types, with their changes demonstrate where existing protected lands are over time. located, where population growth is expected to occur, and where existing protected lands are located Although the land cover classifications used by the and where preservation efforts may be most needed. state are broader than the Chicago Wilderness classification types, the general trends are significant in terms of biodiversity conservation. Additionally,

120 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

TABLE 7.6 PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN LAND COVER BY TYPE IN THE SIX-COUNTY ILLINOIS PORTION OF THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN REGION FROM 1995–2000.

Land Cover Type 1995 Totals 2000 Totals Raw Change % Change

Agricultural Land 661,593 638,744 (22,849) -3% Rural Grassland 353,522 269,255 (84,267) -24% Forested Land 282,268 296,173 13,905 5% Urban & Built Up Land 675,214 719,664 44,450 7% Urban Open Space 265,487 359,476 93,989 35% Wetland 106,733 49,934 (56,799) -53% Surface Water 52,610 56,318 3,708 7% Barren and Exposed Land 4,854 8,087 3,233 67%

USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and Illinois Department of Agriculture. 2002. Land Cover of Illinois 1991–1995. Springfield, IL.

these data are collected regularly and thus provide unprotected natural communities, especially those the opportunity to track changes over time. threatened by development, and to protecting areas that can function as large blocks of natural In response to these issues, one Chicago Wilderness habitat through restoration and management. project resulted in the publication of the “Sustainable High-quality remnants, even if small, however, are Development Principles for Protecting Nature in the important reservoirs of genetic material for main- Chicago Wilderness Region” (Chicago Region Bio- taining regional biodiversity. These areas should diversity Council 2004), endorsed by the Chicago be preserved, where possible, by the expansion of Wilderness consortium in 2004. These principles, dis- public preserves, by the public acquisition of large cussed more fully later in this chapter, focus broadly new sites, or by the actions of private owners. on the natural resource aspects of sustainable devel- • Chicago Wilderness and the regions’ land-own- opment, specifically land, water, habitat, and soils. ing agencies should develop a priority list of areas needing protection based on regional priorities for SUSTAINABILITY biodiversity conservation. 7.2RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE • Land acquisition plans of public agencies should BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN give consideration to the presence of endangered Sustainability is not afforded its own chapter in the and threatened species. Biodiversity Recovery Plan, but recommended actions • Protect remaining high-quality streams and lakes, related to sustainability run through several of the those that support high numbers of native and plan’s chapters. These are summarized below. threatened species, through watershed planning, mitigation of harmful activities, and stormwater RECOMMENDATIONS management, in order to conserve aquatic biodi- • Preserve more land with existing or potential ben- versity. efits for biodiversity. A high priority should be • Local agencies should promote natural drainage, given to identifying and preserving important but create buffer strips and greenways along streams,

121 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

POPULATION 1970

Figure 7.1. In 1970, this region’s total population was approximately 7 million people, with 900 square miles of unpopulated land and 76 percent of the land populated (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2004).

122 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

POPULATION 2000

Figure 7.2. By 2000, the region’s total population had increased to 8.1 million people; the amount of unpopulated land had decreased to 717 square miles, and 81 percent of the land was populated (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2004).

123 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

YEAR 2004 CONCENTRATION OF PROTECTED LAND BY TOWNSHIP

Figure 7.3. The location of and relative concentrations of protected lands today (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2004).

124 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

YEAR 2030 POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES BY TOWNSHIP

Figure 7.4. The projected population growth overlaid on top of the protected lands (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2004).

125 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

YEAR 2030: TOWNSHIPS WITH FEWER EXISTING ACRES OF PROTECTED OPEN SPACE AND HIGHER PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH

Figure 7.5. The township areas of concern as defined by the least amount of protected open space and the highest projected population growth (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2004).

126 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

PROTECTED LANDS: 1996 AND 2004

Fig. 7.7. Comparison of Protected Natural Areas Between 1996 and 2004 (Center for Neighborhood Technology 2005).

127 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE VISION

Fig. 7.8. Opportunities for natural area protection, expansion, restoration and/or connection (NIPC 2004).

128 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

and create or restore streamside wetlands. Atten- representative set of examples, gleaned from infor- tion should be given to changes in groundwater mation that was accessible to the project team at the levels for terrestrial communities and wetlands. time the Report Card was developed. • Public agencies should adopt local and regional development policies that reflect the need to IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF HIGH- restore and maintain biodiversity. PRIORITY NATURAL AREAS • Counties and municipalities should amend their It is useful to begin by looking at the overall progress comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and other made by members of the Chicago Wilderness consor- regulations to incorporate relevant recommenda- tium in identifying and protecting the region’s natural tions contained in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. areas. In 1996, the consortium inventoried the loca- • State agencies responsible for major transportation tions of federal, state, county, and privately-owned infrastructure should incorporate biodiversity natural areas, nature preserves and scientific areas. principles into their planning and implementation This effort created an illustrative map of the location decisions. of these areas, but did not quantify specific acreage. In • Support the Regional Greenways Plan for north- 2004, another project, entitled Natural Connections: eastern Illinois and the Natural Areas Plan for Green Infrastructure in Wisconsin, Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin; plans that identify actions Indiana (a collaboration between Open Lands Project to protect and manage critical habitats for plants and the Center for Neighborhood Technology), and animals and generally improve ecosystems in resulted in a geographic information system database complement to the objectives of the Biodiversity that mapped and quantified protected areas. As Recovery Plan. demonstrated in Figure 7.7, by overlaying these two • Participate in the discussions of the Campaign for efforts on top of each other, one can get a sense of how Sensible Growth and Metropolis 2020, which the amount of protected areas has changed. broadly promote actions to help the region develop in a manner that will protect its economic In a separate project, entitled the Green Infrastructure vitality, while maintaining its high quality of life. Vision, Dreher (2004) defined areas where opportu- • Support implementation of regional growth strate- nities for protection, expansion, restoration and con- gies by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com- nection of resource-rich natural areas exist at the mission, the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional regional scale (see Figure 7.8). Planning Commission, and the Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission, insofar as these In the Green Infrastructure Vision, Dreher (2004), iden- strategies seek to reduce the region’s excessive rate tified areas that could and should be protected within of land consumption, preserve important open the tri-state region of Chicago Wilderness. As defined spaces, and promote improved water quality. in the project, a green infrastructure is the intercon- nected network of land and water that supports HIGHLIGHTS OF WORK BEING biodiversity and provides habitat for diverse commu- 7.3DONE TO ADDRESS nities of native flora and fauna at the regional scale. SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND THE Green infrastructure may also include areas adjacent RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE to and connecting natural communities that provide BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN both buffers and opportunities for ecosystem restora- Following are highlights of actions being taken that tion. The project resulted in three main products: address the sustainability recommendations of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Many of these initiatives 1. Mapped resource protection areas: Recommended address multiple issues related to sustainability. resource protection areas totaling 1.8 million acres, extending from southeast Wisconsin, through Note that the highlights are not meant to be a com- northeastern Illinois and encompassing northwest prehensive representation of all efforts being under- Indiana (see number 2 below). taken to promote sustainability, but rather, they are a

129 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

2. Recommended Protection Techniques: For each of groups and representatives of local industry. the identified resource protection areas, project Conservation recommendations emphasize participants identified the special natural features wetland and prairie restoration, greenway con- of the area and recommended conservation nections along the Calumet and Grand Calumet approaches. Participants also made recommenda- Rivers and to Wolf Lake, and additional public tions about appropriate development within land acquisition. The recommendations also resource protection areas, ranging from no new call for industrial redevelopment utilizing con- development to limited conservation develop- servation design approaches that fully mitigate ment. These recommendations are detailed in the hydrologic and water quality impacts. full report (Dreher 2004). 3. Guidelines for Conservation Development: Examples of the types of resource protection areas Recognizing that development will continue to identified, and the recommended conservation occur within many of the recommended resource strategies, include: protection areas, it was decided that recommenda- o Boone Creek Complex–McHenry County, tions were needed for conservation development Illinois: This recommended resource protection that would be compatible with biodiversity pro- area is largely private land, but contains some tection and restoration. The recommendations are of the most biodiverse landscapes in northeast- based on the premise that, in order to be truly sus- ern Illinois. It contains a large woodland/ tainable, development must not only protect the savanna complex, high quality fens and sedge natural environment but must improve systems meadows, and a high quality, cold-water degraded by past disturbances. The recommen- stream with silt intolerant fish. While there has dations are: been some recent public acquisition of natural o Minimize the total consumption of land, par- lands, this area is unique for its high concentra- ticularly the creation of impervious surfaces, by tion of conservation easements and dedicated new development nature preserves on private land. The recom- o Utilize existing infrastructure by maximizing mended conservation approaches include addi- infill and redevelopment tional acquisition and conservation easements, o Maintain and reestablish functional natural sys- wetland restoration in large drained hydric soil tems: soils, plants, water zones, and identification and protection of o Minimize disturbance of soil structure and ground water recharge zones for fens and sedge topography meadows. Recommended development con- o Develop landscapes sustainably, utilizing a trols call for low-intensity, conservation- diversity of native plant species designed residential development only, with no o Manage precipitation as a resource close to development in hydric soil zones. These recom- where it falls, not as a disposable waste product mendations are being promoted through a o Utilize the landscape to naturally filter and recently adopted watershed plan. infiltrate runoff before it leaves the develop- o Lake Calumet Region–Cook County, Illinois: ment site This recommended resource protection area o Eliminate adverse off-site and downstream contains a complex mix of natural areas host- effects of runoff and wastewater ing threatened and endangered species, highly o Maximize, interconnect, and restore natural degraded habitats, and adjacent industrial land open space in the midst of a large urban complex. It has o Maximize opportunities for local access to open been the subject of a comprehensive, long-term space planning process spearheaded by the City of o Establish administrative and financial mecha- Chicago and other members of the Chicago nisms for the long-term management of the nat- Wilderness consortium, in partnership with ural elements of developed sites (Dreher 2004) Calumet-based conservation and community

130 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

NATURAL AREA ACQUISITION • April 13, 1999–Kane County Forest Preserve One of the key factors in preserving natural areas is District–$70 million (66%) how to pay for the acquisition of land. In the face of • April 13, 1999–Will County Forest Preserve increasing development pressures, residents of District–$70 million (51%) northeastern Illinois have continued to pass bond ref- • November 4, 1997–Forest Preserve District of erenda for the acquisition of open space, including DuPage County–$75 million (58%) natural areas. From 1997 through 1999, there were six successful bond referenda in northeastern Illinois, As a result of the bond referenda passed, county for- totaling $281.5 million for conservation (The est preserve and conservation districts in northeast- Conservation Foundation 2004). Since 1999, at least ern Illinois have significantly increased their land 13 additional bond referenda have passed, totaling holdings (Table 7.9). more than $259 million. According to the Trust for Public Land’s LandVote web site, since 1999 there DESIGNATION OF NATURE PRESERVES have been 856 open space bond referenda passed in Acquisition of natural areas is not the only means of 33 states, netting $17.99 billion for conservation pur- preserving them. The Illinois Nature Preserves poses (The Trust for Public Land 2004). Commission, in designating high-quality natural areas as Nature Preserves, provides them the high- For the following successful open space referenda in est level of permanent protection in the state. The northeastern Illinois, the number in parentheses is voluntary program is available to private, corporate the percentage by which the measure passed (The and government landowners, who continue to own Conservation Foundation 2004): the land but agree to restrict uses in perpetuity to pre- • November 5, 2002–Lake Forest–$6 million (69%) serve its natural state, and to perpetuate natural con- • November 5, 2002–Kendall County Forest Pre- ditions. As of this writing, there are 323 dedicated serve District–$5 million (64%) Nature Preserves in 80 of Illinois’ 102 counties, com- • March 19, 2002–Barrington Park District–$11.5 prising 43,595 acres. Testament to the rich biodiver- million (61%) sity in the Chicago Wilderness portion of the state, • April 3, 2001–McHenry County Conservation more than one-third of the preserves are located District–$68.5 million (52%) within the six collar counties of Chicago. Since the • April 3, 2001–Lemont Township (Cook publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan in 1999, County)–$10 million (62%) there have been eight new Nature Preserves dedi- • April 3, 2001–Campton Township (Kane County) - cated within the boundaries of Chicago Wilderness, $19 million (54%) and additions to 30 others, bringing the total num- • November 7, 2000–Plainfield Township Park ber of Nature Preserves in Chicago Wilderness to 116. District–$6 million (71%) The total acreage of these preserves is 18,472 (Illinois • November 7, 2000–Orland Park–$20 million (57%) Nature Preserves Commission 2004). • November 7, 2000–Lake County Forest Preserve District–$85 million (67%) The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission also offers • March 21, 2000–Carol Stream Park District–$12 a less restrictive designation, called Illinois Land and million (67%) Water Reserve, to both public and private landown- • March 21, 2000–Barrington Park District–$8 mil- ers. Statewide, there are 113 Land and Water lion (61%) Reserves in 53 counties, totaling 34,425 acres. Prior • March 21, 2000–Geneva Park District–$7.9 million to the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan in (79%) 1999, there were only five Land and Water Reserves, • April 13, 1999–Lake county Forest Preserve totaling 824 acres, in northeastern Illinois. Since 2000, District–$55 million (66%) 12 Land and Water Reserves comprising 2,874 acres • April 13, 1999–Homer Township (Will County)–$8 have been added within the Chicago Wilderness million (63%) region (Illinois Nature Preserves Commission 2004). • April 13, 1999–Glen Ellyn Park District–$3.5 million (56%)

131 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

TABLE 7.9 THE AMOUNT OF LAND ADDED TO NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS’ FOREST PRESERVE AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AS A RESULT OF BOND REFERENDA SINCE 1997.

FPD of FPD of FPD of FPD of Lake McHenry Cook DuPage Kane Will County County County County County County Forest Conservation Preserves District

Acres owned in 19991 67,700 23,000 8,000 12,000 20,794 10,800

Acres owned through 20042 Data 25,000 14,000 16,808 25,191 19,335 n/a

Percent N/A 9% 75% 40% 21% 79% increase

1 As reported in Table 11.1 of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan 2 Data for 2004 were collected by Christopher Mulvaney in consultation with the Forest Preserve District of Cook County, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, the Forest Preserve District of Kane County, the Forest Preserve District of Will County, Lake County Forest Preserves, and the McHenry County Conservation District.

