INAI Update Workshop Evaluating Natural Quality September 17, 2007

This is a summary of the workshop, focusing on the discussion held following the presentations by the speakers. The speakers’ presentations are available at the INAI web site, www.inhs.uiuc.edu/inai, so little detail is provided here.

Brian Anderson, Lincoln Land Community College: The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory: This Ain’t Your Grandma’s INAI

What is new with this INAI Update? . We know more about natural areas. . We know it will be used to protect natural areas. . We know it will be used in the regulatory area. . We have better technology available. . We know how expensive a natural areas protection and management program is. . We have huge public support for natural areas protection.

Why is natural quality important? There is: . More science . More scrutiny . More at stake . Less time!

We must balance the integration of new science and technology without undermining the authority of the original INAI. We must also strike a balance between scientific rigor in methodologies with efficiency and practicality.

John Wilker, IDNR: The original INAI and how the INAI is used now

Current natural community grading scheme: Grade A Relatively stable or undisturbed Grade B Lightly disturbed Grade C Moderately to heavily disturbed Grade D Severely disturbed Grade E Very severely disturbed

The INAI is both a process and a product.

The original inventory identified 1,089 sites in 1978. The INAI has been managed and maintained and now has 1,333 sites.

Current Categories of the INAI I: High quality natural communities (including restorations)

1 II: Specific suitable habitat for listed species (occupied; including translocation / reintroduction) III: Nature Preserves, Land & Water Reserves, Natural Heritage Landmarks IV: Outstanding geological features V: Currently unused VI: Unusual concentrations of flora and fauna

Original objective goal was to find, evaluate, describe, and classify natural areas of statewide significance.

Bob Szafoni, IDNR: INAI Vegetation Sampling: Then and Now

The purpose for sampling in 1976 was to “…determine dominant species and help assess natural quality.” In 2002, the purpose was slightly modified: “…assist in determining community type and grade….provide direct comparison between like sites…..permit re- sampling for changes and subsequent monitoring.”

Szafoni illustrated how qualitative sampling had changed (or not) from 1976 to 2002 and how quantitative sampling had changed for herbaceous, woody overstory and woody understory.

Randy Nyboer, INHS: Evaluating Natural Quality – The Original INAI Process

Natural quality is defined as a measure of disturbance to a natural community. The degree of disturbance influences changes to a natural community’s structure, species composition and natural diversity. Disturbance indicators were identified for community types.

Steve Apfelbaum, Applied Ecological Services: Overview of Field Sampling & Data Sufficiency Methods

Sampling methods for herbaceous vegetation used by AES is similar to the original INAI except the quadrat size is different. AES uses 1 meter square sample quadrats.

Timed Meander Search 1. Plant species richness 2. New species encounter rate

Jerry Wilhelm, Conservation Design Forum: Floristic quality Defined

Comparison of natural quality Grading system using FQI and the INAI grades (page 11) INAI Grade FQA Mean C Guild

A >5.5 B 4.5-4.4 C 3.5-4.4

2 D 3.4-3.0 E <3.0

Mean C is the best metric for de novo restorations.

Restorations rarely result in even a Grade C community. As a result, we must be thoughtful and not too pure as to what we preserve. Soils are important.

John Taft, INHS: Floristic Quality Assessment in Illinois

Floristic Quality Index: An index derived from floristic inventory data, calculated as: FQI = Mean C (√ N) whereby C = Coefficient of Conservatism Mean C = ∑C/n n = total number of taxa N = Number of native taxa

The intended take home messages were that tabulating total number of species (i.e., species richness) may be an imprecise proxy for floristic integrity. That habitat degradation forms a continuous gradient from relatively pristine (Grade A) to highly degraded (Grade E) communities. For this reason, assigning grades to qualitatively transitional areas (especially Grade B- to C+) is problematic and will require defendable and measurable criteria. Analysis of plant functional groups indicates the data are useful in distinguishing habitat quality differences in prairie and are highly correlated with other emergent properties of plant communities, particularly Mean C and FQI, but do not explain as much variation in the data as do indices calculated from species-level data.

