T STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESSThe State of Our Chicago Wilderness: A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the Region. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, Chicago, IL. TABLE OF

THE STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESS

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

THE STATE OF OUR

CHICAGO WILDERNESS

A REPORT CARD ON THE

ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION


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

Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature reserve that includes

more than 225,000 acres of protected natural areas. It stretches from southeastern Wisconsin,

through northeastern Illinois and into northwestern Indiana.

The protected lands and waters of Chicago Wilderness include county preserves,

state parks, federal preserves, and privately owned areas.

There are also many unprotected natural areas within Chicago Wilderness.

The Chicago Wilderness consortium is an alliance of more than 180 organizations

working to study, restore, protect and manage the natural ecosystems

of the Chicago region in order to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity

and enrich local residents’ quality of life.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

The Chicago Wilderness consortium thanks the Boeing Corporation, ComEd/Exelon, the USDA Forest Serviceand the US Fish & Wildlife Service for their generous support of this project.

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

Citation: The Chicago Wilderness consortium. 2006. The State of Our Chicago Wilderness: A Report Card on theEcological Health of the Region. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, Chicago, IL.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 1: Executive Summary1.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.2 Overview of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3 Development of the Report Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 How the Report Card is Organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.5 Key Findings of the Report Card . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.6 Report Card Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 2: Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities2.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.2 Forest Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.3 Savanna Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292.4 Prairie Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.5 Wetland Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.6 Stream Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.7 Lake Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Chapter 3: Animal Assemblages3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543.2 Bird Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.3 Reptile and Amphibian Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673.4 Invertebrate Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 783.5 Fish Assemblages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823.6 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Chapter 4: Plant Species4.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924.2 Plants of Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 924.3 Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944.4 Recommended Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Chapter 5: Ecological Management, Research and Monitoring5.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 955.2 Ecological Restoration and Management Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 965.3 Controlled Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 975.4 Restoration and Management of Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 985.5 Reestablishment of Native Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 995.6 Control of Invasive Plant Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1005.7 Management of Problem Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1025.8 Natural Resource Management Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1035.9 Research, Monitoring and Inventorying. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

3


A REPORT CARD ON THE ECOLOGICAL HEALTH OF THE REGION

Chapter 6: Education and Communication6.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096.2 Long-term Education Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1096.3 Chicago Wilderness Education & Communication Team

Workshops and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1136.4 Short-term Communication Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Chapter 7: Sustainability7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1207.2 Sustainability Recommendations from the Biodiversity Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1217.3 Highlights of Work Being Done to Address Sustainability Issues and the

Recommendations of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Chapter 8: Biodiversity Recovery Plan Progress8.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1448.2 Involve the Citizens, Organizations and Agencies of the

Region in Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1448.3 Improve the Scientific Basis of Ecological Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1468.4 Protect Globally and Regionally Important Natural Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498.5 Restore Natural Communities to Ecological Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518.6 Manage Natural Communities to Sustain Native Biodiversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518.7 Develop Citizen Awareness and Understanding of Local Biodiversity

to Ensure Support and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1528.8 Foster a Sustainable Relationship Between Society and Nature in the Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1528.9 Enrich the Quality of the Lives of the Region’s Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

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

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

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

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

4



Credit for the development of the Report Card goesto the many Chicago Wilderness member organiza-tions that conduct collaborative conservation work inthis region, and especially to those organizations’staff members who served on the project team, par-ticipated in the various Report Card workshops,served as section editors and otherwise providedfeedback on various drafts of this document.

Report Card Project TeamR. Dan Gooch (Chair), Barbara Berlin, Steven Byers,Cindy Copp, Dennis Dreher, Kent Fuller, KarenGlennemeier, Peter Haas, Karen Hobbs, LucyHutcherson, Kappy Laing, Elizabeth McCance, ChrisMulvaney, Debra Shore, Jon Voelz, Doug Widener

2004 Natural Community and TaxonomicWorkshop Participants(M–Workshop Moderator, N–Workshop Note Taker)

Amphibians and ReptilesMike Redmer (M), Lucy Hutcherson (N), TomAnton, Jennifer Filipiak, Karen Glennemeier,Karen Hobbs, Robert Sliwinski

Aquatic CommunitiesKent Fuller (M), Chris Mulvaney (N), MichaelAnder, Jim Bland, Ed DeWalt, Dennis Dreher, JoelGreenberg, Kelli Krueger, Holly Hudson, BobKirschner, Stephen Pescitelli, Don Roseboom, VicSantucci, Greg Seegert

BirdsDann, Karen Glennemeier, Karen Hobbs, StephenPackard, Judy Pollock, Walter Marcisz, BobMontgomery, Robert Sliwinski, Doug Stotz, JeffWalk

FishChris Mulvaney (M/N), Chris Anchor, Jim Bland,Frank Jakubicek, Vic Santucci, Greg Seegert, FrankVeraldi, Philip Willink

InsectsR. Dan Gooch (M), Michelle Uting (N), Jim Bess,Gareth Blakesley, Ron Panzer, Doug Taron, WayneVanderploeg, Tom Velat

Prairies and SavannasLaurel Ross (M), Catherine Bendowitz (N),Deborah Antlitz, Marlin Bowles, Sue Elston,Brenda Molano-Flores, Bob Montgomery, RonPanzer, Oliver Pergams, John Rogner

Rare PlantsLaurel Ross (M), Rebecca Mann (N), Jane Balaban,John Balaban, Rachel Cook, Ken Dritz, BarbaraJohnson, Ken Klick, Scott Kobal, Susanne Masi,Margo Milde, Laura Rericha, Gerould Wilhelm

Woodlands and ForestsSteven Byers (M), Michelle Uting (N), JaneBalaban, John Balaban, Leslie Berns, Jeff Brawn,Cindy Copp, Jennifer Filipiak, Karen Glennemeier,Scott Kobal, Wayne Lampa, Jon Mendelson,Stephen Packard

Thanks to those who provided additional, post-workshop feedback and information:

Amphibians and ReptilesTom Anton, Robert Brodman, Karen Glennemeier,Dave Mauger, Mike Redmer, Alan Resetar, DaveRobson

Aquatic CommunitiesJim Bland, Ed Collins, Ed DeWalt, Kelli Krueger,Mike Retzer, Vic Santucci

BirdsSteven Byers, Donald Dann, Tom Fredericks,Karen Glennemeier, Karen Hobbs, Duane Heaton,Jim Herkert, Walter Marcisz, Elizabeth McCloskey,Bob Montgomery, William Moskoff, Judy Pollock,Eric Secker, Doug Stotz, Stephen Packard, RobertSliwinski, Jeff Walk

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

5



FishFrank Veraldi, Vic Santucci, Jim Bland, Stephen Pescitelli, Mike Retzer

InsectsGareth Blakesley, Ron Panzer, Doug Taron

PlantsSusanne Masi

Prairies and SavannasJim Anderson, Marlin Bowles, Wayne Lampa, Brenda Molano-Flores, Stephen Packard, Steve Richter

WetlandsMarlin Bowles, Michael W. Ander

Woodlands and ForestsMarlin Bowles, Karen Glennemeier, Scott Kobal, Stephen Packard

SustainabilityCindy Copp, Jean Flemma, Irene Hogstrom, Richard Mariner

Other:Ders Anderson, Steven Byers, Alison CarneyBrown, Glenda Daniel, Marcy DeMauro, KentFuller, Tara Gibbes, R. Dan Gooch, MarianneHahn, Lisa Haderlein, Geoffre Levin, Dan Lobbes,Don McFall, Robert Megquier, Bob Montgomery,Marianne Nelson, Oliver Pergams, Susan Post,Nancy Williamson, Marta Witt

Thanks to those who contributed significant sec-tions of the Report Card:

BirdsJudy Pollock

Education and CommunicationLucy Hutcherson, Andrew Kimmel, MichaelPond, Carol Saunders, Doug Widener

Examples of ManagementWayne Lampa

IndicatorsKent Fuller

Plants of ConcernMargo Milde

SustainabilityDennis Dreher, Karen Hobbs, Steve Perkins

Special ThanksTo Chris Mulvaney of Chicago Wilderness, whoserved as the information coordinator for the proj-ect; to Cindy Copp of the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology who provided the maps for chapterseven; and to the various forest preserve districts,conservation districts, and state agencies that pro-vided information on acreage increases since theBiodiversity Recovery Plan.

6



What is Chicago Wilderness?Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature reserve thatincludes more than 225,000* acres of protected natu-ral areas. It stretches from southeastern Wisconsin,through northeastern Illinois and into northwesternIndiana. The protected natural areas of ChicagoWilderness are forest preserves, state parks, federallands, county preserves, and privately owned lands.They are located in Kenosha County in Wisconsin;in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and WillCounties in Illinois; and in Lake and Porter Countiesin Indiana.

What is the Chicago Wilderness consortium?In 1996, a diverse group of 34 organizations, callingitself the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council, foundmuch to celebrate in the region’s remaining naturalareas, but determined that these areas were threat-ened by development and neglect. The efforts of theCouncil, now commonly known as the Chicago Wild-erness consortium, were predicated upon the cer-tainty that without active management, most if not allof the region’s natural areas would disappear orbecome so degraded as to retain little ecological oraesthetic value. The Chicago Wilderness consortiumis now an alliance of more than 180 organizationsworking together to protect, restore, study and man-age the natural ecosystems of the Chicago region, con-tribute to the conservation of global biodiversity, andenrich local residents’ quality of life.

Recognizing that the business community also has aprofound influence on the region’s ecological healththrough its land use, management practices, politi-cal activity and philanthropy, in 2002, members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium worked with 12local businesses to launch the Chicago WildernessCorporate Council. As of this writing, the CorporateCouncil has 27 members committed to improvingour local environment and reaching out to other pub-lic and private partners in the coming years.

It is important to note that Chicago Wilderness alsobenefits from an increasing awareness of conservationprinciples and needs by local citizens throughout theregion. A steadily growing number of volunteers,people from all walks of life, give generously of theirtime and talents: they remove invasive species, sowseeds, count birds, monitor frogs, restore stream-banks, teach children, write letters to elected officialsand engage in a host of other conservation activities.

What is biodiversity and why is it important?First coined by entomologist E.O. Wilson in 1986, theterm biodiversity is short for biological diversity.Although a quick Internet search reveals dozens ofattempts to flesh out its definition, the one approvedat the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio deJanero and subsequently adopted by most countriesis: “the variability among living organisms from allsources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, andother aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological com-plexes of which they are part: this includes diversitywithin species, between species and ecosystems.”

For all of the many benefits our built environmentaffords us, much has been lost of our natural her-itage. While 226,000 acres of natural areas may seemlike a lot, in truth they represent less than seven per-cent of the 3,160,000 total acres within the region.High quality remnants of natural areas are even morerare. In 1978, the Illinois Natural Areas Inventoryidentified 25,700 acres of natural areas with signifi-cant natural features throughout the entire state, rep-resenting just seven-hundredths of one percent of thetotal land and water area of Illinois (White 1978).

Some unprotected natural areas have been lost since1978. Even more are hanging on by a thread. Natureis resilient, but detailed studies show that unlessactively protected and restored, what little remains of

FOREWORD

7



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

our remaining ecological treasures will be irreparablydegraded or lost altogether.

The Chicago Wilderness region is not alone in facingthis dilemma. Across the world, a growing number ofpeople are coming to understand how important itis to protect and preserve natural communities in bal-ance with human communities. As stated in the fore-word to the Global Biodiversity Assessment Summaryfor Policy Makers (Watson et al. 1995),

“Biodiversity represents the very foundation ofhuman existence. Beside the profound ethical andaesthetic implications, it is clear that the loss ofbiodiversity has serious economic and social costs.The genes, species, ecosystems and human knowl-

8



edge which are being lost represent a living libraryof options available for adapting to local andglobal change. Biodiversity is part of our dailylives and livelihood and constitutes the resourcesupon which families, communities, nations andfuture generations depend.”

As much as we depend upon the natural areas of the Chicago Wilderness region—for recreation, forthe resources they afford and the functions they perform, for their sheer beauty—they depend on usfor their very survival. This report card measureshow well we are doing in holding up our end of the bargain.

1.1INTRODUCTIONIn 1996, the Chicago Region Biodiversity Council,now commonly known as the Chicago Wildernessconsortium, published An Atlas of Biodiversity. It pro-vided the general public an introduction to theregion’s remaining wealth of natural communities—their beauty, their importance to the region and theworld, the threats they face and the efforts to savethem for future generations.

In 1999, the consortium followed up by publishing theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, the purpose of which wasto assess the condition of the region’s natural commu-nities and to outline region-wide objectives for theirprotection and recovery to long-term viability.

The goals of The State of Our Chicago Wilderness—A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the Region, areto assess changes in the condition of the region’s natural communities since the publication of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, document the condition ofavailable data, measure progress toward achievingBiodiversity Recovery Plan objectives and make recommendations for future report cards.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF THE BIODIVERSITYRECOVERY PLAN

The condition of the region’s natural communities, asreported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, was deter-mined by regional experts convened in 1997. Afterdeveloping classification systems for natural com-munity and animal assemblage types found in theChicago Wilderness region, experts rated each com-munity and assemblage by quantity, condition, bio-logical importance and global significance, thenranked them in order of conservation priority. Foreach community type, a broad vision and goals wereoutlined, along with an overarching set of recom-mended recovery actions for all terrestrial andaquatic communities.

In support of on-the-ground recovery efforts, theBiodiversity Recovery Plan discusses and outlinesvisions, goals and recommended actions related topublic and private landowner protection measures;ecological management, research and monitoring;education and communication; and the role of keyplayers, including governments, the private sectorand volunteers.

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan distills the variouscomponent visions, goals and recommended actionsinto eight major objectives:• Involve the citizens, organizations and agencies

of the region in efforts to conserve biodiversity• Improve the scientific basis of ecological manage-

ment• Protect globally and regionally important natural

communities• Restore natural communities to ecological health• Manage natural communities to sustain native

biodiversity• Develop citizen awareness and understanding of

local biodiversity to ensure support and partici-pation

• Foster a sustainable relationship between societyand nature in the region

• Enrich the quality of the lives of the region’s citi-zens

1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THEREPORT CARD

A project steering committee was formed to set project goals and guide the development of theReport Card. This committee met regularly to shep-herd, shape and lend expertise to the project. Togather the necessary information to assess the healthof the region’s biodiversity, many experts and stake-holders were also brought into the process. In thesummer of 2004, more than 150 people were invitedto participate in workshops designed to provideexpert information regarding the region’s naturalcommunities and species assemblages. One day of

CHAPTER 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9


workshops was held to evaluate animal groups—theregion’s bird, insect, fish, reptile and amphibianassemblages. A second day of workshops was held toassess forest, woodland, savanna, grassland, wet-land, and aquatic communities, and plants of con-servation concern. Draft findings were circulatedamong workshop participants and other regionalexperts for additional feedback.

Numerous regional experts provided additional infor-mation, particularly related to the non-biological goalsand objectives of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

A draft of the entire Report Card was circulated tomembers of the Chicago Wilderness consortium.Feedback was incorporated into several iterativedrafts, culminating in the publication of the ReportCard in the spring of 2006.

1.4 HOW THE REPORT CARDIS ORGANIZED

To underscore the relationship between the ReportCard and the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the ReportCard generally subscribes to the format and order ofthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Note that where appro-priate, The Nature Conservancy’s global rankings ofnatural communities are included in the Report Card,as they were in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. As faras the Report Card team is aware, these rankings arethe most thorough available, and are included in thisdocument to provide perspective on the global con-servation importance of natural communities withinthe Chicago Wilderness region.

In chapters one through three, included for each nat-ural community and animal assemblage is a ReportCard Condition Ranking based on a four-tier system:

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

These are further defined in each chapter as they relateto each community type or assemblage.

1.5 KEY FINDINGS OF THEREPORT CARD

The threats to our natural communities remain asdescribed in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Majorstressors include poorly planned urban expansion,the invasion of non-native species, excessive deerpopulations and the loss of natural processes due tohydrological change and the lack of controlled fire.These stressors contribute to the Report Card deter-mination that overall, the region’s natural communi-ties and animal assemblages remain in a decliningor threatened state of health.

The good news is that there are notable exceptions.The Report Card features examples of well-managednatural areas that boast a significant recovery ofnative biodiversity. Overall, the sites within theChicago Wilderness region that are being activelymanaged exhibit recovering communities of nativeplants and animals. Yet the majority of the region’snatural areas remain unmanaged or under-managed,which more than offsets the positive gains made atwell-managed sites.

However, there are many encouraging trends toreport. Since 1997, Illinois voters have approvednearly two dozen conservation-related bond refer-enda totaling more than $540 million dollars. Theacreage benefiting from controlled burns is increas-ing as shown in these totals from six forest preserveand conservation districts: 2002—4537 acres, 2003—6190 acres, and 2005—6908 acres. Also encouraging isthe fact that in 2003, the latest year for which infor-mation is available, estimates place the annual valueof conservation volunteer hours in the ChicagoWilderness region at more than $1 million. In somerespects, the region is leading the nation in sustain-able development, with the passage of local govern-ment ordinances, plans and development policiesaimed at improving protections for habitat and nat-ural areas.

1.6 REPORT CARDRECOMMENDATIONS

In spite of the many challenges confronting theregion, the Chicago Wilderness consortium has madesignificant strides since the publication of the

10



Biodiversity Recovery Plan. The Report Card chroniclesthose successes and outlines next steps toward theachievement of a healthier environment for all ofthe region’s rich diversity of plants, animals and peo-ple. Following are the recommendations of thisReport Card to members of the Chicago Wildernessconsortium:• Aggressively spur the development and region-

wide adoption of specific recovery goals, indica-tors and monitoring protocols for each ChicagoWilderness natural community and assemblagetype

• Utilize these goals, indicators and monitoringresults to guide site-specific management plansand the collection of data

• Develop baseline data for each of the region’s nat-ural communities and assemblages

• Develop a repository for the region’s data• Coordinate the region’s data collection and report-

ing• Secure more broad-based participation through-

out the region• Clarify and potentially refine the boundaries of the

Chicago Wilderness region• Come to region-wide consensus on a natural

community classification system

• Articulate specific goals for non-biological objec-tives

• Schedule the development of the next Report Cardto aggressively spur the completion of the aboverecommendations

These recommendations are discussed in more detailin chapter nine.

Additionally, to promote a balance between contin-ued population growth and the preservation of ournatural heritage, the recommendations of this ReportCard to members of the Chicago Wilderness consor-tium, state and local governments, and other localdecision-makers are:

1. Significantly increase the number of naturalareas under active management.

2. Acquire or otherwise protect additional naturalareas to balance sustainable growth with the con-servation of local biodiversity.

These last recommendations are further discussed inthe Summary Report–The State of Our Chicago Wilder-ness: A Report Card on the Health of the Region’s Eco-systems, published as a supplement to this document.

11


2.1INTRODUCTIONAcross the region, there are sites that serve as primeexamples of ongoing efforts to restore the region’snative biodiversity: Chiwaukee Prairie, HarmsWoods, Ivanhoe Dune and Swale, Middlefork Savanna and Nippersink Creek, to name but a few.However, the majority of the region’s natural areas—both those protected and unprotected—remainunmanaged or under-managed, resulting in an overall decline in the region’s biodiversity. Accord-ingly, one of the key recommended actions of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan is also one of the key recom-mended actions of the Report Card: increase the num-ber of acres under active management.

In 1997, experts from throughout the ChicagoWilderness region convened to assess the region’snatural communities. Participants assessed eachcommunity type utilizing four criteria: quantity, con-dition, biological importance and distribution withinand beyond the Chicago Wilderness region. Theirfindings underpinned the assessments reported inthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

In 2004, experts again convened, this time primarilyto assess the current condition of the region’s natu-ral communities, as it was anticipated there would beno changes in biological importance or distribution.Regarding quantity of natural communities, it washoped that sufficient data would be identified toassess changes in quantity, but a general lack ofregion-wide data precluded a precise quantity assess-ment. The lack of sufficient data likewise limited theability to precisely quantify changes in the conditionof the region’s natural communities and assem-blages, and therefore the majority of assessments arebased on observations of experts working in the field.

Notable exceptions to the lack of data included: 1) theresurveys of high quality prairie and wetland sites in2000-2001 and upland forest sites in 1997-1998.Following up on sampling conducted by the Illinois

Natural Areas Inventory in 1976, the Chicago Wilder-ness survey provided important status, trend andmanagement information about high quality sites inIllinois. 2) The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit,which established important baseline information inthe first region-wide assessment of the condition ofupland forests and woodlands. These examples, how-ever, remain the exception rather than the rule.

The lack of data, as it became clear in the course of developing the Report Card, is directly related to thelack of specific recovery goals, indicators and moni-toring protocols for each community type. Again,there is an exception. As recommended in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, in 2002 a conservationdesign was developed for woodlands. The conserva-tion design established measurable recovery goalsthrough 2025, with specific benchmarks in five-yearincrements. It also outlined a range of managementstrategies based on specifically identified threats andalso recommended parameters for monitoring proto-cols. As evidenced in the following sections, “TheChicago Wilderness Conservation Design for Wood-lands” provides a solid framework for reportingprogress toward specific woodland recovery goals.

This chanpter of the Report Card strives to provide thefollowing information:

Overview of FindingsA summary of the overall condition of the commu-nity and recommended future actions.

Condition of DataAn overview of the available data that informed theReport Card assessment. It should be noted that themajority of data that were identified is concentratedprimarily in Illinois. Some Indiana data are refer-enced. Very little data are referenced from Wisconsin.This fact underscores a Report Card recommendationto increase the data collection from all three stateslocated in the Chicago Wilderness region.

CHAPTER 2TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

12



TABLE 2.1TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITY TYPES IN THE

CHICAGO WILDERNESS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Forested Communities• Upland forest

o Dry-mesico Mesic

◊ Maple dominant+

◊ Oak dominant+

o Wet-mesic• Floodplain

o Wet-mesico Mesico Wet

• Flatwoodso Northerno Sand

• Woodlando Dry-mesic*o Mesico Wet-mesic

Savanna Communities• Fine-textured-soil savanna

o Dry-mesic*o Mesico Wet-mesic

• Sand Savannao Dryo Dry-mesico Mesic

Community DescriptionA brief overview of the community “tree” types andsub-types. It should be noted that during the work-shop, there was much discussion about the merit ofrefining the Chicago Wilderness terrestrial commu-nity type classification system. In advance of anychanges formally adopted by the Chicago Wildernessconsortium, the Report Card community type defini-

tions stem from those included in Appendix 1 of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan.

Long-Term Vision and GoalsAn extrapolation of the long-term vision and goalsfor an entire community type embedded in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan.

Shrubland Communities• Fine-textured-soil shrubland

o Dry-mesico Wet-mesic

• Sand shrublando Dry-mesico Wet-mesic

Prairie Communities• Fine-textured-soil prairie

o Dryo Mesico Wet

• Sand Prairieo Dryo Mesico Wet

• Gravel Prairieo Dryo Mesic

• Dolomite Prairieo Dryo Mesico Wet

Wetland Communities• Marsh

o Basino Streamside

• Bogo Graminoido Low Shrubo Forested

• Feno Calcareouso Graminoido Forested

• Sedge Meadow• Panne• Seep and Spring

o Neutralo Calcareouso Acid

Cliff Communities• Eroding Cliff• Dolomite Bluff

Lakeshore Communities• Beach• Foredune• High Dune

13


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

For each individual community type, the followinginformation is provided:

DescriptionEach individual community description is based pri-marily on the definitions in the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan. The community types are listed in Tables 2.1(for terrestrial communities) and 2.2 (for aquaticcommunities).

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status RankingA summary of the four assessment measures used toinform the ranking within the five tiers of conserva-tion targets, the first tier being highest conservationpriority (see Table 2.4).

Recent Recovery EffortsExamples are provided of sites where managementhas resulted in a stabilization or recovery of biodi-versity. Within some sections, sidebars provideoverviews of select sites. It should be noted thatmany more sites have undergone or are undergoingactive management, and these are but a few repre-sentative examples of such efforts.

IndicatorsEach workshop of natural community experts wasasked to identify indicators of community quality or health. It should be noted that the limited infor-mation provided underscores a Report Card recom-mendation to develop specific indicators, along withrecovery goals and monitoring protocols, for each ofthe region’s natural community types.

Report Card Condition RankingThe Report Card employs the following rankings tomeasure each natural community’s condition. Thefirst four are from the Biodiversity Recovery Plan:

Poor: rapidly losing biodiversity,or little of good quality remaining

Fair: quite a bit of biodiversityremaining, but declining or moder-ate amount remaining

Good: much biodiversity sur-vives and is fairly stable, but notall of high quality

Excellent: much biodiversitysurvives and is fairly stable, muchis high quality

Undetermined

Recommended ActionsListed for each community type is an overview ofpotential avenues of research, monitoring and on-the-ground efforts, refining or building upon the rec-ommended actions of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.Principal among the recommendations is the call todevelop a conservation design or similar instrumentto provide specific, measurable recovery goals, indi-cators and monitoring protocols. In addition to pro-viding management guidance, such instrumentswould provide a framework for measuring progresstoward the recovery of the region’s biodiversity.

A final note: Information could not be obtained aboutcliff, lakeshore and shrubland communities. Thesecommunities should be assessed in the next iterationof the Report Card.

TABLE 2.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITY TYPES

IN THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

Stream CommunitiesHeadwater Streams• Continuous-Flow

o Coarse Substrateo Fine Substrate

• Intermittent-Flowo Coarse Substrateo Fine Substrate

• Low-order Streamso High-gradiento Low-gradient

• Mid-order Streamso High-gradiento Low-gradient

Lake CommunitiesNatural Lakes• Lake Michigan• Glacial Lakes

o Kettleo Flow-through

• Bottomland• Vernal Pond• Manmade Lakes

o Naturalizedo Other

14



TABLE 2.3SUM OF ACRES IN PROTECTED NATURAL AREAS AND IN OTHER SIGNIFICANT

NATURAL AREAS BY COMMUNITY TYPE—1999

Data are from Illinois and Indiana Departments of Natural Resources and County ForestPreserve/Conservation Districts and include only lands that had been identified by community type in1999. Updated figures were not available at the time of publication of the Report Card. Even so, these datawere not complete in 1999 and lack of acreage in a column does not imply zero acreage of a community type in a county. Minor variations between the Recovery Plan and Report Card versions aredue to corrections.

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

Source: Florisitic Quality Assessment for Vegetation in Illinois: a Method for Assessing Vegetation Integrity, JohnB. Taft, Gerould S. Wilhelm, Douglass M. Ladd and Linda A. Masters, Illinois Native Plant Society (nodate on publication).

LAKE, IL2 COOK1 DUPAGE2 KANE2 LAKE, IN3 MCHENRY1 PORTER3 WILL1

FORESTED COMMUNITIES

Upland forestDry-mesic 739 374 101 5 20 496Mesic 1157 350 452 18 22 75 350Wet-mesic 32 10 30Unclassified 30.0 946Total 1928 734 452 101 53 22 95 1822

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

FlatwoodNorthern 480 213 389 40Sand 135Unclassified 33Total 513 348 389 40

15


Continued

16




WoodlandDry-mesic 386 428 1368 3 83Mesic 318 214 1308Wet-mesic 127Unclassified 909 76 103 55Total 1740 719 1368 1414 83 55

TOTAL 5330 1913 3034 1642 73 105 95 2403

SAVANNA COMMUNITIES

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

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

Unclassified savanna 457 31Total 457 31

TOTAL 1178 1321 2362 556 632 20 229

SHRUBLAND COMMUNITIES

Fine-textured-soil shrublandWet-mesic fine-textured-soil 1

Unclassified shrubland 2 410 44

TOTAL 3 410 44

PRAIRIE COMMUNITIES

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

Continued

17



Unclassified 198 58 3 59Total 705 547 1491 153 78 45 97

Sand prairieDry 179 22 25Mesic 603 147 27 33 95Wet 375 178 183 26Unclassified 141 30Total 1157 325 373 33 176

Gravel prairieDry 28 6 9 30Mesic 21Unclassified Total 49 6 9 30

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

TOTAL 1862 921 1547 165 451 75 33 522

WETLAND COMMUNITIES

MarshBasin 1375 554Streamside 965 190Unclassified 913 120 2481 377 301 100 471Total 3253 120 2481 377 301 744 100 471

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

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

Continued

18




Sedge meadow 355 317 520 254 40 417 89

Panne 67 73 1

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

TOTAL 4003 493 3272 719 377 1297 140 566

CLIFF COMMUNITIES

Eroding bluff 5Dolomite 2 6

TOTAL 5 2 6

LAKESHORE COMMUNITIES

Beach 63Foredune 102

TOTAL 165

CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

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

TOTAL 7301 634 9297 2919 212 515

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

2 Data include all FPD sites and INAI sites.

3 Data do not include all natural areas in county.

2.2 FORESTED COMMUNITIES

2.2.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSIn spite of several individual recovery successes,indications are that the majority of the region’sforests are in poor condition, primarily due to thelack of management. The widening disparity betweenmanaged and unmanaged or under-managed areasunderscores the principal recommended action ofboth the Biodiversity Recovery Plan and the ReportCard, which is to increase the number of acres undermanagement. Several new recommended actionsexpand upon and refine select recommended actionsof the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Primary among themare calls to establish specific, measurable, region-wide recovery goals, indicators of community healthand monitoring protocols.

2.2.2 CONDITION OF DATASince the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan,a number of key efforts were completed, whichinform the Report Card assessment of the region’sforested communities. The Chicago WildernessWoods Audit, conducted in 2002 and 2003, surveyedthe condition of the region’s upland forests. Develop-ed, in part, as a means to track progress toward thespecific recovery goals outlined in the “ConservationDesign for Woodlands” (summarized below), theaudit provides the first quantified condition rankingof the region’s upland forests and woodlands, as wellas baseline information against which to measurefuture trends (Glennemeier 2002a).