The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission recently CONSERVATION 2000 developed an additional option for conservation des- In 1995, Illinois passed a bill establishing Cons- ignation: Natural Heritage Landmarks. This is a ervation 2000, a comprehensive, six-year, $100 mil- recognition program that introduces landowners to lion initiative, designed to take a holistic, long-term the concept of natural area protection and allows the approach to protecting and managing Illinois’ natu- state to assist with management of the natural area. It ral resources. The Illinois Department of Natural is a voluntary program that increases understanding Resources administers the Conservation 2000 pro- of the value of natural areas and encourages their gram. In 1999, legislation was signed extending the preservation by private landowners. An agreement four components of the program through 2009: document determines provisions and can be termi- • Assessment and Monitoring nated by either party. Prior to 2000, there were only • Integrated Technical Assistance two Natural Heritage Landmarks, totaling 46 acres, • Ecosystem Project, Planning, and Support Grants in northeastern Illinois. Since 2000, an additional 78 • Ecosystem Interpretation and Education acres within eight different sites have been designated as Natural Heritage Landmarks (Illinois The voluntary Ecosystems Project, Planning and Nature Preserves Commission 2004). Support Grants is a critical component, the purpose

132 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

of which is to integrate the interests and participation of local communities and private, public and corporate landowners to enhance and protect watersheds CORLANDS: TAKING A CREATIVE through ecosystem-based management. According to APPROACH TO LAND the C2000 web site, “The Ecosystems Program is ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION made up of Ecosystem Partnerships, which are coali- tions of local stakeholders—private landowners, Corlands is the land acquisition affiliate of businesses, scientists, environmental organizations, the Openlands Project. Working primarily in recreational enthusiasts, and policy makers. They are northeastern Illinois, Corlands has acquired united by a common interest in the natural resources 70 sites totaling approximately 4,000 acres on of their areas’ watersheds. Partnership designation behalf of government agencies, which then brings financial and technical support, which is inte- acquired the sites when funding became gral in addressing watershed concerns” (Illinois available. Corlands has also provided techni- Department of Natural Resources 2004). Currently, cal assistance to government agencies and there are 41 Ecosystem Partnerships, covering more other organizations, facilitating their direct than 84 percent of Illinois. Eleven are located all or acquisition of an additional 5,800 acres. In partially within the Chicago Wilderness region. addition to its acquisition work, Corlands These are listed below, followed by the year in which has permanently preserved additional natu- each partnership was designated: ral areas by securing 30 conservation ease- • Chicago Wilderness Ecosystem Partnership–1996 ments on acreage totaling approximately • DuPage River Coalition Ecosystem Partnership– 1,636 acres. 1998 • Fox River Ecosystem Partnership–1996 Among Corlands’ recent acquisition efforts is • Kankakee River Ecosystem Partnership–1996 the 408-acre Hoover Outdoor Education • Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership–1996 Center, located along nearly a mile of the Fox • Lake Calumet Ecosystem Partnership–1999 River in Kendall County, Illinois. The Forest • Lower Des Plaines Ecosystem Partnership–2000 Preserve District of Kendall County long had • North Branch of the Chicago River Ecosystem– identified the property as important to pre- 2000 serve, and when the Boy Scouts of America • Prairie Parklands Ecosystem Partnership–1996 decided to look for a conservation-minded • Thorn Creek Macrosite Ecosystem Partnership– buyer for the camp, the Forest Preserve Dist- 1997 rict, along with the City of Yorkville, stepped • Upper Des Plaines Ecosystem Partnership–1996 forward. They turned to Corlands, which negotiated the acquisition in three roughly By way of example, the goals of the Wisconsin- equal parts, acquiring and holding one parcel Illinois Upper Des Plaines River Ecosystem at a time until the Forest Preserve District can Partnership are: secure the funds to buy it from Corlands. • Wildlife habitat and open space protection and Other partners in the effort include the restoration Conservation Fund, LaSalle Bank, and Speak- • Floodplain and stormwater management er of the U.S. House of Representatives, Den- • Water quality improvement and reduction of soil nis Hastert (R-Yorkville), who shepherded the erosion passage of an appropriation of approximately • Enhancement of recreational opportunities $5 million toward the purchase price. The • Demonstration of the feasibility of interstate and addition of the camp virtually doubles the public/private partnerships Forest Preserve District’s land holdings, and preserves for the residents of Kendall County Building upon grassroots conservation efforts initi- and the region a prime riverfront site of oak- ated in the early 1980s, the Lake Calumet Ecosystem hickory woodlands, bluff savannas and rav- Partnership was established in 1999 with the follow- ines (R. Megquier 2004). ing goals:

133 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

STEWARDSHIP OF SWEET FERN: ALAND AND WATER RESERVE

Marianne Hahn initially acquired 60 acres of black Hahn carefully monitors the recovery of the sweet oak savanna, sand prairie, flatwoods and farm fern colony, as well as the reestablishment of fields in the Kankakee Sands area of Kankakee native vegetation in areas formerly planted with County, Illinois. Naming the site Sweet Fern for corn or soybeans. There are now more than 400 the presence of the sweet-scented and state-listed native plant species on site, including 12 state- endangered native shrub, she gradually added 25 listed endangered plant species. And in the sum- additional acres to the site. In 2001, the former fac- mer of 2004, Hahn reported an abundance of the ulty member of the Chicago College of Osteo- state-listed Regal Fritillary butterfly. She also has pathic Medicine enrolled 62.2 acres in the Land documented the site’s avifauna and reptile and and Water Reserve program run by the Illinois amphibian populations, and supported a study by Nature Preserves Commission. At the time of the a University of Illinois graduate student on the enrollment, the site boasted more than 320 native resident red-headed woodpecker population. plant species, including six state-listed endangered plant species: sweet fern, shore St. John’s Hahn acknowledges some tax benefits for hav- wort, Carey’s smartweed, eastern blue-eyed grass, ing taken the land out of agricultural production bristly blackberry and primrose violet. and permanently protecting it. However, the most gratifying benefit, she says, is the pride she An active conservationist in her retirement (among feels in actively recovering the sheer beauty of a her many volunteer efforts, she is co-founder and rare ecosystem. “I love the scent of sweet fern as current President of the Midewin Tallgrass Prairie I walk through its leaves that glisten bright green Alliance), Hahn is active in the ongoing manage- in dappled sunlight. I love the diversity of the ment of her private Land and Water Reserve. With plants and the changes that occur among them support from the Illinois Nature Preserves from week to week, season to season, year to Commission and the Illinois Department of year. And the surprises! In September 2004, I dis- Natural Resources, a drainage ditch on the west covered native plant number 411—Polygonum end of the property has been filled in to help sagitatum, arrow-leaved tear thumb—a plant I'd restore the hydrological conditions in that area, never seen before now growing in an area that and bare areas have been sown with seed from had supported a soybean crop in 1999. Absol- adjacent areas. Many invasive plant species have utely thrilling!” (M. Hahn 2004). been removed or treated with herbicide, and in the spring of 2003, a controlled burn was conducted on 80 percent of the property.

• Restore the natural environment • Bird Conservation Network • Interpret our history • Calumet Ecological Park Association • Foster a sustainable economy • Center for Neighborhood Technology • Revitalize our community • Centrol Comunitario Juan Diego • Protect environmental health • Chicago Audubon Society • Chicago State University Representative of the diversity of public and private • Citizens for a Better Environment partners in most, if not all, Ecosystem Partnerships, • City of Chicago Department of Environment members of the Lake Calumet Ecosystem Partner- • Friends of the Parks ship include: • Illinois Environmental Protection Agency • Acme Steel Company • Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant

134 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

• Illinois Audubon Society, Fort Dearborn Chapter District and the Illinois Natural Areas Inventories. • Openlands Project Outreach to more than 200 landowners within these • Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter most vulnerable natural areas has resulted in the • Southeast Chicago Development Commission Conservancy accepting conservation easements at • Southeast Environmental Task Force two of the sites and purchasing land at another site. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Two additional sites were enrolled in the Con- • U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Research servancy’s Land Heritage Registry program, a volun- Station tary, non-binding program by which the landowner • Veterans Park Improvement Association agrees to manage his/her natural area in accordance with sound conservation principles. To assist the To date, ecosystem partnership members throughout landowners, the Conservancy offers to help draft a the entire state have raised approximately $37.8 mil- management plan for each site. To date, 119 acres at lion to match $29.9 million in project grants, for a total six sites have been enrolled in the program. of $67.7 million. With these funds, the partnerships Additionally, the Conservancy holds title to 33 acres of have protected nearly 6,000 acres through acquisition land and 16 conservation easements on 236 acres, or conservation easements, and have restored more bringing the total number of acres permanently pro- than 62,000 acres. In recognition of these achieve- tected to 269 (L. Haderlein 2004). ments, in 2004 the program won honors from the National Association of Resource Conservation and In another example, in 2004, the Fox Valley Land Development Councils (Illinois Department of Foundation hired its first land protection specialist to Natural Resources 2005). implement a private landowner contact program. Guided by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, the USE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND Fox River Watershed Biodiversity Inventory and the OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERS Kane County Advanced Identification of Wetlands Among the other tools for preserving natural areas Inventory, the program targets privately-owned, are conservation easements, which the Land Trust high-quality natural areas with no formal protection, Alliance describes as “legal agreement[s] between a or those that would expand or buffer existing pro- landowner and a land trust or government agency tected areas. As a result of outreach efforts, 14 sites, that permanently limits uses of the land in order to comprised of 307 acres, have been enrolled in the protect its conservation values” (Land Trust Alliance Foundation’s Heritage Land Registry program, mod- 2004). According to the Alliance’s web site, in 2004, “a eled after the program pioneered by the Land record five million acres were protected through vol- Conservancy of McHenry County. The Foundation untary conservation easements, more than triple the holds six conservation easements, three of which are amount (1.4 million acres) protected just five years on privately owned land. The other easements per- ago” (Land Trust Alliance 2004). manently protect a Natural Areas Inventory site, expand an Illinois Nature Preserve and protect a rare, Mirroring this national trend, a growing number of high-quality fen. Since 1999, the Foundation has nonprofit land trust organizations in the region have raised nearly $1 million to acquire three adjoining been increasing the number of conservation ease- land areas, or buffers, to protected natural areas and ments held or negotiated on behalf of other agencies, has donated them to public agencies. The foundation by focusing their efforts on outreach to individual has also raised more than $900,000 to manage and landowners of small- to medium-sized, high-quality restore more than two dozen protected natural areas, natural areas. including 11 sites that contain the state-endangered eastern prairie fringed orchid (M. Nelson 2004). For example, in 2003, the Land Conservancy of McHenry County identified high-quality natural In yet another example of the use of conservation areas under threat of development and/or with no easements, The Conservation Foundation currently plan by a public agency to protect them, based on holds 16 easements totaling 506 acres, of which 438 information from the McHenry County Conservation have been protected since 2000. The Conservation

135 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Foundation has negotiated three additional ease- Chicago region together to create a shared vision for ments, comprising 75 acres, on behalf of public agen- the common future. In June 2005, NIPC adopted its cies, including the nation’s first conservation 2040 Regional Framework Plan. Participants identi- easement on a Girl Scout camp. Approximately half fied a number of types of green areas they wanted to of the 135-acre Whispering Oaks Camp, located see preserved or protected by 2040. In addition to along the lower Fox River near Sheridan, Illinois, and open space, water resources and agricultural land, home to the state-threatened northern white cedar, participants identified biodiversity areas for protec- is now permanently protected (D. Lobbes 2004). tion along the Kankakee River in southwest Will County, along the Calumet River near the Indiana REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVES border, along the Chain-of-Lakes in Lake and There are four major regional planning efforts in the McHenry Counties, and along the Nippersink Creek. Chicago Wilderness region: Additional biodiverse areas were identified in the • Common Ground, Northeastern Illinois Planning Des Plaines River area near the Palos/Sag Forest Commission (NIPC) Preserves. • The Metropolis Plan, Chicago Metropolis 2020 • Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality The Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality Commission, the Center for Neighborhood Commission is a coalition of more than 200 organi- Technology zations that work together to make recommenda- • 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Chicago Area tions to CATS on transportation-related issues. The Transportation Study (CATS) Commission is led by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Again, Commission participants do not With the exception of Common Ground, none men- always explicitly address the need to protect biodi- tion the importance of restoring and protecting bio- versity, but in both McHenry and Lake Counties in diversity, although each addresses the importance of Illinois, the need to protect natural areas and open natural areas. space was the number one concern.

In March 2003, Chicago Metropolis 2020 released The CATS Policy Committee is designated by state “The Metropolis Plan: Choices for the Chicago and local officials as the Metropolitan Planning Region.” Although the plan does not explicitly Organization (MPO) for the northeastern Illinois address biodiversity, it does make three recommen- region. In October, 2003, CATS released the 2030 dations to protect natural areas, open space and Regional Transportation Plan for Northeastern farmland: Illinois. One of the accompanying documents to the plan is an analysis completed by NIPC, “Natural 1. Use regional land use and transportation plans to Resource and Socio-Economic Impacts of 2030 set priorities for the preservation of natural areas, Regional Transportation Proposals.” (Northeastern open space, and farmland. Illinois Planning Commission 2003). NIPC’s analysis identifies which proposed projects have the highest 2. Provide state funding for the acquisition and potential for negative impacts on natural resources. preservation of open lands and natural areas con- However, CATS did not include this analysis in its sistent with the state’s goals for growth and the final plan for the region. CATS did note when a pro- regional land use and transportation plans. posed project will cross high- quality streams, or transect forest preserves or agricultural areas. For 3. Provide state funding and technical assistance in example, NIPC identified the proposed Prairie order to map, inventory and preserve key natural Parkway as having a high natural resource impact, as areas and farmland in urbanizing counties it is located in a watershed identified as very high (Chicago Metropolis 2020 2003, p.35). priority for protection and restoration, contains agricultural areas and passes the southeast side of Common Ground is led by NIPC. It is a comprehen- Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. CATS’ plan sive planning process that brings the six-county mentions the project’s location, but limits its recom-