In general, Grade C dry-mesic upland forests tend to have more diversity than INAI Category I dry-mesic upland forests but differ in having lower quality of composition.

Marlin Bowles, Morton Arboretum: Using Independent Statistics to Assess the Efficacy of INAI Natural Quality Grades Bowles explored the questions: Can analysis of species frequencies differentiate between Quality grades? Is Species Richness Consistent in Detecting Quality? How Does Regional Distribution Affect C values? Forests: How well does basal area indicate quality? Forests: How does groundlayer species richness and abundance vary across a forest type gradient?

In 2001, Grade C prairies merged with Grade B prairies in dry/dry-mesic sites, but not in mesic/wet-mesic sites. This increase in richness correlates with fire frequency.

Measures of species richness within functional group, as well as proportional abundance differentiated Grade C prairies as distinct.

3 Bowles’ Conclusions

Assignment of INAI quality grades should continue to be a subjective process requiring teams with similar training and experience.

Objective analyses can help validate ranking decisions, or may question rank assignments.

Discussion

Jeffords: What time is involved in data collection with the different indices? Time required must be considered because of the associated costs and fixed amount of funds available.

Responses: Wilhelm: A species list requires 20 minutes. Bowles: You can do 1 site per day. Nyboer: With the original inventory, 2 sites could be sampled in a day, although these sites were usually visited more than once prior to sampling. Bowles: Forests will require longer to sample.

B. Anderson: Is anyone recommending abandoning the existing A, B, C, D grading system for one using more qualitative methods? Should we abandon vegetation sampling? If not, is there a quicker way of collecting the data.

Responses: The consensus appeared to be that the existing grading system should be retained and that vegetation sampling was important.

Taft: The functional group assessment is a quicker approach but has not been perfected for all community types. Nyboer: You need the sampling data to support the grading.

J. Anderson: How intensively will we be examining existing INAI sites? In the Chicago region, the A sites are mostly protected. Good sites that have restoration potential but are not on the inventory are often hard to defend to political bodies. Lake County FPD would benefit from finding the C and D sites.

Response: B. Anderson: Existing Category I INAI sites will not be examined with the initial $4.5 million provided by IDNR. This was a part of the original proposal but funding was not available. Will we treat C sites differently – are some restorable? If changes are to be made, we need to make them early so they can be approved by IDNR’s Natural Areas Evaluation Committee. The inventory is not placing a negative value on sites that do not qualify for the inventory. This includes C sites. Some of the issues raised could be addressed through viability analysis, which was proposed but not funded.

4 J. Anderson: Will we be contacting agencies to see what they can do to help?

Response: B. Anderson: Landowner contact protocols are being developed and a strategic protection plan was proposed but not funded. Both are important. Partners have not yet been contacted, but will be soon.

Bowles: Will the update include examining existing INAI sites?

Response: B. Anderson: The original proposal included examining existing sites, but funding was not available. Efforts will only be made to identify new sites. Funds will be solicited from other sources to assess existing sites. Bowles stressed the importance of revisiting and assessing existing sites. Many changes have taken place on the landscape in the last 30 years.

Jones: Will we work within Natural Divisions? Will we look for “best of its kind” (BOIK) more intensively?

Response: B. Anderson: Yes. We will identify BOIK where it makes sense, but not for all Divisions and sections.

Antlitz: Why not use all available indices on all sites and not just focus on one?

Response: General consensus was that this could be done.

Schennum: He stressed the importance of examining existing INAI sites during this update.

Lampa: Satellite imagery has not been discussed. Chicago Wilderness used this tool in the past when examining natural communities and quality. What role will satellite imagery play?

Response: B. Anderson: There is the potential to use multi-spectral imagery, but it is expensive. AES is interested in this tool. The original proposal included doing a pilot study in a few counties but it was not funded.