Several site-specific studies provide key insights intothe management of select forested community types(Apfelbaum et al. 2000; Bowles et al. 2000; Bowles et al.2003).

Other data related to the region’s forested communi-ties have yet to be sufficiently compiled and analyzed.For instance, Illinois’ Critical Trends AssessmentProgram and its sister volunteer program, Forest-Watch (until the latter was suspended in 2004 due tostate budget cuts), have consistently monitored for-est sites in the Chicago Wilderness region since 1997,but regional analysis of the data remains limited.

TABLE 2.4 CONSERVATION TARGETS FOR

RECOVERY BASED ON STATUS,IMPORTANCE AND DISTRIBUTION

First (highest) Tier• Woodland (all moisture classes)• Fine-textured-soil savanna (all moisture

classes)• Mesic sand savanna• Sand prairie (all moisture gradients in

dune and swale topography)• Dolomite prairie (all)• Panne• Graminoid fen• Fine-textured-soil prairie (all moisture

classes)

Second Tier• Dry sand prairie• Gravel prairie (all)• Basin marsh• Calcareous floating mat• Calcareous seep• Sand prairie (other than those in dune

and swale topography)• Northern flatwoods• Streamside marsh

Third Tier• Sand flatwoods• Dry-mesic sand savanna• Forested fen• Sedge meadow

Fourth Tier• Upland forest (all)

Fifth Tier• Floodplain forest (all)• Bogs (all)• Sand and neutral seep

19


In spite of these advances in information, much of theReport Card assessment of the region’s forested com-munities remains anecdotal. Data are needed toquantify the condition of all of the region’s forestedcommunities and to establish baseline data againstwhich to measure future trends.

2.2.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONThe region’s forested communities are divided intofour types, each of which is further divided by sub-type based on moisture content of the soil, except inthe case of flatwoods. Members of the forested com-munities workshop group recommend the differen-tiation between maple-dominant and oak-dominantmesic upland forests. The classifications are:

Upland forest Flatwoods• Dry-mesic • Northern• Mesic • Sand

o Maple dominant*o Oak dominant* Woodland

• Wet-mesic • Dry-mesic• Mesic

Floodplain • Wet-mesic• Wet-mesic• Mesic

*These are additions to the community differentiations inthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

2.2.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALSThe long-term vision and recovery goals for theregion’s forested communities are broadly stated inthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Unique to forestedcommunities, however, is that subsequent to the pub-lication of the plan, a model policy and conservationdesign have advanced and refined goals for wood-land communities, as well as recommended indica-tors and monitoring protocols. This progression ofpost-Biodiversity Recovery Plan follow-up is an exam-ple of the kind of effort needed for the balance of theregion’s natural communities.

The Biodiversity Recovery PlanThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s vision for theregion’s forested communities is to improve condi-tions and restore natural processes to allow canopytree species to regenerate (in viable numbers) and to

maintain an appropriate continuum of canopy coveracross the region to sustain viable populations of rarespecies and community assemblages. Broadly out-lined goals include:• Secure 50,000–100,000 acres of healthy forest and

woodland complexes in the region, including asmany as 20 good-quality sites larger than 500 acresand several 800- to 1,000-acres sites, with appropri-ate land forms (slope, soils and hydrology)

• Manage 90 percent of the highly fire-dependentforest and woodland communities with prescribedburns on a rotating schedule

• Reduce deer density in forests and woodlands to alevel that, in combination with prescribed burns,would allow for the reproduction of canopy treespecies and for the shrub and herbaceous under-story layers to return to a healthy condition

• Implement active restoration regimens, includingthinning, burning, weeding and planting, on manymore forest and woodland sites

The Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design For WoodlandsBuilding upon the vision and goals of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, which ranked woodlands in the firsttier of conservation targets, the “Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Woodlands,” (Glennemeier2002a) a draft of which was completed in 2002, estab-lishes specific benchmarks in five-year incrementstoward the realization of refined goals by 2025:• By 2025, the region will include a mosaic of wood-

lands that sustains diverse communities and sta-ble populations of the flora and fauna thatconstitute native woodland ecosystems

• By 2025, all woodlands will have been identifiedand prioritized according to their restoration,management and/or acquisition needs and poten-tial. All woodlands that are currently healthyshould receive highest priority

• By 2025, all healthy sites will be sustainable assuch with a “maintenance level” of managementthat is much less labor and resource intensive thancurrently needed levels of restoration

• Healthy woodlands shall consist of mature treeswith 50 to 80 percent cover, a nearly continuousherbaceous layer that includes conservativespecies, and a diverse assemblage of native animal and plant species overall

20



• By 2025, there will be a minimum of:o 3,000 acres of flatwoodso 15,000 acres of wet-mesic woodlandso 25,000 acres of mesic woodlandso 8,000 acres of dry-mesic woodlands

Conservation of Wooded Lands in the ChicagoRegion: A Model PolicyIn November 2003, the Chicago Wilderness consor-tium approved a policy paper entitled, “Cons-ervation of Wooded Lands in the Chicago Region: AModel Policy,” (Frankel and Mariner 2003) whichseeks to build consensus and foster implementationof the recommendations in the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan that relate to the region’s wooded communities.Specific management recommendations for all of theregion’s wooded communities include:• Manage consistently a sufficient number of

diverse sites for at least 20 years [to improve ourunderstanding of these communities]

• Develop site-specific management plans for allmanaged and unmanaged sites, even if thatmeans developing only a simple monitoring planfor an unmanaged area. Taking into account whatcommunity types were present historically on asite, land management plans should address:o The control of invasive trees and other invasive

plantso The restoration of predator/prey balanceo The control of white-tailed deero The management of the spread of gypsy moths

in such a way that does not threaten other Lepidoptera species

o The use of controlled burnso The restoration of natural hydrology

2.2.5 UPLAND FORESTDescriptionUpland forests historically developed under 80 to 100percent canopy cover. They have multi-layered struc-ture with canopy, sub-canopy, shrub and herbaceouslayers. Canopy tree species are well represented invarying size classes from seedling to canopy-sizedindividuals. There are three sub-types based on soilmoisture: dry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair toPoorThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan ranked all sub-types ofupland forests in the fourth tier of conservation tar-

gets, with the footnote that upland forests dominatedby oak stands are of higher concern than those dom-inated by maple stands. Dry-mesic upland forestrated fair for condition, but mesic and wet-mesic sub-types rated poor. All three sub-types rated of mediumbiological importance with good distribution in theregion and elsewhere. With the exception of the wet-mesic sub-type, totaling only 72 acres in northeasternIllinois (Table 2.3), upland forests rated moderate riskfor quantity. Identified threats included lack of fire,fragmentation, overbrowsing by excessive popula-tions of deer, encroaching development and invasivespecies, particularly buckthorn.

Recent Recovery EffortsHarms Woods in Cook County, Illinois and MapleGrove in DuPage County, Illinois are examples ofwell-managed sites, increasing in biodiversity.

IndicatorsThe experts convened in 2004 to assess the status ofthis community identified select species within theshrub layer, including American hazelnut, witchhazel, and viburnums, and oak reproduction, as possible positive indicators of quality for this commu-nity. In its draft quality index, the Chicago WildernessWoods Audit combines the Floristic Quality Index,canopy cover and four measures of invasive species.

Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to beformally identified and adopted for this community,and this is a recommendation for future report cards.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Fair to Poor

According to Glennemeier (2004, p.18), “Overall, CWwooded lands [which include upland forests] werecharacterized by few high quality plots, an abundanceof invasive species, and a changing character of thewoodlands from oak-dominated to that dominatedby invasive species.” Taking into account floristic qual-ity, canopy trees and four measures of invasivespecies, the audit rates 42 percent of the region’s oakwoods as poor, 38 percent as fair, 17 percent as goodand only four percent as excellent. Of high concern isthe degenerating shrub layer in mesic upland forests,and the fact that oak woods are being replaced bymaple stands. Maple stands that derive from thedegradation of natural oak communities lose the bio-diversity characteristic of oak communities and do not

21


TABLE 2.5COMPARISON OF ACRES IN CHICAGO WILDERNESS REGION

BY COMMUNITY TYPE AND GRADE, 1999–2004

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

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

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

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

Cliff . . . . . . . . . . . .Dolomite cliff 7.5 73 27 0Dry-mesic barren 6 0 0 100Eroding bluff 11.4 91 9 0

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

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

22



Continued

23

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

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

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

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

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


gain the biodiversity of healthy beech-maple forests.In spite of recent land acquisitions, many acres ofupland forest—most in private holdings—remainunprotected and therefore threatened with develop-ment or further degradation. With the majority of bothprotected and unprotected areas unmanaged orunder-managed, other threats remain unchanged andinclude lack of fire, fragmentation, overbrowsing byexcessive populations of deer, and invasive species,particularly buckthorn. (The Woods Audit found morethan 26 million buckthorn stems greater than 1 metertall in the woods represented in the study, or an aver-age of 558 stems per acre (Glennemeier 2004).)

2.2.6 FLOODPLAIN FORESTDescriptionHistorically rare in the Chicago Wilderness region,floodplain forests occur on the floodplains of riversand streams. Developed under less than 80 percentcanopy cover, they are shaped by the frequency andduration of flooding, by nutrient and sediment depo-sition and by the permeability of the soil. The under-story in floodplain forests is more open due to thefrequency of flooding. Floodplain forests also pro-vide benefits to river systems by trapping sedimentand improving water quality, as well as slowingfloodwaters. The soil moisture classes include wet-mesic and wet.

TWENTY-YEAR WOODY

VEGETATION CHANGES IN

NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS

UPLAND FORESTS

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan ranked many ofthe region’s woodlands in the first tier of con-servation targets, a principal concern beingthat forest fragmentation and the absence offire were allowing for an increase in maplesat the expense of oaks and overall forestdiversity. To test whether such changes werespecifically occurring in upland forests of theChicago Wilderness region, Bowles et al.(2000) resurveyed 28 high-quality foreststands originally studied by the IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory in 1976.

In brief, their findings suggest that woody vegetation structural and compositionaldiversity have declined in both maple andoak stands in the past 20 years and that this condition is apparently linked to changes in forest structure that began when fire sup-pression began. Because these stands repre-sent the communities’ natural historicalcondition, they provide potential for restor-ing former structure and biodiversity. Theresearchers recommended that a high man-agement priority should be to prevent fur-ther decline in oak stands by restoringnatural disturbance processes and standdynamics. They also recommended furtherresearch to determine if canopy-level distur-bance is needed to maintain openings thatwill allow for the maintenance of shrub layerspecies and oak regeneration in these forests.Fire appears to be the management tool prin-cipally needed, but it may have positive andnegative effects without supplemental con-trol of non-native species and fire-resistantvegetation (Bowles et al. 2000).

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: FairBoth sub-types of floodplain forest, wet and wet-mesic, ranked in the fifth tier of conservation targets.Both rated moderate risk for quantity, in fair condi-tion, of medium biological importance and withgood examples in the region and elsewhere. In 1999,a high percentage of remaining floodplain forests,totaling 2,722 acres (Table 2.3), were protected in for-est preserve holdings. The principal threat identifiedwas altered hydrology—more frequent floods oflonger duration. Additional threats included sedi-mentation and the suppression of fire.

Recent Recovery EffortsNo well-managed floodplain forest sites have beenidentified.

IndicatorsSpecific, measurable indicators of quality need to beidentified for this community, and this is a recom-mendation for future report cards.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Fair

There is no change in the ranking of the region’sfloodplain forests. The primary threat remainsaltered hydrology, with sediment loading contribut-ing to their demise. Continued development isexpected to exacerbate the frequency and durationof flooding, which, along with the suppression of fire,will further alter the composition of native plants andencourage the spread of non-native invasive species.Nutrient enrichment, including salt deposition, mayfoster the growth of invasive species such as reedcanary grass and Phragmites.

2.2.7 FLATWOODSDescriptionDeveloped under 50 to 80 percent canopy cover orless, flatwoods historically occurred on level ornearly level soil that has an impermeable or slowlypermeable layer, which causes a shallow, perchedwater table. Northern flatwoods are found within theValparaiso, Tinley and lake border morainic systemson poorly drained, nearly level ground. Sand flat-woods, more typical in the southern portion of theregion, developed on soils with a meter or more ofacidic sand over silty clay. Flatwoods are keyamphibian breeding grounds and provide habitat for

24



25


a number of threatened and endangered species,including purple-fringed orchid and dog violet.Vernal ponds within flatwoods support unique com-munities of aquatic invertebrates.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: FairNorthern and sand flatwoods ranked in the secondand third tier, respectively, of conservation targets.The Nature Conservancy ranked northern and sandflatwoods as critically imperiled globally and imper-iled globally, respectively. Both sub-types rated highrisk for quantity and of high biological importance,but widespread in distribution and in fair condition.Lack of fire, invasive species—particularly buck-thorn—and an overabundance of white-tailed deerwere identified as primary threats, along withchanges in hydrology, as these communities are pos-sessed of a delicate moisture balance.

Recent Recovery EffortsIn northeastern Illinois, northern flatwoods areresponding well to management. Specific examplesof well-managed flatwoods include MacArthurWoods, Harms Woods and Dunklee’s Grove inFischer Woods Forest Preserve (see sidebar).



There is no change in the ranking of the region’s flat-woods. Threats, as identified by Glennemeier (2002a)in the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design forWoodlands,” include:• Excess shade and competition• Fragmentation and loss of habitat• Changes in hydrology and microclimate, includ-

ing chemical loading• Excessive browsing and grazing by overabundant

deer• Limited public understanding of the threats to

woodlands• Lack of knowledge about the ecology, status and

means of restoration for Chicago Wildernesswoodlands

Toward the conservation design goal of 3,000 healthyacres of flatwoods by 2025, the 2005 benchmark is 300acres. In 2004, the Illinois Natural Areas Inventoryrated a combined total of 107 northern and sand flat-woods acres as Grade A and B (Table 2.5). (IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory Grades A and B are consid-ered to be “healthy” with grades C – E progressivelyless so.) Data were not available on how manyhealthy flatwoods acres there may be in the Wisconsinand Indiana portions of the Chicago Wildernessregion (Tables 2.5 and 2.6).

Given the 1,290 total number of protected flatwoodsacres identified in the Chicago Wilderness region in1999, the conservation design goal of 3,000 acres ofhealthy flatwoods by 2025 implies the need tomarkedly increase restoration management on pro-tected flatwoods and to identify and target non-pro-tected flatwoods for similar treatment. Since thepublication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, at least25,980 acres of natural lands have been acquired innortheastern Illinois, but most had not been classifiedby community type by the time this report was pub-

TABLE 2.6 ILLINOIS NATURAL AREAS

INVENTORY GRADES

Grade ARelatively stable or undisturbed communities

Grade B Late successional or lightly disturbed

communities

Grade CMid-successional or severely disturbed

communities

Grade D Early successional or severely disturbed

communities

Grade EVery early successional or very severely

disturbed communities

26



lished. Neither was information available about theamount of flatwoods acres that may have beenacquired in the Wisconsin and Indiana portions ofthe Chicago Wilderness region.

2.2.8 WOODLANDSDescriptionWoodlands developed historically under a canopycover between 50 and 80 percent. This communitymay have had a well-developed shrub layer, whichhas become shade suppressed in modern times. Aconservative woodland shrub and herbaceous layer

Located along Route 83, south of Bensenville,Illinois, the Fischer Woods Forest Preserve wasestablished with an initial 72 acres in 1971.Eventually expanded to more than 100 acres,much of the preserve is underlain with a poorly-drained clay subsoil, a hallmark of flatwoods.Dunklee’s Grove within the preserve is a 68-acreflatwoods, one of only a few wet forest sites inDuPage County.

According to Scott Kobal, a plant ecologist for theForest Preserve District of DuPage County, thesite has been actively managed by a dedicatedvolunteer corps since at least 1989. Along withdistrict staff, volunteers have cut and herbicidedinvasive trees and shrubs, and seeded andplanted native herbaceous ground layer andnative shrub species. Limited prescribed burningoccurred in 1993 and 1999.

The site appears to be responding well to man-agement efforts. District staff established twoone-acre monitoring plots in 1979, and beginningin 1992 have periodically conducted additionalrandom quadrat surveys. The data reveal asteady and sizeable increase in the number ofnative species and the percentage of ground-cover, and smaller, but still steady, increases in

the Floristic Quality Index (FQI). After a signifi-cant drop in the number of red oaks between 1979and 1989, this characteristic flatwood species hasbeen steadily increasing ever since.

Additional monitoring is conducted by a localvolunteer steward as part of the ChicagoWilderness Plants of Concern (POC) monitoringprogram. POC species monitored include Carextuckermanii and Carex bromoides, bent-seeded hopsedge and brome hummock sedge. In addition tothese rare plants, the site boasts seasonal celebra-tions of color typical of healthy flatwoods. Everyspring there are trout lillies, woodland phlox,spring beauties, wild geraniums and Dutchman’sbreeches. Summer and fall are accompanied bygoldenrods and asters.

Kobal, who conducts much of the monitoringthroughout the district’s holdings, emphasizes theneed for sound management. “It’s simple. Wherewe manage, we see natural communities at leastholding their own, many of them improving.Where we aren’t able to manage effectively, wegenerally see a decrease in biodiversity—fewernative species, lowered FQI, more non-native inva-sive species. The effects of management vs. non-management couldn’t be clearer” (S. Kobal 2004).

may be present in the best quality remnants. Wood-lands may differ from savannas in having signifi-cantly higher populations of spring ephemerals.Woodlands are particularly important for biodiver-sity, being species-rich in amphibians, reptiles, mam-mals, invertebrates and especially birds. The betterand larger examples harbor a number of endangeredand threatened plant species, including northerncranesbill, pale vetchling and buffalo clover.Woodland and savanna insect assemblages arepotentially globally significant. Woodland sub-typesare dry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic.

DUNKLEE’S GROVE IN FISCHER WOODS FOREST PRESERVE

mined by the Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit, tothe 5,378 total acres of protected woodlands in theIllinois and Indiana portions of the region (Table 2.3),then there are approximately 1,130 acres of healthywoodlands within the Chicago Wilderness region—more than 3,600 acres short of the conservationdesign goal of 4,800. However, there may be morehealthy woodland acres in the region, as the 14,595-acre figure does not include woodlands fromWisconsin, nor any that may have been acquiredsince the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

Given the 5,378 total number of protected woodlandacres thus far identified in the Chicago Wildernessregion, the future goal of 48,000 total acres by 2025of healthy woodlands implies the need to markedlyincrease restoration management on protected wood-lands and to identify and target unprotected wood-lands for similar treatment. Indications are that themajority of the region’s remaining woodlands arehardly recognizable as woodlands because they areso overrun by invasive of trees and shrubs.

2.2.9 RECOMMENDED ACTIONSThe primary recommendation is to increase the levelof restoration management for the region’s forestedcommunities, in particular oak woodlands andforests. In the “Conservation Design for Woodlands,”Glennemeier (2002a) recommends four principalmanagement actions for each of the six identifiedthreats:• Re-open habitat through prescribed fire and inva-

sive species control programs• Identify potential land for protection or purchase;

purchase or otherwise protect as much of thisidentified land as possible

• Develop specific hydrology restoration plans ateach site; increase size of buffer area of woodlandsites where possible

• Identify sites where deer are a problem and insti-tute deer control programs; establish standardprotocol for monitoring deer impacts

Cost estimates must become part of the recoveryeffort equation. Toward a goal of restoring 70 per-cent of the region’s existing 42,574 acres of uplandforest, woodland and savanna in northeastern Illinoisand the Indiana Dunes area, Glennemeier (2004, p.21) estimates the need for between $10 million and

27


Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorAll three sub-types of woodlands are ranked in thefirst tier of conservation targets. The Nature Conserv-ancy ranked wet-mesic woodlands as criticallyimperiled globally. Of moderate risk for quantity, allthree sub-types rank in poor condition and of highbiological importance.

Recent Recovery EffortsPrime examples of woodland recovery effortsinclude Waterfall Glen in DuPage County, Illinoisand Swallow Cliff in Cook County, Illinois.


Report Card Condition Ranking: Poor

The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit results pre-sented in the condition ranking for upland forestsapplies equally to woodlands: 42 percent of theregion’s woodlands rank poor, 38 percent fair and acombined 21 percent good or excellent. In spite ofseveral notable recovery efforts, the majority of theregion’s woodlands remain unmanaged or under-managed (Glennemeier 2004). Even in managed sites,however, there is concern about the lack of naturaloak regeneration. Threats, as identified byGlennemeier (2002a) include:• Excess shade and competition• Fragmentation and loss of habitat• Changes in hydrology and microclimate, includ-

ing chemical loading• Excessive browsing and grazing by overabundant

deer• Limited public understanding of the threats to

woodlands

Toward the conservation design goal of a combined48,000 healthy acres of woodlands by 2025 (15,000wet-mesic, 25,000 mesic and 8,000 dry-mesic), the2005 combined benchmark is 4,800 acres (1,500, 2,500and 800, respectively, by sub-type). The IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory does not identify wood-lands as a forested community type. However, apply-ing the percentage of excellent-rated (four percent)and good-rated (17 percent) oak wood plots, as deter-

28



TWENTY-YEAR WOODY

VEGETATION CHANGES IN

NORTHERN FLATWOODS AND

MESIC FOREST AT RYERSON

CONSERVATION AREA, LAKE

COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Related to the research undertaken to test themaple, oak and overall forest diversitychanges in upland forests, in 1997 Bowles etal. (2003) resampled flatwoods and mesicforest stands in the Ryerson ConservationArea, first sampled by the Illinois NaturalAreas Inventory in 1976.

The findings suggest that the decline in mid-sized oaks and shrub layers species in thenorthern flatwoods are apparently due tocanopy closure, a process that probablystarted when fire began to be suppressed inthe local landscape. In the sugar maple-dom-inated mesic forest stand, the decline of oaksmay be less closely linked with fire suppres-sion, and the increase in maple saplingsmight have been triggered by more recentloss of canopy elms. Over-browsing by east-ern white-tailed deer could have enhancedthe decline of shrubs in both stands. Thetrends of increasing ash and maples in thesestands indicate that they will become lessdiverse unless management can restorecanopy structure that will maintain shrublayer species and allow oak regeneration.Restoration goals and applied research areneeded to guide recovery. Controlled fireappears to be the principal tool, especiallyin flatwoods, but it may have positive andnegative effects (including the promotion ofsome invasive species), and supplementalcutting of fire-resistant vegetation may berequired (Bowles et al. 2003).

$48 million for restoration and recommends devel-oping, “a solid, defensible estimate of restorationcosts that we can use to seek large scale funding forwooded lands restoration.”

Concurrent with stepped up levels of restorationmanagement, the Chicago Wilderness consortiummust establish specific, measurable, region-widerecovery goals, indicators and monitoring protocolsfor the region’s forested communities. A region-widedatabase should be created to provide for up-to-datemapping of forested areas by forest community type,protected vs. non-protected and managed vs.unmanaged. The Chicago Wilderness Woods Auditor some comparable study should be expanded toinclude all forested community types and berepeated every five or 10 years in order to obtaintrend assessments.

Glennemeier (2002a) further recommends the follow-ing:• Educate public officials about woodland ecology

and restoration; work with public agencies toimprove water laws and regulations; develop a“forest preserve good neighbor” program

• Identify priority research questions; develop fund-ing mechanisms to support priority research; con-nect professional scientists, natural resourcemanagers and volunteers for sharing of knowl-edge and resources

Acknowledging the need to strengthen ties to theacademic community, priority research recommen-dations include, but are not limited to these:• Improve understanding of the fire history of

forests in order to establish the most effective pre-scribed burn regimens

• Study the impacts of fire on fauna—whether ornot to burn and when and how often to burn toavoid unnecessary injury to and increase benefitsfor animals

• Improve the understanding of shrub layers• Research wet-mesic upland forest, a rare, distinc-

tive community about which little is known• Research floodplain forests and how they are

impacted by forces beyond forest boundaries,namely development and stormwater manage-ment, to be able to recommend appropriate man-agement plans

29


• Monitor amphibian, bird and insect assemblagesfor all forested communities

• Research lack of oak regeneration in managedforests

• Identify examples of all forest communities andtheir management in each county

• Monitor how fauna responds to fragmentation(Glennemeier 2002a)

2.3 SAVANNA COMMUNITIES

2.3.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSIn general, sand savannas continue to fare better thanfine-textured soil savannas, primarily due to the factthat more sand savannas are managed. Nonetheless,among all savanna types there is a widening dispar-ity in quality between managed sites and the balanceof sites, which are unmanaged or under-managed.Considerably more sites need to be managed, at aminimum with prescribed burns. It is also imperativeto establish region-wide consensus on savanna recov-ery goals, management strategies, monitoring proto-cols and research needs.

2.3.2 CONDITION OF DATAThe Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit includes sav-anna sites in its sampling, however not enough to beable to determine anything definitive about their con-dition region-wide. Various savanna-related data areavailable, including the work by Bowles and Mc-Bride (1998). This study identifies a possible manage-ment strategy for one of the few remaining tracts oforiginal midwestern savanna at Wolf Road Prairie;components of which could provide “a necessary ref-erence system for [savanna] community restoration.”However, most savanna-related data have yet to besufficiently compiled and analyzed to inform cur-rent region-wide status and trends. Consequently, thefollowing condition rankings of savanna communitytypes are based primarily on local experts’ observa-tions from the field.

2.3.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONHistorically maintained by fire, savannas are woodedcommunities with graminoid groundcover, whichdeveloped historically under an average tree canopybetween 10 and 50 percent. A savanna may have

shrubby areas and the tree canopy may locally begreater or less than the above limits. Savannas oftenhave soils that are transitional between forest andprairie and they have distinctive plants and animals.They were once common across the ChicagoWilderness region, but few high quality standsremain. Many acres of savanna are so degraded thatthey are barely recognizable as savannas. All savannatypes are biologically significant due to their speciesrichness and numbers of rare species. Individualsavanna sub-types are distinguished by soil moisture:• Fine-textured soil savanna

o Dry-mesico Mesico Wet-mesic

• Sand savannao Dryo Dry-mesico Mesic

2.3.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALSRecognizing a responsibility to preserve both fine-textured and sand savannas—collectively one of themost rare natural communities on earth—the visionis to dramatically improve the condition andintegrity of all remaining savanna types within theregion. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan articulates notgoals, per se, but a framework for determining futuregoals, which include 1) focusing on the health ofsavanna communities, their ability to regenerate andtheir role in a matrix of other natural communitytypes, 2) the restoration of natural ecological pro-cesses, such as fire, and 3) securing savannas of suf-ficient size, and managing them properly to sustainviable populations of birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Without providing any parameters, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan acknowledges that small savannas canhave value if managed properly, but conjectured thatlarger savannas would be most cost effective to man-age and best able to allow landscape-scale processes,such as fire, to occur. To maintain viable populationsof savanna reptiles and amphibians, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan recommends the establishment of mul-tiple savanna sites of between 200 and 500 acres withfunctional connections for dispersal to other habitattypes.

30



2.3.5 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL SAVANNADescriptionFine-textured soil savannas historically occurred asan ecotonal belt along streamside forests, as “islands”in prairie or forest and on extensive areas of hillyland. Three sub-types, based on soil moisture, aredry-mesic, mesic and wet-mesic.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorAll sub-types of fine-textured soil savannas ranked inthe first tier of conservation targets. In 1999, therewere 4,453 acres of fine-textured soil savanna innortheastern Illinois, but only 23 acres listed in theIllinois Natural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and 2.5).In Indiana, there were only 34 total acres (Table 2.3).Although the three sub-types rated differently forquantity—wet-mesic being at the highest risk—allthree rated in poor condition, of high biologicalimportance and significant for global conservation.The Nature Conservancy ranked all fine-textured soilsavannas as critically imperiled globally. Identified

To assess the long-term effects of fire, especiallyon how repeated burning affects ground-layercomposition, in 1986, Apfelbaum and others(2000) established permanent transects in theReed-Turner Woodland, part of the Reed-TurnerNature Preserve in Lake County, Illinois. Theresults suggest that long-term (13 years) fire-man-agement can change ground-layer compositionand structure and can result in increased groundlayer species richness in oak woodland. Thisincrease did not reflect dramatic increases in mostspecies, but rather small increases in manyspecies. However, these cumulative changes ledto important shifts in ground-layer structure,with increased graminoid and forb abundance,and decreased woody abundance.

This increase was not detectable after six years,after which removal of shrub-layer vegetationwas initiated in treatment plots. Although an

effect of shrub-layer removal could not bedetected statistically, it may have contributed tothe increase in plot richness, especially if supple-mented by wide-scale removal of non-nativeshrubs. Removal of shrub-layer species may havecaused the loss of a potentially important struc-tural component of woodland diversity, andrepeated burning has probably enhanced the per-sistence of invasive, non-native garlic mustard.

These results suggest that fire management torestore richness of oak woodland ground-layervegetation requires long term efforts. Supplemen-tary removal of shrub-layer species may enhancethis process, but should focus on non-nativespecies and tree saplings that have the capabilityof directly altering canopy structure. However,realistic goals for species composition and struc-ture are not yet clear (Apfelbaum, et al. 2000).

VEGETATION CHANGE AFTER THIRTEEN YEARS OF FIRE MANAGEMENT

OF A NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS OAK WOODLAND

threats to savannas included fragmentation, alteredhydrology, the absence of fire, deer grazing and theerosion of soils due to the presence of buckthorn andthe shading of the ground layer.

Recent Recovery EffortsSeveral recovery efforts are underway in the region.Among those in Illinois are Somme Prairie Grove andBakers Lake Savanna in Cook County, Bluff Savannaat Waterfall Glen in DuPage County and MiddleforkSavanna in Lake County.