136 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

mendation to “consideration of farmland protection regulatory gap in our region. Fortunately, the State is recommended” (Chicago Area Transportation of Wisconsin, several countywide stormwater man- Study 2003 p.190). agement agencies in northeastern Illinois, and some individual local governments have instituted their Note that as this report goes to print, CATS and NIPC own protections for isolated wetlands. Nonetheless, are beginning a merger as recommended to the Illinois gov- there are numerous isolated wetlands in our region ernor and General Assembly in an April 2004 report by that are no longer protected. the Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation Task Force. It is important to specifically note the role that many members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium play OUTREACH TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS in supporting improved development ordinances In broad terms, it is safe to conclude that local gov- and programs. The consortium has financially sup- ernment ordinances, plans and development poli- ported the development of important publications cies are improving in the protections they provide for and projects that directly support local government habitat and natural areas in the Chicago Wilderness efforts in conserving biodiversity. These include: region. In fact, the use of the term “conservation • The Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure development” is becoming much more common and Vision Project the list of developments meeting conservation design • The Conservation Design Resource Manual principles is growing steadily. There also appears to • Protecting Nature in Your Community: A Guidebook be an increasing acceptance of open space and habi- for Preserving and Enhancing Biodiversity tat protection in many communities to enhance qual- • Restoring and Managing Stream Greenways: A ity of life, as well as protect biodiversity. Some Landowner’s Handbook examples of positive trends in development ordi- • Sustainable Development Principles for Protecting nances include: Nature in the Chicago Wilderness Region • An increasing acceptance of cluster development • The Ecological Planning and Design Directory: to protect open space and sensitive habitats Resources for Developers, Local Officials and • An increasing number of development projects Stakeholders (an online resource) that incorporate habitat restoration, particularly of aquatic systems Members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium are • An increasing number of communities that require also directly involved in outreach and technical assis- open space set-asides as part of development tance to local governments. A new project—the approval Sustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT)—is • Improved, more holistic stormwater ordinances bringing the expertise of progressive conservation • A growing acceptance of non-traditional, ecologi- design engineers, planners and landscape architects cally friendly stormwater drainage approaches. into select communities. Their mission is to work • A growing acceptance of natural landscaping as with municipal officials and the consultants repre- an alternative to turf grass senting developers to find more sustainable design • An evolving awareness of the need for effective solutions for sensitive development projects. management of preserved and created natural Combined with the efforts of Chicago Wilderness landscapes member organizations, these actions bode well for continued improvement in the sustainability of There do not appear to be any negative trends, or development in the face of relentless development weakening, of local development ordinances. How- pressures in the region. ever, there is at least one area in which ecosystem protections have been weakened due to changes in Through the lens of the eight sustainable development federal law and/or policy. Specifically, the elimina- principles adopted by the Chicago Wilderness con- tion of federal regulation of isolated wetlands due to sortium in 2004, what follows is an overview of the a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has created a status of existing county and municipal ordinances:

137 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

1. Promote infill development and redevelop- This principle encompasses a number of actions, ment where transportation facilities and utili- some of which entail planning and inventories ties already exist in order to minimize the and others that involve ordinance approaches. development of open lands, such as natural Implementing this principle initially requires effective areas and farmland. Encourage development inventorying of natural resources and incorporating that is compact and contiguous to existing them into maps and comprehensive land use plans. community infrastructure. NIPC recently conducted an inventory of the comprehensive land use plans in its region. It concluded that This principle is largely focused on improved com- 77 percent of the municipalities have plans, although prehensive planning at the regional and local level, they range extensively in thoroughness and content, versus regulatory ordinances. However, zoning also and many are outdated. Of these plans, just 49 percent can be used in ways to encourage and require more gave moderate to high emphasis to protecting wet- infill and contiguous development. Broadly, regional lands, greenways and forest preserves. plans adopted by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC), Northwest Indiana Regional One of the most remarkable examples of biodiver- Planning Commission and Southeastern Wisconsin sity planning at the community level is the Village Regional Planning Commission support this principle. of Schaumburg’s recently adopted Schaumburg Biodiversity Recovery Plan (Applied Ecological Locally, some county and municipal plans strongly Services 2004). The plan includes an ecological support this principle. One of the best examples is assessment of natural areas in the village; natural Kane County’s 2020 Land Resource Management area restoration recommendations; recommenda- Plan, which identifies three distinct zones in the tions for conservation development; identification of county: an urban corridor, a critical growth corridor greenway opportunities; identification of funding where natural resource protection is paramount, and opportunities; and recommended ordinance changes. an agricultural priority area where little development It also has residential and business guides for biodi- is foreseen (Kane County Regional Planning Com- versity-friendly practices. In Wisconsin, state laws mission 1996). require the development of comprehensive “smart growth” plans by local governments. The Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision (Dreher 2004) referenced earlier in this chapter, may Beyond planning, the next logical step is the adop- provide additional leverage and information to com- tion of zoning and subdivision ordinance language munities desiring to support this principle. Zoning that explicitly prevents development in and adjacent maps and regulations also can support this principle to sensitive natural areas. From an ordinance per- at the local level by designating the density and type spective, counties and municipalities in the Chicago of development for an area. Similarly, zoning ordi- Wilderness region have been relatively progressive in nances could more aggressively restrict development endorsing this principle. However, the ordinances to locations where appropriate transportation and have generally focused on a fairly limited range of infrastructure already exist; could require a heavy fee habitat types—principally streams and wetlands— for “greenfield” development; or provide incentives in their protections. The principal reason for this lim- to use the already built environment for new devel- ited focus is that habitat protection, per se, is not a opment. Unfortunately, very few communities in the high priority to most local governments. Rather, high-growth portions of our region where biodiver- streams and wetlands are offered protection prima- sity is at greatest risk utilize such innovative zoning rily because of their importance to stormwater man- approaches. agement and flood prevention.

2. Locate and plan new development in ways In general, southeast Wisconsin communities are in that protect natural resources and habitat and much better shape with respect to wetland protection. provide buffers between sensitive natural This is largely due to protections provided through areas and intensive use areas.

138 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

statewide wetland regulations. In northwest Indiana, Ordinances do have a role, however, in encouraging, relatively few local governments offer stream and if not requiring, restoration of streams, lakes and wet- wetland protection through local ordinances. lands. A number of communities do have comprehensive ordinances protecting aquatic systems, Beyond streams and wetlands, there are other criti- which typically require protection of buffers adja- cal natural areas that need protection to preserve bio- cent to aquatic resources and mitigation of any direct diversity. Included in this category would be impacts to the resource or the buffer. Another angle remnant prairies, savannas, and woodlands, as well for enhancing recreation and access to aquatic sys- as sensitive groundwater recharge areas. The situa- tems via the development process is through land tion is much less favorable here. In general, very few use plans and zoning codes that identify community local ordinances explicitly address these resources. greenways and trails. Encouragingly, many communities in the region have begun to use this approach Finally, principally because of concerns over future to establish community greenways and “river water supplies, an increasing number of communi- walks,” even though these improvements may not be ties are requiring consideration of groundwater explicitly mandated by the local ordinances. recharge zones in the development process. Within this realm, a few communities, like South Elgin and 4. Preserve permanent open space as an integral Yorkville in Illinois, also have begun to address pro- part of new development to both protect criti- tection of fen recharge areas. cal natural areas and to provide opportunities for recreation and environmental education. 3. Use the development process to enhance and Design developments to create open space restore streams, wetlands and lakes, and to linkages to adjacent and regional natural areas enhance their potential as recreational and so that nature exists not as islands but as con- aesthetic amenities. nected habitat.

This principle involves a number of possible actions This principle is accomplished through a combina- and is based on the premise that avoidance alone is tion of good land use planning, coordination not sufficient to ensure the long-term viability and between local governments and developers, and value of aquatic ecosystems. Enhancement and ordinances that specify minimum open space restoration of aquatic ecosystems requires several requirements. According to NIPC’s recent inventory things. There must be a clear understanding of of the comprehensive land use plans in its region, hydrology and plant communities on the develop- from a planning perspective, 75 percent of the munic- ment site. There must be an appreciation of the eco- ipal comprehensive plans in northeastern Illinois logic and economic feasibility of potential restoration give moderate to high emphasis to parks and open measures. And there must be an understanding of space protection. the value of such restoration—such as the recreational benefits of a stream greenway—to both the From an ordinance perspective, preserving perma- developer and the community. nent open space is commonly achieved by requirements for park donations and/or establishing Because of the complexity and site-specific nature of minimum percentages of open space for different aquatic restoration projects, very few communities in development types. Most communities in growth the region have ordinances that formally address this areas now require park donations or set-asides for issue. Rather, in the more ecologically progressive new development. However, it isn’t clear how many communities, or in projects involving progressive of these requirements are structured to protect natu- developers, restoration and enhancement are negoti- ral land. ated between the developer and the local government (and other relevant regulatory agencies, such as There is an increasing trend to require that a certain the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). percentage of residential developments, specified by ordinance, be set aside as natural open space. Often,

139 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

this requirement is in addition to natural lands that gressive water resource ordinances. In recognition of are considered unbuildable (e.g., wetlands and flood- some of these concerns, NIPC and other members of plains). Examples of such requirements can be found the Chicago Wilderness consortium recently devel- in the plans and development ordinances of Kane, oped the Conservation Design Resource Manual, Lake and Will Counties in Illinois, where require- which is designed to help communities effectively ments typically range from 20 to 40 percent open update local plans and ordinances to be more space. Porter County, Indiana is presently considering amenable to conservation design practices. the adoption of an open space ordinance. However, there is some variability in how open space is defined As a development site is being planned, site layout (i.e., it may not always have significant biodiversity and drainage system design are governed by the com- value). Also, existing open space ordinances may not munity’s subdivision code, in combination with its always be clear in specifying ownership and long- stormwater ordinance. Regarding the latter, there has term management of such areas. been tremendous progress in community approaches to stormwater management. NIPC, from an advisory 5. Recognize the value of water as a resource and perspective, has long-promoted progressive stormwa- manage it to protect downstream water bodies ter management approaches through its “Model and wetlands, prevent increased flooding, Stormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance” preserve groundwater resources and maintain (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission 1994). natural hydrology. While individual communities have adopted the model ordinance, perhaps the biggest positive impact This principle entails the adoption of progressive has been the action of countywide stormwater man- ordinances and guidelines for the holistic manage- agement commissions. Beginning in the early 1990s, ment of stormwater runoff in development projects. these commissions have been adopting relatively pro- Traditionally, stormwater ordinances have focused gressive ordinances that are mandated for adoption by on end-of-the-pipe, engineered treatment options— every municipality in the county as well as the county typically catch basins and detention structures. Such itself. To date, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will approaches are very limited in their focus and do lit- Counties in Illinois have adopted and are now enforc- tle to protect the hydrology and water quality of ing county-wide ordinances. downstream wetlands, lakes and river systems. Beyond the county-wide ordinances, individual com- Progressive approaches, in contrast, attempt to pre- munities in northeastern Illinois have adopted pro- serve, as much as possible, the natural hydrology of a gressive stormwater ordinances as a condition for the site, and limit off-site water quality impacts. This is expansion of wastewater facility planning areas or accomplished by limiting impervious areas, preserv- municipal wastewater treatment plants. In Wisc- ing natural drainage and storage features, routing onsin, community regulations are guided by new runoff through “naturalized” swales and filter strips, stormwater management requirements enforced and and storing and filtering excess runoff in naturally delegated through the Wisconsin Department of landscaped detention basins. Natural Resources. Wisconsin has developed an aggressive model ordinance for construction activi- As with most of the other principles, this can be ties that addresses hydrology, water quality and accomplished by a combination of good site plan- buffer strips on development sites. ning, design guidelines and prescriptive ordinances. More specifically, it is recognized that effective pro- While there has been substantial progress in the tection of water resources cannot be accomplished adoption of improved stormwater ordinances in the through the implementation and enforcement of tra- last 10 years, actual development practices often ditional development ordinances alone. A more inte- leave much to be desired. One of the biggest con- grated approach is necessary, principally because straints to more effective stormwater and water conventional subdivision and zoning codes often resource management in most communities is the conflict with at least some of the requirements of pro- inflexibility of the conventional subdivision ordi-

140 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

nances. Traditional subdivision ordinances may be reaching downstream aquatic systems receive much constraining in a number of areas, including require- less attention. ments related to street widths, parking lots, curbs, gutters, storm sewers, landscape islands and imper- Local government programs to preserve and expand meable paving. native landscapes have expanded substantially in recent years. There have been some successes in pro- 6. Minimize changes to natural topography, soils tecting small remnant natural areas from develop- and vegetation to preserve land, water and soil ment, but much improvement is needed in this area. relationships that are essential for sustaining Specifically, while many community and county ordi- plant and animal habitat. Where sites have nances now address the protection of wetlands, rela- been previously altered, attempt to restore nat- tively few address remnant woodland, savanna or ural conditions to the extent possible. prairie communities.

This principle is focused on preserving and restor- More significant progress has been made in commu- ing the integrity of the soils and vegetation on a nities accepting, and even promoting, natural land- development site. Much of this can be accomplished scaping in lieu of conventional turf. It has now by progressive ordinances, in combination with become commonplace, for example, to see native incentives and guidelines. The traditional approach landscaping around stormwater detention facili- to this issue has been a focus on nuisance soil erosion, ties—something rarely observed only 10 to 15 years but without consideration of the long-term implica- ago. It also is becoming more common to see natural tions of compacted soils. Traditional approaches also landscaping on large corporate campuses and insti- have failed to consider the consequences of land- tutional properties. Nonetheless, many communities’ scaping sites with non-native, shallow rooted vegeta- subdivision ordinances, or separate “weed” ordi- tion, with the conventional default being turf grass. nances, preclude natural landscaping in many resi- Not only do such landscapes provide little local ben- dential and commercial development applications. efit to biodiversity, they also cause off-site impacts Fortunately, the member organizations of the Chi- due to fertilizer and pesticide runoff and dewatering cago Wilderness consortium are making efforts to of local aquifers for irrigation. overcome these obstacles. For example, model ordinance language is available from NIPC’s recently A progressive response to these concerns is adoption revised Source Book on Natural Landscaping for Local of ordinances and guidelines that: Officials (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission • Minimize the amount of soil disturbance and com- 2004), and Openlands Project is spearheading the paction on a development site CorporateLands program to help corporations insti- • Minimize soil erosion and off-site sedimentation tute natural landscaping in office campus settings. during construction • Protect remnant native vegetation 7. Establish procedures that assure the ongoing • Encourage the use of native vegetation for on-site management of natural areas within develop- landscaping ments as part of an overall strategy for achieving sustainability. Fortunately, municipalities and counties have made significant progress in the recent past in requiring This principle recognizes that land protection, natu- more progressive approaches, particularly in the area ral landscaping and related preservation efforts will of soil erosion control. Unfortunately, significant not be successful in the long term without effective problems remain. In most communities, the empha- mechanisms for the restoration and management of sis remains principally on avoiding sediment loss natural areas. Implementation of this principle that causes a public nuisance or disrupts roadways requires both effective education of landowners and and other infrastructure. Commonly, the more perva- ordinance requirements that stipulate clear responsi- sive problems of elevated turbidity and silt loads bilities for long-term management.

