Illinois Assessment of Parks and Conservation Funding Needs And

ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS Local Government that People Value

Nearly nine out of every 10 Illinois households are satisfied with their local park district.

VERY SATISFIED 29% SATISFIED 59%

Illinois Assessment of Parks and Conservation Funding VERY Needs and Economic Benefits UNSATISFIED 3% March 2019

UNSATISFIED 9%

The Role Of

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 1 www.ILparks.org Jurisdictional Programs in Catalyzing Sustainability Transitions in Tropical Forest Landscapes

Authors: Lex Hovani, Rane Cortez, Herlina Hartanto, Ian Thompson, Greg Fishbein, Erin Myers Madeira, and Justin Adams

The Role of Jurisdictional Programs | 1 2 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Illinois Assessment of Parks and Conservation Funding Needs and Economic Benefits

The Trust for Public Land The Illinois Association of Park Districts The Nature Conservancy March 2019

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 3 About Us

The Trust for Public Land The Trust for Public Land’s mission is to create parks and protect land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. Every park, playground, and public space we create is an open invitation to explore, wonder, discover, and play. The Trust for Public Land has been connecting communities to the outdoors and residents to one another since 1972. Today, millions of Americans live within a 10-minute walk of a park or natural area the organization helped create, and countless more visit those spaces every year.

Illinois Association of Park Districts The Illinois Association of Park Districts is a nonprofit service, research and education organization that serves park districts, forest preserves, conservation, municipal park and recreation, and special recreation agencies. The association advances these agencies, their citizen board members and professional staff in their ability to provide outstanding park and recreation opportunities, preserve natural resources and improve the quality of life for all people in Illinois.

The Nature Conservancy The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends. Since the organization’s founding in 1951, the Nature Conservancy has protected more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of rivers worldwide — and organization operates more than 100 marine conservation projects globally. The Nature Conservancy has more than 1 million members and works in all 50 United States and 72 countries around the world — protecting habitats from grasslands to coral reefs, from Australia to Alaska to Zambia. The Nature Conservancy address threats to conservation involving climate change, fire, fresh water, forests, invasive species, and marine ecosystems.

4 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS Local Government that People Value

Nearly nine out of every 10 Illinois households are satisfied with their local park district.

VERY SATISFIED 29% SATISFIED 59%

VERY UNSATISFIED 3%

UNSATISFIED 9%

The Role Of

www.ILparks.org Jurisdictional Programs Dear friends, in Catalyzing Sustainability Transitions Open space in Illinois is vanishing at an alarming rate while access to outdoor recreational opportunities is strained. All Illinoisans are impacted by this critical issue. Indeed, this report documents hundreds of millions of dollars in capital needs for land conservation and parks across in Tropical Forest Landscapes Illinois by those who work together as stewards of publicly accessible recreational and natural spaces. These stewards are the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, local park districts, forest preserves, conservation districts, and nonprofit conservation agencies. Authors: Lex Hovani, Rane Cortez, Herlina Hartanto, Ian Thompson, The needs of these agencies are staggering and far exceed the funds available in our state grant Greg Fishbein, Erin Myers Madeira, and Justin Adams programs and appropriations. For example, the Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) grant program has served as the bedrock of conservation and recreation funding for more than 30 years, but the number of applications and requested funds greatly exceed the available grant dollars. The Natural Areas Acquisition Fund (NAAF), originally created for acquisition and stewardship of high quality natural areas, has been strained recently due to fluctuating revenues and the consistent redirection of funds for operational support. At the same time, funding for other programs such as the Open Lands Trust (OLT) and Park and Recreational Facility Construction (PARC) grant program have not been funded since the last statewide capital program ten years ago.

There are important reasons to reverse the state’s trend of underfunding these critical investments and to put Illinois back on a path to wisely protecting its natural heritage and increasing access to parks and recreation. Investing in land conservation in Illinois is a sound economic choice. Providing natural goods and services like clean water, clean air and flood control creates economic value. Investments in land conservation and parks also support economic activity and job growth in a variety of other ways including recreational tourism, purchases of sporting goods, and boosts in nearby property values, to name a few. In addition, these programs generated hundreds of millions of dollars in matching funds from local, federal and non-governmental sources since 1998.

Our citizens widely support more funding for parks, recreation and conservation. A 2009 statewide survey found that over 75 percent of Illinois voters supported a $350 million state capital bond for investment in land acquisition and water conservation as part of a proposed $26 billion capital budget. At the local government level, Illinois voters consistently support funding for conservation and preservation of our outdoor heritage — between 1998 and 2018, forest preserve, park districts, and other local jurisdictions, mostly in the greater Chicago area passed close to fifty ballot measures which collectively generated more than $1.3 billion in new land conservation spending. The Role of Jurisdictional Programs | 1 This report illustrates the need to dedicate more land and funding for natural areas, publicly accessible parks and recreational facilities. Preserving open space and recreation opportunities is an issue that unites Illinoisans. As we look forward, we must not neglect the need to protect our quality of life and natural places at the expense of development and other budget priorities

Sincerely,

Aaron Koch Peter Murphy Michelle Carr Chicago Area Director President & CEO State Director ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 5 UNIVERSITY PARTNERS

Pg 2: Northern Arizona University Pg 3: University of California, Santa Cruz Pg 4: University of Florida Pg 5: University of Michigan Pg 6: University of Washington

ABOUT THE DORIS DUKE CONSERVATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM

The Doris Duke Conservation Scholars Program (DDCSP) is a highly selective, two-year undergraduate research program focused on preparing the next generation of diverse environmental conservation professionals. DDCSP offers immersive, experiential learning opportunities, visits to iconic landscapes across the U.S., unique research and internship experiences, and professional development. Participants also gain exposure to career options and leading conservation professionals, access to mentorship opportunities, and a deep appreciation of the value of diversity and inclusion. For more information, visit dorisdukeconservationscholars.org

DDCSP is administered by: Northern Arizona University, University of California at Santa Cruz, University of Florida, University of Michigan and University of Washington. The program offers a competitive stipend and covers travel, lodging and meals. DDCSP is geared towards rising sophomores or juniors attending any four-year college or university in the U.S. and its territories. Please contact individual DDCSP sites with questions regarding eligibility and for further information on specific offerings, program and internship locations, and dates.

The DDCSP Alumni Network, managed by the Environmental Leadership Program, provides continued networking and professional development for all participants. For more information about the Alumni Network, visit ddcspnetwork.org This report was produced with generous support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

ABOUT THE DORIS DUKE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION

The mission of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation is to improve the quality of people’s lives through grants supporting the performing arts, environmental conservation, medical research and child well-being, and through preservation of the cultural and environmental legacy of Doris Duke’s properties. The foundation’s Environment Program seeks to enable communities to protect and manage wildlife habitat and create efficient built environments. For more information, visit ddcf.org This report would not be possible without the help from the following individuals: 1Jason | Doris Duke Navota Conservation Scholarsof the Program Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning; Peter Murphy and Jason Anselment of the Illinois Association of Park Districts; Kathy Barker, Amy Madigan, and Connie Waggoner of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources; Susan Donovan and Ashley Maybanks of The Nature Conservancy; Dave Holman of the Prairie State Conservation Coalition; Will Abberger, Andrew du Moulin, Sophie Horn-Mellish, Aaron Koch, Jen Plowden, Jessica Welch, and Wendy Muzzy of The Trust for Public Land.

Lastly, we sincerely thank the members of the Illinois Association of Park Districts who provided survey results for the needs assessment.

6 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Table of Contents

Why Study Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Needs in Illinois?...... 8

Parks and Land Conservation in Illinois...... 11

Comparison of State Spending on Land Conservation...... 25

Park and Land Conservation Needs...... 26

Leveraged Federal and Local Funding...... 30

Economic Benefits of Land Conservation in Illinois...... 31

Conclusion...... 35

Appendix...... 36

Endnotes...... 38

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 7 Why Study Open Space and Outdoor Recreation Needs in Illinois?

In 2002, The Trust for Public Land and the Illinois Association of Park Districts released “Illinois Land at Risk” — an assessment of park and open space needs across the state. That report highlighted the staggering need for state funding for open space — a need that remains today.