IndicatorsThe 2004 workshop group did not identify specificindicators of quality for this community. However,one regional expert suggested that the following aresome of the species that indicate the presence of ahigh-quality fine-textured soil savanna:• Aralia nudicaulis• Arenaria lateriflora• Corylus americana

31


• Danthonia spicata• Luzula multiflora• Panicum latifolium• Pedicularis canadensis

These indicator species should be reviewed andadopted if appropriate. In addition, other specific,measurable indicators of quality may need to beidentified for this community. These are recommen-dations for future report cards.


The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory reports anincrease in the number of fine-textured mesic savannaacres, from 23 in 1999 to 80 in 2004, which may indi-cate a modest increase or improvement in manage-ment. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the region’sremaining fine-textured soil savanna sites remainunmanaged or under-managed, and consequently inpoor health. The threats to savanna sites continue tobe fragmentation, altered hydrology due to the devel-opment of surrounding lands, the absence of fire, deergrazing, erosion and the presence of invasive species,including non-savanna trees.

2.3.6 SAND SAVANNADescriptionCharacterized by sandy soils, sand savannas areassociated with dune and swale topography andbeach ridges. Historically not as prevalent as fine-tex-tured soil savannas, sand savannas are among themost rare community types in the Chicago Wilder-ness region. Most of the region’s remaining sandsavannas are in southwestern Will County, LakeCounty, Illinois and northwestern Indiana. Theherbaceous vegetation of a sand savanna is similarto that of sand prairies, with which it usually mixes.Three sub-types are distinguished by soil moisture:dry, dry-mesic and mesic.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair toGoodThe Nature Conservancy ranked dry-mesic sandsavanna as imperiled globally. However, this sub-type ranked in the third tier of conservation targetsfor the Chicago Wilderness region because of its rel-ative abundance compared to other sand savannatypes and the generally well-managed quality of

remaining sites, which include Indiana Dunes,Illinois Beach State Park and Braidwood Dune andSavanna. In 1999, in the Illinois and Indiana portionsof the Chicago Wilderness region, there were 885acres of dry-mesic sand savanna, of which 388 werelisted in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Table2.3 and Table 2.5). By comparison, there were only495 acres of dry sand savanna, which ranked in thesecond tier of conservation targets. Mesic sandsavanna ranked in the first tier. Although what littleremains is well managed, it is historically rare andoccurs in a specific type of hydrology within a spe-cific topography. Identified threats to this and allremaining savannas included fragmentation, alteredhydrology, the absence of fire, deer grazing, the ero-sion of soils due to the presence of buckthorn andshading of the ground layer, and the presence ofother invasive plant species.

MIDDLEFORK SAVANNA

About 20 years ago, a 30-acre remnant sav-anna was “discovered” at the edge of a farmfield along the channelized Middle Fork ofthe North Branch of the Chicago River. Withfunding provided by the Lake Forest OpenLands Association and the Lake Countybond referenda to acquire open space, theprotected site has grown to approximately700 acres. During the past 10 years, forestpreserve crews and a small army of volun-teers have hand cleared a high-quality 25-acre core savanna area, cleared more than150 acres of additional savanna acres, seededmore than 150 acres with native plants,restored the natural hydrology to 200 acres,intensively managed for teasel, reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife and conducted aregular fire management plan. To date, morethan 300 plant species have been identifiedon site, along with numerous species of fish,frogs and birds, including shorebirds, war-blers and even bald eagles (Parker 2004).

32



Recent Recovery EffortsRecovery efforts include sites at Illinois Beach StatePark and Spring Bluff in Lake County, Illinois.

IndicatorsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan offers the Karner bluebutterfly, where it occurs, as a guide in defining man-agement goals for sand savannas. Indicators of alower-quality or less healthy site include the presenceof buckthorn, alien honeysuckle, alien thistles, reedcanary grass, teasel and garlic mustard.

A complete set of specific, measurable indicators ofquality for this community need to be identified, andthis is a recommendation for future report cards.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Poor to Good

In general, drier savannas rank in better conditionthan wet savannas. Although sand savannas arecomparatively less susceptible to invasive speciesbecause their sandy soils are drier and less fertile,unmanaged sites nonetheless become overgrown,which alters the delicate moisture gradient and leadsto a rapid loss of community structure and diversity.The drier environment, however, also makes it eas-ier for fires to burn, rendering this savanna type wellresponsive to prescribed burning as a managementtool. Sand savannas also are susceptible to erosionand loss of ground layer. The updated IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory lists a total of 612 acres ofdry-mesic sand savanna, an increase of 224 over the1999 total (Table 2.5). However, although the num-ber of acres is increasing, the general consensusamong natural resource managers is that the status ofthese communities is declining.

2.3.7 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR

SAVANNASThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan contains numerous rec-ommendations for all terrestrial community types.Primary among them is the need to increase the num-ber of acres under management on public lands andthose outside of existing preserves. This remains theprimary recommendation for savanna communities.At a minimum, more savanna sites should be man-aged with prescribed burns.

Equally important is the need to refine the Bio-diversity Recovery Plan’s broad savanna recoveryvision and develop specific, measurable, region-wideoutcomes. Key to this effort would be the develop-ment of a conservation design or similar instrument,along the lines of the “Chicago Wilderness Conser-vation Design for Woodlands” (Glennemeier 2002a),which would be a step in the right direction towardestablishing measurable recovery benchmarks, man-agement strategies and monitoring protocols. Part ofthis effort should include identifying, compiling andanalyzing what savanna data exist. In order to beable to quantify the future status and trends of theregion’s savanna communities, all savanna areasshould be inventoried.

BLUFF SAVANNA,WATERFALL GLEN

Totaling more than 700 acres, this communityis a forest/woodland/savanna complex ontop of the south facing bluff overlooking theDes Plaines River. Management of the bluffstarted in 1984 with the clearing of a 20-acresection of the community. Since then, muchof the bluff has been managed by a combina-tion of clearing, herbiciding of invasivespecies (such as buckthorn), prescribed burn-ing and deer control. During the last 20 years,burning of any one area has taken placeapproximately two of every five years.Management of deer has been ongoing since1995. Two one-acre monitoring plots wereestablished in 1985 and a third was added in1986. Monitoring has included vegetativesampling (by quadrat and total vegetation),tree demography and light. The Bluff Savannaexhibited reasonably good quality (INAIgrade C) when the monitoring began. Man-agement during the last 20 years has liftedthis quality to a grade B as exhibited in theoverall quality rating. A slight dip in diver-sity was noted in the mid 1990s due to deerbrowsing. This was reversed with the adventof a deer management program (Lampa 2004).

33


2.4 PRAIRIE COMMUNITIES

2.4.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThere are no changes in the condition status of anyprairie community type—overall, all prairie typesremain in poor condition. As is the case with theregion’s other community types, there are examplesof significant biodiversity recovery at select sites thatare well managed. However, the majority of theregion’s prairie sites remain unmanaged or under-managed, resulting in a further decline in quality.This decrease more than offsets the gains made at thecomparative handful of managed sites. The primaryrecommendation, therefore, is to manage moreprairie sites. Hand in hand with this recommenda-tion is the need to develop specific indices of prairiehealth, recovery goals and monitoring protocols to beable to quantify progress toward region-wide recov-ery goals.

2.4.2 CONDITION OF DATAThere are several available data sets related to prairiecommunities. Among them are Ron Panzer’s 20-yearsurvey of insects in sand prairies and sand savannas(Panzer 2005), and Marlin Bowles’ and MichaelJones’ reinvestigation of 109 high quality prairie andwetland sites identified and sampled by the IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory in 1976 (Bowles and Jones2003). The Illinois Critical Trends AssessmentProgram (and its sister program PrairieWatch, untilits suspension in 2004 due to state budget cuts) hasbeen monitoring sites throughout Illinois, includingthe Illinois portion of the Chicago Wilderness region,since 1997. These and other data sets provide impor-tant information, but regional analysis of the dataremains limited.

2.4.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONHistorically widespread throughout the ChicagoWilderness region, prairies have suffered more lossthan any other community type. In Illinois, only one-hundredth of one percent of original high qualityprairie remains (Critical Trends Assessment Project1994). Prairies include many types, all of which aredominated by native grasses of differing heights andcharacter on primarily mineral soils. They can befound on all substrates from clay to gravel and have

soil moistures ranging from dry to wet. Trees may bepresent, but less than 10% of the area has a canopycover. Prairies rate very high in biological importancedue to their high levels of diversity, particularly ofplants and insects. Throughout the region, prairiesexist today mostly in small, isolated remnants, veryfew of which are high quality. Primary classificationis by soil type, with sub-types determined by soilmoisture:• Fine-textured soil prairie

o Dryo Mesico Wet

• Sand Prairieo Dryo Mesico Wet

• Gravel Prairieo Dryo Mesic

• Dolomite Prairieo Dryo Mesico Wet

2.4.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALSThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines a broad visionto protect multiple examples of all indigenous prairietypes, and to manage and restore them in such a waythat landscape-scale natural processes—such as fire,hydrology and gene flow between populations—sus-tain viable populations of all area-limited species andformerly common species. The Biodiversity RecoveryPlan calls for the active protection of all high-qualityprairie remnants that are large enough to sustainnative species far into the future, greatly increased andimproved levels of management of all prairie rem-nants and other natural communities in a matrix ofrestored prairie and unrestored grasslands, and farmore acreage of restored prairie. As there remain espe-cially few examples of gravel and dolomite prairies, allsub-types of these prairie types should be protected.All remaining good-quality prairie sites, such as thoselisted by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory as gradeC or above, should be protected and improved. Allprairie sites currently under protection should be vig-orously managed and, where possible, expanded tomake management more efficient.

34



2.4.5 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL PRAIRIEDescriptionHistorically the most abundant of the four prairietypes, fine-textured soil prairies are comprised ofdeep and fine-textured soils, usually silt loam or clayloam derived from loess or glacial till, although theseprairies may also occur on alluvium. Soil moisturefor these prairies ranges from dry to wet.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorAccording to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, fine-tex-tured soil prairies ranked in the first tier of conser-vation targets because 1) the region has so manyrelatively large, high quality examples and so muchadjacent land that is restorable, and in many casesbeing restored, 2) the region has so many and suchlarge restoration areas, 3) this prairie sub-type hassuffered the highest proportional loss of high qual-ity acreage and 4) it is especially important as a genepool for agriculture since it produced the soils thatare probably the Midwest’s long-term most impor-tant natural resource.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are several recovery efforts underway in theregion, some long term, some more recent, includingSomme Prairie, Markham Prairie, West ChicagoPrairie and Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie inIllinois.

IndicatorsIndicators of higher quality sites may include prairiedrop seed and remnant-dependent insects likemoths, butterflies and leafhoppers. A complete set ofspecific, measurable indicators of quality for thiscommunity need to be identified, and this is a rec-ommendation for future report cards.


Altered hydrology, concentration of pollutants, habi-tat destruction, lack of management and the over-population of white-tailed deer remain the primarythreats to these and all prairie types.

2.4.6 SAND PRAIRIEDescriptionSand prairies form on coarse-textured (sandy) sub-strates: sand, loamy sand and sandy loam. However,

prairies on sandy loam are considered sand prairieonly if they are acidic enough to support character-istic plants. Historically, sand prairies probably neverwere large and occurred in complexes with dunesand other sand communities. They are found insandy outwash plains, lake plains and valley trains.Sand prairie sub-types are classified by soil moisture,which varies from dry to wet. Remaining examplesare concentrated in the Indiana Dunes area,Chiwaukee Prairie, Illinois Beach State Park and theKankakee River Valley.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorAll sub-types of sand prairies located in dune andswale topography ranked in the first tier of conserva-tion targets. All other sand prairies ranked in the sec-ond tier. Along with fine-textured soil prairies, sandprairies rated very high risk for quantity, in poor con-dition, of high biological importance and as signifi-cantly contributing to global conservation.

Recent Recovery EffortsAmong the region’s recovery efforts is ChiwaukeePrairie State Natural Area in Kenosha County,Wisconsin.

IndicatorsIndicators of higher-quality sites might include thepresence of small mammal species such as the prairiedeer mouse. Indicators of lower-quality or degradedsites might include the presence of white-footedmice. A complete set of specific, measurable indica-tors of quality for this community need to be identi-fied, and this is a recommendation for future reportcards.


There are no changes in the condition ranking.According to the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory,between 1999 and 2004 there were slight decreasesin the number of acres for two of the three sandprairie sub-types (Table 2.5). Altered hydrology, con-centration of pollutants, habitat destruction, lack ofmanagement and the overpopulation of white-taileddeer remain the primary threats to these and allprairie types.

35


2.4.7 GRAVEL PRAIRIEDescriptionNaturally small and rare, gravel prairies formed onglacial deposits, which were never abundant in theregion or elsewhere. Extensively quarried, the fewremaining examples occur in the northern portion ofthe region, with no examples ever having occurred inIndiana. The gravelly, usually calcareous soils pro-vide rapid permeability, with the resulting sub-typesranging from dry to mesic.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorBoth sub-types of gravel prairie ranked in the sec-ond tier of conservation targets. There are fewer than100 acres of gravel prairie identified in northeasternIllinois, only one acre of which is dry-mesic gravelprairie (Table 2.3). Both sub-types of gravel prairierated poor in condition, of high biological impor-tance and important globally. The Nature Conserv-ancy ranked both sub-types as globally imperiled.

Recent Recovery EffortsAn example of a recovery effort is Chicago Ridge inCook County, Illinois.

IndicatorsThe 2004 workshop group did not identify specificindicators of quality for this community. However,one regional expert suggested that the following aresome of the species that indicate the presence of ahigh-quality gravel prairie:• Agoseris cuspidata• Allium stellatum• Anemone patens wolfgangiana• Asclepias lanuginose• Aster ptarmicoides• Aster sericeus• Carex richardsonii• Cirsium hillii• Linum sulcatum• Panicum wilcoxianum• Oenothera serrulata

These indicator species should be reviewed andadopted if appropriate. In addition, other specific,measurable indicators of quality may need to beidentified for this community. These are recommen-dations for future report cards.


There are no changes in the status of either gravelprairie sub-type. Altered hydrology, concentrationof pollutants, habitat destruction, lack of manage-ment and the overpopulation of white-tailed deerremain the primary threats to these and all prairietypes.

2.4.8 DOLOMITE PRAIRIEDescriptionThe most rare prairie type in the region as well asacross the United States, this community occurswhere dolomite limestone is less than 1.5 metersbelow the surface. Certain common prairie plants areabsent because of the shallow soils and high pH, butother species are restricted to dolomite prairies. Most

WEST CHICAGO PRAIRIE

This is a 305-acre site comprised of mesic,wet-mesic and wet prairie, as well as sedgemeadow and marsh. The site is has beenmanaged by prescribed fire and brush clear-ing for the last 25 years. In 1984, a monitor-ing transect, crossing all community types,was laid out west to east across the prairie(approximately one mile in length). Theprairie was mostly a grade C/D when man-agement began and generally a grade Cwhen the monitoring protocol was estab-lished. (Grade A natural communities are rel-atively stable or undisturbed while Grade Ecommunities have been severely disturbed;the other grades represent intermediatestages.) Management during the last 25 yearshas increased the quality of the monitoredportion of the site to grade B, reflecting gainsin the number of conservative species, thenumber of native species and overall floristicquality. The average quadrat quality valuesbetween 1984 and 2002 for the prairie are asfollows: conservatism = +3 percent, nativespecies = +68 percent, and FQI = +38 percent(Lampa 2004).

36



MIDEWIN NATIONAL

TALLGRASS PRAIRIE

In 1993, the U.S. Army designated the 23,500-acre Joliet Arsenal as excess federal land. In1996, 19,000 acres were designated as theMidewin National Tallgrass Prairie, thenation’s first national tallgrass prairie, “to bemanaged as open space for ecosystem restor-ation and outdoor recreation” (MidewinNational Tallgrass Prairie 2005). The recentlyadopted Midewin Land and ResourceManagement Plan calls for restoration, over15 to 20 years, of the site’s native prairie andwoodland communities, including 4,020acres of upland prairie. Among the 850 acresof prairie, savanna and wetland areasrestored to date is the 460-acre South PatrolRoad site. The Wetlands Initiative assistedthe USDA Forest Service in returning the for-mer crop fields to native habitat throughinvasive species control and the removal offield drain tiles, drainage ditches and oldrailroad beds. Fifty-three graminoid and 113forb species have been planted, with addi-tional species to be added through over-seed-ing and planting of plugs. Many of thesespecies are cultivated at Midewin by a largecorps of volunteers, which includes studentsin The Mighty Acorns program. More than 80species of native plants are in production atMidewin, with volunteers playing a criticalrole in planting, collecting and cleaning theseed stock. As restoration efforts have movedforward at Midewin, increases in grasslandand wetland wildlife have been noted.Grasslands at Midewin currently providesignificant breeding and wintering habitatfor birds such as upland sandpiper, bobolink,grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike,northern harrier, and short-eared owls.

of the region’s dolomite prairies occurred by thelower reaches of the Des Plaines River and often aspatches within other prairies. Thus, they tend to bevery small. Although the region retains some of thebest remaining examples of dolomite prairie, mosthave been lost to mining and other development.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorRanked in the first tier of conservation targets, thevast majority of the region’s remaining 301 acres ofdolomite prairie is located in Will County, Illinois(Table 2.3). All sub-types rated very high risk forquantity, of high biological importance and of globalimportance. The Nature Conservancy ranked drydolomite prairie, of which sub-type there is but oneacre in the Chicago Wilderness region, as imperiledglobally.

Recent Recovery EffortsLockport Prairie in Illinois is under active manage-ment. Also, at the Midewin National TallgrassPrairie, where the vast majority of remainingdolomite prairie remains, the recently adopted Mide-win Land and Resource Management Plan calls forrestoration, over 15 to 20 years, of the site’s nativeprairie and woodland communities, including 1,380acres of dolomite prairie.



There are no changes in the condition ranking for anyof the region’s dolomite prairie sub-types. Alteredhydrology, concentration of pollutants, habitatdestruction, lack of management and the overpopu-lation of white-tailed deer remain the primary threatsto these and all prairie types.

2.4.9 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR PRAIRIESThe primary recommendation is to manage signifi-cantly more prairie sites throughout the region atleast with periodic prescribed burning to preservewhat quality remains until such time as additionalresources become available to affect more intensiverestoration efforts.

37


Equally important is the need for quantitative assess-ment of the region’s prairies and the development ofspecific, region-wide recovery goals, indicators andmonitoring protocols.

Refining and expanding upon the recommendedactions for all terrestrial communities in the Bio-diversity Recovery Plan, additional recommendationsinclude:• Identify all remaining unprotected prairie sites

and plug them into regional land acquisition pri-orities

• Restore and recreate prairie on disturbed land toincrease acreage of all types of prairie

• Improve species composition on low- andmedium-quality prairies

• Initiate reintroduction of rare, threatened andendangered prairie plant and animal species (notjust invertebrates)

• Designate high-quality prairie sites as nature pre-serves

In 1978, Illinois became the first state to completean inventory of its remaining natural areas. Of theareas identified during the three-year process,Category I natural areas—those of high quality,relatively undisturbed areas of land and water—totaled 25,700 acres. This number represents justseven-hundredths of one percent of the total landand water area of Illinois. Fully half of the areassurveyed were threatened with destruction fromchanges in land use (White 1978).

In 2001, Bowles and Jones (2003) reinvestigated109 high-quality prairies and wetlands first sam-pled by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory in1976. The objectives of the resampling were to 1)determine their present condition, 2) assess floris-tic changes over time, 3) correlate changes withfire management histories, and 4) project vegeta-tion trends and make recommendations on man-agement needed to maintain these importantnatural areas.

Twenty-five years later, Bowles and Jones (2003)found that 77 percent of the reinvestigated natu-ral areas remained intact and that the majority ofsites were stable over time with respect to meas-ures of native species richness. They alsoobserved, however, negative changes in vegeta-tion structure and floristic composition across

TWENTY-FIVE YEAR TRENDS OF CHANGE IN PRAIRIE AND WETLAND NATURAL

AREAS IN THE CHICAGO REGION OF NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS

most vegetation types: a decreasing abundance ofcharacteristic graminoid and herbaceous prairieand wetland species, coupled with an increasingabundance of woody vegetation, both native andnon-native.

Bowles and Jones (2003) primarily attribute thenegative changes to the small proportion ofprairies and wetlands being managed with con-trolled burns frequently enough to maintain theircompositions and structures. Factors contributingto the negative changes may include increasedbrowsing from eastern white-tailed deer, andaltered wetland hydrology, water chemistry andsedimentation rates.

Underscoring the importance of natural areamanagement, their data suggest that in order tomaintain their compositions and structures,mesic and wet-mesic prairies should be managedwith controlled burns at least every two yearsand that graminoid fens and sedge meadowsrequire controlled burns at least once every fiveyears. Additional research is needed to determinehow combinations of fire management, supple-mental woody vegetation removal, and control ofother environmental factors could maintain highquality vegetation.

38



2.5 WETLANDS

2.5.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThe majority of the region’s wetland communitiesremain in fair to poor condition. The overridingthreat continues to be altered hydrology due todevelopment. In some instances, groundwater isbeing diverted from the site; in others, the principalconcern is flooding, which brings with it the addi-tional problems of nutrification and invasive species.

2.5.2 CONDITION OF DATAVarious data exist related to wetlands, but few havebeen sufficiently compiled and analyzed to informthe current region-wide status and trends of theregion’s wetland communities. For instance, theIllinois Department of Natural Resources’ CriticalTrends Assessment Program has monitored 29 wet-land sites in northeastern Illinois since 1997, butanalysis of the data remains limited. Perhaps themost informative of the recent studies is the work byBowles and Jones (2003). They provide a recentassessment of condition status and trends of 109 highquality prairie and wetland sites first sampled by theIllinois Natural Areas Inventory in 1976. In theabsence of additional quantitative data, the followingReport Card assessments are based largely on expertanecdotal observations.

2.5.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONIn spite of the wholesale loss of wetlands throughoutChicago Wilderness, the region retains one of the mostdiverse assemblages of wetlands in North America.Wetland communities have saturated or flooded soilsfor all or most of the year. This condition excludes orgreatly reduces oxygen availability to plant roots andsoil-dwelling animals and decomposers. This oxygendeficiency is the most important factor determiningthe function and composition of wetlands. Primaryfactors differentiating the six recognized wetland com-munities are fire frequency, water sources, waterchemistry and topographic location:• Marsh

o Basino Streamside

• Bogo Graminoido Low Shrubo Forested

CHIWAUKEE PRAIRIE STATE

NATURAL AREA

Located on the Wisconsin/Illinois state line,the 250-acre Chiwaukee Prairie is character-ized as a “beach ridge complex,” a landscapealternating between dry, sandy ridges andwet swales. This combination of sand andclay soils gives Chiwaukee a rich and diversevegetation that ranges from vast expanses ofgrassland, occasionally interrupted by smallislands of open-grown oaks, to wet prairieplants in marshy shallows.

The protection and the recovery of the sitestems from a nearly 40-year partnershipbetween the Village of Pleasant Prairie, theUniversity of Wisconsin–Parkside, TheNature Conservancy–Wisconsin, the Wiscon-sin Department of Natural Resources and theChiwaukee Prairie Preservation Fund, thelocal preservation group that initiated theeffort. Volunteer activism remains high, with12 work parties scheduled each year andcountless additional hours provided by adedicated core of individuals.

Ongoing threats to the site include the dis-ruption of hydrology due to surroundingdevelopment, the invasion of glossy buck-thorn and the encroachment of native treesand shrubs. Controlled burns have provedan effective management tool to encouragenative species vigor and seed productionand to top-kill shrubs and trees. Pending theoutcome of recent grant applications, theWisconsin Department of Natural Resourcesand The Nature Conservancy-Wisconsinplan to spend $100,000 on tree and brushremoval and additional controlled burningthrough 2006 (S.Richter 2004).

39


• Feno Calcareouso Graminoido Forested

• Sedge Meadow• Panne• Seep and Spring

o Neutralo Calcareouso Acid

2.5.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALSThe goals established in the Biodiversity Recovery Planare to "preserve all wetland types in viable examplesand to expand the amount of some wetland types forwildlife habitat and for the sake of other ecologicallyimportant functions" (Chicago Region BiodiversityCounci1 1999, p.60). Toward these goals, the plancalls for eliminating or aggressively controlling inva-sive species, improving hydrological conditions bymanaging surrounding lands in a manner that pro-tects wetland integrity, fostering wetland complexesand embedding wetlands within a matrix of othernatural areas, which is essential to their functioning.

2.5.5 MARSHDescriptionMarshes are hydrologically cyclical wetlands domi-nated by emergent reed, graminoids, cyperoids andaquatic plants. Their structure and water levels aredetermined by the interaction of short-term precipi-tation patterns, muskrat activity and fire frequency.Spatial variation in vegetation and wildlife composi-tion varies with water depth. The stages of the marshcycle form a continuum from closed 100 percent coverby emergent vegetation to a ponded state in whichopen water covers all but the marsh’s shallow edges.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair toPoorBoth marsh sub-types ranked in the second tier ofconservation targets. Although they rated differentlyfor quantity, condition and distribution—streamsidemarsh of higher concern than basin marsh—bothtypes rated high for biological importance. In 1999,within the eight-county Illinois and Indiana portionsof Chicago Wilderness, there remained 7,847 acres ofmarshland, of which 2,098 acres in Illinois were listedin the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and

2.5). Basin marsh ranked in a higher tier than its statusand importance otherwise dictated because it wasreceiving significant conservation attention in theregion and there was a great opportunity to do more.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no specific recovery efforts identified.

IndicatorsThe presence of Phragmites, cattails and purpleloosestrife indicate lower-quality or degraded sites. Acomplete set of specific, measurable indicators ofquality for this community need to be identified, andthis is a recommendation for future report cards.


There are no overall changes in the condition statusof the region’s marsh communities. Although moreabundant than other wetland types—an additional115 acres were added to the Illinois Natural AreasInventory (Table 2.5)—hydrology remains a primaryfactor in the health of both marsh sub-types andneeds to be managed both upstream of the site aswell as at the marsh.

2.5.6 BOGDescriptionBogs are glacial relict wetlands restricted to hydro-logically isolated kettles. Precipitation, naturallynutrient-poor, is the sole source of water. This factor,the cool basin microclimate and the nutrient- andwater-absorption properties of its dominant ground-cover, Sphagnum moss, combines to create a highlyanaerobic, cold nutrient-deficient acidic substrate ofSphagnum peat and little biochemical decay.Prehistoric fires at bog edges and slow but gradualneutralization by calcareous seepages from mineralrich bordering glacial outwash have converted therims and even interior portions of many bogs tomarshes and sedge meadows. Historically rare, thereremain fewer than 20 documented occurrences ofbog within the region.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Condition Ranking:FairAll sub-types of bog ranked in the fifth tier of con-servation targets. Although exceptionally rare—only183 acres of bog remained within the eight-county

40



Illinois-Indiana portions of Chicago Wilderness(Table 2.5)—bogs did not rate of higher conservationconcern because it was determined that they are atthe edge of their range within the Chicago Wilder-ness region. Additionally, it was determined thatmost of the remaining sites were protected, faringsufficiently well and were the wetland type leastthreatened by outside impacts due to their smallwatersheds.




Due to the limited amount of information availableduring the development of the Report Card, there isno recommended change to the status of bog com-munities.

2.5.7 FENDescriptionFens are created and maintained by the continuousinternal flow of mineralized groundwater emanat-ing from bordering upland calcareous sand andgravel glacial outwash formations. An imperviouslayer of till below the outwash gravel forces cold,oxygen-deficient mineralized groundwater to seeplaterally at the base of upland slopes. Peat enrichedwith magnesium and calcium carbonates forms thefen substrate, which supports many plants adaptedto high concentrations of dissolved alkaline minerals.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: PoorGraminoid, or grassy, fens ranked in the first tier ofconservation targets, calcareous floating mat in thesecond tier and forested fens in the third tier.Forested fen ranked lowest because it is at the edge ofits range in the Chicago Wilderness region. All threesub-types rated high risk for quantity, in poor condi-tion and of high biological importance. It was fur-ther observed that, in general, fens were being lostin the region at an alarming rate due to their excep-tional sensitivity to hydrological changes.

Recent Recovery EffortsAmong the fen recovery efforts are those at TurnerLake Fen in Lake County, Illinois, Boone Creek Fen inMcHenry County, Illinois and Bluff Spring Fen inCook County, Illinois.

IndicatorsThe presence of cattails may indicate a lower-qualityor degraded site. A complete set of specific, measur-able indicators of quality for this community need tobe identified, and this is a recommendation for futurereport cards.


Making no distinctions between the three sub-types,all remain in overall poor condition. Although somefens continue to be discovered in the region, theycontinue to be lost directly and indirectly to devel-opment. The Illinios Natural Areas Inventory (2004)reports a loss of 117 acres of graminoid fen between1999 and 2004 (Table 2.5). Additionally, fens areslower to recover, even with management, than othercommunity types. Continuing threats include lackof fire, invasive species and altered hydrology.