Mendelson: He expressed concern that the coefficients of conservatism are assigned values and not actually a measurement. He raised concerns with applying statistics to coefficients of conservatism; his concern was that the properties of CC values within a species pool may not meet underlying statistical expectations.

5 Response: Taft: The data exhibit central normal tendency (were normally distributed, and thus it was appropriate for parametric statistical approaches). He met with statisticians on the U of I campus and presented a seminar on the topic to statistics and biology faculty members and none of them voiced concern with this approach. Furthermore, he met individually with Drs. Jeff Brawn and Susan Aref also on this topic and neither voiced concern about applying statistics to these sorts of data. Susan Aref did say that a sample size of > 50 species is probably needed before central normal tendency is reached. In addition, his paper in Biological Conservation received peer review and none of the reviewers or the editor raised issues with the statistical approaches taken in the paper.

Jeffords: How do you decide what sites to sample? Is this subjective?

Response: Bowles: This decision is based on expertise and training of staff. B. Anderson: White told him that with the original inventory, field staff went as a group to visit high quality sites across the state to “calibrate their brains” to help recognize good sites.

How will sites be found: Will aerial photography be used?

Response: B. Anderson: While we have better search tools and technology, this is still a “butts and eyeballs” approach (or “brains and eyeballs” according to J. White). J. White: He recently found more sites during pilot studies in Lee and Ogle, Winnebago, Stephenson, Carroll, Jo Daviess, Jersey, Greene, Scott and Calhoun counties because he had better aerial photography, was more carefully thorough, and used more liberal criteria to begin the analysis. He found 10 times as many potential natural areas than were found in the original inventory and expects to find twice the number of natural areas in this update, but they will be small. The acreage will not double unless we add large Grade C sites. Nyboer: We will have a lot better sources of information now than we did 30 years ago – FPDs and Conservation Districts, etc.

Bowles: He raised concerns that using the CC values will show differences in quality between dry sites versus mesic or wet sites that are not accurate. He felt the CC values assigned were biased.

Responses: Wilhelm: He did not believe this was true.

Taft: The project in question was done through a committee effort following the guidelines described in my presentation with the theoretical framework of Grime's triangle describing life history patterns for plants species as having been selected primarily for three traits: colonization ability, competitiveness, and stress tolerance. This effort was designed to avoid bias. Bias would suggest the committee intentionally ranked

6 species at a particular site higher in order to achieve a particular outcome. The coefficients are assigned on the basis of statewide observations rather than site-specific observations, with the obvious exception of rare species only known from a limited number of Illinois populations. He compared the data from Nachusa to data from mesic tallgrass prairies (the latter all INAI sites) and found that the mesic sites had greater numbers of conservative species than the dry sites at Nachusa. These data suggest there is no bias with regard to species of drier habitats. Further, he said it is not surprising that in the whole flora of Illinois, regulatory wetland species and upland species (following the USFWS designation of wetland species scores for the flora of U.S.) have higher Mean C values compared with facultative species that occur in neither extremes but rather are adapted to intermediate (i.e., unspecialized) conditions. Also, in general, it is the ecologically extreme sites where most natural areas remain, the agriculturally suitable lands having mostly been converted to other land uses. Interestingly, the questioners (Bowles and Mendelson) did not seem concerned about the absence of statistical rigor in graded natural quality standards, or for instance in how to distinguish a Grade C from a Grade B site, despite that fact that one meets the criteria of the INAI and the other does not. This however, may be a shortfall of the INAI should grading be questioned in a court of law only to find that there are no quantifiable criteria for most natural communities.

Announcements

B. Anderson: A question was raised as to when we would be meeting with partners. The original plan was to meet with partners after the regional ecologists were hired, but there is strong interest in meeting prior to this.

B. Anderson: If anyone knows of trained botanists let us know. We will be hiring 5 for this project and are concerned about finding qualified candidates. Let Glosser know of potential candidates.