The loss of natural lands and open space is a national trend that is especially evident in Illinois. Open space and natural areas are vanishing at an alarming rate in the state. Between 2000 and 2015, the Chicago region developed 40,000 acres of natural areas and 100,000 acres of farmland. That represents a 12 percent addition to the region’s overall development footprint during a time when employment remained flat, population increased by only 4.6 percent.1 The entire state has lost more than 735,000 acres since 1997.2

Ecosystem services play another critical role in Illinois. In the Chicago Metropolitan Agency CMAP for Planning’s greater Chicago study area:

• The 40,000 acres of natural lands lost to development represent a loss of five percent of the of conservation and restoration opportunities and an estimated loss of $186 million annually of four critical ecosystem services: flood control, groundwater recharge, water purification, and carbon storage;3 • The newly protected lands in the CMAP region are estimated to provide $363 million annually in just four ecosystem services: flood control, groundwater recharge, water purification, and carbon storage;4 • The remaining unprotected lands in the region provide an estimated $3.1 billion annually in the four ecosystem services evaluated.5

Adequate and accessible open spaces for Illinois residents to enjoy remain at risk. The recent State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) for Illinois (2015-2019) underscored that the state has a low per capita amount of lands and facilities available for outdoor recreation, both in urban and rural areas, compared to other states. In the greater Chicagoland area, the region that receives the most state dollars for land conservation and parks, 42 percent of residents do not have adequate access to open space, which CMAP defines as 4 acres per 1,000 people for dense urban areas.6

8 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS TIMONTYT. LINDENBAUM/TNC

Smaller municipalities and park districts are more likely to be without open land for the public to enjoy. A 2014 University of Illinois survey found that park districts with populations of less than 5,000 were least likely to have natural areas and that 25 percent of responding park districts indicated they held zero acres of natural areas.7

Although Illinois legislators had the foresight to invest in the Open Space Land Acquisition and Development (OSLAD), the Natural Areas Acquisition Fund (NAAF), and the Open Land Trust (OLT), which historically provided a crucial level of steady funding, this investment is not enough. Of the more than 35.2 million total acres in the State, only 1.5 million, or less than 4 percent, were open to the public for outdoor recreation.8

Many of the state’s key parks and conservation funding programs have been cut in recent years due to the ongoing state fiscal crisis, leaving a high level of conservation need among organizations providing these services to Illinois residents. Lack of consistent funding jeopardizes the abilities of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and local governments to continue expanding open space and outdoor recreation opportunities for all Illinoisans to enjoy. Large demand for land conservation funding across the state shows how imperative it is to re-commit state resources to parks, open space and the natural areas that Illinois residents enjoy.

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 9 Key Findings • Parks and open space lands are important to the Illinois economy. • State funding has not kept pace with many neighboring and peer states in recent years. • Parks and conservation agencies throughout the state have large acquisition needs requiring billions of dollars. Over the next five years, forest preserve, conservation and park districts (excluding the Chicago Park District) estimate that to meet their projected goals, they will need to acquire over 15,978 acres. Those acquisition, construction, renovation, and improvements will cost nearly $2.7 billion. • Over the next five years, the Chicago Park District estimates that in order to meet its needs, it must acquire approximately 807 acres and spend an estimated $600 million for facility construction, renovation and improvement. • From 1998-2015, the State of Illinois made meaningful investments in parks and conservation ($38 million to protect 9,930 acres since 2009) but spending has fluctuated greatly and funds have been cut drastically in recent years. Funding came through OSLAD, NAAF, and OLT. • IDNR requires approximately over $1.1 billion for agency capital needs including land acquisition. • Illinois voters have shown strong support for public spending on parks and open space, approving dozens of local ballot measures for these purposes over the past twenty years, generating over $1.3 billion for parks and conservation.

At the heart of the most successful state parks and conservation programs is a substantial, long-term, dedicated source of state revenue. With a reliable source of funds, state governments can establish meaningful conservation priorities that protect the most valuable resources, are geographically distributed and otherwise meet important statewide goals and values. State governments with significant funds are much better positioned to secure funding from federal governments and attract local government or private philanthropic partners.

10 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019

Parks and Land Conservation PinARKS Illinois AND LAND CONSERVATION IN ILLINOIS State programs

OpenState Space Programs Land Acquisition and Development Program The Open Space Land Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) program provides matching grants Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Program to local governments for the acquisition and development of parklands and open space, The Open Space Land Acquisition and Development (OSLAD) program9 provides matching traditionallygrants to local through governments a statutorily for dedicthe acquisitionated real estate and developmenttransfer tax . Aof 50parklands percent andlocal open match space, is required. Since 2000, IDNR awarded over 1,000 grants totaling $300 million, including over $51 traditionally through a statutorily dedicated real estate transfer tax. A 50 percent local match is million to acquire over 4,100 acres for conservation purposes.10 Modest federal Land and Water required. Since 2000, IDNR awarded over 1,000 grants totaling $300 million, including over $51 Conservation Fund (LWCF) dollars are also administered through OSLAD. The current 2019 million to acquire over 4,100 acres for conservation purposes.9 Modest federal Land and Water grant round was the first since 2015. Historically, the number of applications greatly exceeds the Conservation Fund (LWCF) dollars are also administered through OSLAD. The current 2019 grant available grant dollars. In the 2019 grant round the program had $29 million with 108 applicants round was the first since 2015. Historically, the number of applications greatly exceeds the requesting $35 million in project funding.11 available grant dollars. In the 2019 grant round the program had $29 million with 108 applicants requesting $35 million in project funding.10 Funding for Open Space Lands AcquisiAon and Development Funding for Open Space Lands AcquisitionProgram and Development Program

$35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

NaturNaturalal Areas Areas AcquisitionAcquisition Fund Fund Established in 1989, the Natural Area Acquisition Fund (NAAF) provides funding for acquisition, Establishedstewardship, in 1989,and preservation the Natural Areaof high Acquisition quality natural Fund (NAAF)areas. Since provides 2000, fundingNAAF provided for acquisition, nearly stewardship$43 million, and in funding preservation to acquire of high over quality 18,000 natural acres areas.of high Since quality 2000 natural, NAAF habitat. provided NAAF nearly receives $43 million15 percent in funding of real to estate acquire transfer over 18,000tax revenue. acres ofSince high 2010, quality less natural than $1.5 habitat. million NAAF total receives has been 15 percentspent onof realland estate acquisition. transfer This tax revenue.stems from Since both 2010, fluctuating less than real $1.5 estate million transfer total hastax beenrevenues spent and onpolitical land acquisition. choices that This have stems redirected from both NAAF fluctuating funds for real operational estate transfer support. tax revenues and political choices that have redirected NAAF funds for operational support.

10ILLINOIS Data provided ASSESSMENT by Illinois OF DepartmentPARKS AND ofCONSERVATION Natural Resou FUNDINGrces, November NEEDS 2018.AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 11 11 Ibid.

6 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019

STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019

Funding for Natural Areas AcquisiAon Fund

$16,000,000 Funding for Natural Areas AcquisiAon Fund $14,000,000 Funding for Natural Areas Acquisition Fund $16,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $8,000,000 $2,000,000 $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 $2,000,000 $0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Open Lands Trust The Open Lands Trust (OLT) funds the acquisition of land from willing sellers for public Open Lands Trust

Open conservation,The Open Lands Lands open Trust Trust space (OLT), and fundsnatural the resource acquisition related of landoutdoor from recreation willing sellers purposes. for public Previously,conservation, funding open was space, split and between natural matching resource grants related for outdoor local governments recreation purposes. and direct Previously, Theacquisitions Open Lands by IDNR. Trust Created (OLT) fundsin 1998 the, 94 acquisition percent of of OLT land spending from willing occurred sellers from for its public first funding was split between matching grants for local governments and direct acquisitions by conservation,funding authorization open space by the, and General natural Assembly. resource relatedOLT spent outdoor $135.7 recreation million topurposes. acquire over IDNR. Created in 1998, 94 percent of OLT spending occurred from its first funding authorization Previously,42,000 acres funding between was 1998 split and between 2003, and matching $22 million grants to foracquire local near governmentsly 7,700 acres and fromdirect by the General Assembly. OLT spent $135.7 million to acquire over 42,000 acres between 1998 acquisitions2004 to 2014 by. IDNR. Created in 1998, 94 percent of OLT spending occurred from its first fundingand 2003, authorization and $22 million by the to General acquire Assembly.nearly 7,700 OLT acres spent from $135.7 2004 to million 2014. to acquire over 42,000 acres between 1998 and 2003, and $22 million to acquire nearly 7,700 acres from 2004Funding to 2014 for. Open LandsFunding for the Open Lands Trust Trust $45,000,000 $40,000,000 Funding for the Open Lands Trust $35,000,000 $45,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $25,000,000 $35,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $15,000,000 $25,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

12 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 7

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 7 Park and Recreational Construction Grant Program The Park and Recreational Facility Construction Grant Program (PARC) was established in 2009 with $150 million in total appropriations. The program provided significant matching grants to local governments of up to 75 percent for bondable projects such as acquisition, development, construction, and rehabilitation of new or existing park and recreation facilities. The maximum grant per project was $2.5 million. Unlike other state programs, PARC funds could be used for park development. $50 million was disbursed in the first ever round of grants in 2011 and the program awarded more than $75 million in 2014.The program was funded through the Illinois Jobs Now! Capital Program. While the PARC program provided a much needed source of funding as part of the 2009 statewide capital program it has not received funding since 2014.

Trail Programs IDNR administers multiple trail programs. Most notable is the Bike Path program, which provides up to a 50 percent match to local governments for bike corridor acquisition, development, or renovation projects. Since 2000, IDNR has awarded about $25 million through the Bike Path Program, which is funded through a portion of vehicle permit fees. The Bike Path Program had been largely unfunded; it disbursed approximately $3 million in 2008 and $1 million in 2014. A new round of grant applications will be accepted in 2019 with a new infusion of $13 million.11 IDNR also administers the federal Recreation Trails Program, which provides federal funds of up to 80 percent for motorized and non-motorized trail projects.