2.5.8 SEDGE MEADOWDescriptionSedge meadows are sedge-dominated grasslandswith wet prairie grass co-dominants on organic orsand substrates. Groundwater seepage and/or shal-low flooding are their principal hydrological factorsand frequent fire is needed to retain their open struc-tures. They are structurally homogenous densematrices of either tussock-forming sedges, which areoften on calcareous organic substrates and grade intofens, or shallowly flooded rhizomatous sedge standsthat grade into marshes.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: FairSedge meadows ranked in the third tier of conserva-tion targets. Of high biological importance and athigh risk for quantity, sedge meadows rated in faircondition and were deemed fairly widespread withinand beyond the region. In spite of the historical lossof sedge meadows throughout the region, comparedto other wetland types, it was determined that manyexamples of sedge meadow remained and manywere protected. In the eight-county Illinois and

41


Indiana portions of the region, there remained 1,992acres, of which 1,018 were listed in the IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory (Tables 2.3 and 2.5).Identified threats to sedge meadows included alteredhydrology, the absence of fire and the difficulty inrestoring degraded sedge meadow sites.

Recent Recovery EffortsBoone Creek in McHenry County, Illinois is oneexample of a well-managed sedge meadow site.

IndicatorsThe presence of Phragmites, cattails and purpleloosestrife may indicate a lower-quality or degradedsite. A complete set of specific, measurable indica-tors of quality for this community need to be identi-fied, and this is a recommendation for future reportcards.


The Illinois Natural Areas Inventory reflects a loss of25 acres of sedge meadow between 1999 and 2005(Table 2.3). Still more abundant than most other wet-land types, sedge meadows nonetheless remain atrisk of decreasing quality, primarily due to the con-tinued threat of altered hydrology. Other continuingthreats include lack of fire and the presence of inva-sive species.

2.5.9 PANNEDescriptionPanne communities are unique interdunal wetlandson calcareous moist sands of the lake plain withinone mile of Lake Michigan. Rhizomatous sedges andsedge relatives dominate this type of open-structuredwetland, which has considerable florisitic overlapwith fens and calcareous seeps.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: GoodRanked in the first tier of conservation targets, theregion’s 10 known panne sites, totaling 141 acres,were stable in the short term, but highly threatenedlong-term (Table 2.3). Of the 67 acres of panne iden-tified in the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory in 1999,most were protected and in good condition (Table2.5). Even in a protected state, however, pannes arethreatened by succession, lake erosion and LakeMichigan elevation changes. Because there are few,there is a high possibility of complete loss.

BLUFF SPRING FEN

Located in Elgin, Illinois, Bluff Spring Fen isone of the region’s most successful recoveryefforts. In 1979, the 90-acre site suffered fromextensive gravel mining, illegal dumpingand off-road vehicle abuse. Within a decade,it was dedicated an Illinois Nature Preserve.Recovery efforts by The Nature Conservancyand a dedicated volunteer corps, Friends ofthe Fen, have included extensive trashremoval (including 10 cars), brush removal,controlled burns and the replanting of nativespecies. In 1990, the fen gained nation-wideattention when Healy Road Prairie, whichlay in the path of development, was “trans-planted” to the site, further enriching thecomplex of habitat types that include fen,dry gravel prairie, mesic fine-textured soilprairie, sedge meadow, oak-hickory savannaand marsh. Visitors to the site today aregreeted by an informational kiosk and sea-son-specific brochures, inviting them to lookfor white lady slipper orchids, marshmarigolds, spring beauties, hepatica, Dutch-man's breeches, rue, red trillium, trout lilies,silky aster, purple coneflower and marshblazing star. The site provides breeding habi-tat for bird species such as willow flycatcher,ruby crown and golden crown kinglets,Eastern phoebe, red-headed woodpecker,woodcock, wood duck and yellow-breastedchat. Several species of dragonfly alsoinhabit the site, including the ebony jewelwing and the green darner. Butterflies seen atBluff Spring Fen include purplish coppers,black swallowtail, viceroy, monarchs, springazure and Eastern-tail blues. In 2002, 2003and 2004, the Illinois critically endangeredswamp metalmark butterfly was translo-cated to the site, where a small breedingcolony has now been established (The Nat-ure Conservancy 2004).

42





Due to the limited amount of information availableduring the Report Card process, there is no recom-mended change in the status of seep and spring com-munities.

2.5.11 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR

WETLANDSThe primary recommendation is to compile and ana-lyze existing wetlands-related data, and to developspecific measurable recovery goals, indicators andmonitoring protocols. Further research is necessaryto better define, understand, locate and map seepcommunities. As consideration is given to refiningthe classification system of the region’s natural com-munities, seasonal wetlands should be considered asan additional class of wetlands.

2.6 STREAM COMMUNITIES

2.6.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSSince the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan,there has not been a marked change in the overallcondition of the region’s streams. In general, mostcontinue to suffer substantial degradation fromincreased urban development. The majority ofstreams in urban areas experience heavily alteredhydrologic regimes, sedimentation and pollutedrunoff. Increased human populations, especially inthe rapidly developing western area of the region,has brought and will continue to bring about theneed to release more treated wastewaters. Increaseddevelopment also has increased the proportion ofimpervious surface cover in the region. Most esti-mates suggest that a threshold exists for the latter at10-20% cover, after which stream conditions begin acontinuous decline.

On the positive side, dam removals are occurring inthe region, as are efforts to increase the connectivityof the region’s stream ecosystems. Although threat-




Few in both the number of sites and total acres, it isthe consensus opinion of the region’s natural re-source managers that panne communities continueto decline in quality. However, since the condition ofpannes is tied to the level of Lake Michigan, the over-all decline might be part of a natural cycle.

2.5.10 SEEPS AND SPRINGSDescriptionThis community occurs where groundwater flows tothe surface. A seep is an open area with saturated soilcaused by water flowing to the surface in a diffuserather than concentrated flow. Seeps may have localareas of concentrated flow and the water usually col-lects in spring runs. Seeps are usually smaller than0.1 acre and are most common along the lower slopesof glacial moraines, ravines and terraces. A spring,as opposed to a seep, has a concentrated flow ofgroundwater from a definite orifice. The variouscommunities in this subclass are separated on thebasis of water chemistry.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan Status Ranking: Fair toPoorCalcareous seeps ranked in the third tier of conser-vation targets, and sand and neutral seeps in the fifthtier. Although naturally small and the most rare wet-land type in the region—in 1999 just 49 total seepacres remained in the eight-county Illinois andIndiana portions of the region—seeps did not rankhigher for conservation concern largely because theyare at the edge of their range in the region; and beingsmall, they do not support distinctive faunal com-munities nor harbor many species (although calcare-ous seeps do support some restricted plants,including the forked aster, a candidate to be listed asa federally endangered species).


43


ened by urban sprawl, several good quality mid-order streams remain in the western areas of thelower Des Plaines, the Fox, the Kankakee and theKishwaukee Rivers, where urbanization currently isless intensive. Large rivers, such as the Kankakee,Kishwaukee and lower Fox Rivers appear to havemaintained a relatively natural aquatic fauna andprovide better Hilsenhoff Biotic Index scores (a meas-ure of organic enrichment) than do smaller referencestreams in the region (DeWalt 2002, 2003). And inIllinois, the establishment of Conservation 2000 part-nerships, a program of the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, has catalyzed numerous partner-ships between public and private interests to protectwatersheds through the development and imple-mentation of ecosystem-based management plans.

2.6.2 CONDITION OF DATAThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s condition assessmentof the region’s streams stems from a ChicagoWilderness project called “Stream BiodiversityRecovery Priorities” (Taylor 1998), which utilizedfour criteria: Index of Biotic Integrity, the presence ofspecies of concern, Macroinvertebrate Biotic Indexand abiotic indicators. Additional data exist thatmight have provided for a quantified Report Cardassessment of the region’s stream communities, butthe majority of data have yet to be sufficiently com-piled and analyzed. For instance, the IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources’ Critical TrendsAssessment Program has monitored 23 stream sitesin northeastern Illinois since 1997, but analysis of thedata remains limited. Until it was disbanded in 2004due to state budget cuts, RiverWatch—the volunteercitizen scientist complement to the Critical TrendsAssessment Program’s stream monitoring—had like-wise collected critical stream data from the region’sstreams since 1997, but not enough to be able to iden-tify condition trends.

Absent available data, the Report Card stream com-munity assessments are based primarily on expertobservations. However, whereas the BiodiversityRecovery Plan assesses streams individually (andexclusively in Illinois), the Report Card takes abroader approach, assessing stream types withinwatersheds from throughout the entire region.

2.6.3 VISION AND RECOVERY GOALS IN THE

BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLANThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan vision for the region’sstreams is to achieve a desired biotic integrity andbiological diversity. Of the 85 Illinois streamsassessed in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the 34streams receiving the highest rating are earmarkedfor the highest recovery priorities: protection andrestoration. The remaining 46 streams are accordedlower priorities of rehabilitation and enhancement.

2.6.4 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONSStreamsThe region’s streams fall into three general categoriesbased on the number of tributaries. Within eachgroup are sub-categories defined by flow, gradientand substrate:• Headwater Streams

o Continuous-flow◊ Coarse Substrate◊ Fine Substrate

o Intermittent-flow◊ Coarse Substrate◊ Fine Substrate

• Low-order Streamso High-gradient (relatively steep)o Low-gradient (relatively flat)

• Mid-order Streamso High-gradiento Low-gradient

2.6.5 HEADWATER STREAMSDescriptionContinuous-flow headwater streams are first-orderstreams with small drainage areas and little or nopool development. They are characterized by rela-tively stable, cool temperatures and consistent levelsof dissolved oxygen. They have low habitat hetero-geneity and low trophic complexity. Intermittent-flow headwater streams are first-order streams withhighly variable flows and temperatures. They areinhabited by colonizer species with high reproduc-tive rates or are largely abiotic.

Condition of DataIn general, there is not much data on intermittentstreams. The Illinois Department of NaturalResources and Illinois Environmental Protection

44



Agency basin surveys for fish and macroinverte-brates seldom sample headwater streams. TheCritical Trends Assessment Program uses a randomsampling program and Ephemeroptera, Plecopteraand Trichoptera taxa to rate streams, but the numberof sampled sites probably is insufficient to fully char-acterize the condition of headwaters streams in thesub-basins. A vast historical database for Ephemer-optera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera exists at theIllinois Natural History Survey, as do identificationmanuals for Illinois and surrounding states.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no recent, significant recovery efforts forheadwater streams within the region.

IndicatorsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the follow-ing species as characteristic of headwater streams:• Continuous-flow

o Fish: sculpins, daceo Macroinvertebrates: mayflies, stoneflies and

caddis flieso Plants: water cress, chara, water parsnip, berula

• Intermittent-flowo Bluntnose minnow and striped shiner

Note that the 2004 workshop participants identifiedthe following fish species as tending to be found inhigher quality seepage-fed headwater stream habi-tats, although many can be found in lower qualityhabitats as well:

Redside dace Northern redbelly daceLongnose dace Brook troutFinescale dace Slimy sculpinBrook stickleback Mottled sculpin

The 2004 workshop participants identified the fol-lowing fish species as tending to be found in higherquality intermittent headwater stream habitats,although many can be found in lower quality habi-tats as well:

Redside dace Brassy minnowBlacknose dace Creek chubsuckerBrook stickleback Southern redbelly dace

Specific, measurable indicators of quality, such asperhaps substrate, water quality, species richness,and presence of species of concern need to be identi-

fied for this community, and this is a recommenda-tion for future report cards.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Overall: Fair to Poor

In general, all types of headwater streams are highlyimpacted due to urban or agricultural runoff. Mostare in tiles, grass runways or concrete drainage ways.They are more susceptible to toxins because there isless dilution. Seepage-fed headwater streams are ata higher risk due to groundwater removal, exoticinvasive shrubs that steal water (e.g., buckthorn),sealing of watershed with impervious cover, andchange in thermal regimes. The biggest factors affect-ing headwater stream communities are hydrologicchange, channelization and urbanization. Because ofwholesale hydrological changes in headwaters,downstream areas are experiencing a suite of prob-lems: channel incision, bank erosion, inability tomaintain woody debris in channels, and poor nutri-ent processing.

• Des Plaines River Watershed–Upper Three-Quarters: Poor to FairBecause of intensive urbanization, streams in thisarea no longer have natural watersheds, whereheavy rains are stored in marshes and in forest lit-ter before entering stream channels. Urbanizationproduces many flat, impervious surfaces that shedwater to stream channels rapidly. In fact, many ofthese stream channels have their banks and chan-nel bottoms encased in concrete. While concretekeeps banks from eroding, it provides little habitatfor fish and invertebrates. While some exceptionscan still be found, most small drainages do notreally function as streams anymore. Without sig-nificant recovery efforts, streams in this region willcontinue to degrade. Those streams that currentlysupport somewhat natural or unique communi-ties, even if they are in or run through protectedareas, are at a high risk of catastrophic and ran-dom events eliminating components of the com-munity. Those areas that are not protected willdecline further as development encroaches.

• Des Plaines River Watershed–Lower Quarter:Fair to GoodLower Des Plaines River streams run through morerecently and less intensively urbanized areas, and

45


benefit from having an overall higher gradient,which allows for greater oxygenation of water thanis found in the north. The addition of significantgroundwater inflow to many of these streams con-tributes to a unique fauna, including sculpins andsensitive insect species. Mottled sculpins andSouthern redbelly dace utilize cold and cool head-water streams in the region, but have recently beentaken only in the lower quarter of the basin (Smith2002). Many of the streams in this area will degradebecause their watersheds have reached the limits ofimpervious surface cover (10 - 20 percent). Yet,development pressure will continue because of theavailability of open land. Where impervious cov-erage has reached critical limits, extraordinaryefforts (increasing and/or building the acreage ofwetlands/retention ponds) might help to turn thetide. Efforts must be made to rehabilitate headwa-ters, even those that are currently in agriculture, sothat they might protect stream communities.Rehabilitation of corridors from the headwaters todownstream areas is the best way to protect aquaticcommunities.

• Fox River Watershed: Poor to FairThere are some very high quality continuous-flowheadwater streams in the Fox River watershed,however, they are threatened and their conditionsare declining. Many are spring fed and theirgroundwater recharge areas are under threat fromgroundwater removal, increase in imperviouscover, infiltration by agricultural and residentialnutrients and pesticides.

• Kankakee River Watershed: UndeterminedMost headwater streams within this watershed arehighly impacted due to channelization and tilingof fields. Large, coarse-bottomed streams ratemore highly for both fish and insects. Several sen-sitive taxa unique to the drainage still reside there.Biodiversity remains high. However, the water-shed is highly threatened by urbanization andagricultural drainage that changes stream hydrol-ogy, promoting channel incision and subsequentbank erosion. The headwater streams in thiswatershed are experiencing development pressurein the vicinity of Peotone and Monee. It appearsthat the I-57 corridor may be completely devel-oped residentially and commercially within the

next decade. Many small streams will be lost toconcrete-lined ditches, offering no refuge for head-water species.

• Chicago River Watershed: UndeterminedIndications are that the condition of this water-shed is similar in quality to the upper three-quar-ters of the Des Plaines River watershed. However,some observers point out that the East Fork of theNorth Branch receives the effluent from theClavey Road public-owned treatment works,which should significantly degrade its quality andsubject it to quite variable pollutant loads due tostorm events. On the positive side, a number ofwatershed recovery projects and studies havebeen completed along the North Branch of theChicago River (see sidebar).

• Calumet River Watershed: UndeterminedNot enough information was available to make aranking determination, however, indications arethat the condition of this watershed is similar inquality to the upper three-quarters of the DesPlaines River watershed.

• Lake Michigan Watershed: PoorAll streams in this category within the LakeMichigan watershed should be considered to be inpoor condition. Human activity and pollutionfrom runoff have severely degraded habitat andwater quality in these streams.

2.6.6 LOW-ORDER STREAMSDescriptionHigh-gradient, low-order streams are second- tofourth-order, small- to medium-sized creeks, oftenwith distinct riffle and pool development. They havemore complex habitats and trophic characteristicsthan headwater streams. They fall more than threefeet per mile and have coarse substrates, mostly cob-ble, gravel and sand with some silt. Low-gradient,low-order streams are second- to fourth- order creeksthat fall less than three feet per mile and have pre-dominantly fine-textured substrates.

Condition of DataThe Critical Trends Assessment Program data areprobably more reliable for this stream type than forheadwaters, as this size probably has less variability

46



in condition. There are many more low-order streamdata available from the Illinois Department of NaturalResources/Illinois Environmental Protection Agencybasin surveys for fish and macroinvertebrates (IllinoisEnvironmental Protection Agency 2005). The UnitedStates Geologic Service also has a good amount ofdata from its Upper Illinois River Basin study. Datafor Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera rich-ness and threatened and endangered species in low-order Kankakee streams is readily available.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no recent, significant recovery efforts forlow-order streams within the region.

IndicatorsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the follow-ing species as being characteristic of low-orderstreams:• High-gradient low-order streams

o Fish: darters, stonerollers, horneyhead chub,suckers, smallmouth bass

• Low-gradient low-order streamso Fish: creek chub, bluntnose minnow, redfin

shiner, sunfisho Plants: sago pond weed, water star weed,

American pond weed

Specific, measurable indicators of quality need to beidentified for this community, and this is a recom-mendation for future report cards.

Report Card Condition Ranking: Overall: Poor to Good

Overall, low-order, high-gradient streams representthe highest quality stream category and are veryimportant to biodiversity. Unfortunately, the biggestimpact from existing and planned sewage treatmentplants occurs on low-order streams. These streamsare also threatened by hydrologic modification, non-point source pollution, and poor water quality. Low-order, low-gradient streams are in worse shape andrated poor to fair. Their water velocity is slower, sosedimentation is greater. Additional threats includechannelization, high nutrient loads, and urban andpesticide runoff.

• Des Plaines River Watershed: Poor to GoodFor high-gradient, low-order streams, the upperthree-quarters of the watershed rate poor to fairand the lower quarter rates fair to good. Low-gradient, low-order streams throughout the DesPlaines River watershed rate as poor. High-gradi-ent streams in the lower quarter of the watershedare not declining as rapidly as those in the upperthree-quarters, due to the less intensive urbaniza-tion. Low-gradient streams generally are morevulnerable to threats like sedimentation and highnutrient loading. Many of the low-gradient streamshave sewage treatment plants along them andtend to be more channelized. Threats includeurbanization, hydrologic modification, organicenrichment (sewage treatment) and homogeniza-tion of communities.

• Fox River Watershed: Poor to ExcellentBased on fish data, high-gradient, low-orderstreams in this watershed are of excellent quality.However, based on insect data, the streams areonly rated fair to good. The discrepancy reflectsthe fact that as conditions have recovered from theeffects of agricultural practices and the release ofpoorly treated domestic sewage, fish recolonizedstreams much faster than sensitive insects, whichgenerally have poor dispersal abilities. Low-gradi-ent, low-order streams generally are of lower qual-ity—poor to fair—because low-gradient streamsmove more slowly, which exacerbates the threatsof sedimentation, oxygen saturation level andnutrient loading. Additional threats includehydrologic disruption through channelization, anincrease in impervious land cover and the addi-tion of sewage treatment plants. The hydrology ofthese systems will become more variable withdevelopment. An increase in stream temperaturemay also occur due to groundwater removal andurbanization that could eliminate many of thecool-water fish species (e.g., sculpins).

• Kankakee River Watershed: Good or Undeter-minedMany high-gradient streams show the impacts ofagricultural runoff with heavy algal growth anderoding banks. Most are channelized and the adja-cent fields tiled, creating great fluctuations in

47


hydrology. However, several support luxuriantgrowths of Elodea and Potamogeton, excellent fishIndex of Biotic Integrity scores and composition,and relatively high Ephemeroptera, Plecopteraand Trichoptera richness. A few of these streams,such as Trim and Baker Creeks, are listed as bio-logically significant streams for the presence ofmussels such as the Creek Heelsplitter, Ellipse andSlippershell (Page et al. 1992). High-gradientstreams are ranked stable. Insufficient informationis available about low-gradient streams to deter-mine their status and trends.

• Chicago River Watershed: UndeterminedThere was not sufficient information available tomake a determination of this watershed’s status,however, the consensus among local experts isthat some tributaries of the Chicago River, such asPlum Creek, still hold good species richness ofEphemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichopteraaquatic insects.

• Calumet River Watershed: UndeterminedThere was not sufficient information available tomake a determination of this watershed’s status.

• Lake Michigan Watershed: PoorIt is the consensus of regional experts that thestreams in this watershed are in poor condition,with the exception of the Dead River in IllinoisBeach State Park. A very low-gradient streamcaught between parallel glacial moraines/sanddunes, it and its surrounding marshes comprisethe best example of a freshwater estuary in theregion, historically supporting a unique assem-blage of aquatic insects.

2.6.7 MID-ORDER STREAMSDescriptionHigh-gradient, mid-order streams are fifth- to eighth-order, large creeks to medium-sized rivers with rela-tively stable flows and temperatures, and highhabitat diversity. With coarse substrates and fallingmore than three feet per mile, they have the mostcomplex habitats, are highest in species diversity andharbor abundant predators. Low-gradient, mid-orderstreams differ in that they fall less than three feet permile and have finer substrates.

Condition of DataThe Illinois Department of Natural Resources andIllinois Environmental Protection Agency basin sur-veys (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 2005)have tremendous amounts of fish data from thelower Fox River. However, the Critical Trends Assess-ment Program has no sites on the Fox River of thissize and gradient type. The condition of data basedon invertebrates cannot be assessed at this time.

IndicatorsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies the follow-ing species as being characteristic of mid-orderstreams:• High-gradient

o Fish: smallmouth bass, northern hogsucker,redhorse

o Macroinvertebrates: Orconectes propinquus• Low-gradient

o Fish: largemouth bass, bluegill, sunfish, pike,carpsuckers, channel catfish

o Macroinvertebrates: Orconectes virilis


Report Card Condition Ranking: Overall: Poor to Good

Most mid-order, high-gradient streams, like theKankakee, Kishwaukee and lower Fox Rivers, are infair to good condition and are diverse in fish, musselsand Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichopteraspecies. They are threatened by changes in headwa-ter and low-order streams, by dams that preventrecolonization, and by acting as receiving waters fora wide range of discharges. Rivers in the heart ofurbanized areas are, of course, in much worse condi-tion. Mid-order, low-gradient streams are in worseshape and rated poor. Siltation, sags in oxygen con-centration from high nutrient loads, and accumula-tion of pollutants are threats to these systems.

• Des Plaines River Watershed: PoorAll of the fifth- through eighth-order streams inthe Des Plaines River watershed are in very poorcondition from the effects of heavy urbanization.

48



High-gradient streams are stable, but in very poorshape. Low-gradient streams are declining inquality.

• Fox River Watershed: Poor to FairThere are some high quality, high-gradient sec-tions of the lower Fox River, based on fish com-munities, although much of it is generally poor tofair overall. These sections’ conditions based oninvertebrates can not be assessed at this time.Regarding low-gradient sections of the Fox River,pooled and impounded sections of the upper FoxRiver have poor Index of Biotic Integrity scores,while the tail water sections have good Index ofBiotic Integrity scores. The mussel assemblage ofthe upper Fox River is poor. Overall, there havenot been many improvements within this water-shed since the Biodiversity Recovery Plan was pub-lished. A few dams are set for removal—Northand South Batavia Dams and North AuroraDam—which would increase river connectivity,perhaps improving both fish and especially mus-sel assemblages. However, the addition of sewagetreatment plants with their increased loading oforganic and inorganic nutrients is a continuingthreat as the area becomes more urbanized.

• Kankakee River Watershed: UndeterminedThere was insufficient information available tomake a determination of this watershed’s status.

• Chicago River Watershed: UndeterminedThe North Branch of the Chicago River receiveseffluent from the water reclamation district’s northside plant via the North Shore Channel. This dis-charge greatly increases the volume of water in theriver below this junction and the materials in thiseffluent significantly change the character of theriver below this point. In addition, much of theriver is subject to unmonitored and uncharacter-ized effluent from combined sewer overflows andother discharges. While the combined sewer over-flow discharges are intermittent and variable involume, they can be very large when they occur,and they have a major effect on the quality of theriver. At this time, they control the quality of waterin the river, and their regular occurrence limits theextent of possible recovery of the river.

• Calumet River Watershed: UndeterminedThere was not sufficient information available tomake a determination of this watershed’s status.

• Lake Michigan Watershed: PoorIt is the consensus of regional experts that all of thestreams in this watershed are in poor condition,with the exception of the Dead River. The DeadRiver historically supported a unique assemblageof aquatic insects, especially large caddis flies, andis the best example of a freshwater estuarine, ornursery habitat, in the region. Because its water-shed is protected within Illinois Beach State Park,it probably still supports this fauna, although it istime to reevaluate this assemblage. Otherwise, allof the other streams are impaired and have damson them.

2.6.8 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR STREAMSFor future reporting purposes, the primary ReportCard recommendation is to develop specific recov-ery goals for all of the stream types in each watershedthroughout the entire region. It is also recommendedthat region-wide consensus be reached on indicatorsand monitoring protocols. Additionally, those recom-mended actions listed in the Biodiversity Recovery Planremain in effect:

Reduce hydrological alteration• Continue to identify watersheds with streams that

have exceptional aquatic biological integrity toinform planning efforts and set priorities

• Limit development in some high-priority subwa-tersheds

• Direct development into areas that limit hydrolog-ical alteration

• Promote cluster development• Require stormwater detention that effectively con-

trols the full range of flood events• As an alternative to storm sewers, promote natural

drainage to increase infiltration• Create buffer strips and greenways along streams• Acquire additional land for conservation• Develop stormwater management plans• Enforce erosion control measures on new con-

struction• Create or restore streamside wetlands• Educate decision-makers about development pat-

terns and the effects of land uses on streams

49


Reduce deterioration of habitat quality• Remove unnecessary dams• Retain or restore emergent and near-shore vegeta-

tion• Re-meander channelized streams• Restore riffles, pools, sandbars and other elements

of in-stream habitat• Study the effects of riparian management• Survey how people use aquatic resources and

study the economic impacts of uses such as fishingand recreational boating

• Use bioengineering solutions to control stream-bank erosion

Reduce deterioration of water quality• Rigorously enforce non-degradation standards• Develop and implement best management prac-

tices to control soil erosion, sedimentation andstormwater runoff

• Find alternatives to new and expanded effluentdischarges to high-quality streams

• Re-examine standards and practices for sewagetreatment

• Promote effluent polishing through constructedwetlands for all discharges to moderate- and high-quality streams

• Encourage pollution-control regulators to usebiocriteria for water quality standards

• Gain community support for watershed manage-ment

• Evaluate insects as indicators of water quality• Evaluate the need for improved water quality

standards• Encourage volunteer monitoring

2.7 LAKE COMMUNITIES

2.7.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThe overall condition of the region’s lakes rangeswidely from poor to excellent to undetermined dueto the lack of information. Regardless of their condi-tion, the long-term health of all lake types is in jeop-ardy, primarily due to the increasing and intensifiedeffects of development.

2.7.2 CONDITION OF DATAIn the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, individual lakes, andonly those in Illinois, are rated as exceptional, impor-

tant, restorable or other (unlikely to support sensitivespecies) based solely on the biodiversity in the lakes.The Report Card assesses lake types within watershedsthroughout the entire Chicago Wilderness region. Forthe sake of consistency within the Report Card, laketypes are ranked as excellent, good, fair or poor,which roughly correspond to the rankings utilized inthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Assessments, althoughmore broadly based than those of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, remain largely driven by the observa-tions of experts working in the field and underpinnedby their familiarity with existing data. No specificdata were referenced in the assessment of the region’slake types.

2.7.3 COMMUNITY DESCRIPTIONThe region’s lakes fall into two broad categories: nat-ural and manmade. Of the various sub-categories,The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies glacial lakesas the primary focus for conservation efforts due totheir being the most biologically diverse lake type.• Natural Lakes

o Lake Michigano Glacial Lakes

◊ Kettle◊ Flow-through

o Bottomlando Vernal Pond

• Manmade Lakeso Naturalizedo Other

2.7.4 LONG-TERM VISION AND GOALSAs reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, thevision for lakes rated as exceptional (in excellent con-dition) is to manage all of them for maximum aquaticbiodiversity. Goals include:• No loss of native species, particularly endangered

or threatened species• No decline in condition• Manage all as part of their watersheds

The vision for lakes rated as important (in good con-dition) is to manage all of them for maximum aquaticbiodiversity and improve their conditions so thatmost of them move up to the category of exceptionallakes. Goals are the same as for exceptional lakes.

The goal for lakes rated as restorable (in fair condi-tion) is to control invasive species and sources of

50



impairment effectively and improve their conditionsso that most of them move up to the category ofimportant lakes.

The vision for lakes placed in the “other” category(those of poor condition), from a biodiversity per-spective, is to utilize them for recreational and cul-tural services that do not jeopardize the biodiversitygoals for other lakes. A goal is to have all of them con-tribute positively to their watersheds’ overall quality,either through water-quality or stormwater manage-ment.

2.7.5 LAKE MICHIGANDescriptionThe second largest Great Lake by volume, LakeMichigan’s drainage basin is twice as large as its22,300 square miles of surface water. The basinincludes portions of Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana andMichigan. The Chicago Wilderness shoreline of LakeMichigan has been substantially filled and built up,eliminating coastal wetlands. Structures installed toprotect harbors and lakefront development have, inmany cases, interrupted movement of sand ordeflected it into deep water where it is lost from thebeach-nourishment process. Its fish communities arein a state of flux due to several factors, including theintroduction of exotic species. Although some majorpollution issues have been resolved, the bioaccumu-lation of persistent toxic substances in fish remains aproblem for human health.

Recent Recovery EffortsAn electronic barrier currently is being erected in theSanitary and Ship Canal to prevent the passage ofseveral types of Asian carp, a particularly destructiveexotic species, from entering Lake Michigan from theIllinois River. It is not known if this technical solutionwill work.