141 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Implementation of actions under this principle does This principle targets measures that improve sustain- not have a long history among local governments in ability at the regional and global scale. Such meas- the region. In particular, most local governments cur- ures might include zoning to enhance access to rently do not have clear ordinance directives to public transportation and building codes that require ensure that management and maintenance responsi- energy efficiency and the use of recycled and recy- bilities will be met for natural areas and created nat- clable materials. Such measures are important to the ural landscapes. In most communities, it appears that heath of the planet and can protect air quality and maintenance and management responsibilities are reduce sprawl. However, in comparison to the pre- determined on a project-by-project basis. These ceding principles, their benefits to biodiversity in the responsibilities are commonly negotiated between Chicago Wilderness region are less direct and not municipal staff and developers and their consultants. evaluated at this time.

Recent positive examples include the development of IMPROVEMENT OF WATER QUALITY design criteria, performance criteria, monitoring According to the Environmental Law and Policy guidelines and maintenance and management re- Center web site: quirements adopted by the Butterfield Creek Steering “Ammonia is discharged to Illinois waters from Committee, a group of communities in southern Cook sewage treatment plants and from such indus- County. These communities took on a number of new trial sources as fertilizer manufacturers and oil natural landscaping and restoration projects and refineries. In addition, fertilizer runoff from wanted assurances that the projects would be sustain- farm fields is a major source of ammonia pol- able in the long term, both from the perspective of aes- lution. Ammonia is toxic to many forms of thetics and functionality. On another positive note, a aquatic life. In fish, ammonia affects hatching number of park districts in the region have stepped up and growth rates, and it can cause changes in to the plate to provide ownership and management tissues of gills, the liver and the kidneys. Many of natural areas. One of the leading examples is St. species of wildlife native to Illinois, such as Charles Park District in Kane County, Illinois. The smallmouth bass and fingernail clams, are sen- Park District has worked with the City of St. Charles to sitive to ammonia, and they are also an impor- identify natural areas within new developments— tant part of the food chain for waterfowl and including wetlands, stream corridors, and naturalized other wildlife. In addition to its toxicity, ammo- stormwater facilities—that are suitable for its manage- nia causes problems when it degrades, consum- ment capabilities. The Park District also acquires land ing oxygen needed by fish to breathe. Ammonia through purchase. In total, it manages more than 500 also degrades into nutrients that contribute to acres of natural land, including two dedicated Illinois algae blooms, which further deprive waterways Nature Preserves. of oxygen” (Environmental Law and Policy Center 2004). There are other entities that communities have approached to meet their needs for management of According to the Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois’ only natural lands dedicated through the development statewide river conservation organization, sometime process, including land trusts and similar local con- in 1996, a discharge standard for ammonia nitrogen servation groups and even forest preserve districts. was adopted that was much stronger than the old One notable example is the Forest Preserve District of standard but had a very large loophole—essentially Kane County’s management of parcels in the Mill that the standard would not apply if it was too diffi- Creek corridor that were set aside in a large conser- cult to implement. Environmental groups spent the vation development project. next several years fighting that loophole and in 2000, new implementation rules were adopted for the 8. Design development to achieve the broader ammonia standard that eliminated the loophole and sustainability of human and natural commu- provided significant benefits for aquatic life. Minor nities, including the social and economic changes were made to the rules in 2002, but they dimensions of sustainability.

142 CHAPTER 7 SUSTAINABILITY

remain more protective than they were prior to the A proposal by the Illinois Environmental Protection adoption of the implementation rules in 2000 (J. Agency to the Illinois Pollution Control Board would Flemma 2004). limit phosphorus levels to one milligram per liter in any case where a new or expanding discharge is pro- In February 2002, new antidegradation regulations posed that would discharge at least one million gal- were adopted by the Illinois Environmental Pro- lons per day (a one milligram per liter limit means tection Agency under the Clean Water Act after a that each liter of water discharged by a polluter can two-year effort by Prairie Rivers Network, the only contain a maximum of one milligram of phos- Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Sierra phorus). This proposal, if adopted by the Board, Club. The new regulations are among the best in the would reduce algae and bacteria growth that kills country and enable clean water advocates to demand fish and other wildlife and can turn waters into green greater protection from new discharges to high-qual- slime that is undesirable for swimming or other uses. ity waters. Specifically, the new regulations require While the proposal to limit new or increased sources the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the of phosphorus is modest, it represents the first real discharger to 1) demonstrate that the socioeconomic requirement to reduce phosphorus discharges to benefits of the pollution outweigh the potential envi- streams in Illinois. ronmental degradation, 2) perform an analysis of possible alternatives to the discharge, and 3) ensure that the new discharges do not destroy existing beneficial uses of the receiving waters such as providing drinking water and supporting aquatic life.

143 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

cies, and volunteer-based groups. Corporate interests 8.1INTRODUCTION participate by enrolling as members of the Chicago The Biodiversity Recovery Plan contains numerous Wilderness Corporate Council and individuals— goals and recommended actions related to individual numbering more than 5,000—regularly volunteer natural communities, animal assemblages and policy their time and talents in hands-on restoration and initiatives. Together they reflect the overall objectives monitoring of the region’s natural communities. expressed in the plan’s executive summary. And the plan is meant to be a living document that evolves b. Strengthen local government support by com- as new information becomes available. Already, some municating with and involving officials in plan- of the objectives listed below have been superceded ning efforts and conservation programs. by the evolving work of the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s teams. Some objectives are addressed com- In 2000, Chicago Wilderness funded a full-time posi- prehensively within the preceding chapters. Some tion for one year, staffed by Dennis Dreher of the are difficult to assess due to their subjective nature Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, to con- and more than a few overlap with each other. duct outreach to local governments through presen- Nonetheless, what follows are highlights of the tations and consulting on specific projects, namely progress made toward the Biodiversity Recovery Plan those related to sustainable development. Dreher objectives, the “big picture” perspective on the completed a comprehensive survey of local govern- Chicago Wilderness consortium’s efforts to protect ment ordinances as they relate to preserving the bio- and restore the region’s natural communities to long- diversity of the Chicago Wilderness region, a term viability, in order to contribute to the conserva- summary of which is included in chapter seven. In tion of global biodiversity and enrich local citizens’ general, Dreher finds that an increasing number of quality of life. The following examples reflect data local government ordinances, plans and develop- available at the time this report was developed. ment policies are improving in the protections they provide for natural areas within Chicago Wilderness. In fact, the use of the term “conservation develop- INVOLVE THE CITIZENS, ment” is becoming much more common and the list ORGANIZATIONS AND 8.2 of developments meeting conservation design prin- GENCIES OF THE EGION IN FFORTS A R E ciples is growing steadily. There also appears to be a TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY growing acceptance of open space and habitat protection in many communities in order to enhance a. Obtain broad-based and active public participa- quality of life, as well as protect biodiversity. tion in the long-term protection, restoration and stewardship of the region’s natural communities. In chapter seven, Dreher points out the role the Chicago Wilderness consortium and its members have The Chicago Wilderness consortium, itself, is a prime played in supporting the development of improved example of involving a broad diversity of organiza- ordinances and programs. Direct outreach and tech- tions in the preservation of the region’s biodiversity. nical support efforts include the publication of sev- What began in 1996 as an exploratory idea by 34 eral development guidelines and the development of organizations has blossomed a decade later into a the Sustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT), in diverse consortium of more than 180 public and pri- which engineers, planners and landscape architects vate organizations, including universities, museums, work with municipal officials and the consultants rep- municipalities, park districts, conservation organiza- resenting developers to find more sustainable design tions, federal agencies, state agencies, county agen- solutions for sensitive development projects.

144 CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

c. Maintain and strengthen volunteer participation 5,000 volunteers who help public and private in stewardship and research. landowners maintain more than 300 high-quality natural areas (The Nature Conservancy 2005). The Throughout the history of the nation’s conservation VSN is guided by a volunteer steering committee and movement, volunteers have played a pivotal role, a supported by a coordinator employed by the Illinois role that remains of vital importance today. Within chapter of The Nature Conservancy. In addition to the Chicago Wilderness region, substantial monitor- providing outreach, education and training assis- ing of natural communities is conducted by volun- tance, the coordinator facilitates communication teers. Without volunteer monitors, much of the data among volunteers and network members via a list- available for the Report Card would not exist. serve and a thrice-annual newsletter published by Likewise, volunteers play an invaluable role in The Nature Conservancy. hands-on restoration work. The Habitat Project, which facilitates several regional volunteer initia- Although there is no formal register of volunteer tives, conservatively estimates the number of hours monitoring groups within the region, other impor- volunteered in Chicago Wilderness in 2003 at 66,043. tant groups include the Bird Conservation Network, Using a standard volunteer dollar valuation, that the Chicago Wilderness Calling Frog survey, Plants translates into a total service amount of $1,068,649— of Concern, Plant Community Monitoring, the a number all the more significant in the current cli- Illinois Butterfly Monitoring Network and the mate of reduced management budgets amongst state Dragonfly Monitoring Network, to name some that agencies and nonprofit organizations alike (K. are active within the Chicago Wilderness region. Glennemeier 2004). d. Stimulate active private-sector involvement and Established in 1999, the Chicago Wilderness Habitat integrate a broader range of stakeholders, Project coordinates the Bird Conservation Network including businesses and constituency organiza- Census and the Chicago Wilderness grassland bird tions, into biodiversity conservation efforts. blitz, manages the Chicago Wilderness Calling Frog Survey and the savanna reptile and amphibian study, Recognizing the profound effect that the business and publishes a thrice-annual newsletter. The community has on the ecological health and biologi- newsletter provides more than 700 volunteers with cal diversity of the Chicago region through its peo- information about annual training opportunities, ple, land development practices, management news, and monitoring and stewardship success sto- practices, political activity and philanthropy, in 2002, ries. Coordinating these and other volunteer efforts the Chicago Wilderness consortium established the on a regional basis, the Habitat Project is able to mar- Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council. At the time shal quick responses to emergent issues, such as the of this Report Card’s publication, 27 businesses have 2003 outbreak of West Nile Virus. In that case, vol- joined the council, making a commitment to improve unteers were mobilized to document the effect of the our region’s environment. virus on the region’s bird populations. This rapid response provided reliable, quantified information of In 2003 the Openlands Project, a member of the great conservation value, but which also helped pub- Chicago Wilderness consortium, launched its lic health officials identify geographic “hot spots” of Corporatelands Program in partnership with the viral outbreak in the region. Clean Air Counts Campaign, a regional effort to reduce ozone-causing emissions. The Corporatelands Another highly significant volunteer program is the Program helps corporations and large institutions, Volunteer Stewardship Network (VSN). Established such as colleges and hospitals, design natural land- in 1983 by The Nature Conservancy and the Illinois scapes as a means to improve the environmental Nature Preserves Commission, the network is com- quality of their corporate campuses. Converting tra- prised of numerous independent volunteer groups ditional turf grass landscapes into natural landscapes operating throughout the state, including 27 in north- using native plants and grasses results in numerous eastern Illinois. These groups coordinate more than benefits to the land owners and the region, includ-

145 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

ing the improvement of stormwater management contains a complete list of projects funded by the and flood control, a reduction in landscape mainte- Chicago Wilderness consortium through 2004. nance costs, an increase in regional biodiversity, and the reduction of air pollution. b. Specify results to be achieved in biodiversity conservation and increased sustainability, includ- Another program that encourages native landscaping reliable indicators, baselines and targets. ing is the Conservation and Native Landscaping Award Program, developed in 2000 by the U.S. A key recommendation of both the Biodiversity Environmental Protection Agency–Region 5 and the Recovery Plan and the Report Card is to develop spe- Chicago Wilderness consortium. The program is cific, measurable recovery goals and indicators, along designed to recognize developments, corporate cam- with monitoring protocols, as well as to establish puses, industrial parks, public parks, schools, gov- baseline data. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan sets forth ernment complexes and other sites that creatively broad recovery goals for the region’s plant commu- implement the use of native landscaping on their nities and animal assemblages, but recognizes the properties. Among the 2003 award recipients was the need for more specific targets, standards and meas- City of Chicago’s Chicago Center for Green Tech- ures to allow for progress measurement. The conser- nology, which sits on a former dump site from which vation designs developed for grassland birds, 600,000 tons of construction and demolition debris savanna herpetofauna and woodlands—each rated were cleared. The site is now home to an environ- of highest conservation concern in the Biodiversity mentally sustainable facility where people can learn Recovery Plan—are significant steps in the right direc- how to make their own homes and businesses more tion. Although each varies according to the unique energy efficient and environmentally friendly. The attributes and threats to the community or assem- site’s landscape is planted entirely with native plants blage it addresses, each is a model of establishing that are botanically diverse and provide a good food measurable recovery benchmarks in five-year incre- source for many native species of insects, birds and ments through 2025. small mammals. The site also features a wetland, which has already become home to some native The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for birds, as well as a variety of non-invasive insects. The Savanna Herpetofauna” does not establish specific parking lot features an absence of curbs so that drive- targets for individual species, but it does call for no way waste is filtered through bioswales before it loss or decline of 27 target species at 80 percent of 100 reaches the detention pond. monitored sites throughout the region by 2025. It also calls for the preservation and management of at least A complete list of Conservation and Native one large (at least 800 acre) habitat complex—consist- Landscaping Award recipients and other information ing of multiple habitat types—in each of the region’s about natural landscaping may be found at www. natural divisions: Grand Prairie, Western Morainal, epa.gov/glnpo/greenacres. Kettle Moraine, Lake Plain and Gary Lake Plain/High Dune/Ridge and Swale. Another indica- IMPROVE THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS tor of progress is for 100 percent of monitored sites to 8.3OF ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT have written, approved and active management plans in place. In response to identified threats, the conser- a. Increase knowledge of species, communities and vation design calls for management plans to address ecological relationships and processes. controlled burns, hydrology, invasive species, groundcover, fragmentation and dispersal, acquisi- As noted above and elsewhere in the Report Card, the tion and easements, and fundraising. Acknowledging region’s numerous volunteer efforts are contributing that there are several knowledge gaps related to invaluable data about the region’s habitats and savanna reptiles and amphibians, the conservation species. Since the publication of the Biodiversity design includes an appendix that outlines a number Recovery Plan, the Chicago Wilderness consortium has of research, inventory and policy questions to be supported numerous other research efforts. A repre- addressed in the future. (Glennemeier 2002c). sentative few are listed in chapter five. Appendix A