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory IDNR maintains the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI), an index of the state’s most rare and unique natural sites. Completed in 1978, the INAI guides acquisition priorities for state agencies. INAI sites are also targets of local forest preserve and park districts, land trusts and private foundations interested in conservation. The state completed an update in 2011 and added over 150 sites to the INAI. This update also highlighted the importance of stewardship; lands continually managed since 1978 showed little or no drop in natural quality, while sites with little or no management dropped in quality. Seventy sites were ultimately removed from the Inventory because the decline in quality. The INAI however, is constantly being updated. The Natural Areas Evaluation Committee meets at least three times a year to add, delete, or modify sites on the INAI. These are typically done by staff with the IDNR or Illinois Nature Preserve Commission (INPC), Illinois Natural History Survey, volunteers, or very smaller contracts. The INAI is also updated after each INPC meeting and Endangered Species Protection Board (ESPB) listing changes.12

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 13 Nature Preserves System The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC), a division of IDNR, regularly evaluates land under consideration for property tax incentive conservation programs. Qualified lands also receive support from INPC, benefitting from increased legal protections and professional stewardship.

Nature preserves protect the highest quality natural lands in the state. This program extends legal protection to valuable lands without costs associated with fee acquisition (i.e. lands purchased outright) or easement. Property owners receive stewardship assistance and a property tax reduction to $1 per acre. Nature preserves are protected in perpetuity and landowners retain title. Typically, 12-15 sites are incorporated as nature preserves annually.13

• As of May 2018, there are 389 dedicated nature preserves covering 58,879 acres.

Landowners may also register their land as an Illinois Land and Water Reserve through an agreement similar to a conservation easement. This offers a level of protection lower than that of nature preserves. In order to be considered, IDNR must first find registration of the property to be in the public interest. Eligible sites include areas on the INAI, and locations that meet a minimum threshold of preservation — also lower than for nature preserves. Registered properties are evaluated at 8 and 1/3 percent of fair market value.

• As of May 2018, there are 188 land and water reserves totaling 52,525 acres.14 JENNIFER EMERLING

14 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Local Governments

Illinois is unique in its reliance on local government jurisdictions. Park, foest preserve districts, and conservation districts in Illinois play a critical role in the state’s land conservation and outdoor recreation framework. Approximately 80 percent of total spending on land conservation from 1998-2016 in Illinois came from local jurisdictions.15

Altogether, there are approximately 360 park districts, 14 forest preserve districts, and 5 conservation districts in the state. Most of these jurisdictions raise revenue for services using a combination of user fees and property taxes. Over two-thirds of Illinois residents believe that park districts spend their tax dollars wisely.16 In addition, Illinois residents rate park and forest preserve districts as the most favorable out of other local taxing bodies. Residents consistently hold favorable opinions of park and forest preserve districts while public opinion of other levels of government has dropped.17

SELF-REPORTED LOCAL JURISDICTION ACTIVITY, 2014-1818 (IN MILLIONS)

Type of Local Jurisdiction Acres Dollars Spent Dollars Spent Dollars Spent Aquired on Acquisition on Renovation, on Capital Resotration, Investment for and Capital New Facilities Improvement Forest Preserve and Conservation 4,997 $76.9 $73.1 $84.1 Districts Park Districts (Not including Chicago) 2,002 $65.1 $591.6 $438.9 and Municipal Park Departments Chicago Park District 243 $17.0 $85.0 $90.0 Total 7,242 $159.1 $709.7 $551.1

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 15 WILL RICE PHOTOGRAPHY

Local Voter Support for Parks and Land Conservation Illinois voters have consistently demonstrated strong support at the local government level for investing in land conservation as shown in exhibit 5 and 6. Between 1998 and 2018, forest preserve, park districts, and other local jurisdictions, mostly in the greater Chicago area passed close to fifty ballot measures which collectively generated more than $1.3 billion in new land conservation spending. However, there is no dedicated local funding for land conservation in many parts of the state.19

A 2009 survey of Illinois voters found that 79 percent supported a $350 million dedication in the state capital budget for land and water conservation programs.20 This support cut across party lines and all regions of Illinois. Additionally, over 80 percent of voters responded that the state could protect land and water without sacrificing a strong economy, a notion buttressed by the consistent local support at the ballot since 2000.

In a 2013 survey, 69 percent of Illinois residents supported paying more in property taxes to improve and maintain park district facilities, 60 percent supported paying more to acquire more open spaces for trails and 57 percent for restoring and protecting natural areas and habitats.21

These older surveys reflects more recent national trends as referenced in the 2018 “The Language of Conservation”:22 • Today more voters (70%) support state or local government programs that support conservation even if it requires a small increase in taxes; • More than 4 in 5 voters believe the public receives its money worth when we invest in nature protections; • A majority of voters (84%) say that we can protect land and water and have a strong economy at the same time.

16 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Local Measures Passed for Land Conservation and Parks 1998-201823

WISCONSIN Measures 1998-2018* LAKE ^ Special district measure passed MICHIGAN ^_ Special district measure failed !( Municipal measure passed !( Municipal measure failed County measure passed County measure failed

*In jurisdictions with multiple measures, only the result for the most recent measure will be visible.

See detail

IOWA

LAKE LAKE MICHIGAN COUNTY

MCHENRY Grandwood Park District COUNTY Grayslake Comm. Park Dist. MADISON COUNTY Lake in Lake Forest the Hills CLINTON Huntley Park District Barrington Park District Stookey COUNTY Glenview Park District Wilmette ST. CLAIR Carol Stream Park District COUNTY Park Campton Township District MONROE St. Charles Park District Glen Ellyn Park District COUNTY Geneva Park District DUPAGE Oak Brook Park District KANE INDIANA DEKALB COUNTY Butterfield Park District COUNTY COUNTY Lyons Township Fox Valley Park District KENDALL Lemont Township COUNTY Romeoville Orland Park Plainfield Twp. Park District Homer Township Frankfort Square Park District Homewood- West Flossmoor Newbury Park District WILL KENTUCKY Northeastern COUNTY Illinois MISSOURI

detail 0 10 20 Miles ± LandVote in Illinois STATE , COUN TY, MUN ICIPAL, AND S PECIAL DISTRICT ME ASURES 1 998-2 018

December 5, 2018. Copyright © The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land and The Trust for Public Land logo are federally registered marks of The Trust for Public Land. Information on this map is provided for purposes of discussion and visualization only. www.tpl.org www.LandVote.org

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 17 ILLINOIS LAND CONSERVATION BALLOT MEASURES APPROVED 1998-2018

Jurisdiction Name Date Finance Total Funds Conservation % Yes Mechanism Approved Funds Approved Oak Brook Park District 11/6/18 Bond $17,900,000 $17,900,000 68% Glenview Park District 3/20/18 Bond $17,000,000 $1,000,000 65% Forest Preserve District of Kane County 4/4/17 Bond $50,000,000 $50,000,000 54% Butterfield Park District 11/4/14 Bond $2,985,000 $1,500,000 70% Kane County Forest Preserve District 4/5/11 Bond $30,000,000 $30,000,000 54% Lake County Forest Preserve District 11/4/08 Bond $185,000,000 $185,000,000 66% Fox Valley Park District 2/5/08 Bond $44,850,000 $22,500,000 65% St. Charles Park District 2/5/08 Bond $25,000,000 $2,000,000 59% Kane County Forest Preserve District 4/17/07 Bond $85,000,000 $85,000,000 64% Kendall County Forest Preserve District 4/17/07 Bond $45,000,000 $45,000,000 68% McHenry County Conservation District 4/17/07 Bond $73,000,000 $73,000,000 57% DuPage County Forest Preserve District 11/7/06 Bond $68,000,000 $68,000,000 65% Glen Ellyn Park District 11/7/06 Bond $11,900,000 $2,500,000 54% DeKalb County Forest Preserve District 3/21/06 Property tax $5,000,000 $5,000,000 52% Campton Township 4/5/05 Bond $28,385,000 $28,385,000 74% Kane County Forest Preserve District 4/5/05 Bond $75,000,000 $75,000,000 65% Romeoville 4/5/05 Transfer tax $10,000,000 $10,000,000 50% Will County Forest Preserve District 4/5/05 Bond $95,000,000 $95,000,000 53% Lyons Township 11/2/04 Bond $10,000,000 $10,000,000 52% Stookey 6/1/04 Bond $5,000,000 $5,000,000 54% Grayslake Community Park District 3/16/04 Bond $4,000,000 $4,000,000 62% Huntley Park District 4/1/03 Bond $5,700,000 $5,700,000 54% Kendall County Forest Preserve District 11/5/02 Bond $5,000,000 $5,000,000 64% Lake Forest 11/5/02 Bond $6,000,000 $6,000,000 69% Barrington Park District 3/19/02 Bond $11,500,000 $11,500,000 61% Frankfort Square Park District 3/19/02 Bond $5,001,396 $1,250,349 69% Wilmette Park District 3/19/02 Bond $25,000,000 $25,000,000 55% Campton Township 4/3/01 Bond $18,765,000 $18,765,000 54% Lemont Township 4/3/01 Bond $10,000,000 $10,000,000 62% McHenry County Conservation District 4/3/01 Bond $68,500,000 $68,500,000 52% Carol Stream Park District 11/7/00 Bond $12,000,000 $2,400,000 67% Lake County Forest Preserve District 11/7/00 Bond $85,000,000 $85,000,000 67% Lake in the Hills 11/7/00 Other NA NA 61% Madison County 11/7/00 Sales tax $28,000,000 $14,000,000 51% Orland Park 11/7/00 Bond $20,000,000 $3,348,000 54% Plainfield Township Park District 11/7/00 Bond $5,925,000 $5,925,000 71% St. Clair County 11/7/00 Sales tax $32,000,000 $16,000,000 62% Barrington Park District 3/21/00 Property tax $9,600,000 $4,800,000 61% Geneva Park District 3/21/00 Bond $7,900,000 $7,736,200 77% Grandwood Park District 3/21/00 Property tax NA NA 54% Glen Ellyn Park District 4/13/99 Bond $3,500,000 $3,500,000 NA Homer Township 4/13/99 Bond $8,000,000 $8,000,000 65% Kane County Forest Preserve District 4/13/99 Bond $70,000,000 $70,000,000 66% Lake County Forest Preserve District 4/13/99 Bond $55,000,000 $55,000,000 66% Will County Forest Preserve District 4/13/99 Bond $70,000,000 $70,000,000 57% Homer Township 11/3/98 Bond $8,000,000 $8,000,000 60% Homewood-Flossmoor Park District 3/17/98 Property tax $18,000,000 $11,000,000 63%