IndicatorsDominant species identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan include:• Fish: sculpin, barbot, yellow perch salmonids

(introduced and native species) ale wives (intro-duced) and smelt (introduced)

• Macroinvertebrates: zebra mussels (introduced)



Lake Michigan holds many native fish and inverte-brate species that occur in no other aquatic habitats inthe Chicago Wilderness area. However, this system isunder siege by a host of exotic species enteringthrough ballast water in freight ships (e.g., roundgoby and river ruffe), through direct introduction forsport fishery (i.e., Pacific salmonids), or from aqua-culture facilities (bighead and silver carp). Someexotic species, such as the spiny water flea, have got-ten worse since the publication of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, while some, such as the zebra mussel,have possibly declined in abundance. These exoticinvasive species have a significant impact on nativespecies through competition for food and spawningsubstrates or through outright predation. The long-nose sucker and emerald shiner are two near-shorenative species whose abundance has declinedrecently, possibly through interactions with exoticspecies. We can expect more introductions of exoticinvasive species in the future.

2.7.6 GLACIAL KETTLE LAKESDescriptionRemnant glacial features, kettle lakes or pothole lakes,are found mostly in isolated basins in Lake County,Illinois and southeast Wisconsin, with smaller con-centrations in select locations throughout the rest ofthe Chicago Wilderness region. Examples includeLake Elizabeth, Cedar Lake and Defiance Lake.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no recovery efforts identified.

IndicatorsDominant species identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan include:• Fish: brown bullhead, lake chubsucker and war-

mouth• Macroinvertebrates: Procambarus• Plants: water shield, eel grass• Reptiles and Amphibians: common map turtle,

mudpuppy

51



Report Card Condition Ranking:Good to Excellent

There is a wide range of conditions for kettle lakes,but generally they are in good to excellent shape.However, like all systems, they are experiencing seri-ous threats such as urbanization, herbiciding toreduce aquatic vegetation, eutrophication, isolationdue to water control structures, and habitat loss.Kettle lakes have been developed for a long time andso they are not experiencing as rapid a rate of changeas other lakes. Being isolated, their diversity is lessthan flow-through lakes, but kettle lakes boastunique taxa and the highest number of imperiled fishspecies of any aquatic systems in the state.

2.7.7 FLOW-THROUGH LAKESDescriptionFlow-through lakes differ from kettle lakes by beingconnected to a stream system and by having largerwatersheds. Examples include Fox Chain O’ Lakesand Loon Lake.


IndicatorsDominant species identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan include:• Fish: northern pike, largemouth bass, yellow bass,

bluegill, pugnose minnow• Macroinvertebrates: mussels• Plants: lotus, grass-leaved pondweed• Reptiles and Amphibians: Blanding’s turtle



Widely variable in their conditions, all flow-throughlakes are declining. Threats include organic andnutrient enrichment that lead to algal blooms, anddense stands of non-native, invasive vascular plants.Other non-native, invasive species (zebra mussels,

Asian carp, rusty crayfish, etc.) have opportunitiesto enter these systems since they are connected tostreams and because flow-through lakes are heavilyused for recreational purposes.

2.7.8 BOTTOMLAND LAKESDescriptionBottomland lakes generally are associated with largefloodplain rivers, such as the Mississippi and theIllinois Rivers. Historically, they had vast beds ofaquatic macrophytes, providing habitat and promot-ing water clarity and nutrient cycling. Most, how-ever, have been cut off from riverine flood pulses bylevies. Examples within the Chicago Wildernessregion include Lyons Marsh and SaganashkeeSlough.


IndicatorsDominant species identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan include:• Fish: topminnows, pike bullheads, bowfin• Macroinvertebrates: snails• Plants: emergent plants, lotus, duckweed, algal

blooms



Many of these lakes are under public ownership andso their protection is generally good. However, hav-ing lost their historic connections to rivers (due tolevies) during flooding, sediment has accumulated,reducing their overall depth. Exotic fish species haveuprooted much of the vegetation, leading to turbidityand the dieback of plants. The hydrology of thesesystems has also been disrupted as their water levelshave been controlled to maintain year-round water-fowl habitat.

2.7.9 VERNAL PONDS/POOLSDescriptionVernal ponds are generally small, seasonally inun-dated depressions. Historically they were viewed as

52



a nuisance and therefore drained. Due to their sea-sonal nature, they contain no fish, but they can sup-port tremendous densities of invertebrates. They arealso very important as breeding areas for amphib-ians, which are experiencing declines throughout theworld. Examples remain in Ryerson Woods, DeerGrove, Busse Woods, Thorn Creek Woods and PlumCreek Greenway.


IndicatorsDominant species identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan include:• Macroinvertebrates: crayfish• Plants: sedges, stranded aquatics, mermaid weed


Report Card Condition Ranking: Undetermined

There was not enough information available duringthe development of this report to assess the overallcondition of the region’s vernal ponds and pools.What is known is that some of these ponds are pub-licly owned, but many are not, which places them atextreme risk. There is also some question as towhether vernal ponds on public lands are being man-aged. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many vernalponds are likely filling in with buckthorn and othernon-native species. It is important to maintain thenatural hydrology of these ponds.

2.7.10 MANMADE NATURALIZED LAKESDescriptionManmade naturalized lakes can function in a similarfashion to natural lakes, and as such can supportaquatic communities that protect the biodiversity ofthe region. Many of the region’s gravel pit lakes, forinstance, have similar water quality and habitat con-ditions as natural glacial lakes. Additionally, gravelpit lakes often support similar species as glacial lakes,although overall diversity of fishes is typically lower.Some naturalized lakes have been used to culturethreatened and endangered species for reintroduc-

tion elsewhere. Some created wetlands may be deepenough to mimic ecological functions of natural gla-cial lakes, although recent sampling of many mitiga-tion wetlands in the region suggests that theysupport primarily tolerant species of fishes. The con-dition of these lakes is largely unknown because theyare not monitored routinely.


IndicatorsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan indicates that man-made naturalized lakes are marked by a high diver-sity of amphibians. However, specific, measurableindicators of quality need to be identified for thiscommunity, and this is a recommendation for futurereport cards.


There is not enough information available to assessthe condition of manmade naturalized lakes.However, it is assumed they are declining in condi-tion, as are the region’s other lake types.

2.7.11 OTHER LAKESDescriptionThere are approximately 10,000 to 20,000 retentionponds in the region. Unknown is how important theyare to the biodiversity of the region. Certainly, theycan support some species such as migratory birds,fish and amphibians. However, toxins from runoffalso accumulate in these ponds. It therefore becomesdifficult to assess their condition and trends.Retention ponds often are stocked with sport fishsuch as sunfish and largemouth bass, and may pose athreat to native stream fish communities in receivingwaters by providing large numbers of juveniles dur-ing overflow periods. This potential threat has notbeen investigated fully. There have certainly beenmore ponds added since the publication of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, but it is hard to saywhether their conditions are improving or declining.


53


IndicatorsIf retention ponds are determined to be important forbiodiversity conservation, then specific, measurableindicators of quality need to be identified for thiscommunity, and this would be a recommendation forfuture report cards.


There is not enough information available to assessthe condition of retention ponds.

2.7.12 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR LAKESFor future reporting purposes, the primary recom-mendation is to develop specific recovery goals forall of the lake types throughout the region. It is alsorecommended that region-wide consensus be devel-oped on indicators and monitoring protocols.Additionally, those recommended actions listed inthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan remain in effect:• Develop specific recovery plans for species and

lakes of concern• Develop better mechanisms to control the invasion

of non-native species• Plan, protect and manage lakes at the watershed

level• Develop a region-wide process to track and study

threats to lakes• Conduct research to better understand the habitat

requirements of aquatic species

• Investigate and mitigate the threat of salinization• Investigate and prepare for the possibility of rein-

troduction of native species• Strengthen laws protecting species and their habi-

tats• Integrate biodiversity concerns into laws, policies

and guidelines• Clarify ambiguous laws relating to lakes and their

management• Increase public understanding of lake biodiversity

issues• Increase public involvement in lake management

and protection

Since Lake Michigan is significantly unique, theBiodiversity Recovery Plan lists these distinct recom-mended actions for it:• Identify information gaps concerning the Lake

Michigan shoreline in the region with respect tosurviving habitat and opportunities for habitatrestoration, so that practical guides can be devel-oped

• Identify key site-specific aquatic habitat restora-tion opportunities to support local and lake-widebiodiversity

• Identify site-specific opportunities to provideshoreline protection that also provide improvedhabitat

3.1INTRODUCTIONThe region’s animal assemblages rank from poor togood condition, with the majority tending toward thelower end of the spectrum. For some assemblages,there is a sufficient amount of information to providequantified assessments. For most, however, the avail-able data has yet to be sufficiently compiled and analyzed. The majority of animal assemblage assess-ments, like those of the region’s terrestrial andaquatic communities, therefore, is largely anecdotal.It should be noted that a great deal of the currentlyrelevant data is derived through volunteer efforts,underscoring a key objective of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, which is to “maintain and strengthenvolunteer participation in stewardship and re-search.” The Butterfly Monitoring Network has beencollecting butterfly data in the region since 1987. TheBird Conservation Network Census has collectedregion-wide bird data since the inception of ChicagoWilderness and is but one of a complementary arrayof local and national volunteer bird monitoringefforts that operate throughout the region.

The main focus of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan wasto report on terrestrial and aquatic communities,with select information related to animal assem-blages woven into the various community assess-ments. The Report Card accords each animalassemblage an independent assessment, utilizinginformation derived from animal assemblage taxo-nomic workshops held in 1997 and 2004.

In the 1997 taxonomic workshop on birds, partici-pants used five criteria to assess the status of theregion’s various bird assemblages: condition of thehabitat in the Chicago Wilderness region, conditionof the habitat globally, distinctiveness of the aviancommunity, perceived threats to the avian commu-nity, and the status of the community in ChicagoWilderness. Based on these categories, assemblageswere ranked as globally critical, globally importantor locally important (Biodiversity Recovery Plan Table

54



4.9). Taxonomic workshops for other animal assem-blages followed a similar approach. Beyond aglobal/local ranking, however, the four 1997 taxo-nomic workshops yielded different terms for condi-tion rankings. Bird assemblages were rated “poor,”“suboptimal” and “optimal.” In the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, only reptile and amphibian assem-blages rated “declining” are listed. Similarly, onlyinsect assemblages rated “of concern” are identified(Biodiversity Recovery Plan Table 4.8). The 2004 ani-mal taxonomic workshops also yielded differentterms for condition rankings. However, given theirgeneral correlation with a four-point assessment sys-tem (the “excellent” rating being seldom used), thefollowing terms were used to provide consistencythroughout the Report Card: poor, fair, good andexcellent. This is intended to facilitate the relating ofReport Card assessments to stakeholders and the gen-eral public.

The lack of a consistent ranking system is sympto-matic of the lack of specific recovery goals, indicatorsand monitoring protocols for nearly all animal assem-blages. The exceptions are for grassland birds andsavanna herpetofauna, for which conservationdesigns have been completed. As discussed later inthis chapter, these conservation designs, buildingupon the broad goals in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan,provide measurable recovery targets and measurablemanagement strategies based on specific threats.Conservation designs or some similar vehicle areneeded for each animal assemblage to guide manage-ment and data collection throughout the region,which in turn would allow for a quantified and morethorough assessment of the region’s biodiversity.

In spite of the data limitations, the Report Card strivesto provide the following information:

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThis chapter of the Report Card strives to provide thefollowing information:

CHAPTER 3ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES

55


CONDITION OF DATAFor each assemblage type, this section provides asummary of the available data that informed theReport Card assessment. It should be noted that themajority of identified data were concentrated prima-rily in Illinois, although some Indiana data are refer-enced (relatively few data are referenced fromWisconsin). This underscores a Report Card recom-mendation to increase the data collection from allthree states in the Chicago Wilderness region.

ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTIONFor each individual assemblage, the following infor-mation is provided:

DESCRIPTIONEach individual assemblage description is culledfrom information in various sections of the Bio-diversity Recovery Plan, supplemented by feedbackfrom experts on the region’s animal assemblages.

1997 TAXONOMIC WORKSHOP ASSESSMENTBecause the Biodiversity Recovery Plan provides fewdetails about the assessed condition of the variousassemblages, information was derived primarilyfrom the 1997 workshop minutes.

BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN GOALSA summary of the broad goals identified in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan’s chapter on terrestrial com-munities.

RECENT RECOVERY EFFORTSA list of efforts or sites where management hasresulted in a stabilization or recovery of biodiversity.Within some sections, sidebars provide overviews ofselect sites. It should be noted that many more siteshave undergone or are undergoing active manage-ment than are highlighted here.

INDICATORSEach workshop of animal assemblage experts wasasked to identify indicators. It should be noted thatthis was not always fully possible due to the lack ofadequate data on certain assemblages. This under-scores a Report Card recommendation to develop spe-cific indicators, along with recovery goals andmonitoring protocols, for each of the region’s natu-ral community and assemblage types.

REPORT CARD CONDITION RANKINGEach animal assemblage was assigned a conditionranking of “poor,” “fair,” “good” or “excellent” todescribe its current status as viewed by regionalexperts familiar with that assemblage. Due to theavailability of data, the section on birds also includestrend assessments, which, in every determinableinstance, is declining.

Poor

Fair

Good

Excellent

RECOMMENDED ACTIONSIt should be noted that for each assemblage type, itis recommended that a specific instrument be devel-oped, if one does not already exist, to gauge the sta-tus of the community and set specific recovery goals,based on the community’s importance within theregion in contributing to the conservation of localbiodiversity.

A final note: As reported in the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan, mammals do not aggregate into assemblages.Very little information was available about individ-ual mammal species, with the exception of theFranklin’s ground squirrel, which is briefly reportedupon in this section. The next Report Card shouldinclude an updated assessment of all of the region’smammal species.

3.2BIRD ASSEMBLAGES

3.2.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThe majority of the region’s bird assemblages remainin poor or fair condition and are trending toward adecline in overall quality. This assessment mirrorsnational and, in some cases, global trends. The excep-tions are wetland bird species, which are faring wellnationally but not within the Chicago Wildernessregion, due to the extensive local loss of wetlandareas. For each bird assemblage, there are specific rec-ommended actions. However, the overriding recom-

mendation for priority assemblages is the develop-ment of a conservation design or another tool thatwould include specific, measurable recovery goals,indicators and monitoring protocols, and againstwhich progress could be measured over time.

3.2.2 CONDITION OF THE DATADuring the past five years, the majority of data gath-ering and bird-related habitat recovery efforts—bothplanning and on-the-ground—have been guided bythe prioritization of bird assemblages in the Biodiv-ersity Recovery Plan, with grassland birds ranked ofhighest conservation concern. Recent national datahas led to shrubland birds being identified as beingof very high conservation concern, an observationseconded by local experts within the ChicagoWilderness region. Assessments of the region’s birdassemblages are based on a considerable amount ofdata drawn from different sources. These include:• Partners in Flight, a national partnership organi-

zation, which just published the “North AmericanLandbird Conservation Plan.” The plan containsnational trend information and species prioritiza-tion based on a number of sources. (Rich et al.2004).

• The Breeding Bird Survey, a long-standingnational volunteer effort with a well-studied dataset. The Breeding Bird Survey trends given in thisreport are for the entire state of Illinois. (Sauer etal. 2005).

• The Illinois Spring Bird Count, a day-long volun-teer effort very similar to the Christmas Count.The Spring Bird Count is held in early May andthe data gathered are compiled by county. CookCounty results and statewide results were consid-ered for this report. Although Spring Bird Countdata are not specifically designed to measurebreeding populations, for many species the vastmajority of the birds counted on the Illinois SpringBird Counts are from breeding populations. Thesepatterns appear to correlate well with the breedingpopulations (Kleen 2003; Duane, unpublished;Stotz, unpublished).

• The Bird Conservation Network Census, a six-yearpoint count, transect and checklist study of mainlyprotected lands, conducted primarily during thebreeding season, within the Chicago Wildernessregion (Bird Conservation Network 2004).

The Illinois Spring Bird Count data set and the BirdConservation Network Census may pick up sometrends that the Breeding Bird Survey misses becausecertain species are too rare, not found along road-sides or are otherwise poorly sampled. Additionally,the areas sampled are somewhat different. TheBreeding Bird Survey routes are placed at randomthroughout the landscape. In Illinois, for the mostpart, this means agricultural land. In general, theIllinois Spring Bird Count and the Bird ConservationNetwork Census observations are focused on patchesof protected land, and the matrix surrounding thesehabitat patches is under-surveyed. The extensive andcomplex data set of the Bird Conservation NetworkCensus database would yield a wealth of informationif a method of analysis were developed in conjunc-tion with a wildlife statistician.

3.2.3 ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTIONThe Report Card identifies the following bird assem-blages, ordered by level of threat, from highest tolowest:• Birds of moist* grasslands without shrubs• Birds of moist* grasslands with shrubs• Dry grassland birds• Savanna birds• Open woodland birds• Hemi-marsh birds• Shoreline birds• Closed upland woods birds• Closed bottomland woods birds• Pinewood birds

*Moist refers collectively to wet, wet-mesic and mesic

3.2.4 GRASSLAND BIRDSDescriptionHistorically, a mix of prairies and wetlands blanketedthe region, supporting an abundance and diversity ofgrassland species. However, bobolinks, Henslow’ssparrows, dickcissels and grasshopper sparrows,once very familiar residents, are now limited to hay-fields and protected grasslands. The greater prairiechicken, once abundant, has vanished completelyfrom the region. Upland sandpipers, once extremelycommon, now hang on in two locations. Regular res-idents of wet prairie habitats that have vanished fromthe region include swallow-tailed kites, long-billedcurlews and whooping cranes. Currently, native

56



57


prairies large enough to support a highly diversesuite of grassland bird species do not exist.

Grasslands with shrubs provide habitat for a range ofspecies, some preferring thickets and others clumpsof shrubs. Studies suggest that the particular shrubspecies is not as significant as the overall structure.Historically, shrubland habitats were found in dif-ferent areas at various points in time, as fire impactedwoody growth, and the shrubland bird communitywas an important part of the avifauna. Loggerheadshrike, once a very common shrubland bird, is nowonly found in a very few locations.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment• Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs: Poor/

Globally CriticalNearly all characteristic species have declined inthe Chicago Wilderness region. This is primarilythe result of habitat destruction, along with inten-sification of agricultural practices. Nearly allnative grassland habitats in the region have beendestroyed. There are few high quality sites left.Some species can use agricultural lands, especiallypastures and hayfields. However, these species arevery sensitive to the management of the hayfields,and they fare poorly in these agricultural lands. Anumber of the species in moist grasslands are verysensitive to the size of habitat patches, and areabsent from small ones. This means that few sitesin the region have significant population sizes.

• Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs: Fair/Globally CriticalSeveral shrub-using species are declining through-out their ranges, but other species associated withshrubby grasslands are doing rather well. Thereis little remaining habitat in the region.Characteristic species are relatively tolerant ofdegraded habitat.

• Birds of dry grasslands: Fair/Locally ImportantThere is no specific information on trends in thisregion, but declines are not evident. There is littleremaining habitat in the region, but it was rela-tively rare in this area even historically. Most of theremnant habitat is degraded. Characteristicspecies are relatively widespread, and most aretolerant of degradation.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan does not differentiatebetween the three grassland sub-types, but calls for10 to 12 large sites throughout the region, eachapproximately 3,000-4,000 acres in size, to sustainviable populations of grassland birds and otherprairie species. These large sites should consist ofnative vegetation in mosaics of grasslands, savannasand wetlands in order to contribute to the conserva-tion of all prairie community elements.

The conservation design (Glennemeier 2002b, pp. 1-2) states that through the management of currentlyprotected grasslands, the acquisition or protection ofadditional grasslands, and restoration of newly pro-tected grasslands, by 2025 the following acreage ofgrasslands can be achieved with high quality birdcommunities: • At least 9,000 acres of dry and dry-mesic grassland

(characterized by grasshopper sparrows), with atleast 2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500acres

• At least 9,000 acres of mesic grassland (character-ized by bobolinks and northern harriers), with atleast 2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500acres

• At least 9,000 acres of wet and wet-mesic grass-land (characterized by sedge wrens and kingrails), with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites ofat least 500 acres

• At least five grassland habitat complexes of atleast 4,000 acres in size

For the following species of highest conservationconcern, by 2025 the following can be achievedregionally:• Henslow’s sparrow–at least 500 breeding pairs• Bobolink–at least 2,500 breeding pairs• Upland sandpiper–at least 20 breeding pairs at

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie; at least onebreeding population elsewhere

• Sedge wren–at least 1,000 breeding pairs• Northern harrier–breeding in the region at least

five years out of every 10• Grasshopper sparrow–at least 2,500 breeding pairs• King rail–at least 20 breeding pairs• American bittern–at least five regularly breeding

pairs• Sandhill crane–at least 200 breeding pairs

• Common snipe–breeding in the region at least fiveyears out of every 10

Recent Recovery EffortsRestoration of grasslands with a goal of increasingbird habitat has been an important focus of ChicagoWilderness consortium members’ work during thelast five years, and the results have been encourag-ing. Removal of woody vegetation has been success-ful in increasing numbers of birds. A number ofprojects are underway which study or experimentwith herbaceous species composition that is benefi-cial for these species. On-the-ground examples of this

58



TABLE 3.1 TERRESTRIAL ANIMAL ASSEMBLAGES IDENTIFIED

FOR CONSERVATION PLANNING

Bird AssemblagesBirds of moist grasslands without shrubs*Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs*Birds of dry grasslandsOpen woodland birdsHemi-marsh birdsClosed upland woods birdsClosed bottomland woods birdsPinewood birds

Reptile and Amphibian AssemblagesBlack Soil Savanna reptiles and amphibians**Sedge meadow, fen and dolomite prairie

reptiles and amphibians**Forest and woodland reptiles and amphibiansGrassland reptiles and amphibiansSand savanna and sand prairie reptiles

and amphibiansMarsh reptiles and amphibians**Panne reptiles and amphibiansHigh gradient stream reptiles and amphibiansRiver, lake and pond reptiles and amphibians

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

Insects AssemblagesFen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects**Marsh insectsDry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects**Foredune insectsDry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects**Bog insectsBlacksoil savanna and woodland insects**Floodplain forest insects

MammalsThe mammals of the Chicago Wilderness regiondo not aggregate into assemblages.

include Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie, Spring-brook Prairie, Spring Creek Valley, Rollins Savanna,and the Bartel and Orland Grasslands.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern:• Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs

o Willow flycatcher, brown thrasher, field spar-row, yellow-breasted chat, bell’s vireo

• Birds of moist grasslands without shrubso American bittern, northern harrier, king rail,

59


short-eared owl, sedge wren, savannah spar-row, Henslow's sparrow, grasshopper sparrow,dickcissel, eastern meadowlark, bobolink

• Birds of dry grasslands with shrubso Loggerhead shrike, vesper sparrow, lark spar-

row• Birds of dry grasslands without shrubs

o Upland sandpiper, horned lark, grasshoppersparrow, western meadowlark

Specific indicators of success for this assemblage,perhaps building on the goals of the conservationdesign, need to be formally identified and adopted.This is a recommendation for future report cards.


• Statuso Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs: Fairo Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs: Pooro Dry grassland birds: Fair

• Trendso Birds of moist grasslands with shrubs:

Decliningo Birds of moist grasslands without shrubs:

Decliningo Dry grassland birds: Declining

TABLE 3.2COMPARISON BETWEEN CHICAGO WILDERNESS CONSERVATION

DESIGN FOR GRASSLAND BIRDS 2025 POPULATION TARGETS FOR

CONSERVATIVE SPECIES OF CONCERN AND 2004 ESTIMATED POPULATIONS

BASED ON THE 2004 GRASSLAND BIRD BLITZ DATA.

Grassland Species ofConservation Concern

Henslow’s sparrow

Bobolink

Upland sandpiper

Sedge wren

Northern harrier

Grasshopper sparrow

King rail

American bittern

Sandhill crane

Common snipe

2025 Goal

At least 500 breeding pairs

At least 2,500 breeding pairs

At least 50 breeding pairs at Midewin; atleast one breeding population elsewhere


Breeding in the region at least five yearsout of every 10



At least five regularly-breeding pairs


Breeding in the region at least five yearsout of every 10

2004 Estimate (based onGrassland Bird Blitz)

258 individuals

1,653 individuals

14 individuals at Midewin, 7 elsewhere

233 individuals

3 individuals

457 individuals

0 individuals

0 individuals

37 individuals

1 individual

Grassland bird numbers today are a tiny fraction ofwhat they were a hundred years ago, in the ChicagoWilderness region and nationally. Despite manypromising efforts, the region is full of examples ofgrassland habitat that is degrading and sites wherebird populations have been declining. Invasive plantsand urbanization are other significant problems forthis group. Grassland habitat on the outer edges of theregion has vanished in the development boom of thelast 15 years.

The overall decline in numbers of birds in moist grass-lands with shrubs is partly due to factors that are notwell understood. Lack of clear research-based guide-lines for maintaining the longer disturbance schedulethese birds require may contribute to the problem.Recent national research has identified shrublandbirds as the second-fastest declining group of birds inthe country after grassland birds (Butcher 2004).

However, as evidenced by the grassland recoveryefforts listed above, some grassland bird species gainsare being realized, as Table 3.2 demonstrates.

In addition to these increases in conservative grass-land species, the clay-colored sparrow, a shrublandspecies, has returned to the region in the last fiveyears, establishing nesting sites at five local grasslandpreserves.

Toward the conservation design goal of having atleast five grassland habitat complexes of at least 4,000acres in size by the year 2025, as of 2004, there is onesuch complex at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.

Recommended Actions• Develop a conservation design or a similar tool for

shrubland bird species to develop recovery goals,indicators and monitoring protocols

• Designate shrubland birds, following the lead ofthe Bird Conservation Network, as a secondspecies of conservation priority over the next fiveyears

• Maintain sufficient amounts of habitat for bothgrassland and shrubland birds

• Consider leaving shrubland habitat in large grass-land nesting sites

• De-emphasize large-scale restoration efforts of drygrassland habitat, a historically uncommon habi-

tat in the Chicago Wilderness region and one thatis more common in other areas of Illinois, Indianaand Wisconsin

In addition to the recommended actions developedby the experts in the 2004 report card workshops,Glennemeier (2002b) includes in the “ChicagoWilderness Conservation Design for GrasslandBirds,” a summary of threats and management goals:

Threat: Habitat degradation and successionManagement Goal: Reduce groundcover by woodyshrubs and trees, through prescribed fire and inva-sive species control.

60



BARTEL GRASSLAND

When the Forest Preserve District of CookCounty acquired the 585-acre Bartel Grass-land in Matteson, Illinois in the 1960s, themajority of the site was fallow farm field.Historically, much of the area had been wet-mesic prairie. Through a recent partnershipbetween the Forest Preserve District of CookCounty, Audubon-Chicago Region, Cor-Lands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Thorn Creek Audubon and the BartelGrassland Volunteers, drain tiles were dis-abled, more than five miles of interiorfencerow trees removed and native prairieplant species seeded and planted. AlthoughEurasian and Asian grasses still dominatethe site, surveys conducted in 2001 and 2002reveal that the number of grassland birds hasrisen dramatically—populations of Hens-low’s, grasshopper, and savanna sparrows,as well as bobolinks, have risen between 30and 300 percent. The goal is to continue torestore the native vegetation, which shouldfurther support the recovery of these grass-land birds and other birds, amphibians andinsects. In September 2003, the IllinoisNature Preserves Commission dedicated thesite as a Land and Water Reserve (ForestPreserve District of Cook County 2004).

61


Threat: Loss of breeding habitat from early mowingManagement Goal: Reduce or eliminate the practiceof mowing grasslands before August 1.

Threat: Loss of large grasslands due to fragmenta-tion, development and successionManagement Goal: Remove fencerows, preventdevelopment within grassland habitats and increasethe size of existing grassland habitats.

Threat: Herbaceous species composition that doesnot benefit grassland birds.Management Goal: Determine the native herbaceousspecies assemblages that are most beneficial to grass-land birds and increase the regional acreage plantedwith these assemblages.

In a paper from the Bird Conservation Network,Heaton (2000) provides a compilation of current bestpractice recommendations for grassland bird habitatin the region.

3.2.5 SAVANNA BIRDSDescriptionHistorically, savanna bird habitat was widely distrib-uted throughout the region. Wild turkey and sharp-tailed grouse are two species that were common inthis habitat. Although wild turkeys are returning tothe region, the nearest sharp-tailed grouse popula-tion is in northern Wisconsin.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/Globally ImportantIn 1997, in general, populations of savanna birds inthe Chicago region were assessed as being ratherlarge. However, nest predation and parasitism maybe limiting reproductive success of these birds. Oak-savannas were the predominant vegetation type inthe Chicago region, and effectively none survivetoday. Small patches of oak-savanna have beenrestored, and significant tracts of additional habitatcan be restored. Savanna birds for the most part havebeen able to survive in secondary habitats that mimicthe structure of oak-savannas.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThere were no bird assemblage-related recoverygoals in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, which nonethe-less acknowledged that while fewer animal species,in general, depend on savannas than on other com-

munity types, savannas do have distinctive inhabi-tants, particularly birds, reptiles and amphibians.The plan calls to dramatically improve the region’ssavanna communities.

Recent Recovery EffortsA study of the impacts of restoration on savannabirds in Illinois, including Chicago Wilderness regionstudy sites, showed that restoring savannas by open-ing the canopy and reinstituting burning as a distur-bance mechanism is a promising method forincreasing savanna bird populations (Brawn, 1998).

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern:• With Shrubs

o Black-billed cuckoo, eastern towhee, blue-winged warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Ameri-can goldfinch, red-tailed hawk, barn owl,red-headed woodpecker, northern flicker, east-ern kingbird, eastern bluebird, Baltimore oriole,orchard oriole

• Without Shrubso Red-tailed hawk, barn owl, red-headed wood-

pecker, northern flicker, eastern kingbird, east-ern bluebird, Baltimore oriole

Specific indicators of success for this assemblageneed to be identified, and this is a recommendationfor future report cards.