B. Anderson: The next workshop is October 18 in Champaign on open oak woodlands.

More Discussion

B. Anderson: Concerns have been raised about C sites. Has anyone found a C site with significance? If so, what are the features of the site?

Responses: Taft: He finds them in work done for IDOT and calls them “regionally significant” when conveying this information to IDOT. He uses FQI to show the importance of the site even though they are not on the INAI.

B. Anderson: He summaries Taft’s answer: Assessment is based on experience, restoration capability and FQI as a re-enforcer.

Wilker: Do Grade A and B sites stand on their own? Do only Grade C sites require another level of information?

7 Responses: Thomas: Much of what he has heard today suggests that there is not a huge difference between A and B sites and they if we went back to visit A sites today sufficient changes may have occurred to shrink the number of A sites. What if we collapse As and the upper Bs and then expand Bs to include better Cs?

Packard: He had a companion idea – in C sites we need different thinking from the original inventory. We need to think differently about As and Bs as well. Disturbance may not be the best judge. Grade C areas should lead to other questions: 1. Is this an area where we can do biodiversity conservation work? 2. How are the animals doing? We need to examine the animals on a site. This can be done using volunteers, particularly for birds and insects. The original inventory used volunteers. He also raised the question as to how we define “natural area” – we need to treat disturbance differently.

Vogel: We need to consider what the inventory is used for and make sure that if we adjust criteria we do not risk losing the entire thing in a lawsuit.

Szafoni: He said he was a stickler for definitions and that Packard raised a good question as to how “natural area” defined. Some of the sites we are talking about (Grade C) could qualify for another category on the INAI. This update is focusing on Category Is.

Wilhelm: NEPA used the standard of “irreversible and irretrievable” in evaluating impacts to natural communities. He suggests we could consider these as well.

J. Anderson: Lake County has virtually no Grade A sites – everything has been disturbed. Most of the Grade A and B sites have been protected – the FPD needs something that goes beyond this.

Response: J. White: Do FPDs need the state to identify Grade C sites for them? J. Anderson: Yes. Their board takes outside expert opinion as a validation for internal decisions. White: The original inventory used the term “notable sites” to describe sites that were good but did not qualify for the INAI. B. Anderson: Viability analysis would help this issue but it was not funded. Would “locally significant” be a useful term for the FPD? J. Anderson: Yes! He recognized the costs of doing viability analysis. He offered to help identify these sites in Lake County and stressed the importance of including Grade C sites.

Antiltz: How is connectivity being addressed in the update?

Response: Bowles: Connectivity is important, but it depends on what species it benefits. It is not good to provide greater connectivity for deer, as an example.

8 Mule: He expressed concerns with putting a label of “best of its kind” on sites because it devalues other sites. Local officials often reject sites not identified as “BOIK”. He suggested using a different term.

Responses “BOIK” sites are not found in all locations – only where A or B sites are not available.

Heidorn: He reminded everyone that all data collected would be retained. Locally significant sites – those not making the INAI – would not go away. He also cautioned us that the INAI update cannot get into preserve design.

Thomas: Because the grading is subjective, why can’t we identify C sites that have good restoration potential?

Antlitz: Maybe we could use the A, B, C, D scheme for describing disturbance but then use different criteria for replaceability.

Wilhelm: Using the term “Grade C” sites can pose problems in providing protection at the local level. “C” sounds bad.

J. Anderson: Ten years ago, he and Packard identified a list of characteristics of a site that are quick – a shortened viability analysis. This helped to determine if a site was restorable. Presence of sedges and proximity to high quality sites were two questions. B. Anderson asked if he still had this list. J. Anderson said he did.

Packard: We do not want to redefine the INAI that would pose legal problems, however, the original INAI was based on the best science. Can’t we redefine based on what we know now? Can we look at the significance of size? Small higher quality prairies that he is aware of are not doing well, but those that have more green space around them are doing better.