Data provided by The Trust for Public Land's LandVote Database. Accessed November 2018, www.landvote.org. "Conservation funds approved" are dollars approved for land acquisition and may be less than the "total funds approved" through the referendum.

18 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 2018 National Statewide Funding Efforts In 2018 alone, five states created significant additional new statewide funding for land conservation (numerous other states also continued appropriations and funding for their land conservation programs).

• In June, California voters approved a $4.1 billion bond with 58 percent support. The bond will fund state and local parks, environmental protection and restoration projects, water infrastructure projects, and flood protection projects. • The Colorado legislature reauthorized the Colorado Lottery, through the year 2049 (the 25-year extension is added to the Lottery’s current expiration date, which is 2024). Lottery proceeds are distributed through the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund ($63.7 million last year), Colorado Parks and Wildlife ($14.3 million last year) and the Conservation Trust Fund ($57 million last year). Colorado Trust Fund proceeds are distributed on a per capita basis to towns, counties, cities and special districts for parks and recreation. Last year the lottery generated $135 million for parks, trails, playgrounds, open space and conservation. Using 2017 numbers, a 25-year extension would generate $3.375 billion. • In August, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a five-year, $2.2 billion Environmental Bond bill that includes $487 million for land and park programs, as well as new policies and funding for climate programs. New authorization includes $225 million for grants to municipalities and nonprofits for conservation and recreation; $25 million for trails; $32 million for Transfer of Development Rights projects; $90 million for state land agencies for acquisition; $55 million for transit-oriented development; and $60 million for urban parks and farms. • Georgia voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment dedicating $200 million from the state sales tax on sporting goods for local parks and conservation. On the November ballot, this measure passed overwhelmingly with 83 percent support. It has been 20 years since Georgia voters rejected an amendment to fund conservation statewide. • In November, Rhode Island voters passed their fifteenth general obligation bond measure since 1989. A statewide $47.3 million “Green Economy Bond” passed with 79 percent support. The measure will fund open space, coastal resiliency, dam removals, river restoration, drinking water, and other conservation priorities.

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 19 Recent Midwest Examples • In 2016, an overwhelming 80 percent of Missouri voters renewed, for a fourth time, a 1/10th of one-cent sales tax for parks and soil conservation. Voters first approved the constitutionally dedicated tax in 1984. This tax is in addition to a permanent constitutionally dedicated 1/8th of one-cent sales tax dedicated to land conservation, which was approved in 1976. These taxes combined generate about $200 million annually. • In 2010, 63 percent of Iowa voters approved a constitutional amendment to create the Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. The amendment directed the legislature to enact a 3/8th of one-cent sales tax to fund the Trust, however legislation to create this funding source is still being debated. • In 2008, 56 percent of voters in Minnesota approved a 25-year constitutional amendment dedicating a 3/8th of one-cent sales tax increase for natural resource protection and arts. The measure is expected to generate over $7 billion during its lifetime. This sales tax is in addition to constitutionally dedicated lottery fund for conservation. These funds expire in 2024 and there are currently efforts underway to renew this decades old funding source.

Local Conservation Finance Trends: Nationally and in Illinois Nationally, voters of all political stripes continue to show strong support for local conservation funding. In 2018, local voters in 24 states approved 55 of 63 measures for parks and land conservation, generating over $3.24 billion. Property taxes continue to be the financing mechanism used most by local governments across the country. In Illinois, bonds are the most commonly used however bond typically cannot be used for operations and maintenance. The success rate of these conservation measures in Illinois (63 percent) is well below the 76 percent rate nationally, however since 1998 the forest preserve districts have a perfect record.

According to the Chicago Metropolitan Angency for Planning (CMAP) “given the decrease in state and federal funding in recent years, local funding initiatives --for example, local and county open space referenda -- will likely continue to be the backbone of natural land protection and stewardship funding. Yet additional funding will be needed to achieve natural resources goals, and innovative financing strategies offer further opportunities to fund open space while addressing other regional goals.”24 However, as mentioned in the “key findings”, at the heart of the most successful state parks and conservation programs is a substantial, long-term, dedicated source of state revenue.

20 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS U.S. Local Conservation Finance Ballot Measures 1998-present Finance Mechanism Number of Pass % Pass Total Funds Conservation Funds Measures Approved Approved Property tax 1055 746 71% $12,737,546,107 $7,705,846,189 Bond 789 663 84% $22,058,858,488 $10,490,700,091 Sales tax 166 125 75% $53,550,379,863 $8,701,606,734 Other 74 52 70% $6,749,259,543 $1,233,304,282 Income tax 89 65 73% $626,059,012 $427,159,012 Real estate transfer tax 32 27 84% $3,138,225,154 $2,728,573,686 Total 2,205 1,678 76% $98,860,328,167 $31,287,189,994 Illinois Local Conservation Finance Ballot measures 1998-present Finance Mechanism Number of Pass % Pass Total Funds Conservation Funds Measures Approved Approved Bond 59 40 68% $1,373,811,396 $1,271,409,549 Property tax 11 4 36% $32,600,000 $20,800,000 Sales tax 4 2 50% $60,000,000 $30,000,000 Transfer tax 1 1 100% $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Other/Advisory 1 1 100% $0 $0 Total 76 48 63% $1,476,411,396 $1,332,209,549 DARCY KIEFEL

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 21 Land Trusts25

Prairie State Conservation Coalition The conservation land trust community in Illinois plays a crucial role in augmenting state and local conservation efforts. The Prairie State Conservation Coalition, comprised of 34 local land trusts, estimates that Illinois land trusts have helped preserve nearly 200,000 acres over the last fifty years, working independently and in partnership with state and local government agencies, and other groups, achieve their conservation goals.26

According to GIS data27 and a 2018 land trust survey conducted by The Trust for Public Land and the Prairie State Conservation Coalition, land trusts and other similar private, nonprofit conservation organizations actively protect approximately 80,000 acres including about 55,000 acres owned outright and an additional 25,000 under conservation easement. Land trusts indicated that public access is allowed on approximately 90 percent of their total holdings; some highly sensitive areas, such as bat maternity caves, are closed to public access.

Of the land acquired by land trusts and other private, nonprofit land conservation organizations, over 6,000 acres are permanently protected as dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves and over 8,000 acres are dedicated Land and Water Reserves giving these areas the highest legal protection in the State of Illinois. Acquiring and legally protecting these lands implements the IDNR Wildlife Action Plan, which sets strategies for long term conservation of wildlife habitat and focuses on preventing at-risk species from being listed as threatened or endangered.

Stewardship According to the Vital Lands Network, the biggest future issue facing conservation is stewardship of protected lands. The recent update of the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (INAI) showed that those areas that had been managed since 1978 showed no drop in natural quality. Those sites that had little or no management dropped in quality and some dropped so low that they were removed from the INAI.

In these trying fiscal times, conservation land trusts can partner with IDNR to protect taxpayer’s past investments in natural areas by providing a new model for future stewardship of critical lands while continuing to provide access for outdoor recreation.