• Status: Fair • Trends: Declining, with the exception of the

Baltimore oriole and the blue-gray gnatcatcher,which are increasing

One particularly interesting Chicago Wildernessregion savanna resident is the Swainson’s hawk, aspecies of great concern nationally. The small popu-lations of this species in Kane and McHenry Counties,Illinois, are the only Swainson’s hawks east of theMississippi. Mirroring national trends, proposedhousing developments are the principal threats to itslimited habitat in Illinois, posing a serious threat ofextirpation of this species from the region.

Recommended Actions• Develop a conservation design or similar instru-

ment for savanna bird species to develop recov-ery goals, indicators and monitoring protocols(due to the overlapping nature of savanna andopen woodland bird assemblages and their habi-tats, a joint instrument to set and measure goalsfor both savanna and open woodland birds mightbe advisable).

• Establish savanna study areas since savanna habi-tats are rare and therefore not always included inthe current surveying methods.

• Undertake restoration efforts on even smallsavanna sites. Indications are that savanna birdspecies respond favorably to well-managedsavanna recovery efforts.

3.2.6 OPEN WOODLAND BIRDSDescriptionFor birds, woodlands and savannas are the mostimportant of the region’s forested communities.Declining breeding species include black- and yel-low-billed cuckoos, red-headed woodpeckers andblue-winged warblers. The woodlands of theChicago Wilderness region also provide criticalstopover habitat for landbird migrants, many of themdeclining neotropical species. Wooded communitieswith and without shrubs each provide habitat for animportant group of birds. The open woodland birdcommunity has suffered fewer losses than grasslandor wetland species, however, formerly common openwoodland species including ruffed grouse, wildturkey and redheaded woodpecker are absent or not

62



TABLE 3.3NATIONAL, STATE. REGIONAL AND LOCAL TRENDS

FOR SELECT SAVANNA BIRD SPECIES

Black-billed Declining Declining Low Decliningcuckoo numbers

Swainson’s Watchlist Low Low Lowhawk numbers numbers numbers

Red-headed Watchlist Declining Large Large Decliningwoodpecker declines declines

Blue-gray Stable Increasing Large Increasinggnatcatcher increases

Blue-winged Watchlist Increasing Increasing Increasing Lowwarbler numbers

Partners Bird Spring Bird Spring Bird Bird Conservationin Flight Breeding Count Count on Network

Survey Illinois Cook Co. Census

National Regional State Local Regional

63


as common today. Conversely, a number of openwoodland birds that are common today, includingnorthern cardinal, Carolina wren and red-belliedwoodpecker, were historically rare or absent.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/Globally ImportantThe removal of fire from the ecosystem has dramati-cally changed the distribution and aspect of theregion’s open woodlands. In the absence of periodicfires that maintained these communities for millen-nia, the region’s woodlands have filled with invasivebrush and lost much of their herbaceous understory,a food-rich vegetation layer that is an importantresource for birds. Oaks, the primary trees of thewoods, which provide food and shelter for breedingand migrant bird species, are slowly being replacedby less useful trees.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe goals are to maintain viable populations ofwoodland bird species, particularly sensitive speciessuch as the red-headed woodpecker, as well as anumber of locations that provide the structural habi-tat required by forest-interior species and popula-tions of migrating birds.

Recent Recovery EffortsWoodland restoration is taking place in many sitesaround the region. Efforts usually include removal ofinvasive shrubby vegetation, restoration of a diverseunderstory, and the return of light conditions ade-quate for oak reproduction. In the few cases wherethis has been studied, these changes appear to havea beneficial effect on bird species.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern:• With Shrubs

o Blue-winged warbler, towhee, black-billedcuckoo, cooper’s hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo,eastern wood-peewee, cedar waxwing, yellow-throated vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, rose-breasted grosbeak, Baltimore oriole

• Without Shrubso Cooper’s hawk, yellow-billed cuckoo, red-

headed woodpecker, great crested flycatcher,

eastern wood-peewee, cedar waxwing, indigobunting, yellow-throated vireo, blue-gray gnatcatcher, rose-breasted grosbeak, Baltimoreoriole



• Status: Fair• Trends: DecliningAlthough woodland bird communities have notshown the same overall decline as the grassland birdspecies, there is very serious concern about a num-ber of these birds. The Cooper’s hawk, blue-graygnatcatcher and the Baltimore oriole have increasedwhile the red-headed woodpecker and black-billedcuckoo have decreased. Blue-winged warbler num-bers are low in the Chicago Wilderness region, andthis bird is a Partners in Flight Watchlist species.

Condition of DataDistribution and trend data appear adequate.


open woodland bird species to develop recoverygoals, indicators and monitoring protocols (dueto the overlapping nature of savanna and openwoodland bird assemblages and their habitats, ajoint savanna and open woodland conservationdesign might be advisable).

• Research the impacts of open woodland restora-tion on local breeding and migrant bird popula-tions and develop best practices for habitatrestoration.

3.2.7 HEMI-MARSH BIRDSDescriptionHemi-marshes exhibit a ratio of 1:1 open water towetland vegetation. The large number of these andnumerous other wetland types historically presentin the Chicago Wilderness region once provided crit-ical habitat for tens of thousands of migrant shore-birds. Now, these breeding birds and habitat has beenall but lost. Sadly, some of the best shorebird habitatin the region is now found in sewage lagoons.

Wetland bird species are adapted to nesting in a par-ticular part of the wetland community, from denseshoreline vegetation to emergent plants to mats offloating vegetation, and find food in a similar rangeof locations from muddy shores to the deep water atthe middle of some wetlands. As weather conditionsvary from year to year, habitat conditions change.Often nearby wetlands of varying sizes and depthsfunction as a complex, affording habitat choices tospecies across years of very different weather condi-tions. Once common to the region, hemi-marsh birdssuch as Wilson’s phalaropes and LeConte’s sparrowshave vanished as local breeders. Black rails, blackterns, blue-winged teals, American bitterns, Wilson’ssnipe and Forster’s terns are exceedingly rare.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment• With Shrubs

o Good/Locally Important• Without Shrubs

o Fair/Locally ImportantThe Lake Calumet complex historically was a vitallyimportant site for hemi-marsh birds, but is nowgreatly degraded through pollution, habitat loss,invasion by exotic plants, and disruption of thehydrology. Elsewhere in the Chicago region, the var-ious small to medium-sized marshes that previouslymaintained significant populations have also beenbadly degraded.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan urged the increase ofbreeding populations of wetland birds and theimprovement of wetland management, so that wet-lands can sustain bird populations through droughts.

Recent Recovery EffortsIn the last five years, two wetland species that hadbeen extirpated from Illinois have been restored, theosprey and the Forster’s tern. Two pairs of ospreyhave nested to date, and platforms are in place in sev-eral other sites to encourage the populations toexpand. Both recreational boating activity and greathorned owl predation seriously threaten one Forster’stern colony. Another species, the little blue heron, hasreturned to the Chicago Wilderness region, establish-ing a nest site in the Lake Calumet area.

There are a number of successful examples of wet-land restoration projects around the region that were

planned with biodiversity in mind. Features includewetland creation or expansion, drain tile removal torestore natural hydrology, and removal of invasivespecies. Published in 2002, a first phase EcologicalManagement Strategy for the Calumet region, whichincludes some of the most ecologically significantwetlands in Illinois in spite of the industrial degrada-tion, outlines specific recovery objectives related tothe needs of wetland birds. Birds tend to respondconspicuously well to well-planned efforts. On theother hand, traditional wetland mitigation projects,as a general rule, tend to be of poor value for birds.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern:• With Shrubs:

o Green heron, black-crowned night heron, wil-low flycatcher

• Without Shrubs:o Pied-billed grebe, American bittern, least bit-

tern, blue-winged teal, ruddy duck, Virginiarail, sora, common moorhen, American coot,black tern, Forster’s tern, marsh wren, yellow-headed blackbird



• Status: Fair• Trends: DecliningOn a national level, wetland bird populations arefairly stable. However, there are few high-qualitywetlands in the state of Illinois and many wetlandspecies are on the Illinois endangered or threatenedlist. Many of the highest quality wetlands are in theChicago Wilderness region. Blue-wing teal, which isexperiencing serious national declines, is vanishingfrom the region along with the ruddy duck. Themarsh wren is increasing.


hemi-marsh bird species to develop recoverygoals, indicators and monitoring protocols

64



65


• Create clusters of wetlands to sustain populationsof hemi-marsh birds through wet and dry years

• Maintain consistent water levels in hemi-marshbird habitat as bird populations fluctuate withdroughts and/or flooding, especially the Forster’stern

• Aggressively control habitat-reducing invasivespecies such as reed canary grass and purpleloosestrife

• Consider establishing a few sites where water lev-els can be manipulated to provide habitat formigrant shorebirds, such as has been attemptedwith some success at McGuinness Slough

3.2.8 SHORELINE BIRDSDescriptionHistorically, common terns and the federally-endan-gered piping plover were once common along theshoreline, along with a wide variety of migrantshorebirds. Today, the Chicago Wilderness regionshoreline is largely developed, but a few sections ofnatural beach remain. These are used by small num-bers of migrant shorebirds and a few unique nestingspecies.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Fair/Locally ImportantA small number of bird species historically bredalong the beaches of the Lake Michigan shore and onthe shores of other area lakes. These habitats havebeen much altered by human activities and are sub-ject to extreme levels of recreation-related distur-bances, especially during the birds’ breeding season.Only in areas especially protected from this distur-bance can shoreline species exist. Increasing popula-tions of mammalian predators have also taken aheavy toll on breeding populations. The consensus inthe 2004 workshops was that the 1997 workshopassessment should have been poor rather than fair.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThere are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals related toshoreline birds.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern: piping plover, spotted sand-piper, and common tern. Specific indicators of suc-

cess for this assemblage need to be identified, andthis is a recommendation for future report cards.

Recent Recovery EffortsA section of Montrose beach in Chicago has beenallowed to revert to more natural conditions and pro-vides good shorebird habitat. In a cooperative effortbetween the Illinois Department of Natural Re-sources, volunteers and the United States Navy, thecommon tern has been restored to the state at GreatLakes Station. The piping plover last nested here inthe 1970s. The Chicago Wilderness region lakefront isdesignated potential breeding habitat in the federalrecovery plan for Great Lakes population of thisspecies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).


• Status: Poor• Trends: UndeterminedThe undisturbed shoreline that these birds need isalmost non-existent, although common terns havebecome established in one location.

Recommended Actions• Create additional undisturbed shoreline sites,

where possible, for migratory birds• Manage habitat to reduce disturbance to shoreline

birds, thwart predation and maintain beaches innatural conditions

• Develop a specific recovery plan for the pipingplover

3.2.9 BIRDS OF CLOSED UPLAND

WOODLANDSDescriptionBirds of closed upland woodlands, unlike those ofopen woodlands and savannas, require large blocksof habitat. Studies have shown that nest success isimpaired by cowbird parasitism and predation inblocks of less than 500 acres. The success of bird pop-ulations in closed woodlands is better addressed inareas of the country with large forest tracts. Effortsin the Chicago Wilderness region will not contributesignificantly to the future of this group of birds.Nonetheless, and no less significantly, all of thewoodlands play an important role in sustaining birdson their migratory journeys.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/Locally ImportantThis habitat likely has increased in the Chicagoregion during the past 50 years, as abandoned farm-land and earlier successional-stage habitats havegrown into this vegetation category. However, inva-sion of exotic species, and changes in species com-position over time (because of disruption of naturalecological processes), have degraded many of thehabitat tracts in the region. The birds that use thisvegetation type are generally widespread, both geo-graphically and ecologically. Nevertheless, becauseof habitat fragmentation, many birds of closedupland woodlands have poor reproductive success.The remaining closed upland forest blocks in theregion are likely too small to sustain viable breedingpopulations of forest-interior birds.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommends the main-tenance of a number of locations that provide thestructural habitat required by forest-interior (closedupland woodland) bird species, as well as for popu-lations of migrating birds.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern: broad-winged hawk, hairywoodpecker, veery, wood thrush, rose-breasted gros-beak, scarlet tanager, ovenbird, and red-eyed vireo.Specific indicators of success for this assemblageneed to be identified, and this is a recommendationfor future report cards.


Report Card Condition Ranking: Good

• Status: Good, but not through local efforts• Trends: No changeThe region has had poor reproductive success withthese bird populations, due to the fragmented natureof the closed forests. Populations of birds such asveery and wood thrush appear stable, but this islikely because of immigration of new birds into theregion and not successful nesting.

Recommended Actions• Restore upland forests to improve value to birds

and other wildlife

3.2.10 BIRDS OF CLOSED BOTTOMLAND

WOODLANDSDescriptionThe river valleys of the Chicago region provide habi-tat for a diverse array of species. However, most ofthe species that are characteristic of this habitat arewidespread in various wooded habitats, or are nearthe northern limit of their breeding ranges.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/Locally ImportantThe riverine woodlands of the Chicago region havelargely been destroyed. Little primary woods remain.However, fairly tall woods have re-grown along por-tions of the floodplains of the Des Plaines and Foxrivers, and locally in other drainages. These wood-lands are usually limited to narrow strips along therivers. Immediately adjacent uplands have mostlyconverted to agriculture, industrial or residentialdevelopment. Most major streams have been greatlyaltered hydrologically, disrupting natural floodregimes and affecting the vegetation of the floodplainforests. The avifauna of this habitat is largely intact inthe Chicago region in the high-quality sites. Many ofthe bird species characteristic of this community alsouse closed upland woods, and are widespread in theChicago region. However, habitat fragmentation hasaffected many species severely through cowbird par-asitism and increased nest predation. It is likely thatfor most bird species breeding in this community, theChicago region is a population sink maintained byimmigration from less fragmented parts of theirranges. The consensus in the 2004 workshops wasthat the 1997 workshop assessment should have beenfair rather than good.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThere are no specific Biodiversity Recovery Plan goalsrelated to this assemblage.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no known recovery efforts related to thisassemblage.

66



67


IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the 1997and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being species ofconservation concern: red-shouldered hawk, barredowl, Acadian flycatcher, pileated woodpecker, hairywoodpecker, brown creeper, veery, cerulean warbler,American redstart, prothonotary warbler, and red-eyed vireo. Specific indicators of success for thisassemblage need to be identified, and this is a recom-mendation for future report cards.


• Status: Fair• Trends: DecliningLocal habitat for this assemblage is increasingly dam-aged, and although closed bottomland woodlandhabitat hosts an interesting and unique variety ofbirds, because larger concentrations of this habitatexist outside of the Chicago Wilderness region, it islocally a lower priority for action.

Condition of DataThe few remaining examples of this habitat type inthe region are not well monitored.

Recommended Actions• Develop a specific instrument to set recovery

goals, indicators and monitoring protocols• Identify sites that still contain a large percentage of

closed bottomland woodland indicator speciesand create specific management plans to safe-guard the habitat

3.2.11 PINEWOOD BIRDSDescriptionThis assemblage is not native to the region. A varietyof pine plantations dot the Chicago Wilderness region,which have attracted characteristic bird species.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Good/Locally ImportantHistorically, there were few native pine woodlands inthe Chicago Wilderness region. As a result, few regu-larly-breeding species in this region are associatedwith pines. Pine plantations have greatly increased thehabitat available for this bird community. A number ofspecies occur irregularly as breeders, south of their

primary breeding ranges. There are no data on thecondition of breeding populations in these habitats.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThere are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals relatedspecifically to this assemblage.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no known recovery efforts related to thisassemblage.

IndicatorsThe following species were identified during the1997 and 2004 taxonomic workshops as being speciesof conservation concern: cooper’s hawk, chippingsparrow, and black-throated green warbler.


• Status: Fair• Trends: Not determinedBeing non-native, this assemblage is a very low pri-ority.

Condition of DataThe few sites that exist are not well monitored.

Recommended ActionsAs this assemblage is non-native, the development ofa dedicated conservation design for pinewood birdsis not a high priority.

3.3REPTILE AND AMPHIBIANASSEMBLAGES

3.3.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSAccording to the 1997 taxonomic workshop thatassessed the condition of the region’s reptile andamphibian assemblages, most were determined to bein a declining state. The current assessment finds nooverall change, however declines may be regional,local or temporal (e.g. cyclic) in some species. Thedeclining condition of local species mirrors the statusof amphibians worldwide. As reported in the jour-nal Science, a recent study provides new context tothe well-publicized phenomenon of amphibiandeclines. Amphibians are more threatened, and aredeclining more rapidly, than either birds or mam-

mals. Although many declines are due to habitat lossand over-utilization, other, unidentified processesthreaten 48 percent of rapidly declining species, andare driving species most quickly to extinction.Declines are non-random in terms of species’ ecolog-ical preferences, geographic ranges and taxonomicassociations, and are most prevalent amongNeotropical montane, stream-associated species. Thelack of conservation remedies for these poorly under-stood declines means that hundreds of amphibianspecies now face extinction (Stuart, et al. 2004).

As is the case with the other assemblage types, spe-cific, measurable recovery goals and monitoring pro-tocols need to be developed. A significant step in thisdirection is the “Chicago Wilderness ConservationDesign for Savanna Herpetofauna,” (Glennemeier2002c) (summarized below) developed in 2002,which refines and augments the recovery goals andrecommended actions broadly outlined in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan.

3.3.2 CONDITION OF DATAThe following assessments are based primarily onexpert observations, underpinned by their familiaritywith various data. There are several sources for rep-tile and amphibian data, but few, if any, have beensufficiently compiled and analyzed to inform region-wide status. Alan Resetar of the Field Museum, forinstance, has approximately 3,000 data sheets, eachcontaining detailed habitat and microhabitat infor-mation on one individual amphibian or reptile.Approximately 1,300 of these records are in a data-base (the remainder are not). Trends are difficult toestablish due to the general lack of historical data.However, Audubon-Chicago Region, in coordinationwith the Chicago Wilderness Habitat Project, hasbegun conducting a Chicago Wilderness frog survey.Using trained volunteer monitors, this project willprovide for the tracking of long-term trends by col-lecting data from the same sites, year after year. Atthe end of 2004, the project had amassed three years’worth of data from 47 frog monitoring locations. Thisfigure compares favorably with the Glennemeier(2002c) goal of consistently monitoring 30 sites of atleast 50 acres by 2005.

3.3.3 DESCRIPTIONThe Report Card identifies the following reptile andamphibian assemblages:• Fine-textured soil savanna reptiles and amphib-

ians• Sedge meadow, fen and dolomite prairie reptiles

and amphibians• Forest and woodland reptiles and amphibians• Grassland reptiles and amphibians• Sand savanna and sand prairie reptiles and

amphibians• Marsh reptiles and amphibians• Panne reptiles and amphibians• High gradient stream reptiles and amphibians• River, lake and pond reptiles and amphibians

The species listed in each assemblage’s “Indicators”section were selected as good indicator species fortheir assemblages because their presence generallyindicates high quality habitat with a number of otherspecies present. However, it is important to note thattheir absence does not necessarily indicate that agiven site is not important for the assemblage or notspecies-rich. It is also worth noting that over timerichness may not change, but composition will, socomposition must also serve as an indicator.

3.3.4 FINE-TEXTURED SOIL SAVANNA

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThe following species are found in fine-textured soilupland, lowland savanna and shrubland:

Eastern tiger salamander American toadWestern chorus frog Brown snakeCope’s gray treefrog Milk snakeNorthern leopard frog Redbelly snakeCommon garter snake

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Globally ImportantAs of 1997, savanna assemblages appeared to bedeclining due to a lack of management, insufficientpreserve size, and/or lack of connective habitat.Indications were, however, that trends could reversequickly with proper conservation efforts. Some pop-ulations on managed areas appeared to be stable orincreasing, but remained of conservation concernbecause only a small percentage of sites were beingmanaged.

68



69


Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines the need forsavanna sites of between 200 and 500 acres, the needfor multiple sites with functional connections for dis-persal, and the need for management to be under-taken to improve savanna quality and structure.

Following up on a key recommendation of the Bio-diversity Recovery Plan, the “Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Savanna Herpetofauna” wascompleted in 2002 (Glennemeier 2002c). The plan callsfor a suite of mosaics that sustain diverse communi-ties and stable populations of herpetofauna, as well asthe associated other fauna and flora that constitutenative savanna ecosystems. By 2025, there are to be: 1)100 monitored sites of at least 50 acres throughout theregion, 80 percent of which are to experience no lossor decline in relative abundance for any of the 27 tar-get species listed in the conservation design and 2) atleast one large (800 acres or more) habitat complex—consisting of multiple habitat types—in each of thefive Chicago Wilderness natural divisions: GrandPrairie, Western Morainal, Kettle Moraine, Lake Plainand Gary Lake Plain/High Dune/Ridge and Swale.The plan sets five-year benchmarks toward the attain-ment of these goals.

Also by 2025, 100 percent of savanna mosaic sites areto have written, approved, active plans to addressinvasive species, prescribed fire management,hydrology, and fragmentation and dispersal. Invas-ive plant coverage is to be controlled at 15 percent ofall savanna acres. Fifty percent of sites are to have 25percent of their acreage burned in four of the five pre-vious years and 40 percent of the sites are to have anaverage Floristic Quality Index per quadrat of at least10. There are additional 2005 benchmarks related toeducation, regulation, acquisition, large sites, fundraising, research and management.

Recent Recovery EffortsPursuant to the conservation design goal of preserv-ing and maintaining at least one large habitat com-plex in each of the region’s five natural divisions, theworking group identified 1) the Plum Creek green-way in the Northeast Morainal Division, comprisedof five sites, totaling approximately 2,200 acres, 2)Thorn Creek Woods, also in the Northeast MorainalDivision, comprised of about 1,100 acres and 3) the

Kankakee Sands areas in the Grand Prairie Division,consisting of three sites totaling nearly 1,200 acres.According to the Forest Preserve District of WillCounty, which owns the sites, more than 900 of the4,500 total acres were acquired since the publicationof the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

Additionally, as more acreage has been acquired dur-ing the last five years, the oak savanna, marsh, sandprairie, high dune and associated anthropogenicgrassland and wetland areas on the border of Lakeand Porter Counties in Indiana have developed intoa substantial-sized unit of approximately 2,200 acres.Contributing sites include Miller Woods, InlandMarsh, West Beach, Ogden Dunes, Woodlake Dune,the Savanna and Marquette Trail portions of theIndiana Dunes National Lakeshore, the John MerleCoulter Sand Prairie Nature Preserve, and the ISG(formerly Bethlehem Steel) restoration site.

IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshops include the Eastern tiger salamander andmilk snake. These were selected as good indicatorspecies for this assemblage because their presencegenerally indicates high quality habitat with a num-ber of other species present. However, it is importantto note that their absence does not necessarily indi-cate that a given site is not important for the assem-blage or not species-rich.


In general, this assemblage is stable, as most savannaamphibians and reptiles are generalists and do notnecessarily need savanna habitat. However, thisranking should not be taken as a reflection of fine-textured soil savanna habitat itself, which is rankedin poor condition.

3.3.5 SEDGE MEADOW, FEN AND DOLOMITE

PRAIRIE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThe following species are found in sedge meadow,calcareous floating fen, graminoid fen, low shrub fenand upland and lowland dolomite prairie:

American toad Western chorus frogGreen frog Pickerel frog

Blanding’s turtle Northern leopard frogSmooth green snake Northern water snakeQueen snake Brown snakeCommon garter snake

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Globally ImportantIt was determined in the 1997 workshop that thisassemblage was declining overall, although therewas a north/south division in how these specieswere faring. In the north part of the region (Lake andMcHenry Counties, Illinois), they were faring better,perhaps even increasing, due to management andprotection. Throughout the region, specialists withinthis assemblage were declining, with only a fewspecies hanging on. This was primarily due to frag-mentation, isolation and the presence of invasivespecies such as purple loosestrife, which eliminatesneeded habitat structure. Found in rare habitat types,species in this assemblage were of concern.

70



From May through October of 2004, severalorganizations within the Chicago Wildernessconsortium conducted in-depth surveys ofamphibians and reptiles at 15 savanna andsavanna mosaic communities within the ChicagoWilderness region. They found 30 species ofamphibians and reptiles, including 15 species thatare considered to be of high conservation value.Most notably, they found Kirtland’s snakes, spot-ted salamanders, smooth green snakes, andEastern box turtles at one site, and cricket frogsat another. Other species of high conservationvalue included spring peepers (found at 12 sites),eastern gray treefrogs (at 10 sites), blue-spottedsalamanders and Fowler’s toads (each at foursites), blue racers and slender glass lizards (eachat three sites), and eastern newts, bullsnakes,eastern hognose snakes and six-lined racerunners(each at two sites).

STATUS OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES IN SAVANNA HABITATS AND

SAVANNA MOSAIC COMMUNITIES OF THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS REGION

At two-thirds of the savanna sites, the presenceand relative abundance of western fox snakes,eastern gray treefrogs, Fowler’s toads, tiger sala-manders, blue-spotted salamanders, bullsnakes,slender glass lizards, eastern garter snakes, andgreen frogs were associated with high amphib-ian and reptile biodiversity. The survey team sug-gests that these species are also indicators of highquality savanna habitat.

The data gathered will be used to determine thedistribution and status of species and to providebaseline data that is necessary to design manage-ment plans to conserve and foster the recovery ofnative biodiversity in unique and threatened com-munities. The data will also be used as bench-marks to evaluate the success of the ChicagoWilderness conservation design for savannaamphibians and reptiles (Brodman et al. 2005).

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsBecause the complex life cycles of amphibiansrequire several different habitats, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan calls for the establishment, protectionand management of habitat mosaics, includingmarshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes andseeps. Across the region, different wetlands shouldbe at different stages at the same time. To benefit wet-land reptiles and amphibians, as well as wetlandbirds, the plan also calls for the establishment of1,000-acre natural area complexes, with severalmarshes of 100 acres or more and with smaller wet-lands and ephemeral pools.

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no specific assemblage recovery effortsidentified.

IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the northern leopard frog,

71


Blanding’s turtle and the smooth green snake (orqueen snake instead of smooth green snake fordolomite prairie). These were selected as good indi-cator species for this assemblage because their pres-ence generally indicates high quality habitat with anumber of other species present. However, it isimportant to note that their absence does not neces-sarily indicate that a given site is not important forthe assemblage or not species-rich.



With few changes since the publication of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, this assemblage remainsin poor condition.

3.3.6 FOREST AND WOODLAND REPTILES AND

AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThe following species and one hybrid salamander arefound in upland forest, floodplain forest, northernflatwoods, upland woodland and lowland wood-land:

Eastern newt Gray treefrogBlue-spotted salamander Spring peeperMarbled salamander Wood frogSmallmouth salamander Eastern box turtleFour-toed salamander American toadEastern rat snake Ringneck snakeEastern milk snake Spotted salamanderFive-lined skink Tiger salamanderNorthern redback salamanderPolyploid ambystomatids (or Amystoma hybrid complex)

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Locally ImportantAs of 1997, forest species were fairly common at theextreme eastern periphery of the region, but occurredas relic populations elsewhere within the ChicagoWilderness region. Overall, this assemblage wasdeclining and there was concern regarding the sur-vival of the remaining small populations. The habitatwas broken up into small, isolated patches and therewere significant barriers to dispersal. Management

was needed at the habitat level, particularly regard-ing invasive buckthorn, the presence of which unfa-vorably alters forest and woodland understory.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan calls for a sustainablepopulation of forest and woodland amphibians andreptiles with opportunities for gene flow among sep-arate sub-populations. Goals include securingapproximately 50,000 to 100,000 acres of healthy for-est and woodland complexes, with as many as 20good quality sites larger than 500 acres, and main-taining enough sites to provide for a wide range ofquality breeding habitat (including a variety of wet-lands within woodland sites).

Recent Recovery EffortsThere are no specific on-the-ground recovery effortsidentified for this assemblage. However, beginningin October 2004, Indiana had banned the collection ofeastern box turtles.

IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the gray treefrog and springpeeper. These were selected as good indicator speciesfor this assemblage because their presence generallyindicates high quality habitat with a number of otherspecies present. However, it is important to note thattheir absence does not necessarily indicate that agiven site is not important for the assemblage or notspecies-rich.



Most species in this assemblage do well in protected,managed habitats. Some have lost habitat or havebecome extirpated, or there is no information avail-able on their status. The condition of select individualspecies is as follows:• The eastern newt remains in isolated populations.

Susceptible to infringement on habitat, this speciesis stable if its habitat is not lost.

• The blue-spotted salamander has benefited fromincreased habitat and is ranked in excellent con-dition.

• 2004 surveys conducted for the marbled salaman-der did not locate the species. David Beamer,Donna Resetar and Alan Resetar conducted thesurveys at some of its historic locations in theIndiana Lake Michigan Coastal Zone.

• The four-toed salamander is a specialized species,susceptible to disturbance and intrusion on habi-tat, and more abundant in Indiana preserves. InIllinois, to date it has only been found in WillCounty.

• The northern redback salamander is stable inIndiana, and is being found at additional new sitesin Lake County. Although it may be extirpated innortheastern Illinois, suitable habitat exists inextreme eastern Will County.

3.3.7 GRASSLAND REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThe following species are found in upland and low-land prairies:

American toad Western fox snake*Western chorus frog Smooth green snakePlains leopard frog Plains garter snake

*The western fox snake has been reclassified from thesavanna assemblage.