146 CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for number of restoration, management or acquisition Woodlands” calls for a minimum number of moder- projects that should be implemented, based on com- ately large (400-800 acre) and large (at least 800 acre) pleted woodland priority research. sites that are healthy, publicly owned and ecologically managed, and a minimum total number of Whereas indicator species were identified only in healthy acres for each of four woodland types: flat- relation to deer browsing, the conservation design in woods; wet-mesic, mesic and dry-mesic woodlands. its appendix set general parameters for a possible By 2025, 100 percent of sites are to be consistently woodland health index. This index includes the monitored for health and biodiversity. One hundred attributes: percent of sites are to have written, approved and • The ratio of young trees to mature trees active management plans in place. In response to • A similar species diversity among seedlings, identified threats, the conservation design calls for saplings and adults management plans to address invasive species, con- • Per 1/4m2 quadrat: trolled burns, groundcover, hydrology, deer control, o A high Floristic Quality Index or other diversity land acquisition and fundraising. Regarding deer index for the herbaceous layer control, by 2025, the conservation design calls for 50 o A high number of herbaceous layer indicator percent of woodland sites to have instituted deer species (yet to be determined) control measures, resulting in a measured decrease in o A high average cover of native, non-invasive the percentage of 13 indicator species browsed and a species decline in the number of car-deer collisions (Glenne- o A low average cover of non-native, invasive meier 2002a). species • A high number of woodland bird, butterfly, reptile The woodland conservation design also calls for all and amphibian indicator species (yet to be deter- counties to have written, approved and active educa- mined) (Glennemeier 2002a) tion and outreach plans related to woodland ecology and restoration. These should include specific, meas- The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for urable targets for: Grassland Birds” does provide specific targets for • The number of new policy papers addressing breeding pairs of 10 indicator species of grassland woodland issues birds. It also specifies the targets of having a mini- • The number of county workshops held and other mum of 9,000 acres of each of three grassland habi- educational products produced related to wood- tat sub-types: dry, mesic and wet. Within the 9,000 lands acres for each sub-type, 2,500 acres should be in indi- • The number of water quality regulations intro- vidual sites of at least 500 acres. Overall, at least five duced or improved for the region as a whole grassland sites should be at least 4,000 acres in size • The number of classrooms per year (for grades 6- (Glennemeier 2002b). 12) for whom an education unit on woodlands has been presented by a volunteer or professional This conservation design also sets specific targets for ecologist the number of sites monitored, improved, and of a • The percentage of residential yards adjacent to high quality; the number of indicator species whose natural areas that are planted with native vegeta- conservation targets have been met; and the number tion and that minimize the use of herbicides, pes- of species whose regional abundance has not declined ticides and fertilizer (Glennemeier 2002a) in three successive years.

In addition to an appendix that outlines research, Similar to the conservation designs for woodlands inventory and policy questions to be addressed in the and savanna herpetofauna, the conservation design future, the conservation design establishes specific for grassland birds specifies that by 2025, 100 per- targets for the number of scientific research projects cent of sites are to have written, approved and active to be completed that examine priority questions for management plans in place. In response to identified woodlands. It also includes specific targets for the threats, management plans are to address invasive

147 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

species, controlled burns, mowing, fragmentation, birds across all habitat types be added as a second hedgerows and land acquisition. Fifty percent of priority area during the next five years. moderately large sites (of approximately 500 acres) are to have written, approved, active plans to address Although the recovery of all of the region’s commu- research and monitoring of the effects of different nities and assemblages is encouraged, the purpose plant assemblages on grassland birds. For all grass- of identifying conservation priorities is to guide the land sites, there is to be a 50 percent increase in the allocation of efforts and resources toward those habi- number of native prairie plants, with the composition tats and species of particularly critical importance. of these plants reflecting the results of the research Accordingly, the three conservation designs devel- described above. The conservation design’s appendix oped since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery includes a number of research and inventory ques- Plan all focused on the communities or assemblages tions to be addressed (Glennemeier 2002b). of highest conservation concern within their respective groupings. c. Evaluate the results of restoration and management alternatives based on data in order to e. Develop region-wide performance standards address those alternatives’ effects on target and monitoring techniques that can be imple- species and communities. mented by land managers.

Among the research projects supported by the One of the benchmarks identified by Glennemeier Chicago Wilderness consortium is the Bowles/Jones (2002a) in the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation re-assessment of Grade A and B Illinois Natural Design for Woodlands” is the development of two Areas Inventory prairie sites. The re-assessment policy papers addressing woodland issues by 2005. establishes a strong link between prairie quality and In 2003, Chicago Wilderness approved “Conser- the frequency of controlled burns. Their data suggest vation of Wooded Lands in the Chicago Wilderness that mesic and wet-mesic prairies be managed with Region: A Model Policy” (Frankel and Mariner 2003) controlled burns at least every two years and that and the more generally related, “Natural Fire and graminoid fens and sedge meadows require con- Controlled Burning in the Chicago Wilderness trolled burns at least once every five years (Bowles Region: A Model Policy” (Frankel 2003). Summarized and Jones 2003). The report acknowledges that in chapters two and five, respectively, these two “Multiple environmental factors may be interacting papers build upon the information related in the with fire to affect changes in native and alien species Biodiversity Recovery Plan, providing expanded and richness in both prairies and wetlands” (Bowles and detailed background information, as well as compre- Jones 2003, p.11), such as an increasingly larger deer hensive standards to guide the development of indi- population, altered hydrology, and increasing sedi- vidual site management plans. mentation and pollution rates. Regarding monitoring techniques, Glennemeier Also, as outlined in chapter five, the Chicago (2002a) outlines parameters for a woodland health Wilderness Science Team is in the process of estab- index. Glennemeier (2004) advances a more specific lishing an agenda to address all areas of local biodi- model as shown in Table 8.1. versity conservation research. As indicated in Table 8.1, four invasive species cate- d. Clearly identify conservation priorities. gories were averaged to get a 1-4 Invasives score. Then the FQI, Canopy Trees and Invasive categories The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies conservation were averaged to get an overall quality score. For the priorities for terrestrial and aquatic communities, as Canopy Tree category: The tree data are divided into well as select animal assemblages. There are no the following size classes: 3-6-inch DBH, 7-9-inch, 10- changes in the plan’s rankings. However, bird 12-inch, 13-19-inch, and 20-plus-inch. The 20-plus- experts have recommended, in accordance with inch size class determines which trees are considered national bird conservation findings, that shrubland the canopy species for that plot. Presence of the

148 CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

TABLE 8.1 ADRAFT DEFINITION OF WOODED LANDS BASED ON DATA FROM THE STATE OF OUR WOODED LANDS: RESULTS FROM THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS WOODS AUDIT

Data from Woods Audit Plot

Quality Quadrat Canopy Frequency Average Average Invasive Species Grade Floristic Trees of Invasive Cover of Number Total Basal Area of Quality Species Invasives of Invasive 3-6-inch Diameter Index in Quadrats Stems in at Breast Height (FQI) 4x4 Subplots (DBH) Size Class

Excellent > 9 Present in Present in 0% 0 stems 0 in = 4 3-4 size 0 out of 9 classes quadrats

Good 7-9 Present in Present in 1-4% 1-2 stems 9-46 in = 3 2 size 1-3 quadrats classes

Fair 4-6 Present in Present in 4-14% 2-9 stems 47-271 in = 2 1 size class 4-6 quadrats

Present in 0 Present 14-50% 9-57 stems 272-1600 in Poor < 4 size classes 7-9 quadrats (50=max) (57=max) (1600=max) = 1

canopy species in the smaller size classes determines natural assets. A key recommendation of the Report the quality rank. Invasives in quadrats and 4x4 plots Card, therefore, is to develop specific monitoring pro- are defined as Rhamnus sp., Lonicera maackii, Lonicera tocols, along with recovery goals and indicators, for tatarica, Alliaria petiolata, and Rosa multiflora. all natural communities and animal assemblages. Invasives in the 3-6 inch category are defined as the genera Acer, Prunus, Lonicera, Rhamnus, and Fraxinus. PROTECT GLOBALLY AND Grade cutoffs for the last three invasive species cate- 8.4REGIONALLY IMPORTANT gories were based on the geometric means of expo- NATURAL COMMUNITIES nentially distributed data. a. Identify priority areas and elements for protec- The Plants of Concern program has also developed tion based on an assessment of their contribution specific monitoring protocols, as discussed in chapter to conserving biodiversity at global and regional four. The region-wide adoptions of such protocols levels. facilitate consistent assessments throughout the region, thereby providing for a true region-wide In the Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure overview of the health and condition of the region’s Vision, which was approved by the Chicago Wilder-

149 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

ness consortium in 2004, Dreher (2004) identifies 1.8 • At least 9,000 acres of mesic grassland with at least million acres of resource protection areas that could 2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500 acres and should be protected within the tri-state region each of Chicago Wilderness. Developed by more than 80 • At least 9,000 acres of wet and wet-mesic grass- experts representing a broad diversity of Chicago land with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites of Wilderness organizations and resource agencies, the at least 500 acres each vision is discussed at some length in chapter seven. • At least five grassland habitat complexes of at least 4,000 acres in size b. Protect high-quality natural areas in sufficient acreage to permit restoration and management The conservation design noted that there were for sustainability. already approximately 27,000 grassland acres in the region, with 7,200 acres in sites of 500 acres or more As reported in chapter seven, since the publication of (Glennemeier 2002b). The emphasis during the past the Biodiversity Recovery Plan in 1999, the Illinois five years has been on grassland management, rang- Nature Preserves Commission has dedicated eight ing from small sites such as Bartel Grasslands to large new nature preserves and expanded 30 others within sites such as Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. the Chicago Wilderness region, bringing the region’s total number of dedicated nature preserve acres In the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design for 18,472. Also since 1999, county forest preserve dis- Savanna Herpetofauna,” Glennemeier (2002c) rec- tricts and county conservation districts in Illinois ommends the preservation and maintenance of at have added more than 25,000 acres to their perma- least one large (at least 800 acre) habitat complex, nent holdings. In many cases the newly acquired consisting of multiple habitat types, in each of the acres serve to increase or connect existing preserves. region’s five natural divisions by the year 2025. As The Biodiversity Recovery Plan calls for the establish- related in chapter three, at least two large complexes ment of habitat complexes of certain large minimum of 1,100 and 2,200 acres each have been secured in the sizes to sustain certain communities of plants and Northeast Morainal division and one complex of assemblages of species. The conservation designs for 1,200 acres secured in the Grand Prairie division. woodlands, grassland birds and savanna herpeto- Nine hundred of the total 4,500 acres were acquired fauna refine these goals and set benchmarks in five- since the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. year increments through 2025. c. Maintain existing quality of publicly owned, As reported in chapter five, the 2005 conservation high-quality natural areas. design benchmark for flatwoods is 300 acres, toward which goal 107 “healthy” acres of Grade A and B flat- As documented in the community sections, the woods have been identified in the Illinois Natural majority of the region’s natural areas are under-man- Areas Inventory. The number of woodlands of all aged or unmanaged. Indications are that sites receiv- moisture classes rated as excellent and good totals ing the most management appear to be those of approximately 1,130 acres, according to Glennemeier higher quality. In their re-assessment of Illinois (2004). This is almost 25 percent of the 2005 benchmark Natural Areas Inventory prairie sites, Bowles and of a combined 4,800 acres of all woodland types. Jones (2003) found that only one of 25 Grade A stands was lost, whereas 35 percent of Grade B sites had As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Glennemeier been destroyed. To the authors, this difference, in (2002b) recommends that the following benchmarks part, reflected a greater interest in preserving higher be achieved by 2025: quality sites. This study also underscores the critical • At least 9,000 acres of dry and dry-mesic grassland value of management beyond the use of controlled with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites of at burns, as non-native species increased in abundance least 500 acres each over time in Grade A and B prairies, regardless of fire frequencies (Bowles and Jones 2003).

150 CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

d. Protect high-quality natural areas in private RESTORE NATURAL ownership. 8.5COMMUNITIES TO ECOLOGICAL HEALTH Dreher (2004) identifies 1.8 million acres of resource protection areas that could and should be protected a. Reestablish the ecological health of the deterio- within the tri-state Chicago Wilderness region. This is rating high-quality natural areas. a far cry from the 226,000 of protected natural areas currently documented. Although a diversity of open b. Improve all natural areas, concentrating first on space advocates were successful in preserving two those that contribute most to global and regional open space acquisition programs in the Illinois fiscal biodiversity. year 2005 budget, it is unlikely that government sources ever would be sufficient to protect the c. Provide corridors that link areas as needed. approximately 1.5 million available resource protection area acres. Therefore, individual landowners d. Restore ecological processes that support sus- must be encouraged to protect and preserve their tainable systems. natural lands. Chapter seven outlines the three instruments offered by the Illinois Nature Preserves e. Return natural communities to sufficient size for Commission to public and, increasingly, to private viable animal populations by restoring or recre- landowners to protect their natural lands. Chapter ating them. seven also chronicles a growing number of nonprofit land trusts concentrating their efforts on outreach to Chapters two and three include examples of restora- private landowners, encouraging them to place con- tion efforts and reiterate a wide range of recom- servation easements on their natural lands, which mended actions to promote the recovery of the ensures their permanent protection. region’s natural communities, animal assemblages and rare individual species. Across the board, those e. Mitigate factors with negative impacts that occur efforts and recommendations reflect the objectives outside of natural areas but within watersheds or listed above and more. buffer zones. MANAGE NATURAL Individual recovery efforts are of critical importance in COMMUNITIES TO SUSTAIN the recovery of the region’s biodiversity. However, off- 8.6 site development can have negative effects on even the NATIVE BIODIVERSITY best restoration efforts. Several of the region’s rare fen communities are threatened with off-site development a. Attain greater capability for ecological manage- that would significantly alter the water tables upon ment within public entities. which the fens depend. At Churchill Prairie Nature Preserve in DuPage County, Illinois, road salt from I- b. Encourage the sharing of experience and 355 has turned a Grade C prairie into a Grade D/E site resources among natural area managers in differ- at its eastern end, in spite of regular controlled burns ent jurisdictions. and periodic brush removal. Chapter seven relates a range of efforts, from the adoption of individual c. Monitor the recovery progress and status of nat- municipal stormwater plans to statewide antidegra- ural communities. dation regulations that can protect high-quality waterways, and that are designed to mitigate the negative d. Demonstrate the feasibility of protection and effects of development. restoration in fragmented, human-dominated landscapes, making use of such tools as prescribed burning, restoration of hydrology and removal of invasive species.