The Illinois Natural Areas Stewardship Act was passed in 2017.28 It created Illinois’ first grant program for land trusts funded from existing state conservation funds. This program will enable the IDNR to enhance stewardship of dedicated nature preserves and registered land and water reserves. Land trusts have access to private dollars from foundations and individual donors that

22 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019 IDNR does not have. TheseSTATE private OF ILLINOIS funds | CONSERVATION can augment FINANCE tax dollars NEEDS toASSESSMENT do more with | FEBRUARY declining 2019 tax revenue, enabling the statewide network of over thirty conservation land trusts help to implement the state Wildlife Action Plan at a scale and pace that IDNR could never achieve with

their own resources. Spending for parks and land conservation – A look back StateSpending spending for for land Parks conservation and Land in Illinois Conservation has dropped sharply – A in Look recent years,Back with some notable exceptions, and fluctuated greatly. After reaching a high in the early 2000s ($54 million spentState in spending 2001), annual for land state conservation investments in plummeted Illinois has to dropped $4.5 mi sharplyllion in 2005.in recent State years, spending with some reboundednotable exceptions, to $28 million and influctuated 2007, but greatly.did not exceedAfter reaching $10 million a high again in the until early 2014. 2000s ($54 million spent in 2001), annual state investments plummeted to $4.5 million in 2005. State spending These spending fluctuations and lack of steady funding have significant implications for land rebounded to $28 million in 2007, but did not exceed $10 million again until 2014. conservation for a variety of reasons. Land acquisition is an opportunity-based market endeavor thatThese has spendingrequired afluctuations substantial local and lackinvestment of steady to fundingcomplement have state significant capital and/orimplications dedicated for fundsland inconservation Illinois. The for sharp a variety decline of illustratedreasons. Land in the acquisition graph below is anis aopportunity-based result of the state’s market divestment endeavor in programsthat has thatrequired leveraged a substantial local and/or local private investment resources to complement for land protection state capital and open and/or space, dedicated resulting infunds many in lost Illinois. opportunities. The sharp decline illustrated in the graph below is a result of the state’s divestment in programs that leveraged local and/or private resources for land protection and There are a series of complex processes required to identify state land for acquisition, including open space, resulting in many lost opportunities. local government protocols for public oversight and raising matching private dollars, that require sustained engagement between the state, local public agencies, and the private land trust community.There are a The series interruption of complex of processes the state’s required funding tostream identify detailed state aboveland for creates acquisition, a compounded including community. The interruption of the state’s funding29 stream detailed above creates a compounded negativelocal government effect illustrated protocols in the for below public graph. oversight29 and raising matching private dollars, that require sustained engagement between the state, local public agencies, and the private land

trust community. The interruption of the state’s funding stream detailed above creates a compounded negative effect illustrated in the below graph.29 Acres protected and state dollars spent on land Acres Protected and StateconservaAon 1998-2018 Dollars Spent on Land Conservation (1998-2018) $60,000,000 25,000 $60,000,000 25,000

$50,000,000 20,000 $50,000,000 20,000 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 15,000 15,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000 10,000 $20,000,000 10,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 5,000 $10,000,000 5,000 $0 0 $0 0

$ Spent Acres Protected $ Spent Acres Protected

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 23

29 29 The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Almanac currently tracks conservation activity from 1998 to 2015. All numbers reported in Thethe t extTrust and for tables Public are Land’s rounded Conservation to three significant Almanac digitscurrently unless tracks otherwise conserv noted.ation activity Because from of 1998rounding, to 2015 some. All report numbers figures reported and tablesin the tmayext and appear tables not are to roundedsum. to three significant digits unless otherwise noted. Because of rounding, some report figures and tables may appear not to sum.

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 17 THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 17 Illinois State Parks and Lands30

IDNR experienced steady budget cuts over the course of the 2000s. As of 2018, IDNR employed 1,070 full time employees down from 2,300 in 2001. During that time, the department budget also decreased from approximately $100 million to about $38 million. These cuts greatly hinder IDNR’s ability to provide stewardship and public safety on state-owned lands. The result has been a lack of adequate staffing to keep sites, including the state park system that attracts nearly 40 million visitors each year, open to the public.

The $2 motor vehicle registration fee, passed in the 2012 Sustainability Bill (SB 1566 / Public Act 97-1136) provides nearly $20 million in dedicated funding annually for state parks. This funding continues to allow IDNR to invest in minimal facility maintenance and sustainability projects statewide. ADAM ALEXANDER

24 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Comparison of State Spending on Land Conservation

Illinois ranks in the lower middle among Midwestern and Great Lakes states in dollars spent per capita on land conservation. Although Illinois is ahead of Indiana, Michigan, and Missouri, which have small land conservation programs, Illinois ranks far behind states such as Wisconsin and Minnesota, which have dedicated sources of state funding for conservation.

Illinois spent an average of $1.28 per person per year from 1998- 2015. The state spent an average of $2.30 per person per year spent from 1998- 2003, the time period when land acquisition programs in Illinois were at their highest levels. Illinois remained well below per capita spending in peer states such as New York ($3.04), Minnesota ($3.58), and Pennsylvania ($4.37) from 1998-2003. In the years that followed, from 2004-2015, state spending in Illinois decreased to $0.77 per person per year, while neighboring Midwest states, such as Iowa and Wisconsin, and Ohio increased their financial contributions to land acquisition for conservation.

COMPARISON OF STATE SPENDING ON LAND CONSERVATION, 1988-2015*31

State Dollars Spent Dollars Spent Total Dollars per Capita per Year Spent Pennsylvania $73.93 $52,504,189 $945,075,402 Wisconsin $61.03 $19,592,141 $352,658,538 Minnesota $54.87 $16,828,036 $302,904,648 New York $42.25 $46,345,222 $834,213,992 Ohio $28.19 $18,189,452 $327,410,144 Iowa $26.64 $4,640,114 $83,522,056

Illinois $23.04 $16,388,966 $295,001,390 Michigan $12.58 $6,940,456 $124,928,211 Missouri $8.08 $2,736,203 $49,251,648 Indiana $5.39 $1,986,987 $35,765,759

* Data not complete through 2015 for all states

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 25 Park and Land Conservation Needs

Growth in Illinois: Looking Forward

As the state looks ahead to budget priorities and planning initiatives, decision-makers must consider the needs of the conservation and parkland providers. These include IDNR, forest preserves, conservation and park districts, and land trusts that together manage conservation lands that facilitate access to outdoor recreation opportunities.

Although population growth in Illinois has slowed, it is increasingly concentrating in regional centers across the state. This places a greater burden on local governments to provide adequate recreation opportunities and open space, as well as protect natural areas threatened by growth. Despite current population losses, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) forecasts that the region will add 2.3 million new residents and 920,000 new jobs by 2050.32

According to CMAP, while 61,500 acres of natural and agricultural lands have been permanently preserved in the region from 2001 to 2015, an additional 140,000 acres of such lands were developed -- an area roughly equivalent in size to the City of Chicago.

CMAP found that currently only 42 percent of people in the greater Chicago area have adequate access to open space. They cite strategies such as converting vacant land into green space as ways to increase this figure. CMAP also provided targets to increase public access to open space, as shown in the graph below.

Planning for climate change will also be an important issue affecting the state in coming years As CMAP states: “sound planning and decision-making can maximize the crucial role that the region’s natural landscapes, including trees and parks within our developed landscapes, play in promoting resilience. Trees, for example, store millions of tons of carbon, and provide shade, which cools our communities and reduces energy consumption.”33

Given the rapid rate of development and conversion of land from natural areas to residential subdivisions and strip shopping, more lands needs to be conserved for open space, outdoor recreation, and farmland opportunities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that between 2016 and 2017 the number of farms in Illinois dropped by over 1,200 and over 100,000 acres had been taken out of production or developed. This continued a similar trend from prior years.34