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Locally ImportantThis assemblage consists of three species that aregeneralists and in 1997 were considered stable, andthree that are restricted and were determined to bein decline at that time.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsTo conserve all of the region’s grassland reptiles andamphibians, the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recom-mends the creation of as many medium-sized (500-1,000-acre) grassland sites as possible. These sitesshould consist of core natural areas within a land-scape that allows them to function as breeding habitatfor these species. A priority should be to expand asmany existing 80- to 200-acre prairie remnants as pos-sible to 500- to 1,000-acre sites, providing opportuni-ties for recolonization of species. These sites shouldbe managed with a diversity of processes to create thevariety of habitats needed by different species. Anadditional goal is to conserve the smooth greensnake, which is restricted to grassland habitats.


IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the smooth green snake and plainsgarter snake. These were selected as good indicatorspecies for this assemblage because their presencegenerally indicates high quality habitat with a num-ber of other species present. However, it is importantto note that their absence does not necessarily indi-cate that a given site is not important for the assem-blage or not species-rich.



There remains a disparity in the condition of grass-lands throughout the region, with the majority beingunmanaged or under-managed. The condition ofamphibian and reptile assemblages generally mirrorsthe condition of their habitats. Particularly distressingare such instances as the pending development inIndiana of a site that harbors a sizable population ofthe green snake, an Indiana state-endangered species.

3.3.8 MARSH REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThis species assemblage includes:

American toad Western chorus frogGreen frog Northern leopard frogSnapping turtle Painted turtleBlanding’s turtle Northern water snakeWestern ribbon snake Graham’s crayfish snakeCommon garter snake Tiger salamanderSpring peeper Blue-spotted salamanderBullfrog+ Plains leopard frog+Newt+ Spotted turtle+

+Additions recommended by 2004 workshop participants

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: RelativelyStable/Globally ImportantDuring the 1997 workshop, it was assessed that thosereptile and amphibian species that can persist inmonotypic habitats were surviving, while those that

72



73


need diverse habitats were declining. Principalthreats to marsh reptile and amphibian speciesincluded the development occurring around marshesand the invasion of purple loosestrife and cattails.Species were suffering, too, under managementregimes that prevented the cycling of water. It wasquestionable the extent to which wetland restorationsites were aiding the condition of amphibians.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsBecause the complex life cycles of amphibiansrequire several different habitats, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan calls for the establishment, protectionand management of habitat mosaics, includingmarshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes andseeps. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommendsthat across the region, different wetlands should be atdifferent stages at the same time. To benefit wetlandreptiles and amphibians, as well as wetland birds, theplan also calls for the establishment of 1,000-acre nat-ural area complexes, with several marshes of 100acres or more and with smaller wetlands andephemeral pools. To connect existing wetlands, theplan calls for many more relatively small wetlandcomplexes, particularly in the southern and westernparts of the region.

Recent Recovery EffortsThe National Park Service is conducting a large-scaleproject to restore the natural drainage to a formermarsh complex (Great Marsh) in northern PorterCounty, Indiana.

The East Branch of the Grand Calumet River and theIndiana Harbor Canal System is poised to benefitfrom a $53 million settlement to restore naturalresources injured by contaminants in the river andcanal sediments. About 233 acres of land in westernLake County, Indiana will be set aside for habitat pro-tection, including property containing marshes, sandprairies, sand savanna and pannes.


Marsh areas have become more stabilized in the lastfive years because hydrology management hasimproved, but development and invasive speciescontinue to threaten the long-term viability of thisassemblage. Of particular concern is Graham’s cray-

fish snake, which hasn’t been recorded in multiplecounties for nine to 15 years.

IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the northern leopard frog andBlanding’s turtle. These were selected as good indi-cator species for this assemblage because their pres-ence generally indicates high quality habitat with anumber of other species present. However, it isimportant to note that their absence does not neces-sarily indicate that a given site is not important forthe assemblage or not species-rich.


3.3.9 PANNE REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionPanne is a distinct and globally rare plant commu-nity, but experts are not certain if there is a distinctreptile and amphibian assemblage found in pannes.According to the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the fol-lowing species comprise this assemblage:

Fowler’s toad Northern cricket frog*Green frog Western chorus frogBlanding’s turtle Northern leopard frogNorthern water snake Common garter snake

*The northern cricket frog has been reclassified from themarsh assemblage.

At least one expert believes that there are distinctpanne habitats in Indiana based primarily on topo-graphic features. The assemblages listed below rep-resent current occurrences in each habitat. Theassemblages seem distinct but this may be an arti-fact of site histories (disturbance, origin, etc.), site sizeand the number of sites remaining.

High dune-associated pannes:Fowler’s toad Western chorus frogGreen frog Eastern hognose snake

Ridge and swale (Toleston Strandplain)-associatedpannes:

American toad Green frogWestern chorus frog Eastern tiger salamander

Northern cricket frog Eastern newtNorthern water snake Blanding’s turtleSpotted turtle Painted turtle

Illinois pannes:Western chorus frog Green frogNorthern leopard frog Blanding’s turtleNorthern water snake Common garter snakePainted turtle Common snapping turtleTiger salamander

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Stable/Locally ImportantThe 1997 workshop participants rated this assem-blage as stable, but of conservation concern. Therehad been a number of historical losses—notably inIllinois Beach State Park and Lake County, Indiana—so the 1997 condition represented a depleted condi-tion. The remaining examples of this assemblagewere in preserves. Threats included human distur-bance, especially collection.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsBecause the complex life cycles of amphibiansrequire several different habitats, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan calls for the establishment, protectionand management of habitat mosaics, includingmarshes, bogs, fens, sedge meadows, pannes andseeps. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommendsthat across the region, different wetlands should be atdifferent stages at the same time. To benefit wetlandreptiles and amphibians, as well as wetland birds, theplan also calls for the establishment of 1,000-acre nat-ural area complexes, with several marshes of 100acres or more, and with smaller wetlands andephemeral pools. To connect existing wetlands, theplan calls for many more relatively small wetlandcomplexes, particularly in the southern and westernparts of the region.


IndicatorsParticipants in the 1997 taxonomic workshop identi-fied the Fowler’s toad as an indicator species. Thisspecies was selected as a good indicator species forthis assemblage because its presence generally indi-

cates high quality habitat with a number of otherspecies present. However, it is important to note thatits absence does not necessarily indicate that a givensite is not important for the assemblage or notspecies-rich.


The fact that a relatively substantial amount of theregion’s remaining acreage of panne habitat is underprotection affords the related amphibian and reptileassemblage a degree of stability. However, encroach-ments persist. A proposed expansion of the Gary,Indiana airport would impact part of the core area ofridge and swale Toleston Strandplain-associatedpannes.

3.3.10 SAND SAVANNA AND SAND PRAIRIE

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThis species assemblage includes:

Eastern tiger salamander Fowler’s toadSix-lined racerunner Eastern racerWestern ribbon snakeBullsnakeCommon garter snake Gray treefrogBlue-spotted salamander DeKay’s snakeEastern hognose snake+ Milk snakeSlender glass lizard

+Addition recommended by the 2004 workshop participants

Species within two potential sub-assemblages,Kankakee sands and Lake Plain sands, include thefollowing:

Kankakee sands:Six-lined racerunner Fowler’s toadSlender glass lizard BullsnakeWestern ribbon snake Eastern racer Common garter snake Ornate box turtleEastern hognose snake Blanding’s turtleEastern tiger salamanderBlue-spotted salamander (Indiana)

Lake Plain sands:Eastern tiger salamander Fowler’s toadBlue-spotted salamander Gray treefrogSix-lined racerunner Slender glass lizardCommon garter snake DeKay’s snake

74



75


Western ribbon snake Eastern racerEastern hognose snake Blanding’s turtle

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Locally ImportantReflecting the rare nature of sand savannas and sandprairies, the related reptile and amphibian assem-blage was deemed equally rare during the 1997workshop. Overall, it was determined that remaininghabitat suffered from heavy fragmentation and iso-lation. Additional threats to species within thisassemblage, particularly large snakes, includedheavy collection at the best remaining sites.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsAcknowledging that savannas support distinctiveassemblages of reptiles and amphibians, the Bio-diversity Recovery Plan outlines the need for savannasites of between 200 and 500 acres, for multiple siteswith functional connections for dispersal, and formanagement to be undertaken to improve savannaquality and structure. To maintain viable populationsof prairie reptiles and amphibians, the Report Cardcalls for the creation of as many medium-sized (500-to 1,000-acre) grassland sites as possible. All sitesshould include functional connections for dispersal,i.e., powerline rights of way managed as habitat.


IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop included the eastern tiger salamander.This was selected as a good indicator species for thisassemblage because its presence generally indicateshigh quality habitat with a number of other speciespresent. However, it is important to note that itsabsence does not necessarily indicate that a given siteis not important for the assemblage or not species-rich.



There is a fair amount of habitat under protection.Of concern, however, are bullsnakes and racers, eachof which requires large, at least 500-700-acre, sites.Racers have experienced higher road mortality neardeveloped areas as well as at the Indiana Dunes inthe autumn. The western ribbon snake, which is sta-ble in Indiana, may be extirpated in Illinois. The spot-ted and Blanding’s turtles are the targets of collectorsat the best remaining sites in Indiana, and also sufferhigh road mortality. The slender glass lizard is morevulnerable to fire mortality than other species in thisassemblage. Prescribed burns must be timed to peri-ods when this lizard is in hibernation. Fires during itsactivity period, even on inclement days, can causemortality, because the lizard may shelter under driedvegetation lying on the surface instead of in burrows.One formerly robust population of glass lizards inthe Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore may havedeclined, as indicated by the failure to find individ-uals in a subsequent survey.

3.3.11 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS OF HIGH-GRADIENT STREAM COMMUNITIESDescriptionThis species assemblage includes:

Green frog Pickerel frogNorthern water snake Queen snakeSouthern two-lined salamander

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Declining/Locally ImportantIt was determined in 1997 that some species withinthis assemblage, i.e. the pickerel frog, had been elim-inated from the region. Some, including the two-lined salamander, were severely restricted indistribution and their populations stressed. Threatsincluded siltation, urban runoff, pollution andgroundwater alteration. There was a high potential offurther decline for this assemblage.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsThere are no Biodiversity Recovery Plan goals specificto reptiles and amphibians of high-gradient streamhabitats. Nonetheless, the following recommendedactions for stream communities would impact thisassemblage:

• Reduce hydrological alteration• Reduce deterioration of habitat quality• Reduce deterioration of water quality


IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the green frog where it is the dom-inant species and queen snake, which is very rare orlocalized. These were selected as good indicatorspecies for this assemblage because their presencegenerally indicates high quality habitat with a num-ber of other species present. However, it is importantto note that their absence does not necessarily indi-cate that a given site is not important for the assem-blage or not species-rich.



Although threats to high-gradient stream habitat aresevere, species within the related assemblage are notrestricted to this habitat community.

3.3.12 RIVER, LAKE AND POND REPTILES AND

AMPHIBIANSDescriptionThis species assemblage includes:

Mudpuppy Northern cricket frogGreen frog Common snapping turtleBullfrog Common musk turtlePainted turtle Common map turtleFalse map turtle SliderSpiny softshell Northern water snakeQueen snake+ Blanding’s turtle+

+Addition recommended by the 2004 workshop participants

1997 Taxonomic Workshop Assessment: Stable, butnot confirmed/Locally ImportantDuring the 1997 workshops, most of the specieswithin this assemblage were deemed common, but afew were of concern, particularly cricket frogs,Blanding’s turtles, map turtles and queen snakes.

Threats included ground water alterations and therelease of non-native turtles, which are difficult todistinguish from native populations.

Biodiversity Recovery Plan GoalsAs is the case with the high-gradient stream assem-blage, there are no river, lake and pond recoverygoals specific to reptiles and amphibians in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan. Nonetheless, among theseveral recommended actions for the region’s aquaticcommunities, the following are particularly relevantto this assemblage:• Reduce hydrological alteration• Reduce deterioration of habitat quality• Reduce deterioration of water quality• Develop specific recovery plans for species and

lakes of concern• Investigate and prepare for the possibility of rein-

troduction of native species


IndicatorsIndicator species identified in the 1997 taxonomicworkshop include the mudpuppy, common map tur-tle (rare, but possibly increasing in some areas in thenorthern part of the region) and spiny softshell,which is found in habitats of varying quality. Thesewere selected as good indicator species for thisassemblage because their presence generally indi-cates high quality habitat with a number of otherspecies present. However, it is important to note thattheir absence does not necessarily indicate that agiven site is not important for the assemblage or notspecies-rich.



This assemblage appears stable, but additionalresearch is needed. Woody plant succession onexposed banks used for ovipositon is a serious man-agement issue. The effect of introduced invasivespecies such as the round goby should be monitored.

76



77


Potential effects on mudpuppies, anuran larvae andeven hatchling turtles should be determined throughdietary analysis at sites such as Wolf Lake in southChicago and Hammond, Indiana.

3.3.13 RECOMMENDED ACTIONSAlong the lines of the “Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Savanna Herptofauna”(Glennemeier 2002c), specific, measurable region-wide goals—along with monitoring protocols—needto be established for each of the region’s amphibianand reptile assemblages. Other data and monitoring-related recommendations include:• Analyze existing unpublished reports• Share data across the region, preferably with some

central repository• Identify and fill data gaps, i.e., data are needed on

the relationships of reptiles and amphibians totheir habitats, and in particular, how dependentthe milk snake may be on savanna habitat

• Monitor reptile and amphibian population healthagainst restoration and management efforts

• Train more professionals to verify and analyze col-lected data

• Increase volunteer training in pertinent areas• Monitor the same sites over time• Expand presence/absence surveys to include pop-

ulation assessments, demography, etc.• Conduct specialized surveys throughout the entire

Chicago Wilderness region for species that are dif-ficult to survey, such as mudpuppies, wood frogs,Graham’s crayfish snakes and Kirtland’s snakes

• Conduct rapid assessments over time intervals,perhaps two to five years, to get some baselinetrend measurements

Recommended research actions include:• Research the role of mitigated wetlands, because

more wetlands are being restored or “created” andbecause mitigation design has changed

• Create habitat design parameters for target speciesthat can be incorporated into mitigation or restora-tion designs

• Increase research on the effects of restoration on allwildlife, including reptiles and amphibians

• Research and demonstrate reptile, amphibian andother wildlife responses to restoration activitiesover long periods of time

To date, DuPage, Will, and Lake Counties, Illinois,have tailored management to accommodate the spe-cial needs of amphibians and reptiles. Managementagencies throughout the region, however, need tofine-tune prescribed burn protocols to do the leastharm to amphibians and reptiles while at the sametime maintaining effective control over the opencanopy habitats that some species need. A recentreport on fire mortality in a prairie reptile andamphibian assemblage in Missouri is sobering. Inthis paper, Frese (2003), notes the following mortalityobserved during a 1999 post-fire survey of a 33-hectare site:• 20 of 42 Terrapene carolina• 4 of 7 Terrapene ornata• 2 of 2 Ophisaurus attenuatus• 3 of 3 Coluber constrictor• 12 of 12 Lampropeltis calligaster

Pursuit of the various recommended actions for theregion’s terrestrial and aquatic communities wouldalso benefit amphibian and reptile populations.Assemblage-specific recommendations include:• Establish professional training for land managers

on management protocols for reptiles and amphib-ians, similar to the Chicago Wilderness consor-tium’s prescribed burn training. This trainingshould cover such topics as basic identification,habitat needs, sources for gathering further infor-mation, and how to rigorously evaluate transloca-tion proposals. It should help land managersfurther their basic understanding of our localspecies and provide a better understanding of whyreptiles and amphibians are not distributed homo-geneously over all “suitable looking” habitat.Furthermore, such training should provide moreinsight into some idiosyncratic aspects of verte-brate population ecology and behavior, especiallyas they apply to reptiles and amphibians.

• Conduct feasibility studies before species’ reintro-ductions, and conduct ongoing monitoring of rein-troduction successes, including an evaluation ofthe effects of reintroductions on source popula-tions. An extremely important component of anyfeasibility study should be an investigation intowhether a reintroduction is even appropriate forthat time and place, because failed reintroductionscan cause more harm than good.

• Establish a reptile and amphibian reintroductiontask force within the Chicago Wilderness NaturalResource Management Team.

• Identify where opportunities exist to meet theBiodiversity Recovery Plan and conservation designgoals related to the establishment of large habitatcomplexes.

• Evaluate the possibility of planting native shrubsin the restoration of wet-shrub savanna in relationto massasaugas, spotted turtles, five-lined skinks,Kirtland’s snakes and eastern ribbon snakes.Kirtland’s snake is found only in wet meadows,grasslands, and other habitats that have shrubcomponents.

• Consider species such as mudpuppies, commonmap turtles, red-eared sliders, snapping turtles,spiny softshell turtles and perhaps the northernwater snake in the Lake Michigan Action Plan cur-rently being developed by members of theChicago Wilderness consortium.

3.4INVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES

3.4.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSThe Report Card advances a substantial revision of theterrestrial insect classification system used in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan. Experts who participatedin the development of the Report Card concurred thatthe original 14 categories identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan are too narrow and do not correspondwell with insect distribution in the region. Aquaticinsects and other invertebrate species are not yet clas-sified.

Unlike the other assemblages and communities, theReport Card provides a collective assessment of allinsect assemblages rather than assessment by indi-vidual assemblage. This reflects the lack of data andanalysis, and is the approach established in the 1997taxonomic workshop for invertebrates, and thereforefollowed here. Additionally, there is no listing of indi-vidual species within each insect assemblage, prima-rily due to the sheer number of the region’s insectspecies, estimated at between 5,000 and 6,000.Another reason is that the majority of insect speciesare fairly stable and ubiquitous throughout theregion. It is recommended, therefore, that recoveryefforts be focused on conservative insect species.

Overall, the ratings for the region’s assemblages ofconservative insect species range from poor to good.Although trends are difficult to quantify, indicationsare that populations of conservative insect species arestable but threatened. The development of specificrecovery goals and monitoring protocols for each ofthe region’s invertebrate communities—includingthose not classified in the Report Card—is necessaryto guide recovery efforts and to be able to reportmore detailed, quantified assessments of individualinvertebrate classifications in future report cards.

Condition of DataThere are two data sets of note: Northeastern IllinoisUniversity's 20-year study of insects on select sitesthroughout the Chicago Wilderness region, and sur-vey records from the Illinois Butterfly MonitoringNetwork, which includes data from southeasternWisconsin and Northwestern Indiana as well asnortheastern Illinois.

Ron Panzer and his colleagues have surveyed one ormore insect groups on 69 prairies and savannaswithin the greater Chicago Wilderness region. Thedata (roughly 20,000 element occurrences represent-ing 2,300 species) reside in Panzer’s personal data-base, and Northeastern Illinois University currentlyhas roughly 12,000 voucher specimens (Panzer 2005).

The Illinois Butterfly Monitoring Network recordsdate back to 1987. Each record is one Pollard walk (astandard method of counting butterflies). As of theend of the 2004 monitoring season, there were morethan 5,000 records in the database. There are morethan 150 sites entered into the database, however,fewer than 50 have data that run for 10 consecutiveyears or longer. There is also variation in the quality ofthe data, reflecting variant skill levels of the data col-lectors. The data resides in a database.

Long-term Vision and GoalsAlthough recovery goals for the region’s insect com-munities fall within the parameters of recovery goalsfor the region’s other species reported in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, for point of information,the insect recovery goals identified during the 1997taxonomic workshop process included:• Establish more prairie community sites of at least

100 acres

78



79


• Expand existing prairie sites by 25 percent overthe next 10 years

Assemblage DescriptionThe insect assemblages identified in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan are:• Dry and mesic fine-textured soil prairie insects*• Dry and mesic sand prairie insects*• Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects• Wet prairie insects*• Dry fine-textured soil savanna and woodland

insects• Wet fine-textured soil savanna and woodland

insects• Sand savanna insects*• Fen insects• Marsh insects• Sedge meadow insects• Bog insects• Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects• Marsh insects• Floodplain forest insects• Upland forest insects• Foredune insects

*Those assemblages with an asterisk were identified asglobally important in 1997.

The revised Report Card categories are:• Fen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects• Marsh insects• Dry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects• Foredune insects• Dry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects• Bog insects• Blacksoil savanna and woodland insects• Floodplain forest insects

1997 Taxonomic Workshop AssessmentThe following assemblages were ranked “of concernor in an overall declining condition” primarilybecause the plant communities on which they arebased are threatened:• Dry and mesic fine-textured soil prairie insects• Dry and mesic sand prairie insects• Wet prairie insects• Sand savanna insects• Fen insects• Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects• Marsh insects

• Dry and fine-textured soil savanna and woodlandinsects

Threats common to all insect assemblage typesinclude:• The suppression of fire results in an unfavorable

change in structure and homogenization of fire-dependent plant communities, which negativelyimpacts insect habitat.

• Hydrology disruption is a problem for wetland-dependent communities and the assemblages thatdepend upon them.

• Introduced plant species may eliminate habitatand therefore threaten insect assemblages.

• Some invasive insects, such as the Chinese man-tis, may be a problem, but more information isneeded to determine how much of a problem non-native insects may be for native insects.

• Fragmentation is a problem in that small sites losespecies.

• Lack of colonization is a long-term problem forinsects—restored sites do not necessarily attractinsects.

• Mosquito abatement is a potential threat, as maybe gypsy moth control efforts.

• Infrastructure development practices often poseproblems for insect communities, i.e., the place-ment of sewer and power lines often are incom-patible with management practices.

• Light pollution is a threat to moths; sodium vaporand mercury vapor lights are a particular problem.

• Bug zappers may be a threat, but the extent of theproblem is not sufficiently understood.

Recent Recovery EffortsAs described in various community sections, therehave been a number of prairie and wetland restora-tion efforts throughout the region, which have recov-ered suitable habitat for conservative insect species.However, whereas many common species havereturned, in general conservative species have not. Inaccordance with the Biodiversity Recovery Plan rec-ommendation that translocation and reintroductionmay be essential to establish prairie invertebratessuccessfully, the Peggy Notebaert Nature Museumhas initiated several butterfly translocation effortsand the Indiana chapter of The Nature Conservancyhas led an effort to re-establish a population of thefederally endangered Karner blue butterfly on a site

where it had been extirpated by wildfire. A 2004 fed-eral court ruling has paved the way for the mandatedhabitat protection plans for the federally endangeredHine’s emerald dragonfly.

Indicator SpeciesAlthough the Report Card experts convened to assessthe region’s invertebrate assemblages, they debatedthe value of indicators for insect assemblages with-out arriving at a clear consensus. Potential indica-tors that emerged include butterflies, moths andleafhoppers. Of these three, butterflies may be thebest candidates as they are diurnal, large, annualspecies that are easy to see and monitor. Additionally,33 percent of all butterfly species in the region areconservative. A limiting factor is that conservativebutterflies are often scarce or absent from importantsites, particularly smaller ones.


A majority of the insects that inhabit natural arearemnants in the Chicago Wilderness region alsooccur, sometimes in large numbers, throughout themodern regional landscape and are relatively secure.However, many experts agree that several hundredspecies, comprising 15-20% of the local insect fauna,require reasonably intact prairies, savannas andother remnant habitats. These conservative species,along with conservative plants, comprise consider-ably more than half of the threatened biodiversity inthis highly fragmented region.

Research initiated in 1982 suggests that approxi-mately 95 percent of conservative insect species thatonce inhabited this region persist on at least a fewChicago Wilderness sites. Approximately one-thirdof the region’s surviving remnant-requiring specieshave been recorded on at least 10 sites (in some cases,species can be found on as many as 40 sites) and areapparently secure. At the other extreme, 40% havebeen found on five or fewer sites and are consideredto be imperiled. Many of these species are known tobe uncommon or rare throughout much or all of theirranges (Panzer pers. comm.).

Trends among insect assemblages are difficult toestablish. Butterfly populations, for instance, can varywidely from year to year based on a number of fac-

80



THE HINE’S EMERALD

DRAGONFLY

In September 2004, a federal judge orderedthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to providecritical habitat designation for the Hinesemerald dragonfly. This action not only com-pels the agency to develop a habitat protec-tion plan for one of the most endangeredspecies in the nation, it makes it far more dif-ficult for remaining habitat to be developed.Extirpated from many of its historic locationsdue to fragmentation and destruction ofhabitat, the Hines emerald dragonfly waslisted as an endangered species in Illinois in1991 and a federally endangered species in1995. Breeding populations remain in only afew select sites in northeastern Illinois,Missouri, Wisconsin and Michigan.

The Hines emerald dragonfly requires a par-ticular complex of wetland habitat to sustainits life cycle. Larvae need cool, shallow, slow-moving waters, spring-fed marshes, andseepage sedge meadows. Mature larvaecrawl from the water onto emergent vegeta-tion to support them as the skin splits on theback of their heads and thoraxes, and theadult dragonfly emerges. After a few days,the young adult’s brown eyes turn a bright,metallic emerald green. Nearby meadowsand fields with scattered groups of shrubs inproximity to breeding habitat are preferredhunting grounds for adults, which feast onmosquitoes and other small flying insects(Illinois State Museum 2004; Matre 2004).

tors, such as spring weather conditions, which are notdirectly related to the ecological health of the assem-blage. Nonetheless, the data from the Illinois ButterflyMonitoring Network reveal no discernable examplesof species decline within the decade. On the contrary,there are a few instances of possible increases in pop-ulations of certain remnant-reliant species. However,the increases hover right at the limits of statistical sig-nificance, therefore it would be premature to report

81


an increase with confidence. Nonetheless, thesetrends do suggest compatibility of these species withcurrent management techniques.

Based on the available data and expert observations,the following condition rankings apply:• Fen, wet prairie and sedge meadow insects (Fair)• Marsh insects (Poor)• Dry and mesic sand prairie/savanna insects

(Good)• Foredune insects (Fair)• Dry and mesic blacksoil/gravel prairie insects

(Poor)• Bog insects (Undetermined)• Blacksoil savanna and woodland insects (Fair)• Floodplain forest insects (Fair)

In addition to the negative effects inherent in contin-uing development, threats to the region’s insectassemblages include the recent cutback in land man-agement by some government agencies and non-profit organizations, and the effect of programs such

as those targeted at controlling gypsy moths and thespread of West Nile Virus. Most of such programshave proven ineffective in achieving their pest con-trol goals while proving injurious to populations ofmany beneficial insects.

Recommended ActionsAs the condition of the region’s insect assemblagesis intimately linked to habitat, all terrestrial andaquatic fauna would benefit from implementation ofthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan recommended actionsfor terrestrial and aquatic communities. Affirmingand expanding upon the sole insect-related recom-mended action of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, it isimportant to re-establish conservative insect specieson all habitat types, both remnant and restored.

To monitor the recovery of the region’s invertebrateassemblages, it is critical to develop region-wide spe-cific, measurable recovery goals and monitoring pro-tocols for all of the region’s invertebrate assemblages.Additional recommended actions include:

In July, 2002, Doug Taron of the Peggy NotebaertNature Museum collected six female swampmetalmark butterflies from fen remnants in east-central Wisconsin. These were to become thenucleus of a restored population near Elgin,Illinois. The swamp metalmark hadn’t beenrecorded at the Elgin site since 1939, and thespecies disappeared from Illinois entirely in themid-1980s.

That summer and the next, Taron and a team ofscientists from the Peggy Notebaert NatureMuseum collected fertile eggs from the femalemetalmarks, raised them and transferred morethan 100 larvae to the new site. In July of 2003, theteam spotted the first two adult metalmarks. Inearly spring of 2004, Taron found larvae in therosettes of the swamp thistle on which the metal-marks feed, and the team remains hopeful thatthis is the beginning of an established population.

Such assisted reintroductions, or translocations,are important parts of butterfly conservation.Studies by researchers such as Ron Panzer atNortheastern Illinois University show that somebutterflies, termed remnant-reliant species,require intact habitats like prairies and wetlands.But data from the Illinois Butterfly MonitoringNetwork suggest that remnant-reliant species donot spontaneously reappear, even after carefulmanagement improves a site’s conditions to thepoint that it again becomes suitable habitat.Translocations, closely integrated with well-exe-cuted land management plans, physically placethem in the few places they can still survive. Asecological restoration brings back more of theseplaces in the Chicago Wilderness region, butterflyrestoration can be expected to thrive as well.

Adapted from “Restoring the Butterfly Tapestry,” byDoug Taron, Chicago WILDERNESS Magazine,Spring, 2004

RESTORING THE BUTTERFLY TAPESTRY

• Ascertain a complete list of invertebrates in theregion

• Focus heavily on those species known to inhabitfive or fewer sites in the region

• Review insect populations more thoroughly forpotential listing as state endangered species

3.5FISH ASSEMBLAGES

3.5.1 OVERVIEW OF FINDINGSIn general, most fish assemblages are in poor condi-tion. Although some assemblages appear relativelystable, no assemblage is improving, due to ongoingdevelopment and alteration of habitat, hydrologyand surrounding watersheds. In general, pursuit ofrecovery goals for the region’s wetlands, streams andlakes will benefit the region’s various fish assem-blages. The recommended actions for individual fishassemblages listed in the sections below represent awide range of options. Yet to be developed are spe-cific recovery goals for individual fish assemblages,which would guide the development of refinedrecovery action recommendations, indicators andmonitoring protocols.

3.5.2 CONDITION OF DATANo specific indicators or indices have been developedto assess the condition of the region’s fish assem-blages for the Report Card. The Illinois Natural HistorySurvey, in conjunction with Northeastern IllinoisPlanning Commission, carried out detailed regionalfishery surveys in 1978. Surveys were not specific tomajor habitat types but spatial coverage was exten-sive and covered all six Chicago area counties inIllinois (Brigham et al. 1978). Information about otherdata, as it relates to specific individual fish assem-blages, is included in the sections below. In general,fish data exist, but an insufficient amount have beencompiled and analyzed. Therefore the Report Cardassessments for the region’s fish assemblages arebased primarily on the observations of experts work-ing in the field.