151 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

A key recommendation of both the Biodiversity Chapter six provides a thorough review of the efforts Recovery Plan and the Report Card, one that can not of the Chicago Wilderness Education and Com- be stressed enough, is the need to manage more nat- munication Team and the consortium’s communica- ural areas. The Report Card confirms that the major- tion program in addressing these objectives. ity of the region’s natural areas are unmanaged or under-managed, resulting in an overall decline in the FOSTER A SUSTAINABLE region’s biodiversity in spite of a number of signifi- 8.8RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN cant recovery efforts. SOCIETY AND NATURE IN THE REGION

Equally critical, as identified below, is the need to a. Integrate conservation of biodiversity into ongo- monitor recovery progress and the status of natural ing development and planning for land use, communities. To do this effectively, the Report Card transportation and infrastructure. further recommends strongly that specific, measurable recovery goals, along with indicators and moni- b. Encourage major land users to adopt practices toring protocols, be developed for each natural that promote biodiversity and its sustainability community and animal assemblage. The conserva- by integrating the beauty and function of nature tion designs developed thus far for woodlands, into our neighborhood, corporate and public grassland birds and savanna herpetofauna provide lands. potential examples to follow. c. Encourage inclusion of biodiversity goals in Chapter five details a full complement of manage- local planning and implementation. ment, research and monitoring activities and recommendations that include and build upon the above d. Identify and address factors that lead to sustain- objectives. able use.

DEVELOP CITIZEN AWARENESS e. Regularly monitor indicators of biodiversity and 8.7AND UNDERSTANDING OF sustainability throughout the region. LOCAL BIODIVERSITY TO ENSURE SUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION f. Support and encourage efforts of citizen scientists working to conserve biodiversity. a. Form educational partnerships among citizens, organizations and agencies to promote aware- By 2030, the six-county northeastern Illinois region ness. alone is expected to boast a population of 10 million—1.9 million more people than lived in the area b. Build sufficient awareness of natural communi- in 2000 (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission ties of the region and their global significance 2005). Almost every day, the effects of this explosive so that they become a recognized part of the cul- growth are evident in once-open spaces being con- ture of the region. verted to housing developments. Unchecked, conventional development practices will continue to c. Develop programs to promote broad-based have a negative effect on the region’s remaining nat- understanding of the global significance of the ural areas. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, how- region’s natural communities. ever, has been aggressively advocating for a different kind of development. Sustainable development may d. Design education strategies to meet the needs of be variously defined, but in general it strives for a all audiences at all levels. balance between the built and the natural environment. Chapter seven provides a comprehensive e. Reach those not traditionally involved in natu- review of the numerous sustainable development ral history or conservation. efforts occurring throughout the region, many guided by the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s members and its Sustainability Team.

152 CHAPTER 8 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

ENRICH THE QUALITY OF THE Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, the City of Chicago, 8.9LIVES OF THE REGION’S the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Region CITIZENS 5, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the Delta Institute, the initiative seeks to achieve specific and significant reductions in targeted smog- a. Increase opportunities for all citizens to experi- forming pollutants and major reductions in energy ence the beauty and restorative powers of nature. consumption. To some, the sight of prairie dropseed, big bluestem c. Identify strategies that promote economic and Indian grass are dramatic reminders of our growth while sustaining biodiversity. region’s natural heritage. To others, they’re just weeds. But a recent Chicago Wilderness survey, sum- Part of the rationale for the Clean Air Counts marized in chapter six, reveals that the more people Campaign is to ensure the continued economic via- know about our natural heritage, the more they bility of the region. In response to repeated violations understand and appreciate its value. And the of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Chicago Wilderness consortium and its members ground-level ozone (smog), the Chicago region was provide a number of different avenues of entry into one of 10 areas in the country designated as a severe the natural world, from Chicago WILDERNESS non-attainment area for one-hour ozone concentra- Magazine to various volunteer opportunities. tions. With the recent implementation of the more stringent eight-hour standard, the Chicago region It is not yet documented how many volunteer oppor- continues to be a non-attainment area. Not only does tunities there are in the region, but it appears that the this affect the health of the region’s residents, but it number is growing steadily, as is the number of vol- could have serious consequences for the region’s eco- unteers. The work is often challenging, but with it nomic health, such as a more restrictive, federally- comes a deep sense of accomplishment in the recov- imposed regulatory environment, which could ery of a living thing or a living community. compromise the output of existing business and discourage new businesses from moving into the region. The Education and Communication Team and the Through partnerships with the Clean Air Counts consortium’s communication staff, as outlined in Campaign, the Corporatelands Program, and the chapter six, also actively pursue multi-faceted strate- Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council, members of gies to provide even more information and invita- the Chicago Wilderness consortium seek to work in tions to the region’s diverse residents to learn about pursuit of the long-term environmental, social and and participate in local biodiversity conservation. economic health of the region. b. Enhance human health through improved air Any long-term view of the region must acknowledge and water quality, as well as protection from that the population of the region is expected to flooding, by restoring and maintaining the eco- increase markedly. Chapter seven details a range of logical integrity of natural communities. strategies, led by the members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium and by its Sustainability Established in 1999, the publication year of the Team, to manage growth in ways that support eco- Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the Clean Air Counts nomic development that is ecologically sustainable Campaign is a voluntary, multi-year, regional initia- as well. tive to improve air quality and reduce ozone-causing emissions. A collaborative effort between the

153 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

CHAPTER 9 REPORT CARD RECOMMENDATIONS

The objectives of this Report Card are to assess indicators. Additionally, the Chicago Wilderness changes in the condition of the region’s natural com- Woods Audit marks an important advance in devel- munities since the publication of the Biodiversity oping a monitoring protocol for the region’s upland Recovery Plan, document the condition of available forests, woodlands and savannas, and establishes data, measure progress toward achieving Biodiversity baseline data for quantifying future trends. Recovery Plan objectives and make recommendations for future report cards. The preceding chapters evi- Refined recovery goals, along with the development dence that the Chicago Wilderness consortium has of region-wide indicators and monitoring protocols, made progress in recovering the biodiversity of the should also guide the future collection of data. region. However, there is much work left to do. To Currently, there are any number of research and data facilitate that work and the process of developing the collection efforts underway throughout the region, next report card, the recommendations of this Report however it is unclear the extent to which many relate Card to members of the Chicago Wilderness consor- specifically to Chicago Wilderness biodiversity tium are: recovery goals. The region would greatly benefit from region-wide consensus about how to monitor, 1. Aggressively spur the development and region- and specifically what is to be monitored over what wide adoption of specific recovery goals, indica- period of time, toward the goal of establishing reli- tors and monitoring protocols for each Chicago able, quantified baseline data from which future Wilderness community and assemblage type. trends may be discerned.

2. Utilize these goals, indicators and monitoring 4. Develop a repository for the region’s data. protocols to guide site-specific management plans and the collection of data. 5. Coordinate the region’s data collection and reporting. 3. Develop baseline data for each of the region’s communities and assemblages. The process of future reporting would be greatly facilitated by the development of a repository for As noted in the preceding sections, the Biodiversity data and analysis. Hand in hand with this is the need Recovery Plan outlines broad recovery goals and for dedicated resources for the coordination of data objectives. This, of course, was an enormously signif- gathering. During the Report Card process, many icant advance for the region’s conservation commu- experts provided generously of their time to fulfill nity, but as the plan is intended to be a living information requests, but much of the information document that will continue to evolve as new ideas gathering took several months, and in many cases, and information arise, the next step of creating data were not available. Coordinated data collection refined, specific, measurable recovery goals is at would greatly aid future reporting and perhaps assist hand. The three conservation designs accomplished natural resource management agencies and organi- to date—for woodlands, grassland birds and savanna zations in partnering in the implementation of herpetofauna—serve as examples of the type of region-wide practices and standards. refined, region-wide guides needed for the development of site-specific management plans, and the type 6. Secure more broad-based participation through- of guides that will ultimately allow for more effective out the region. progress reporting. The development in 2001 of regional plants of concern monitoring protocols is The Biodiversity Recovery Plan and Report Card remain also a step in the right direction toward developing primarily Illinois-centric. The Indiana portion of

154 CHAPTER 9 REPORT CARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Chicago Wilderness is somewhat represented in the 9. Articulate specific goals for non-biological data and the Wisconsin portion of the region decid- objectives. edly less so. Just as specific goals are recommended for the 7. Clarify and potentially refine the boundaries of region’s biological objectives, so, too, are the devel- the Chicago Wilderness region. opment of specific goals recommended for the various non-biological objectives, including education, Chicago Wilderness is defined as a regional nature communication and sustainability. Annual work- reserve that includes more than 225,000 acres of pro- plans, outlining specific process and outcome meas- tected natural areas located in Kenosha County, ures, would allow for more precise, targeted reporting Wisconsin; in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry in future iterations of the Report Card. and Will Counties in Illinois; and in Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana. The Chicago Wilderness region 10. Schedule the development of the next Report was originally defined by natural area features and Card to aggressively spur the completion of the intended to help organizations work across geo-polit- above recommendations. ical boundaries. Above all, the development of the Report Card has Currently, there is discussion within the Chicago been a learning process. It marks another significant Wilderness consortium as to whether or not the step in the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s model boundaries of the Chicago Wilderness region should effort to recover the long-term health of the region’s be expanded and more clearly defined, either again natural resources. by geographic features or perhaps by county boundaries. In line with the Report Card recommendations Finally, there is little doubt that our region will con- to be specific in the development of recovery goals, tinue to increase in population, and that means even etc., it is also the recommendation of the Report Card more pressures on our remaining natural areas. To project team that the Chicago Wilderness consortium promote a balance between continued growth and refine and clarify its boundaries. This would facilitate the preservation of our natural heritage, the recom- the collection of data from land-managing agencies, mendations of this Report Card to members of the aid in the analysis of that data, and further the con- Chicago Wilderness consortium, state and local gov- sortium’s ability to measure its own progress in con- ernments, and other local decision-makers are: serving local biodiversity. 1. Significantly increase the number of natural areas under active management. 8. Come to region-wide consensus on a natural community classification system. 2. Acquire or otherwise protect additional natural areas to balance sustainable growth with the con- In the course of the Report Card’s natural community servation of local biodiversity. workshops, there was debate about the current natural community definitions. There is a fundamental These last recommendations are further discussed in need to achieve consensus on how the various natural the Summary Report–The State of Our Chicago Wilder- communities within the region are classified. Upon ness: A Report Card on the Health of the Region’s Eco- this hinges the critical recommendation to develop systems, published as a supplement to this document. specific recovery goals, indicators and monitoring protocols.

155 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, R.C. 1991. Final report on the project to Report to the Chicago Region Biodiversity develop methodology to determine the influence Council. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL. of deer browsing on forested natural areas in the Brawn, J.D. 1998. Effects of oak savanna restoration Lake County Forest Preserve District. Final proj- on avian populations and communities in Illinois: ect report to the Lake County Forest Preserve final report. Illinois Natural History Survey, District. Illinois State University, Normal, IL. Champaign, IL. Apfelbaum, S., M.B. Bowles, M. O’Leary, and B. Stoll. Brigham, W.U., D.A. McCormick, and M.J. Wetzel. 2000. Vegetation change after thirteen years of fire 1978. The watersheds of northeastern Illinois: management of a northeastern Illinois oak wood- quality of the aquatic environment based upon land. Unpublished report by Applied Ecological water quality and fishery data. Technical report Services, Inc. and The Morton Arboretum. prepared by the Illinois Natural History Survey Applied Ecological Services. 2004. Schaumburg bio- for the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com- diversity recovery plan. Planning document pre- mission. Urbana, IL. pared for the Village of Schaumburg. Schaumburg, Brodman, R., T. Anton, K. Glennemeier, P. Seth, D. IL. Available at: http://www.ci.schaumburg. Didion, and A. Luksus. Status of amphibians and il.us/vos.nsf/schaumburg/MFRK-62NP7C reptiles in savanna habitats and savanna mosaic Audubon-Chicago Region. 2004. Unpublished communities of the Chicago Wilderness region. analysis completed for the report card. Skokie, IL. CW Journal 3(2):38-44. Belden Russonello & Steward. 2002. Americans and Brown, A.C. 2004. Miles of tiles. Chicago Wilderness biodiversity: new perspectives in 2002. Magazine, Spring, p.14 Questionnaire and topline results for the Brundtland, G.H., ed. 1987. Our Common Future: The Biodiversity Project. Washington, D.C. World Commission on Environment and Development. Bird Conservation Network. 2004. eBird [Electronic Oxford University Press, Oxford. database]. Bird Conservation Network, Skokie, IL. Burr, B.M., V.J. Santucci, M.E. Roberts, A.M. Davis, and Available at: http://www.ebird.org/bcn M.R. Whiles. 2005. Conservation status and life his- Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2003. Twenty-five year tory characteristics of the blacknose shiner, Notropis trends of change in prairie and wetland natural heterolepis (Cyprinidae), and blackchin shiner, areas in the Chicago region of northeastern Notropis heterodon (Cyprinidae), with conservation Illinois. Report to the ChicagoRegion Biodiversity evaluations of the pugnose shiner, Notropis anogenus Council. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL. (Cyprinidae), and banded killifish, Fundulus Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2004. Long-term changes in diaphanous (Fundulidae), in Illinois. Final project Chicago region prairie vegetation in relation to fire report to Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation. management. CW Journal 2 (2): 7-15. Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Bowles, M.L. and J.L. McBride. 1998. Vegetation com- Butcher, G. 2004. State of the birds USA 2004. position, structure, and chronological change in a Audubon Magazine, September-October. decadent midwestern North American savanna Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2004. remnant. Natural Areas Journal 18:14-27. Unpublished analysis for the report card based on Bowles, M., M. Jones, C. Dunn, J. McBride, C. Bushey, data from the Natural Connections project com- and R. Moran. 2003. Twenty-year woody vegeta- pleted by the Center for Neighborhood tion changes in northern flatwoods and mesic for- Technology and Openlands. Data available at: est at Ryerson Conservation Area, Lake County, http://www.greenmapping.org Illinois. Erigenia 19:31-51. Chicago Area Transportation Study. 2003. 2030 Bowles, M., M. Jones, J. McBride, T. Bell, and C. Regional transportation plan for northeastern Dunn. 2000. Twenty-year woody vegetation Illinois. Chicago Area Transportation Study, changes in northeastern Illinois upland forests. Chicago, IL. Available at: http://www. sp2030.com/2030rtp/index.html