26 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS A C L C Percent Change in Population by County in Illinois 2010-2017 A C L C A A C C L C L C B C L C A IllinoisA C PercentC Change L L in C C B C MD C 43 89 101 4 56 49 B Population,B C C 2010-2017 L L C C IllinoisIllinois Percent Percent Change Change in in B B C C MD MD C C 43 43 89 89 101 1014 456 56 49 49 Population,Population, 2010-2017 2010-2017 B C M C B B C C M M C C B B C C ML ML C C 2% through2% through 9% 9% B C ML C 2% through 9% 8 8 8 C C C C M M C C 71 71 71 19 1945 0% through 2% C C M C C C C C M M C C 4522 22 0% through 2% 16 16 19 45 C CC C0% through 2%M M C C 98 98 52 52 C C M C 22 C C C C M M C C 0% through0% through -2% -2% 16 47 47 C C M C 98 C C C C M M C C 52 C C C C M M C C 99 99 -2% through-2% through -4% -4% 0% through -2% 81 81 6 6 50 50 C C M C C CC C M M C C 37 37 47 32 32 -4% through-4% through -6% -6% C C M C C C C C M M C C 66 66 78 78 C C C C M M C C 46 46 88 88 -6% through-6% through -22% -22% C C M C 99 C C C C-2% through M-4% M C C 62 62 81 37 6 50 C C C C M M C C 48 48 53 53 C C M C 94 94 102 32 C C-4% C C through M-6% M C C 36 36 72 72 102 38 38 C C M C 66 78 DK DK C C M M C C D D C C O O C C 46 90 90 57 27 27 C C M C D D C C P P C C 55 29 29 57 88 -6% through -22% 34 34 55 C C M C 62 DP DP C C P P C C E E C C P PC C 63 63 20 20 92 92 C C M C 48 53 E E C C P CP C 85 85 54 54 10 10 65 65 94 72 102 E E C C P P C C 1 1 74 74 C C M C 36 38 5 5 9 9 F F C C P P C C 58 58 DK C M C F FC C P P C C 84 84 21 21 69 69 23 23 F F C C R R C C 86 86 70 70 75 75 D C O C F F C C R C 11 11 90 57 27 R C 15 15 D C 29 G G C C R R I I C C 87 P C 55 31 31 87 34 G G C C S C S CC C 7 7 12 12 59 59 18 18 DP C P C G G C C S S C C 68 68 63 C C S S C C 42 42 25 25 E C P C 26 26 40 4017 17 85 54 20 10 92 C C S S C C E C C C S S C C 3 3 P C 60 60 65 C 13 13 E C P C 1 74 C S S C C 80 8051 51 5 9 C C S S C C 14 14 61 61 F C I I C C S S C C 82 82 P C 58 24 9324 C C T T C C 96 96 93 F C P C 84 21 95 95 41 41 C C U U C C 67 67 69 23 C C V V C C F C R C 86 70 73 33 C C C C 79 79 73 3397 97 75 28 28 F C R C 11 15 D D C C C C C C C C 39 G C R I C 39 100 10083 8330 30 31 87 K K C C C C G C S C C 7 12 K K C C C C 59 18 35 35 G C 68 K K C C C C 91 9144 4476 76 S C K K C C C C C S C 42 25 L LC C C C 2 772 7764 64 26 40 17 LS LS C C C C A C C L C S C L L C C C C C S C 3 A C L C 60 13 B C C L C S C 80 51 Illinois Percent Change in C S C 14 61 B C MD C 43 89 101 4 56 49 Population, 2010-2017 I C S C 82 B C 24 93 C M C T C 96 95 41 B C C ML C U C 2% through 9% 8 67 71 C C C M C V C 73 19 33 97 C C C M C C 79 45 22 0% through 2% 28 16 C C D C M C C 98 52 C C C M C C 0% through -2% 39 100 83 30 C C K C M C C 47 C C K C M C C 99 -2% through -4% 81 6 9150 76 35 C C K C M C C 37 44 K C C 32 -4% through -6% C C M C 66 78 L C C 77 64 C C M C 2 46 LS C C 88 -6% through -22% C C L C M C C 62 C C M C 48 53 C C Data36 from94 U.S. Census Bureau from72 2010 Census102 of Population and 2016 County Population Estimates. Accessed at the U.S. Department of Agriculture M C Economic Research Service at: https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17827 38 DK C M C D C O C 90 27 D C ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT29 OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION57 FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 27 P C 34 55 DP C P C E C P C 63 20 92 E C P C 85 54 10 65 E C P C 1 74 5 9 F C P C 58 F C P C 84 21 69 23 F C R C 86 70 75 F C R C 11 15 G C R I C 31 87 G C S C C 7 12 59 18 G C S C 68 C S C 42 25 40 C S C 26 17 C S C 3 60 C S C 13 80 51 C S C 14 61 I C S C 82 24 C T C 96 93 95 41 C U C 67 C V C C C 79 73 33 97 28 D C C C C 39 30 K C C 100 83 K C C 35 K C C 91 44 76 K C C L C C 2 77 64 LS C C L C C STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019

shown in the graph below.

Targets of % of Population in the Chicago Metro Area with Adequate Park Access

Data from CMAP analysis of data from the CMPA Land Use Inventory and the U.S.Targets Census Bureau/s of 2010% ofCensus population in the Chicago

RON GORDON metro areas with adequate park access

Given the rapid rate of development and conversion of land from natural areas to residential subdivisions and strip shopping, more lands needs to be conserved to provide open space, outdoor recreation, and farmland opportunities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that between 2016 and 2017 the number of farms in Illinois dropped by over 1,200 and over 100,000 acres had been taken out of production or developed. This continued a similar trend from prior years.34

28 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 33 https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/environment 34 2017 USDA Farms and Land in Farms Annual Report http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLandIn//2010s/2017/FarmLandIn-02-17-2017.pdf

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 21 Park and Land Agency Needs

Methodology and Findings In order to better understand the anticipated needs for parks and conservation, as well as the cost of meeting them, The Trust for Public Land gathered information from various park and conservation entities to formulate a comprehensive understanding of the overall needs across the state. In the fall/winter of 2018, The Trust for Public Land, the Illinois Association of Park Districts, and The Nature Conservancy conducted assessments of the five-year needs and plans of IDNR, and park, forest preserves and conservation districts.35

This needs assessment includes: • Capital and acquisition expenses over the last five years; Additional acres planned for purchase; • Cost for acquiring those acres; • Cost for renovation or restoration of currently held acres and facilities; and • Costs for new recreational facilities.

IDNR Needs36 IDNR’s capital needs for bondable projects excluding land acquisition, total over $1 billion with the acquisition of the state historic sites, the capital budget impasse, and inflation. This includes needs for state parks, facilities, and other agency capital demands.

The current land offers at IDNR, for all willing sellers, total over 29,225 acres at an estimated cost of $150 million.

IL CONSERVATION AND PARKS NEEDS BY CATEGORY AND AGENCY TYPE

Cost ($ millions) Acquisition Capital New Facility Acres Improvement Construction Park Districts and Municipal Parks 2,718 $261.5 $884.7 $868.0 Departments Forest Preserves and Conservation 12,453 $433.1 $77.8 $91.0 Districts Chicago Park District 807 NA $233.9 $159.1 Total 15,978 $694.6 $1,196.4 $1,118.1

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 29 LAURA STOECKER

Park District Needs • Over the next five years, park districts (with the exception of the Chicago Park District) plan to acquire over 2,718 acres at a cost of $261.5 million for conservation and parks in order to meet acquisition needs. • Over the next five years, Illinois park districts estimate that they will need $884.7 million for capital improvement projects and an additional $868 million for new facility construction. • Park districts also plan to expand their trail holdings by more than 352 miles and estimate they will need to spend $113 million trail acquisition and development. • The Chicago Park District estimates that it will acquire 807 acres over the next five years. CPD estimates its capital needs for new facility construction at $233.9 million and capital improvement for restoration and renovation at $159.1 million.

Forest Preserve Needs • Over the next five years, forest preserve and conservation districts estimate they will need to acquire approximately 12,452 acres of land at a cost of $433.1 million to meet conservation and park land acquisition needs. • Forest preserve and conservation districts expect to spend about $77.8 million on capital restoration and renovation, and approximately $91 million on the construction of new facilities. • Forest preserve and conservation districts plan to acquire 39 miles of trails at a cost of roughly $28 million.

ILLINOIS TRAIL NEEDS BY AGENCY TYPE

Miles Cost ($ millions) Park Districts and Municipal Parks Departments 352 $113.0 Forest Preserves and Conservation Districts 39 $28.0 Chicago Park District NA NA Total 391 $141.0

30 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS STATE OF ILLINOIS | CONSERVATION FINANCE NEEDS ASSESSMENT | FEBRUARY 2019

Leveraged Federal and Local Funding LEVERAGED FEDERAL AND LOCAL FUNDING State investment in land conservation leverages funding from federal and local sources. By attractingState support investment from in other land conservation sources, the leverages state does funding not from have federal to bear and the local entire sources. cost By burden of a land conservationattracting support project from and other therefore sources, maximizesthe state does its not investment. have to bear theBy entireleveraging cost burden funds, of more local projectsa may land conservationbe sponsored, project creating and therefore additional maximizes economic its investment. benefits. By leveraging funds, more local projects may be sponsored, creating additional economic benefits. From 1998 to 2015: • State investmentFrom 1998 to in2015: land conservation through OLT leveraged $106 million in additional federal and local sources • State of investment funding. in land conservation through OLT leveraged $106 million in additional • State investment federal in andland local conservation sources of funding. through OSLAD leveraged $193 million in additional federal and •local State sources investment of funding. in land conservation This is the through amount OSLAD leveraged leveraged on $193 land million conservation alone. The total amount leveragedin additional by federal the State and localthrough sources OSLAD of funding. is much This is greaterthe amount. When leveraged other on OSLAD land funding for capital projectsconservation is factored alone. in, The the total amount amount of leveraged leveraged by the funding State through would OSLAD be several is much hundred million dollarsgreater. more. When other OSLAD funding for capital projects is factored in, the amount of • State investment leveraged in land funding conservation would be several through hundred NAAF million leveraged dollars more. a total of $3.76 million in additional federal • State sources investment of infunding. land conservation through NAAF leveraged a total of $3.76 million in additional federal sources of funding. State conservation funding leveraged by federal and local funding (1998-2015)37 State Conservation Funding Leveraged by Federal and Local Funding (1998-2015)37

$300,000,000

$250,000,000

$200,000,000 Local Leveraged Funds $150,000,000 Federal Leveraged Funds

$100,000,000 State Funds

$50,000,000

$0 OLT OSLAD NAAF

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 31

37 For OSLAD, amounts represent only land conservation funds and not total State funds or local leveraged funds.

THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:: CONSERVATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT 25 Economic Benefits of Land Conservation in Illinois

Natural Goods and Services

Residents of Illinois derive significant economic benefits from land conservation across the state. Some of the key economic benefits of land conservation come in the form of natural goods and services.38 These include but are not limited to flood control, water quality enhancement and protection, air pollution removal, carbon sequestration and storage, habitat for fish and wildlife (both game and nongame), food production, and other necessary functions.39 For example, these undeveloped lands:

Protect Drinking Water The state’s conservation lands help maintain and improve water quality in Illinois. By providing vegetation and pervious soils, these areas can capture runoff, enhance infiltration, and remove sediments and pollutants. A growing body of research suggests that high-quality source water and well-controlled flow can lead to treatment cost savings.40

Provide Flood Protection Services Flooding can lead to major road washouts, extensive debris on and damage to state and local road infrastructure and facilities, and damage to private residences. In recent years, severe storms and flooding have resulted in major disaster declarations in Illinois. The most recent major disaster declaration that involved flooding occurred in May 2013, impacting 3,520 residences and resulting in an estimated $23.8 million in individual assistance costs.41 Conserving land in floodplains can help avoid related expenses by preventing development in flood-prone areas. Wetlands and natural areas near rivers and streams also prevent costly property damage by absorbing and storing potentially devastating floodwaters.