Collins: This update will not address the issues associated with C sites. C sites might qualify as another INAI category but will not be assessed now. But this is the concern. Mengler said that they do not want these sites to be lost.

Schennum: Will color infrared photography be used? Response: J. White: Yes.

Lampa: DuPage County tried to inventory their sites but this led to redefining their natural community classification system.

B. Anderson: This is a dilemma: we know we need to do work on open oak woodlands. We have time constraints though. All changes need to be made and approved before fieldwork begins in the spring of 2008. How extensively should or can changes be made?

9 Responses Heidorn: Another practicality – agencies use the INAI to protect biodiversity. Reformulating the classification system could post problems for agencies already using the INAI. Tweaking is one thing, but a total rewrite is another.

B. Anderson: Are the changes to the classification system being proposed for scientific purposes?

Wilhelm: Replaceability is critical. What can we carry into the future?

B. Anderson: Last topic: Vegetation sampling takes time. If you take too much time sampling, other sites may not be identified. Have you found ways of more rapidly process sites?

Responses Antlitz: She suggested using a team approach, with one good botanist floating between teams to identify the more rare species. Other members of the team did not require this level of botanical expertise.

J. Anderson: He stressed using technology – entering data into PCs in the field, etc.

Mule: Entering data directly means that you can never identify errors that are made. He used written records as well.

Wilhelm: He recommends that if you are trying to sample 2 sites in one day that they be different community types to reduce the error rate in recording information.

Jones: Why were the changes made to the sampling protocols?

Responses Szafoni: Some changes were made to address perceived deficiencies in the original protocols (e.g. herb vegetation in wooded communities, herbaceous vegetation cover classes). Other changes were made (e.g. definition of “shrubs’) for reasons that are not fully documented.

Jones and Bowles suggested that these changes make comparisons between old and new data problematic and perhaps impossible. Bowles advocated keeping the protocols the same (as you note below).

Wayne Schenum stated that taking cover class info on herbaceous vegetation is time consuming and the results are very dependent on the season data is collected as well as potential year to year changes that may be driven by climate (e.g drought) or management (Rx burn) (also as you note below). Several other (including Bowles) agreed with this.

10 J. Anderson: He asked that questions/issues to be addressed at the October workshop be sent to invitees early so they can consult with colleagues prior to the workshop.

The workshop ended at 4:00.

Workshop Attendees

Name Affiliation Anderson, Brian LLCC Anderson, Ed IDNR Anderson, Jim Lake County FPD Antlitz, Debbie Cook Co. FPD Apflebaum, Steve AES Bell, Tim Chicago State Univ Carrington, Mary Gov State Univ Carroll-Cunningham, Connie INHS Bowles, Marlin Morton Arboretum Cole, Maggie IDNR Collins, Randall IDNR Glosser, Deanna EPSI Gooch, Dan ESPB & CW Heidorn, Randy INPC Jablonski, Cindi IDNR Jeffords, Michael INHS Jones, Mike Kirk, Dan IDNR Klick, Ken Lake Co. FPD Kobal, Scott DuPage Cnty FPD Lampa, Wayne Mauger, Dave Will Cnty FPD Mendelson, Jon Governors State Univ Mengler, Jeff USFWS & CW Mule , Lou Mulvaney, Christopher CW Neady, Eric DuPage Co. FPD Nelson, John INPC Nyboer, Randy INHS Packard, Steve Audubon Chicago Roman, Kim INPC Schennum, Wayne Semel, Brad IDNR Sluis, Bill Tri-County University Szafoni. Bob IDNR

11 Taft, John INHS Thomas, Dave INHS Ullberg, Drew Kane Co. FPD Vanderploeg, Wayne Cook County FPD Vogel, Randy AES White, Barbara ES White, John ES Wilhelm, Jerry CDF Williamson, Matt Kane Co. FPD Wilker, John IDNR

12