156 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2003. The metropolis plan: Frankel, S. 2003. Natural fire and controlled burning choices for the Chicago region. Chicago in the Chicago Wilderness region: a model policy. Metropolis, Chicago, IL. Available at: A policy paper adopted by the Chicago Region http://www.metropolisplan.org/5_3.htm Biodiversity Council. Available at: http://www. Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. 1999. chicagowilderness.org/members/resources/inde Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Chicago Region x.cfm Biodiversity Council, Chicago, IL Frankel, S and R. Mariner, eds. 2003. Conservation Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. 2004. Sus- of wooded lands in the Chicago Wilderness tainable development principles for protecting region: a model policy. A policy paper adopted by nature in the Chicago Wilderness region. North- the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. eastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL. Available at: Available at: http://www.nipc.org/environment/ http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/ sustainable/content.htm#Development resources/index.cfm Critical Trends Assessment Project. 1994. The chang- Frese, P.W. 2003. Tallgrass prairie amphibian and rep- ing Illinois environment: critical trends. Technical tile assemblage. Fire mortality. Herpetological report of the Critical Trends Assessment Project. Review 34:159-160. Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Glennemeier, K. 2002a. Chicago Wilderness Resources, Springfield, IL. Conservation Design for Woodlands (draft). A DeWalt, R.E. 2002. Comparison of reference quality draft report for the Chicago Region Biodiversity and randomly chosen streams in the northeastern Council. Available at: http://www.chicagowilder- morainal natural division of Illinois. Illinois ness.org/members/repository/folders/index.cfm Natural History Survey Center for Biodiversity ?folderid=131 Technical Report 10. Illinois Natural History Glennemeier, K. 2002b. Chicago Wilderness Survey, Champaign, IL. Conservation Design for Grassland Birds (draft). DeWalt, R.E. 2003. Aquatic insects report: biological A draft report for the Chicago Region Biodiversity and habitat condition of Illinois streams. Pages 28- Council. Available at: http://www.chicago 33 in: B. Molano-Flores, editor. Critical Trends wilderness.org/members/repository/folders/ind Assessment Program 2002 Report. Illinois Natural ex.cfm?folderid=131 History Survey, Champaign, IL. Glennemeier, K. 2002c. Chicago Wilderness Dreher, D. 2004. Chicago Wilderness green infra- Conservation Design for Savanna Herpetofauna structure vision. Project report to the Chicago (draft). A draft report for the Chicago Region Region Biodiversity Council. Northeastern Illinois Biodiversity Council. Available at: http://www. Planning Commission, Chicago, IL. Available at: chicagowilderness.org/members/repository/ http://www.nipc.org/environment/ folders/index.cfm?folderid=131 sustainable/biodiversity/greeninfrastructure/ Glennemeier, K. 2004. Personal Communication. Duane, H. Unpublished data compiled from the Audubon-Chicago Region, Skokie, IL. Illinois spring bird count. Glennemeier, K. 2004. The state of our wooded lands: Environmental Law and Policy Center. 2004. Illinois results from the Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit. rivers protection initiative. Web page available at: CW Journal 2(2):16-22. http://www.elpc.org/forest/water/ammonia.htm Goldstein, S., J. O’Keefe, E. Shubart, R. Acker, K. (Accessed November 2004). Bucar, D. Dreher, K.G. Bolton, and L.B. Lynch. Flemma, J. 2004. Personal Communication. Prairie 2004. Changing Course: Recommendations for Rivers Network, Champaign, IL. balancing regional growth and water resources in Forest Preserve District of Cook County. 2004. Stroger northeastern Illinois. Report completed as part of a announces three FPDCC nature preserve honors. joint project between the Campaign for Sensible Web page available at: http://www. Growth, Metropolitan Planning Council, and fpdcc.com/tier3.php?release_id=189 (Accessed Openlands Project. Chicago, IL. December 2004). Haderlein, L. 2004. Personal Communication. Land Conservancy of McHenry County, Woodstock, IL.

157 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Hahn, M. 2004. Personal Communication. Kankakee, Illinios, 1991-1995: IDNR GIS Database IL. *path_name_suppressed*/landcov, Champaign, Heaton, D. 2000. Conserving local habitat for declin- IL: Illinois Natural History Survey. Metadata ing grassland birds: a green paper by the bird con- available at: http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdi- servation network. The Bird Conservation home/webdocs/st-naths.html Network, Skokie, IL. Available at: http://www.bc Masi, S. P. Vitt, L. Reich, and K. Theiss. 2004. Plants birds.org/greenpapers_files/GPgrassland.html of concern: training volunteers to conduct rare Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2004. plant monitoring on a regional scale. Project report Ecosystem program. Web page available at: submitted to the Chicago Region Biodiversity http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/ecosystem/ Council. Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL. (Accessed November 2004) Matre, L.V. 2004. Dragonfly habitat protection Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2005. ordered. Chicago Tribune, 24 September, p.4. Ecosystem program. Web page available at: Megquier, R. 2004. Personal Communication. http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/ecosys- Corlands, Chicago, IL. tem/ (Accessed July 2005). Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. 2005. About Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. River Midewin: healing the land. Web page available at: and stream monitoring programs. Web page avail- http://www.fs.fed.us/mntp/process.htm able at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ sur- (Accessed July 2005). face-water/river-stream-mon.html (Accessed July Milde, M. 2004. Unpublished analysis of the plants of 2005). concern database compiled for the report card. Illinois Natural History Survey. 2004. Critical trends Submitted 27 August. assessment program: about CTAP. Web page avail- Miller, C.A., L.K. Campbell, J.A. Yeagle. 2002. able at: http://ctap.inhs.uiuc.edu/index.asp Attitudes of residents in the greater Chicago (Accessed 19 November 2004). region toward prescribed burns and ecological Illinois Natures Preserves Commission. 2004. restoration: a report to the Chicago Wilderness Unpublished report compiled for the report card. burn communications team. Human Dimensions Submitted December 2004. Research Program Report SR-02-02. Illinois Illinois State Museum. 2004. Hine’s emerald dragon- Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. fly. Web page available at: Nelson, M. 2004. Personal Communication. Fox http://www.museum.state.il.us/research/ento- Valley Land Foundation, Elgin, IL. mology/hines/ (Accessed November 2004). Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1994. Kane County Regional Planning Commission. 1996. Model stormwater drainage and detention ordi- Kane county 2020 land resource management nance. Northeastern Illinois Planning Com- plan. Geneva, IL. mission, Chicago, IL. Kleen, V.M. 2003. The 2003 Illinois Statewide Spring Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2003. Bird Count. Meadowlark 12:133-142. Natural Resource and Socio-Economic Impacts of Kobal, S. 2004. Personal Communication. Forest 2030 Regional Transportation Proposals. Preserve District of DuPage County, Wheaton, IL. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Lampa, W. 2004. Examples of community quality and Chicago, IL. Available at: http://www. biodiversity increases with management. sp2030.com/2030rtp/index.html Unpublished report compiled for the report card. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2004. Submitted 12 September 2004. Sourcebook on natural landscaping for local offi- Land Trust Alliance. 2004. Land trust alliance. Web cials. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, page available at: www.lta.org (Accessed Chicago, IL. November 2004). Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2005. Lobbes, D. 2004. Personal Communication. The Commission endorsed 2030 forecast numbers for Conservation Foundation, Naperville, IL. northeastern Illinois (September 30, 2003). Web Luman, D., Joselyn, M., and L. Suloway. 1996. Critical page available at: http://www.nipc.org/ Trends Assessment Land Cover Database of 2030_forecast_endorsed_093003.htm (Accessed July 2005).

158 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Page, L.M. and M.E. Retzer. 2002. The status of Smith, P.W. 2002. The Fishes of Illinois. University of Illinois' rarest fishes and crustaceans. Transactions Illinois Press, Champaign, IL. of the Illinois State Academy of Sciences 95:311-326. Stotz, D. Unpublished data compiled from the Page, L.M., K.S. Cummings, C.A. Mayer, S.L. Post, Illinois spring bird count and M.E. Retzer. 1992. Biologically significant Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young, Illinois streams, an evaluation of the streams of A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller. Illinois based on aquatic biodiversity. Illinois 2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines and Natural History Survey Center for Biodiversity extinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783-1786. Technical Report 1. Illinois Natural History Taron, D. 2004. Restoring the butterfly tapestry. Survey, Champaign, IL. Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Summer, p. 16 Paine, C. and V. Santucci. Manuscript in preparation. Taylor, K. 1998. Stream biodiversity recovery priori- Panzer, R. 2004. Personal Communication. ties. Project report submitted to the Chicago Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, IL. Region Biodiversity Council. Openlands Project, Panzer, R. 2005. Database of insect species collected Chicago, IL. from prairie and savanna sites throughout the The Conservation Foundation. 2004. Open space ref- Chicago Wilderness region. Personal database of erenda passed. Web page available at: http:// Ron Panzer of Northeastern Illinois University. www.theconservationfoundation.org/tcf/lp/ Platform: Filemaker Pro. referenda.asp (Accessed November 2004). Parker, D. 2004. Phantom savanna. Chicago Wilderness The Moran Group. 2003. Biodiversity and biodiver- Magazine, Fall 2004, pp. 7-11. sity related issues in the Chicagoland: a literature Pergams, O. 2004. Personal communication. review, and biodiversity awareness & biodiver- University of Illinois-Chicago. sity-related issues in Chicagoland: a meta analysis. Post, S.L. 2004. Unpublished report compiled for the Reports prepared for Chicago Wilderness by The report card. Submitted 16 December. Moran Group. Evanston, IL. Retzer, M.E. 2005. Changes in the diversity of native The Nature Conservancy. 2004. Bluff spring fen. Web fishes in seven basins in Illinois, USA. The page available at: http://nature.org/wherewe- American Midland Naturalist 153:121-134. work/northamerica/states/illinois/preserves/art Richard Day Research. 2004. Chicago Wilderness 1117.html (Accessed December 2004). study. Report prepared for Chicago Wilderness by The Nature Conservancy. 2005. The volunteer stew- Richard Day Research, Inc., Evanston, IL. ardship network (vsn). Web page available at: Richter, S. 2004. Personal Communication. The http://nature.org/wherewework/northamer- Nature Conservancy–Wisconsin Chapter, ica/states/illinois/volunteer/art9844.html Madison, WI. (Accessed July 2005) Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, The Trust for Public Land. 2004. Landvote database. M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, Web page available at: http://www.tpl.org/ E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A. tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=15266&folder_id= Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. 2607 (Accessed November 2004). Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, Illinois and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North Department of Natural Resources, and Illinois American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab Department of Agriculture. 2002. Land Cover of of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight Web Illinois 1999-2000. Springfield, IL. Available at: site available at: http://www.partnersinflight. http://www.agr.state.il.us/gis/landcover99- org/cont_plan/ (VERSION: March 2005). 00.html Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Federal American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and funding available for enhanced protection against Analysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Asian carp. Press release, 13 October. Available at: Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1a Available at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov b9f485b098972852562e7004dc686?openview

159 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan Survey for the Illinois Environmental Protection for the great lakes piping plover (Charadrius melo- Agency and the U.S. Environmental Protection dus). Ft. Snelling, MN. Agency (Region 5). Champaign, IL. Watson, R.T., V.H. Heywood, I. Baste, B. Dias, R. White, J. 1978. Illinois natural areas inventory tech- Gamez, T. Janetos, W. Reid, and G. Ruark, eds. nical report. Department of Landscape 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary for Architecture, University of Illinois, Urbana- Policy-Makers. Cambridge University Press, Champaign, and Natural Land Institute, Cambridge, England. Rockford, Illinois. White, B., J. Beardsley, J. Rodsater, and L. Duong. Wikipedia Contributors. 2005. Biodiversity. Wiki- 2003. Biological and physical monitoring of pedia: the free encyclopedia. Web page available Waukegan River restoration efforts in biotechni- at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity cal bank protection and pool/riffle creation. An (Accessed 28 July 2005). annual report prepared by the Illinois State Water

160 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

APPENDIX A PROJECTS FUNDED BY THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS CONSORTIUM, 1998 – 2004

1998 Midwestern Rare Plant Conference and Task Change in Physical Stream Parameters Related to the Force Meeting Dechannelization of a Section of Nippersink Creek 1999 Unionid Mussel Survey and Conservation Chicago Lake Plain Prairie Insect Survey Program Chicago Region Birding Trail Guide A Baseline Inventory of Soil Microarthropods from Chicago Region Sustainability Indicator Project Three Remnant Oak Woodland Communities in Chicago Wilderness Audience Research Project Northeastern Illinois Chicago Wilderness Education and Outreach A Framework for Regionwide Ecological Monitoring Workshop on Research-Based Biodiversity A Model for Engaging High School and College Message Points Students in Biodiversity Research on Chicago Chicago Wilderness Good Neighbor Focus Group Wilderness Project: Discovering How Homeowners Become A Model for Managing Overabundant Deer Good Neighbors Populations in the Natural Areas of the Chicago Chicago Wilderness Grassland Audit Wilderness Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision A Multi-organizational Effort to Revitalize the Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision Ecology of the Calumet Region Phase II: Product Dissemination A Multi-organizational Effort to Revitalize the Chicago Wilderness Mighty Acorns Program Ecology of the Calumet Region: Phase II Chicago Wilderness Mighty Acorns Program: A Self- Abundance and Nesting Productivity of Wetland- sustaining Future Dependent Birds in Northeastern Illinois Chicago Wilderness Outreach Materials: Putting Accessing and Assessing Local Government Decision Conservation into the Hands of Developers and Maker Needs to Enhance Natural Resource Municipalities Protection and Sustainable Watershed Planning Chicago Wilderness Prescribed Burn Commun- Advanced Prescribed Fire Use Training for Chicago ication Strategy Development Wilderness Member Organizations Chicago Wilderness Regional Monitoring Plan Analysis of the Northeastern Illinois Wetland Bird Development Workshop Survey: 25 Years of Change Chicago Wilderness Restoration Video: Creating a Baseline Survey of Invertebrates at Indian Ridge Compelling Tool to Demonstrate the Benefits of Marsh, Indian Creek and Hegewisch Marsh Ecological Restoration Biodiversity and Distribution of Bats in the Chicago Chicago Wilderness Teacher Training Hubs: Building Wilderness on Success Biodiversity Extension Service Civic Community Outreach in a Developing Biodiversity Summer Camps at Indiana Dunes Suburban Watershed Environmental Learning Center Conservation Design Bird Conservation Network Conference (1999) Conservation Design Model Ordinance Breeding Birds of Cook County 1985-1997 Conservation Policy Initiatives Building Capacity in Teacher Training and Testing a Cost Analysis of Conservation Versus Conventional Model for a Chicago Wilderness Teacher Training Development in Northeastern Illinois and Network Northern Indiana Calumet Partnership Workshop Crafting a Common Lexicon: Nature's Recovery Certified Interpretive Training Workshop Campaign