Store Carbon and Reduce Air Pollution Conservation lands in Illinois contain trees and other vegetation that reduce air pollution as well as sequester and store carbon. The value air quality enhancements provided by trees has been extensively studied. Statewide, urban or community land in Illinois has an estimated 77 million trees, which store about 14.7 million metric tons of carbon worth $335 million and remove 13,600 metric tons of air pollution, valued at more than $108 million.42

32 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Land Conservation Supports the Economy

In addition to the natural goods and services provided by land conservation, state-funded conservation lands are critical components of a broader landscape of conservation in Illinois. Through the leveraging of other funding streams and the strategic choices of conservation acquisitions, the state’s programs buttress a mosaic of conservation lands that support numerous industries, including those that rely on intact open landscapes, providing economic benefits beyond the provision of natural goods and services. For example, residents and nonresidents enjoy high-quality opportunities for outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching. Land conservation also provides critical support for farming, and forestry industries, which create and sustain thousands of jobs for residents of Illinois and underpin the local and statewide economies. Land conservation also boosts economic development, improves quality of life, and helps local governments balance the costs of community services. This section details the magnitude of these industries and describes the importance of land conservation to the economy.

Tourism and Outdoor Recreation Land conservation in Illinois contributes to a thriving outdoor recreation economy. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, 56 percent of Illinois residents participate in outdoor recreation. Together, residents and nonresidents spend $25.8 billion each year on outdoor recreation, which generates $1.7 billion in state and local tax revenue. Spending on outdoor recreation also supports 200,000 jobs with an associated $7.8 billion in wages and salaries. In fact, more jobs in Illinois directly depend on outdoor recreation than on the insurance industry.43

Lands protected by the state of Illinois also support viable populations of fish, game, and other wildlife species. These lands are accessible for wildlife watching, fishing, and hunting, which are critical to the state’s economy and culture. In fact, Illinois ranks ninth in the nation for the number of resident hunters. In 2011 there were nearly 459,000 resident hunters who spent $1.25 billion hunting related retail sales. In the same year, there were 512,000 hunters across the state, and these hunters spent a combined 7.84 million days hunting.44 The economic contribution of all hunting activity across the state was $1.32 billion in retail sales, which had a total multiplier effect of $2.20 billion and supported 18,000 jobs with $699 million in salaries and wages.45 Looking beyond hunting, there were 1.04 million anglers and 3.02 million wildlife-watching participants in Illinois as well. These anglers and widlife-watchers spent $973 million and $1.31 billion on trips and equipment, respectively. Considered together, there were 3.8 million wildlife-related recreationalists who spent a total of $3.8 billion on wildlife related recreation expenditures in Illinois.46

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 33 JENNIFER EMERLING

Access to nature is essential to the tourism economy in Illinois more broadly as well. In a 2016 survey of visitors to the state, 24 percent reported participating in nature related activities, including visiting parks, beaches or waterfronts, viewing wildlife, and camping. Additionally, seven percent of State visitors participated in outdoor sports, like biking, hiking, fishing, and hunting.47 Considering that domestic and international travelers directly spend on the order of $37.9 billion in Illinois each year, access to nature and outdoor activities is key.48

Parks are critical for providing access to the outdoors. Illinois has federal, state, and local parks that serve this purpose and this provides economic benefits to local communities. For example, in 2017, 232,000 park visitors spent an estimated $13.8 million in local gateway regions while visiting National Park Service lands in Illinois. These expenditures supported a total of 196 jobs, $7.3 million in labor income, $12.6 million in value added, and $20.3 million in economic output in the Illinois economy.49

Farming and Forestry Land conservation supports farming and forestry in Illinois by helping to maintain the intact working landscapes on which these industries depend. Farmland protection has played a major role in preserving the land base that is vital to Illinois agriculture. Farmland conservation supports the state’s agricultural economy by keeping these lands in production. Farmland conservation also helps provide qualified farmers with access to high-quality agricultural land, assists with the start-up or expansion of commercial agricultural businesses, promotes the conservation of existing farms, and aids the transition of conserved or non-conserved farms to the next generation of farmers.

The farming economy is important to Illinois. There are 71,000 farms in the state, encompassing 26.6 million acres. The market value of agricultural products sold in 2012 was $17.2 billion, with the state ranking seventh in the U.S. for total value of agricultural products sold and third for crops, and second for grains. Top crop commodities include corn, soybeans, wheat, winter wheat, and forage land used for hay.50

34 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Farming in Illinois provides the base for a variety of agriculture industries, including food processing and the manufacturing of farm machinery, chemicals, and fertilizer. Farming and farming-related industries account for $121 billion or 9.6 percent of the state’s total output. In fact, 24 counties in Illinois derive at least one third of their total output from farming or related industries. Statewide, these industries account for nearly 433,000 jobs or about one in every 17 jobs.51

Forestry is another economic sector in Illinois that is supported by investments in land conservation. Over 4 million acres of forestland span the state, which grows several hardwood species. In fact, 97 percent of Illinois’ forests are classified as hardwoods. Within the state, forest-based earnings total over $4.5 billion each year. Employment in the sector includes 68,000 jobs and contributes nearly $30 billion in annual sales.52 Land conservation helps ensure that working lands remain undeveloped, but even forestland without conservation easements benefit from nearby land conservation because the protected land provides economic stability by ensuring the permanence of forestry and supporting industries in the area.

Economic Development Investments in land conservation support economic development in the state in several ways. First, these programs support the creation and maintenance of conservation lands, parks, trails, rivers, and farms. Access to these lands provides diverse recreational, educational, and health opportunities for residents and visitors and enhances quality of life. The high quality of life, in turn, attracts talent, employers, and investment to the state. Second, residents take advantage of the state’s outdoor recreation opportunities. By purchasing equipment and gear to use while participating in those activities, residents boost local businesses and contribute to Illinois’ recreation economy. Finally, businesses that sell an outdoor recreation experience depend on protected waterways and lands to lead hunting, fishing, rafting, and adventure trips. These businesses offer jobs, attract visitors, and contribute to the state’s economy.

Fiscal Health Land conservation also saves local communities money through avoided costs on expensive infrastructure and other municipal services required by residential property owners, such as schools, police, and fire protection. Research conducted in 151 communities across the United States shows that the median cost to provide public services for each dollar of revenue raised is $1.16 for residential lands and $0.37 for working and open land. These studies over the last thirty years demonstrate that working and open lands generate more public revenue than they require back in public services. Further, on average, residential lands do not cover their costs, which must be subsidized by other land uses.53

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 35 Conclusion

The State of Illinois must act now and take steps to protect the outdoor heritage and recreation opportunities that Illinois residents value. Population growth and demand for outdoor recreation are skyrocketing — while state spending on land conservation is at its lowest level in decades.

Illinois residents value land conservation and their outdoor heritage, as seen through consistent voter support for open space and park district referenda, yet opportunities to conserve valuable spaces are left unmet each year as state grant programs languish due to a lack of funds and receive far more requests than available dollars allow.

State investment in land conservation provides a steady return on investment for many years to come and supports economic activity across the state through a multibillion dollar outdoor and wildlife recreation economy. We can and should do more to dedicate funding for public parks and ensure adequate access to open space for residents across the state — both now and for future generations. JENNIFER EMERLING

36 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Appendix

Illinois Land Trust Service Areas54 PRAIRIE STATE CONSERVATIONPRAIRIE COALITION

Jo D W avi in e Lake ess Stephenson ne n ba o McHenry go

Carroll Ogle

b D

l n u

Ka Pa Ka

e g

D e Whiteside Lee Ke Cook

l l Rock Island Will Bureau Henry y

La Salle d

u r

Mercer Putnam G Kankakee ark St M arsha n ll o

n rs Knox e rre Livingston d

a n e W Peoria Woodford H Iroquois

M l c el D w o ze rd n a McLean o o T F u Fulton g Hancock h

i g

l Mason i

i Schu a yle p r DeWitt rm

Logan m e

a t V t Bro ard h Adams en a w M C n Cass Pi n

c M Sangamon a o M rg M Douglas Sc a n o o u Edgar t l Pike t t ri e Christian Legend Coles Barrington Area Conservation Trust

n M Citizens for Conservation i Shelby Greene o p n Clark Clifftop NFP u t o g Cumberland

c o Ducks Unlimited m

a Calhoun e

M Friends of the Kankakee ry C e t Ef ra Friends of the Sangamon Valley Jersey t fingh r e am e w

y p f Grand Prairie Friends s o a Ja rd Bo F Great Rivers Land Trust n d Green Earth, Inc. Madison e Heartlands Conservancy Clay nc Rich re land w Jane Addamsland Park Foundation Marion La JoDaviess Conservation Foundation Clinton