161 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Crane Chronicles: Critical Thinking About Human Experimental Restoration of Oak-Savanna in the Activity & Wetland Health Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore Creating an Interactive Green Infrastructure Data- Ferson/Otter Creek Restoration Project base for the Chicago Wilderness Region Finalizing the Chicago Wilderness Interactive Bird Creating More Effective Web-Based Communication Data Entry Process Tools for the Chicagoland Environmental Net- Fox River Biodiversity Inventory Phase-II GIS work and Chicago Wilderness Development Data Resources Inventory, Data Compatibility GIS Land Cover Map and Ecological Model of the Assessment, and Planning Process for a Regional Savannas, Woodlands, and Forests of Will and Chicago Wilderness Information Management Cook Counties System GIS Products and Analyses for the Chicago Developing a Natural Science Research Agenda for Wilderness Recovery Plan Chicago Wilderness Glacial Park Headwater Restoration Development of a Uniform Scientific Relational Green Gary 2004: Celebrating Our Natural Spaces Database Management System for Land Guiding Families Towards Recovery (Nature’s Management Agencies in Northeastern Illinois Recovery) Development of Ecological Inventories Using Habitat Base Map for Ecological Restoration Geographical Information System Planning in the Butterfield Creek Watershed Direct Outreach to the Professional and Development Historic Landscape Vegetation Pattern, Composition, Communities on Sustainable Development for and Structure of McHenry and Lake Counties, Biodiversity Benefits Illinois Early Warning and Rapid Response Invasive Species Historic Vegetation Pattern, Composition, and Program Structure of Kane County, Illinois as reported by Ecological Investigation of Invertebrate Populations the U.S. Public Land Survey of Spring Bluff, Elm Road Forest, and Grainger Identifying the Characteristics of Biodiversity Ecological Monitoring of the MacArthur Wood Literacy Habitat Restoration Project Illinois Biodiversity Basics Revisions Ecosystem Restoration and the Viability of Bird Illinois Biodiversity Basics: A Program for Formal Populations in the Chicago Wilderness and Non-formal Educators Ecosystem Restoration within Four Illinois Nature Impact of European Buckthorn on Aspects of Reserves Owned by the Illinois Department of Ecosystem Structure and Functioning in Natural Resources Woodlands Around Chicago Eden Place: Biodiversity Training for Responsible Impact of Nitrogen Deposition on Macrofungi in Stewardship Chicago Wilderness Education Materials about Biological Control of Impact of Prescription Burns on Prairie Spiders Purple Loosestrife in Illinois Wetlands Impacts of Deer Herbivory Upon Natural Areas Education, Outreach, and Monitoring Northwest Restoration in the Chicago Wilderness Indiana’s Avifauna Implementation of the Chicago Wilderness Strategic Effective Bird Monitoring for Conservation in the Plan Chicago Wilderness Region: Devising a Indian Boundary Prairies Wetland Restoration Standardized Protocol and Creating an Immediate Project Data Bank Influence of Excessive Deer Browsing on Prairie Effective Vegetation Monitoring in a Management Forbs Context: Taking the Pulse of the Wilderness Influencing Public Infrastructure Design and Enhancing the Chicago Wilderness Prescribed Burn Implementation Phase I Training Manual Interaction of Armillaria Root Rot, Canker Disease Evaluation of Diversity of Nongame Fish Species in and Prescribed Burning on Woodland Structure Lake County, Illinois and Health

162 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Interpretive Skills Training Workshop Plants of Concern Interpretive Skills Training Workshop, Step 2: Plants of Concern: Scientific Data Gathering and Thematic Development Volunteer Vegetation Monitoring Training Invasive Plants: Global Issues, Local Concerns Plants of Concern: Scientific Data Gathering & Lake Michigan Action Plan Volunteer Vegetation Monitor Training Year Two Lake Michigan Urban Aquatic Habitat Restoration Plants of Concern: Standardized Rare Plant Initiative Monitoring Using Trained Volunteers Land Use Media Guide Plants of Concern: Training Volunteers to Conduct Life History and Current Status of State of Illinois Standardized Rare Plant Monitoring on a Regional Endangered and Threatened Fish Species From Scale Glacial Lakes and Marshes of Northeastern Illinois Preservation Partners: Applying Problem-Solving Linking Watersheds Conference: Creating a Network Skills to Restoration Activities for Watersheds within Chicago Wilderness Program Evaluation Plan for Indiana Dunes Marketing of and Technical Assistance on the Environmental Learning Center Conservation Design Resource Manual Programming for the Indian Ridge Marsh Environ- Metropolitan Natural Landscaping Initiative mental Center and the Calumet Region Midwest Ecological Burn Training Promoting Sound Policies for Grassland, Shrubland Mobilizing a Community’s Assets and Migratory Bids Mobilizing a Community’s Assets Phase 4: Reed-Turner Woodland Illinois State Preserve- Implementation Vegetation Sampling and Analysis Monitoring Northeastern Illinois Forest Diversity: Regional Conservation Design Interactions Between Dendrochronological Relocation, Mapping and Assessment of Cook History County's Endangered and Threatened Plant Natural Area Volunteer Stewardship in Chicago Species: Updating former records - Phase II Parks Relocation, Mapping and Status Assessment of Cook Natural Community GIS Mapping Project County's Endangered and Threatened Plant Natural Landscaping Video: Managing Large Land Species: Updating former records Parcels for Increased Biodiversity and Other Restoration Alternatives for Large Waterways: A Benefits Design Charette and Handbook Natural Science Research Agenda Project Phase 2 Restoration and Interpretation of The Grove National Nature and Culture: A Multicultural Pilot Project in Historic Landmark Glenview Park District Uptown and Edgewater Restoration and Interpretation of the Mary Mix Nippersink Creek Remeandering Project McDonald Woods Nippersink Creek Subwatershed Project Restoration Effects in an Oak-Woodland Community Northwest Indiana Mighty Acorns Program at Swallow Cliff Woods Northwest Indiana Teachers’ Hub Initiative Restoration Effects in an Oak-Woodland Community One Year Natural Resources Data Specialist Term at Swallow Cliff Woods III Position with the Lake County Forest Preserve Restoration of Sterne's Graminoid Fen District Restoring Oak Savanna Community Structure Outreach and Technical Assistance to Local Through Manual Removal of Woody Species Government Officials and Decision-Makers Revisions to Chicago Wilderness Community Planning Conference to Address the Environmental Classification Systems Education Goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan Science in the City Planning for Teacher Training in Biodiversity State of the Region Report Card Education Status and Temporal Change in Chicago Region Planning for the Chicago Wilderness State of the Prairies, Savannas, and Wetlands Sampled by the Region Report Card Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Plant-Pollinator Associations in Reconstructed Status of Amphibians and Reptiles in Savanna Prairies Habitats and Savanna Mosaic Communities of the Chicago Wilderness Region

163 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Strategies for Survival: The ExSitu Plant Conser- The Science of Natural Landscaping: Quantifying the vation Symposium Benefits Stream Restoration Inventory The Use of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Imagery Stream Restoration Inventory, Phase 2 for Monitoring Prairie Ecosystem Restoration Sustainable Calumet Network Thirty-First Natural Area Conference: Emerging Sustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT) Issues–Possibilities and Perils, Chicago, Illinois Sustainable Watershed Action Team Enhancement: Training Chicago Wilderness Volunteers to Regulatory Coordination Communicate on Biodiversity Sustaining and Expanding Regional Volunteer Training/Technical Assistance for Local Government Monitoring Through the Chicago Wilderness Officials on Biodiversity Protection Techniques Habitat Project Update of Natural Landscaping for Local Officials: Targeted Natural Landscaping Outreach for A Source Book Biodiversity Benefits Use of Macroinvertebrate Functional Groups to The Biodiversity Education Through Action Assess Ecosystem Attributes in the Restored Area Program: Project Evaluation and Dissemination of Nippersink Creek, McHenry County, Illinois The Correspondence of Soil Types with Plant Using Doppler Radar to Quantify Habitat Use by Community Types in the Natural Areas of Forest Dwelling Migratory Songbirds McHenry County, Illinois Wetland Conservation Strategy Model Development The Establishment of Long-Term Research at Wolf Road Prairie Buffer Restoration Chiwaukee Prairie Wolf Road Prairie Eco-Literacy Project The Habitat Project: Monitoring for Adaptive Woodland and Savanna Communities in Chicago Management Wilderness and Their Current Conditions: The Habitat Project: Region-wide Monitoring for Identification and Mapping Through Integration Chicago Wilderness of Landsat and Transection Data The Impacts of Eurasian Earthworm and Invasive Woodlands Audit Pilot Project Shrubs on Chicago Woodland Ecosystems: Yellow-Headed Blackbird Conservation in Northeast Surveying Distribution and Evaluating Potential Illinois Ecosystem Damage The Regional Transportation Plan and Biodiversity

164 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

APPENDIX B MEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS CONSORTIUM 185 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 2006

Alliance for the Great Lakes DePaul University, Environmental Science Program Association for the Wolf Lake Initiative Downers Grove Park District Audubon–Chicago Region Ducks Unlimited–Great Lakes/ Regional Office Barrington Area Council of Governments (BACOG) DuPage Birding Club Batavia Plain Dirt Gardeners Eden Place Nature Center Bird Conservation Network Elmhurst Park District Boone Creek Watershed Alliance Emily Oaks Nature Center Broadtree Adventures in Education Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest Brookfield Zoo Evanston Environmental Association Butterfield Creek Steering Committee Faith in Place Calumet Ecological Park Association The Field Museum Calumet Environmental Resource Center Flagg-Rochelle Community Park District Campaign for Sensible Growth Forest Preserve District of Cook County Campton Historic Agricultural Lands, Inc. Forest Preserve District of DuPage County Campton Township Forest Preserve District of Kane County Canal Corridor Association Forest Preserve District of Will County Cary Park District Fox Valley Land Foundation Center for Neighborhood Technology Friends of the Chicago River Chicago Academy of Sciences/Peggy Notebaert Friends of the Forest Preserves (Cook County) Nature Museum Friends of the Morton Grove Forest Preserves Chicago Audubon Society Friends of the Parks Chicago Botanic Garden Friends of Ryerson Woods Chicago Herpetological Society The Garden Clubs of Illinois, Inc. Chicago Ornithological Society Garfield Park Conservatory Alliance Chicago Park District Geneva Lake Conservancy Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council Geneva Park District Chicago’s Green City Market Glenview Prairie Preservation Project Chicagoland Bird Observatory The Grove National Historic Landmark Chiwaukee Prairie Preservation Fund, Inc. Homewood Izaak Walton Preserve, Inc. Citizens for Conservation I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor Civic City of Chicago, Department of Environment Center Authority City of Park Ridge Illinois Audubon Society City of Rolling Meadows Illinois Audubon Society, Ft. Dearborn Chapter Clarendon Hills Park District Illinois Butterfly Monitoring Network Coffee Creek Watershed Conservancy Illinois Department of Natural Resources College of DuPage Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board The Conservation Foundation Illinois Natural History Survey The Conservation Fund Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Conservation Research Institute Illinois Ornithological Society CorLands Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program Crystal Lake Park District Indian Creek Watershed Project, Ltd.

165 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Indiana Department of Natural Resources Palos-Orland Conservation Committee Indiana Dunes Environmental Learning Center Palos Park Tree Foundation Indiana University Northwest Park District of Highland Park Irons Oaks Environmental Learning Center Portage Park and Recreation Department (IN) Jurica Nature Museum Porter County (IN) Plan Commission Kane-DuPage Soil & Water Conservation District Prairie Club Kendall County Forest Preserve District Prairie Club Conservation Education Fund Lake Bluff Open Lands Association Prairie Crossing Homeowners Association Lake County Forest Preserves Prairie Woods Audubon Society Lake County Health Department–Environmental Prairies Forever Health Services Pringle Nature Center Lake County (IN) Parks and Recreation Department Purdue University Calumet Lake County Soil & Water Conservation District Resurrection Center Lake County (IN) Solid Waste Management Richardson Wildlife Sanctuary Lake County Stormwater Management Commission River Forest Park District Lake Forest College Save the Dunes Conservation Fund Lake Forest Open Lands Association Save the Prairie Society Lake Katherine Nature Preserve Schaumburg Park District Land Conservancy of McHenry County John G. Shedd Aquarium Land Trust Alliance Shirley Heinze Land Trust Land Trust of Walworth County Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter Liberty Prairie Conservancy Southeast Environmental Task Force Lincoln Park Zoo Spring Brook Nature Center Long Grove Park District St. Charles Park District Loyola University, College of Arts and Sciences Sustain, The Environmental Information Group Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation Taltree Arboretum and Gardens McHenry County Conservation District Thorn Creek Audubon Society McHenry County Conservation Foundation The Trust for Public Land McHenry County Defenders, Inc. Town Square Condominium Association Metropolitan Water Reclamation District University of Illinois at Chicago The Morton Arboretum University of Illinois Extension, Northeast Region Naperville Park District University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign National Association for Interpretation–Region 5 US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District Natural Land Institute US Dept. of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory The Nature Conservancy–Illinois Chapter US Dept. of Energy, Fermi National Accelerator Lab NiSource Environmental Challenge Fund US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 North Branch Restoration Project US EPA Great Lakes National Program Office North Cook County Soil & Water Conservation US Fish & Wildlife Service District USDA Forest Service Northbrook Park District USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission USDI National Park Service Northeastern Illinois University Village of Brookfield Northwest Indiana Forum Foundation, Inc. Village of Deer Park Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Village of Frankfort Commission Village of Glenview Northwestern University Environmental Council Village of Hoffman Estates Environmental Oakbrook Terrace Park District Commission Openlands Project Village of Homer Glen

166 THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS AREPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Village of Lake Barrington Village of Lincolnshire Village of North Barrington Village of Orland Park Village of Riverside Village of Schaumburg Waukegan Harbor Citizens’ Advisory Group Wayne Park Commission The Wetlands Initiative Wheaton Park District Wild Ones Natural Landscapers, Ltd. Wild Flower Preservation Society of Illinois Woodland Savanna Land Conservancy

Members of the Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council 27 Members as of February 2006 Agrecol Corporation Applied Ecological Services, Inc. ARAMARK Facility Services BP America, Inc. The Care of Trees Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. ComEd Futurity, Inc. Hitchcock Design Group HSBC North America JFNew Kabbes Engineering, Inc. Kirk Homes LaSalle Bank McGinty Brothers Midwest Generation Motorola Nicor Gas NiSource, Inc. Northern Trust Corporation Parsons Corporation Pizzo and Associates, Ltd. Prairie Holdings Corporation RRM Foundations/Cantigny Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP V3 Consultants WRD Environmental

167 ��

��