Lake Bluff Open Lands Association s h St. Clair s

rd a Lake Forest Open Lands Association Wayne a b M a n n w Land Conservancy of Lake County o shingto o W n Wa ro rs Ed Land Conservancy of McHenry County ffe e e Land Conservancy of Will County J n

t Land Conservation Foundation R l a i nd Perry White Macon County Conservation Foundation olp m h klin a Natural Land Institute Fran H Northwest Illinois Audubon Society

n e i Openlands t Jackson n i a l l Original Kaskaskia Area Wilderness, Inc. Williamson l a

Sa ParkLands Foundation G Prairie Land Conservancy n rdin Po a Prairie Lands Foundation o H s Union n Prairie Preservation Society of Ogle County h p o e J Prairielands Preservation Foundation River Bend Wildland Trust ki M as as Alexander l sa St. Clair County Greenspace Foundation Pu c The Conservation Foundation The Prairie Enthusiasts The Sangamon Conservancy Trust Illinois Audubon Society (Statewide) Pheasants Forever (Statewide) The Nature Conservancy (Statewide)

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 37 Areas with Lowest Level of Parkland (less than 4 acres per 1,000 people)55 CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING

38 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS Endnotes

1 https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/environment/land-preservation 2 https://www.agriculture.com/farm-management/farm-land/disappearing-farmland- little-protection-exists-for-midwest-farmland 3 “Lands in Transition,” Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (accessed November 2018, https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/onto2050/strategy-papers/lands-in-transition), page 8. 4 Lands in Transition, page 20. 5 Lands in Transition, page 21. 6 “ON TO 2050: Comprehensive Regional Plan,” Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (accessed November 2018, https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/ environment/land-preservation). 7 Megan Owens, Robin Hall, and Jarrod Scheunemann, “2014 Illinois Community Recreation Facilities & Park Lands Inventory,” Office of Recreation & Park Resources - University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign – Department of Recreation, Sport & Tourism, June 2014 (accessed October 2014, https://illinois.edu/lb/files/2014/10/15/54523.pdf). 8 Illinois Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2015-2019, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, p.13 (accessed October 2018, https://www.dnr. illinois.gov/publications/Documents/00000823.pdf). 9 Data provided by Illinois Department of Natural Resources, November 2018. 10 Ibid. 11 Data provided by Illinois Department of Natural Resources, November 2018. 12 Personal communication with John Wilker, Natural Areas Program Manager / Regional Heritage Administrator – Central. 13 INPC Vision and Benefits (accessed November 2018, https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/INPC/ Pages/Vision-and-Benefits.aspx). 14 Minutes of the 229th Meeting,” Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (accessed November 2018, https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/INPC/Documents/229th_Minutes%20 Approved.pdf). 15 The Trust for Public Land, Conservation Almanac (accessed November 2018, http:/www.conservationalmanac.org). Local spending is from 1998-2015, the most recent year available. 16 “Parks and Forest Preserves Bring Value to Our Communities,” Illinois Association of Park Districts.

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 39 17 Ibid. 18 Results compiled from TPL-IAPD Survey of IAPD members, Cook County Forest Preserve District and Chicago Park District. 19 The Trust for Public Land, LandVote and ParkVote (accessed November 2018, http://www.landvote.org). Represents only measures, which contain some portion for land acquisition. 20 Poll conducted by Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates in May 2009. 21 “Parks and Forest Preserves Bring Value to Our Communities,” Illinois Association of Park Districts. 22 Public Opinion Strategies and FM3 Research, “The Language of Conservation: Updated Recommendations on How to Communicate Effectively to Build Support for Conservation,” October 2018. (accessed at https://alliancerally.org/wp-content/ uploads/2018/05/Rally2018_C05-Language-of-Conservation.pdf). 23 The Trust for Public Land, LandVote (accessed November 2018, www.landvote.org). 24 https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/environment/land-preservation 25 Information provided by the Illinois Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. 26 “Illinois Conservation Land Trusts Protect 200,000 Acres of Open Land,” Prairie State Conservation Coalition (accessed October 17, 2014, http://www. prairiestateconservation.org/news/PSCC%20IMPACT%20STORY%20Web.pdf). 27 Dave Holman, Prairie State Conservation Coalition. 28 (525 ILCS 31/1) Illinois Natural Areas Stewardship Act (8-25-17). 29 The Trust for Public Land’s Conservation Almanac currently tracks conservation activity from 1998 to 2015. All numbers reported in the text and tables are rounded to three significant digits unless otherwise noted. Because of rounding, some report figures and tables may appear not to sum. 30 Information provided by Illinois Department of Natural Resources, November 2018. 31 The Trust for Public Land analyzed spending on active state programs for land conservation. These programs are listed on individual state pages at www.conservationalmanac.org This analysis does not reflect donated parcels where the associated spending is $0. This includes spending from 1998-2015, the most recent comprehensive data available. Per capita figures reflect the most recent Census data. 32 On to 2050 (accessed at https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/our-region-today). 33 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/ environment).

40 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 34 2017 USDA Farms and Land in Farms Annual Report, http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/ usda/nass/FarmLandIn//2010s/2017/FarmLandIn-02-17-2017.pdf 35 The Trust for Public Land emailed an online survey to all IAPD members. 157 park and special recreation districts representing 39 counties responded. 11 forest preserve and conservation districts responded. In a separate survey, The Trust for Public Land emailed an online survey to all PSCC members. 36 Personal communication with IDNR staff, December 2018. 37 For OSLAD, amounts represent only land conservation funds and not total State funds or local leveraged funds. 38 Natural goods and services are sometimes referred to as ecosystem services, natural capital, nature’s benefits, or environmental goods and services. 39 This does not include additional values, such as option value, bequest value, existence value, spiritual value, or aesthetic value, which are significant challenges to accurately measure. 40 Todd Gartner et al., “Protecting Forested Watersheds Is Smart Economics for Water Utilities,” Journal of American Water Works Association 106, no. 9 (2014): 54–64. 41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Damage Assessment Report: Illinois – Severe Storms, Straight-line Winds, and Flooding FEMA-4116-DR, https://www.fema.gov/media- library-data/20130726-1918-25045-6684/dhs_ocfo_pda_report_fema_4116_dr_il.pdf 42 Nowak, D.J. and E.J. Greenfield, Urban and Community Forests of the North Central East Region, 2010, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NRS-54, http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs54.pdf 43 Outdoor Industry Association, Illinois, https://outdoorindustry.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/07/OIA_RecEcoState_IL.pdf 44 This includes resident and non-residents. 45 Southwick, Hunting in America, https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/ HuntingEconomicImpacts-NSSF-Southwick.pdf 46 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. While 2016 survey results are available at the national level, the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife- Associated Recreation did not collect data at the state level, so there are no state-level reports. Thus, 2011 is the most recent year for which data are available. 47 D.K. Shifflet & Associates Ltd., 2016 Leisure Visitor Profile for the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago, https://www.enjoyillinois.com/assets/Illinois-and-Chicago-2016- Leisure-Visitor-Profile.pdf.

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 41 48 Illinois Bureau of Tourism, U.S. Travel Association, The Economic Impact of Travel on Illinois Counties, 2017. 49 National Park Service, “Visitor Spending Effects – Economic Contributions of National Park Visitor Spending,” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm 50 NASS/USDA, 2017 State Agriculture Overview: Illinois, https://www.nass.usda.gov/ Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ILLINOIS 51 Decision Innovation Solutions, 2015 Illinois Agriculture Economic Contribution Study, http://www.illinoislivestock.org/media/DIS%20Study%202015.pdf 52 University of Illinois Extension, “Illinois Forestry: Illinois Forest Facts,” accessed December, 6, 2018, https://m.extension.illinois.edu/forestry/illinois_forest_facts.cfm 53 American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, Cost of Community Services Studies, Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust, 2016, accessed December 6, 2018, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/ 54 Prairie State Conservation Coalition Land Trust Directory, http://www.prairiestateconservation.org/pscc/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Land- Trust-Statewide-Map1-18.pdf 55 https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2050/maps/parks DARCY KIEFEL

42 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR MORE INFORMATION: Will Abberger Vice President/Director of Conservation Finance The Trust for Public Land 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 850-222-7911 x23 [email protected]

Andrew du Moulin Director, Center for Conservation Finance Research The Trust for Public Land 6 Beacon Street, Suite 615 Boston, MA 02108 617-371-0557 [email protected]

tpl.org

ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS 43 ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS Local Government that People Value

Nearly nine out of every 10 Illinois households are satisfied with

ADAM ALEXANDER their local park district.

VERY SATISFIED 29% SATISFIED 59%

VERY UNSATISFIED 3%

UNSATISFIED 9%

The Role Of

44 ILLINOIS ASSESSMENT OF PARKS AND CONSERVATION FUNDING NEEDS AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS www.ILparks.org Jurisdictional Programs in Catalyzing Sustainability Transitions in Tropical Forest Landscapes

Authors: Lex Hovani, Rane Cortez, Herlina Hartanto, Ian Thompson, Greg Fishbein, Erin Myers Madeira, and Justin Adams

The Role of Jurisdictional Programs | 1