3.5.3 ASSEMBLAGE DESCRIPTIONThe region’s fishes are divided into the followingassemblages:

• Glacial lake assemblage• Wetland assemblage• Intermittent headwater stream assemblage• Seepage fed headwater stream assemblage• Lake Michigan assemblage• Small river assemblage• Big river assemblage

Under each assemblage section below, the lists of fishspecies typical of each aquatic community type andindicator fish species should not be viewed as defin-itive. Within each list, there may be a lack of consen-sus about the listing of a few species.

3.5.4 GLACIAL LAKE ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionThe species within this assemblage include thoseadapted to the clear water, sandy substrates, andabundant submersed vegetation typically found innatural glacial lakes. Historically a common featurein northeastern Illinois and southeastern Wisconsin,the majority of the region’s remaining glacial lakeshave been drained or filled. Of the more than 30 gla-cial lakes left in Illinois, concentrated within the FoxRiver and Des Plaines River drainages, prime exam-ples include Deep Lake, Cedar Lake, Wooster Lake,East and West Loon lakes, Little Silver Lake andBangs Lake in Lake County; and Lake Defiance andLake Elizabeth in McHenry County.

Longnose gar BowfinSpotfin shiner Golden shinerPugnose shiner Blackchin shinerBlacknose shiner Sand shinerMimic shiner Pugnose minnowBluntnose minnow Fathead minnowWhite sucker Lake chubsuckerBlack bullhead Yellow bullheadBrown bullhead Tadpole madtomGrass pickerel Northern pikeCentral mudminnow Pirate perchBanded killifish Green sunfishStarhead topminnow PumpkinseedWarmouth BluegillLargemouth bass White crappieBlack crappie Iowa darterLeast darter Johnny darterYellow perch

82



83


Recent Recovery EffortsIn 2000, Liberty Prairie Foundation, Integrated LakesManagement and the Illinois Department of NaturalResources cooperatively established a sanctuary forIllinois endangered and threatened fishes. From lakeswithin the Des Plaines River drainage, the team cap-tured approximately 200 individuals of five separatespecies—banded killifish, blacknose shiner, black-chin shiner, pugnose shiner and Iowa darter—andtranslocated them to the three-acre Sanctuary Pond atPrairie Crossing. Predator species had been removedfrom Sanctuary Pond prior to transfer, and subse-quent years of monitoring have confirmed robustpopulation numbers in the thousands to tens of thou-sands for each of the translocated species.

While there have been some general and isolatedhabitat recovery efforts such as removing septicfields and sewer discharges from lakes, by and largethere have been no major water quality, fringe zoneor littoral zone restoration or protection efforts. It isanticipated that Integrated Lakes Management willdo some additional stocking of lakes on the DesPlaines River drainage to expand the reintroductionof the five target species present at Prairie Crossing.

IndicatorsIn general, the following species tend to be found inhigher quality habitats, although many can be foundin lower quality habitats as well:

Longnose gar Pugnose shinerBlackchin shiner Blacknose shinerPugnose minnow Lake chubsuckerBrown bullhead Banded killifishStarhead topminnow Iowa darterLeast darter

Indicators of success for this assemblage need to beidentified, and this is a recommendation for futurereport cards.


With little active habitat management, the glacial lakefish assemblage continues to suffer from a reductionof submerged aquatic vegetation due to herbiciding,nutrient enrichment from septic systems and lawnfertilizer runoff, sediment disturbance from powerboating, shoreline alteration (i.e., sheet piling and

seawalls,) elimination of natural riparian and shore-line vegetation, lack of connectivity between lakesdue to water level control structures (i.e., small damsand spillways), reduction in attached wetlands, andthe introduction of exotic species, including commoncarp, Eurasian milfoil and zebra mussels. Althoughindividual exceptions may occur, the higher qualityglacial lakes are in southeastern Wisconsin andnortheastern Illinois, and poorer quality lakes are atthe southern end of Lake Michigan. As developmentcontinues to increase throughout the region, theeffects of development decrease the ecologicalintegrity of glacial lakes. Many of the glacial lakeindicator species are rare and declining. A recentstudy comparing the historic and present locations ofthe blackchin shiner reveal that it is present in two-thirds of its historic locations that were surveyed(Burr et al. 2005).

Condition of DataThe condition of species within glacial lakes assem-blage was and is difficult to determine quantitativelydue to limited sampling in standard fisheries surveysand the scarcity of many of the indicator species.Private ownership of many glacial lakes in Illinoislimits the ability of the Illinois Department of NaturalResources and other agencies to survey and managethese lakes. Illinois Natural History Survey reportsindicate that the blacknose shiner, the pugnose shiner,the blackchin shiner and the banded killifish have notappeared in stream collections on the Des Plainesdrainage for many years; lake records mirrored thiscondition (Page and Retzer 2002; Retzer 2005).

Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation and SouthernIllinois University conducted life history work onblacknose and blackchin shiners and determined theconservation status in Illinois of the banded killifish,blacknose shiner and blackchin shiner. The distribu-tion of all three species has declined in Illinois andother states in the Midwest. The most dramaticdecline is that of the blacknose shiner, which hasexperienced major declines in rivers where it wasfound historically (Burr et al. 2005).

The University of Illinois–Chicago is also currentlyconducting a study of the genetic integrity of black-chin and blacknose shiners in Illinois.

Recommended Actions• Develop indices to assess ecosystem integrity of

glacial lake habitats• Preserve high quality lakes• Restore fringe and littoral zones• Reintroduce glacial lake species if conditions are

suitable• Preserve or restore the delicate balance of min-

nows, sunfish and perches in glacial lakes, whichwould benefit other species, including bowfin, gar,pikes and catfish

3.5.5 WETLAND ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionThe wetland fish assemblage includes speciesadapted to living among very dense stands of sub-merged and emergent aquatic vegetation.Historically abundant, wetlands throughout theregion were indiscriminately drained for conversionto human use, primarily as agricultural lands. Thepercentage loss of original wetlands in Indiana andIllinois is estimated at 85 and 90 percent, respectively.Examples of remaining high quality wetlandsinclude Fish Lake Marsh and Broburg Marsh in LakeCounty, Illinois, Powderhorn Lake Marsh in CookCounty, Illinois, Lake Elizabeth Marsh in McHenryCounty, Illinois, Kankakee River backwaters, andsloughs in Indiana and the Momence Wetland of theKankakee River.

Wetlands that support large fish communities usu-ally are connected directly to natural glacial lakes orstreams. Whereas many species may use wetlandsattached to lakes or streams as breeding and nurseryareas, the following list of species are frequently asso-ciated with wetlands as adults:

Spotfin shiner Golden shinerPugnose minnow Bluntnose minnowFathead minnow BluegillWeed shiner Ironcolor shinerWhite sucker Lake chubsuckerBlack bullhead Yellow bullheadBrown bullhead Tadpole madtomGrass pickerel Pirate perchNorthern pike Brook sticklebackStarhead topminnow PumpkinseedCentral mudminnow Green sunfishBlackstripe topminnow WarmouthLargemouth bass White crappie

Black crappie Iowa darterLeast darter Johnny darterBluntnose darter BowfinBanded killifish

Recent Recovery EffortsNo recovery efforts of any magnitude were identifiedduring the development of this report.


Pugnose minnow Weed shinerIroncolor shiner Lake chubsuckerBrown bullhead Iowa darterStarhead topminnow Least darterBrook stickleback Bluntnose darterBanded killifish



There are only a handful of good quality wetlands inthe Chicago Wilderness region and all of them arethreatened by altered hydrology, pollution, reducedconnectivity to large, deeper bodies of water, and theinflux of invasive plants and animals. In spite of someisolated wetland restorations and wetland mitigationefforts, any site-specific gains have been more thanoffset by the continued draining or filling of thesehabitats and the prevention of fluvial geomorphicprocesses. The health of the wetland fish assemblagegenerally mirrors the health of its habitat.

Condition of DataFew wetland fish data are available. Scientists fromthe Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation sampled fish,invertebrates, birds and herpetofauna at 38 mitiga-tion and 18 natural wetlands in the ChicagoWilderness region (C. Paine and V. Santucci, in prep-aration). The Field Museum has records of fish sam-ples from Kankakee River wetlands and backwatersloughs. The Illinois Department of NaturalResources has data from the Kankakee River near theMomence Wetland.

84



85


Recommended Actions• Preserve functioning backwaters, side-stream wet-

lands and headwater wetlands• Restore hydrologic and fluvial geomorphic

processes of floodplains and headwaters• Reduce unnatural effluent

3.5.6 INTERMITTENT HEADWATER STREAM

ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionThis assemblage occupies first-order streams thatseasonally run intermittently or completely dry.Spring freshets and summer storms are the primarysources of stream flow. The structure of intermittentheadwater streams usually consists of terrestrial orwetland emergent plants due to seasonal hydrology;substrates of clay hard pan, gravel or cobble. The sea-sonal hydrology also accounts for their usuallypoorly developed stream channels. Historically acommon and abundant riverine feature, intermittentheadwater streams often were found on the outskirtsof catchment valleys, usually in areas of little or nogroundwater discharge. Remaining examples includemost of the headwater (first order) streams of the Foxand Des Plaines Rivers.

The fish species listed below usually take refuge dur-ing dry periods in higher order streams or in isolatedpools:

Central stoneroller Redside daceLargescale stoneroller Brassy minnowSpotfin shiner Striped shinerCommon shiner Hornyhead chubGolden shiner Bigmouth shinerSouthern redbelly dace Bluntnose minnowFathead minnow Blacknose daceWhite sucker Creek chubsuckerBlack bullhead Yellow bullheadTadpole madtom Grass pickerelCentral mudminnow Brook sticklebackBlackstripe topminnow Green sunfishBluegill Largemouth bassJohnny darter

Recent Recovery EffortsThere have been isolated restoration efforts, but noth-ing close to a general recovery of this habitat and itsassociated fish assemblage.


Redside dace Brassy minnowSouthern redbelly dace Blacknose daceCreek chubsucker Brook stickleback



A few first-order streams remain in good condition,but the vast majority are manipulated or highlydegraded, which negatively impacts the related fishassemblage. The increasing rate of developmentposes a continued threat to this habitat and its assem-blage type.

Condition of DataIn 1980, Dr. William Mitch did detailed conditionrankings of five Chicago area intermittent streams,including Willow Way Brook and St. Joseph Creek(DuPage River), and Stony Creek and Crooked Creek(Des Plaines River).

Recommended Actions• Develop indices for assessing headwater streams• Keep developers from affecting the seasonality of

these first-order streams• Study the structural and functional characteristics

of remaining and functioning first-order streams,assess their regulatory status and determine howbest to preserve as many as possible

• Restore prairies and uplands where these streamsoriginate

• Restore prairie slough channels and habitat

3.5.7 SEEPAGE FED HEADWATER STREAM

ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionThis assemblage occupies small first order streamsthat are cold and clear all year round, nutrient-poorand groundwater-fed with riffle and pools present.Species within this assemblage require gravel andcobble or sand and vegetation to reproduce, and mostimportantly the upwelling of cold ground water. The

most rare fish assemblage in the region historically, ithas become even more rare in the wake of intensivedevelopment of its habitat. Examples of good qualityhabitat today include tributaries to Dutch Creek,Jelkes Creek, Boone Creek (Fox River) and the LittleKankakee River headwaters.

Central stoneroller Largescale stonerollerRedside dace Northern redbelly daceFinescale dace Blacknose shinerLongnose dace Creek chubBrook trout Brook sticklebackMottled sculpin Slimy sculpinFantail darter Orangethroat darterJohnny darter



Redside dace Northern redbelly daceLongnose dace Finescale daceBrook trout Brook sticklebackMottled sculpin Slimy sculpin



The condition is due mostly to temperature warm-ing, caused primarily by the removal of terrestrialvegetation, and development that utilizes thesestreams as a conveyance for stormwater. Given cur-rent development practices, this assemblage will con-tinue to decline as development increases. Europeanbrown trout has replaced native brook trout in themajority of these streams.

Condition of DataThere are no specific data referenced for this assem-blage type.

Recommended ActionsThere are no specific recommendations for thisassemblage type.

3.5.8 LAKE MICHIGAN ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionLake Michigan is a large, inland freshwater seaformed by the retreating Pleistocene glaciers.Historically, its fish assemblage was not particularlydiverse, but plankton and freshwater amphipodssupported vast schools of select gamefood species,including whitefish and yellow perch. For more thana century, Lake Michigan and its resident fish assem-blage have been altered extensively from their origi-nal condition by human activities, particularly theintroduction of numerous non-native species offishes and invertebrates and the filling of many of itsshoreline wetlands.

Today, within the Lake Michigan assemblage arethree distinct sub-assemblages: nearshore, pelagicand benthic. Nearshore species such as the small-mouth bass, pumpkinseed, and yellow perch inhabitthe shallower waters of the lake’s nearshore areas,harbors, and lagoons. Offshore species such asbloater, lake whitefish, lake chub, and lake troutinhabit the vast open water regions of the lake.Benthic fishes include the numerous species ofsculpins, lake sturgeon, and longnose sucker. Allspecies are adapted to cool or coldwater conditions.

Silver lamprey Lake sturgeonLake chub Emerald shinerSpottail shiner Sand shinerBluntnose minnow Longnose daceLongnose sucker White suckerSilver redhorse Shorthead redhorseChannel catfish Longjaw ciscoLake herring Lake whitefishBloater Deepwater ciscoKiyi Blackfin ciscoShortnose cisco Shortjaw ciscoRound whitefish Lake troutNorthern pike TroutperchGreat Lakes muskellunge Mottled sculpinSlimy sculpin Spoonhead sculpinDeepwater sculpin BurbotPumpkinseed WarmouthSmallmouth bass Black crappie

86



87


Yellow perch LogperchWalleye Freshwater drumSpottail shiner

Recent Recovery EffortsIn October 2004, the federal government approved 75percent of the $9.1 billion needed to complete an elec-tronic barrier in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canalin order to keep non-native Asian carp from enter-ing the Great Lakes system. According to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, the increasedfunding means the permanent electric barrier underconstruction on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canalcan be built as originally planned. It will stretch tworows of electrodes across the canal, which will pulseDC current into the water, and fishes will turn backrather than pass through the electric current. Thefunding will also cover construction of a second control house so that the two sets of electrodes—primary and backup—can be operated simultane-ously. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004).

In November 2004, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevichannounced plans for Illinois to join the federalCoastal Management Program. Illinois is the onlystate among the 36 eligible to participate in the pro-gram that has not yet enrolled. By joining the CoastalManagement Program, Illinois could stand to reapup to $2 million per year for protecting and enhanc-ing its stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline. Potentialprojects could include protecting beach health andimproving fish habitat.

IndicatorsSome of the following species either are extremelyrare or extirpated from southern Lake Michigan:

Silver lamprey Lake sturgeonLake chub Longnose suckerLake herring Lake whitefishBloater KiyiBlackfin cisco Round whitefishGreat Lakes muskellunge Lake troutTrout perch Mottled sculpinSlimy sculpin Spoonhead sculpinDeepwater sculpin Log perch



The current Lake Michigan fish community is verydifferent from what it was originally. Although mostof the deep lake species are still present, some havebeen reduced. The lake still supports a multi-billiondollar sport fishing industry and there are probablymore species actually present in the lake than histor-ically, however many of those are non-native. Ofrecent concern is the prospect of additional non-native species, namely Asian carp and the northernsnakehead, which threaten to greatly alter the com-position of the current assemblage. Trends for thisassemblage are difficult to ascertain due to the con-sistent introduction of non-native species of fishes(e.g., sea lamprey, round goby, ruffe, alewife, smelt,and Pacific salmon) and invertebrates (e.g., zebramussel and spiny water flea). Populations of speciessuch as the smallmouth bass are experiencing popu-lation growth in Illinois waters. Yellow perch, lakewhitefish, lake chub, longnose sucker, and lake stur-geon have experienced population declines and laketrout populations persist because of hatchery intro-ductions. Native benthic species may be threatenedby the exotic round goby.


Recommended ActionsThe large size of Lake Michigan, its economic impor-tance to the shipping and transport industries, and itsman-made interconnectivity with the Atlantic Oceanand Mississippi River combine to make managingthis aquatic resource and its associated fish assem-blage extremely difficult. For these reasons, theReport Card workshop group conjectured that per-haps only radical actions could have a positiveimpact. Such actions would be extremely difficult toachieve, but include:• Stop stocking non-native Salmonids• Start reducing the abundance of non-native

species• Restore coastal wetlands• Remove coastal structures that impeded the lit-

toral drift• Pose heavy restrictions or stop commercial navi-

gation• Stop unnatural diversions

3.5.9 SMALL RIVER ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionHistorically abundant throughout the ChicagoWilderness region, this fish assemblage had differ-ent levels of diversity depending on the river sys-tem. The Fox and Kankakee River systems flowedover diverse geomorphology and topographic relief,providing a multitude of different habitats and flowvelocities and therefore supporting more diverse fishassemblages. Streams in the Chicago Lake Plain suchas the Upper Des Plaines, Chicago and CalumetRiver systems flowed over low topographic reliefand did not have much habitat diversity, causingtheir fish assemblages to be less diverse. Examplesof remaining good quality medium to high-gradestreams include Big Rock Creek, Horse Creek, DeadRiver, Galien River and Brighton Creek.

Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lampreySilver lamprey American brook lampreyBowfin Gizzard shadCentral stoneroller Largescale stonerollerRed shiner Spotfin shinerSteelcolor shiner Brassy minnowStriped shiner Common shinerRedfin shiner Hornyhead shinerGolden shiner Bigeyed chubSilverjaw minnow Bigmouth minnowOzark minnow Roseyface shinerSand shiner Suckermouth minnowFinescale dace Northern redbelly daceBluntnose minnow Southern redbelly daceFathead minnow Blacknose daceCreek chub QuillbackWhite sucker Creek chubsuckerNorthern hogsucker Golden redhorseGreater redhorse Black bullheadYellow bullhead Channel catfishSlender madtom StonecatTadpole madtom Grass pickerelPirate perch Central mudminnowMottled sculpin Blackstripe topminnowRock bass Green sunfishPumpkinseed WarmouthBluegill Orangespotted sunfishLongear sunfish Smallmouth bassLargemouth bass Black crappieMud darter Rainbow darterIowa darter Fantail darterLeast darter Orangethroat darter

Banded darter Johnny darterYellow perch LogperchBlackside darter Slenderhead darter

Recent Recovery EffortsThe number of stream restoration efforts is increasing,but most of them appear not to be successful becausethey do not take site geomorphology into account. Asuccessful effort is the remeandering of a channelizedportion of the upper reaches of Nippersink Creekbelow Wonder Lake, led by The McHenry CountyConservation District. Completed in 2001, this effortmarks one of the most ambitious stream restorationprojects in northeastern Illinois. While results are pre-liminary, indications are that there has been anincrease in fish and macroinvertebrate diversity.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency,the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, TheIllinois Department of Natural Resources, the IllinoisState Water Survey, the North Shore Sanitary Districtand the Waukegan Park District undertook a coop-erative effort to address undermining of a sewagepipe that spanned the Waukegan River. The projectinvolved the installation of various types of streambank stabilization structures, reconfiguration of floodplain boundaries, installing riffle complexes anddetailed monitoring. The Waukegan River project hasbeen monitored extensively with some positiveresults for fish and macroinvertebrate biodiversity(White et al. 2003).

IndicatorsIn general, the following species tend to be found inhigher quality habitats, although many can be foundin lower quality habitats as well.

Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lampreySilver lamprey American brook lampreyBrassy minnow Bigeyed chubOzark minnow Northern redbelly daceFinescale dace Slender madtomMud darter Rainbow darterIowa darter Least darterLogperch Slenderdarter


88



89



In the past several years, species within the small riverfish assemblages have declined significantly, espe-cially intolerant and specialized species and those thathave a naturally low abundance. Streams, especiallylow-gradient ones, are becoming more and moredegraded as development spreads and agriculturalpractices go unchecked. Small river fish assemblagesin the Kankakee and the Fox River watersheds are inthe best shape. Although the small river assemblageis rated excellent in the Kankakee watershed, the con-dition ranking is relative to other watersheds today,not to the Kankakee’s original condition. The smallriver assemblage in the Lake Michigan watershed isstable, but in poor condition and not improving.

Condition of DataThere exist good data for certain Illinois Departmentof Natural Resources stations, but there are gaps, asdata are not always collected from the same stations.

Recommended Actions• Preserve sections of streams with intact active

floodplains and fluvial geomorphic dynamics• Remove fish passage blockages, i.e., dams and cul-

verts• Remove structures that prevent natural fluvial

processes, i.e., levees and poorly designed bridges• Prevent point source and non-point source dis-

charge• Restore less-degraded and degraded streams and

active floodplains• Enhance urban streams to improve water quality• Control non-native fishes

3.5.10 BIG RIVER ASSEMBLAGEDescriptionThe big river fish assemblage is found in the region’smajor rivers: the Des Plaines, the Illinois, the lowerFox and the Kankakee. Historically, the scale and richdiversity of the river system habitats made the bigriver assemblage the most diverse in the region. All ofthese rivers were flanked by vast floodplains com-prised of wetland complexes and backwaters.Defining features of the rivers included very deeppools, large woody debris and large undercut banks.Their substrates were silt, detritus, sand, gravel, boul-

der and bedrock. Over-harvesting, and eventuallydams and pollution, significantly altered the makeupof the associated fish assemblages and habitats. Thereremain no examples of free-flowing or unconfinedlarge rivers in the region. Areas of high diversityoccur on the Kankakee River below the WilmingtonDam and various other spots from the Indiana bor-der to the confluence with the Des Plaines River dueto better water quality and natural temperatures.

Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lampreySilver lamprey American brook lampreyLake sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeonPaddlefish Spotted garLongnose gar Shortnose garMooneye GoldeyeAmerican eel Skipjack herringGizzard shad Central stonerollerSpotfin shiner Gravel chubSilvery minnow Pallid shinerSilver chub Hornyhead chubGolden shiner Emerald shinerRiver shiner Ghost shinerSpottail shiner Sand shinerMimic shiner Suckermouth minnowBluntnose minnow Bullhead minnowCreek chub River carpsuckerQuillback Highfin carpsuckerWhite sucker Northern hogsuckerSmallmouth buffalo Bigmouth buffaloBlack buffalo Silver redhorseBlack redhorse Golden redhorseShorthead redhorse Channel catfishStonecat Freckled madtomFlathead catfish Northern pikeTroutperch Blackstripe topminnowWhite bass Yellow bassRock bass Green sunfishPumpkinseed WarmouthBluegill Orangespotted sunfishLongear sunfish Smallmouth bassLargemouth bass White crappieBlack crappie Western sand darterRainbow darter Banded darterYellow perch LogperchBlackside darter Slenderhead darterWalleye Freshwater drumRiver redhorse

Recent Recovery EffortsThere have been no significant recovery efforts forthis assemblage in the region.

IndicatorsIn general, the following species tend to be found inhigher quality habitats, although many can be foundin lower quality habitats as well.

Chestnut lamprey Northern brook lampreySilver lamprey American brook lampreyLake sturgeon Shovelnose sturgeonMooneye GoldeyeWestern sand darter American eelGravel chub Silvery minnowPallid shiner Silver chubRiver redhorse Freckled madtomTrout perch


Report Card Condition Ranking: Poor to Excellent

The big river fish assemblage within the Des PlainesRiver watershed is rated as poor. Within the FoxRiver watershed, the fish assemblage is rated fair togood, but channel confinement and dams restrictriverine functions. Additionally, nutrient loading isbecoming a major issue because of the lack of treat-ment for phosphorus. The Kankakee River fishassemblage boasts a rating of excellent relative to theother assemblages, but is a faint echo of its historiccondition.


Recommended Actions• Remove all dams, lock and dam structures and

other structures preventing floodplain activity• Restore riparian corridors through the active

floodplains

3.5.11 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR ALL

FISH ASSEMBLAGESAs the condition of the region’s fish assemblages isintimately linked to their habitats, all aquatic fauna

would benefit from implementation of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan recommended actions foraquatic communities. It is also important to estab-lish additional resources for the reintroduction ofnative species.

Additionally, specific region-wide recovery goalsneed to be developed for each fish assemblage withineach watershed, with an emphasis on devotingresources and protection to aquatic communities thatare already doing well. Too often, resources areapplied to aquatic communities that are doingpoorly. As a result, good aquatic communitiesdecrease in quality and poor ones improve onlyslightly. In the end, there is a sort of homogenizationof aquatic communities such that all are of only fairquality, without the continued health of some that areof exceptionally high quality. The same could be saidof all the region’s natural communities. In any case,a region-wide index by which to assess the health offish assemblages and monitoring protocols need tobe developed to be able to assess progress towardrecovery goals.

3.6MAMMALSThe Report Card team was unable to convene expertsto assess the status of the region’s mammal species.However, new information has been garnered on theFranklin’s ground squirrel, which was added to theIllinois endangered and threatened species list in2004.

The historic range of the Franklin’s ground squirrelincludes the northern two-thirds of the ChicagoWilderness region. It is now very rare because ofhabit loss and other unknown factors. A recent sur-vey by the Illinois Natural History Survey verifiedonly one population in the Chicago Wildernessregion (O. Pergams 2004). There may be another pop-ulation in the area, but this is currently unverified.There are only four to six known populations in theentire state, which led to its being added to theIllinois endangered and threatened list in 2004. It wasadded to the World Conservation Union’s Red List in2003. The first Franklin’s Ground Squirrel Symposium was held at Brookfield Zoo in August2004, and various conservation and research recom-mendations came out of the symposium. These are

90



91


1) comparing the life history of the Franklin’s groundsquirrel with the successful 13-lined ground squir-rel, 2) studying its dispersal in view of habitat lossand fragmentation, 3) determining if there is a rela-tionship between global warming and reduced for-aging time, 4) determining its habitat preferencesthrough a database approach, and 5) increasing pub-lic awareness through an education campaign.

Management recommendations include 1) conduct-ing surveys to determine its current distribution inthe Chicago Wilderness region, 2) planning reintro-ductions using the closest large populations (proba-bly from Minnesota) to appropriate sites in ChicagoWilderness as determined by research, and 3) involveBrookfield Zoo and/or Lincoln Park Zoo in captivebreeding and education campaigns.

92



4.1INTRODUCTIONThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan reports a total of 237plant species, 15 percent of the region’s total nativeplant species, as endangered or threatened. The planalso includes an index, based on Illinois and IndianaNatural Heritage databases, that divides endangeredand threatened plant species into six priority group-ings. The number of species within in each groupingappears parenthetically below. These categories arenot mutually exclusive. Some species occur in morethan one category.• Globally rare (17)• Great Lakes endemic species or those whose criti-

cal ranges are within the Chicago Wildernessregion (8)

• Species that are disturbance dependent or do notfall within a well-defined community type (17)

• Species that have fewer than 50 percent of theirknown element occurrences in protected sites (37)

• Species with particular taxonomic or reproductiveproblems and/or needing life history research,and those whose survival or reproductive successis seriously compromised by external factors (26)

• Species that may be adequately protected or stablebut are restricted to rare communities within theregion (80)

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan acknowledges thatsome endangered and threatened species will alwaysrequire special management attention, accompaniedby well-designed monitoring programs. Additionalrecommended actions include:• Acquire more public lands to increase the size and

number of available habitats• Enact stronger legislation for the protection of rare

native plants• Increase the levels of protection for unprotected or

semi-protected sites with known occurrences ofendangered and threatened species

• Work with private landowners to protect endan-gered and threatened species on their properties.

• Specifically address endangered and threatenedspecies in management plans

• Design monitoring programs to provide feedbackto adapt management activities and approaches

• Institute a region-wide monitoring program forrare species

• Expand ex situ programs for endangered andthreatened species so that adequate seed or plantmaterial is available for appropriate reintroduc-tions as more sites are restored

• Develop recovery plans for both federally-listedspecies and state-listed species that have beenidentified as priorities

4.2PLANTS OF CONCERNChicago Wilderness has made progress toward therealization of several of the recommended actions forendangered and threatened plant species listed in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, including 1) the acquisitionof additional natural areas, some of which were dis-covered to contain previously unknown populationsof threatened and endangered species only after thelands were acquired; 2) the ongoing development ofex situ programs for endangered and threatenedspecies by the Center for Plant Conservation, a jointprogram of the Chicago Botanic Garden and TheMorton Arboretum and part of a national network ofAmerica’s leading botanical institutions, the purposeof which is to prevent the extinction of America’simperiled, native flora; 3) the Chicago Park District’sincreasing self-policing and protection of its sanddunes; and 4) model protection efforts of endangeredand threatened species on private properties, includ-ing those owned by Abbott Labs, ComEd, the BooneCreek Alliance and several railroads.

The most notable progress toward the BiodiversityRecovery Plan goals for endangered and threatenedspecies is the development of a region-wide monitor-ing program and common database for rare species.In 2001, a long-term Plants of Concern monitoringprogram was piloted, one that established standard-ized monitoring protocols for the region. During thenext two years, the program was refined andexpanded to provide managers with the scientifi-

CHAPTER 4PLANT SPECIES

93

CHAPTER 4PLANT SPECIES

cally-acquired information needed to address man-agement problems on their sites and also to facilitateregional collaboration in developing and implement-ing management strategies to ensure the presence ofthese species on a sustainable basis.

Species chosen for monitoring were selected both fortheir position on the rare species priority list in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan and according to the indi-vidual priorities of regional landowners. The pro-gram incorporates five interrelated elements, allequally important to its success:• Monitoring of rare plants (particularly state-listed

species) over time to discern population trendswithin a community context (Level 1) and selectedspecies targeted for more intensive demographicmonitoring (Level 2)

• Monitoring of rare species in relation to manage-ment activities to form a feedback loop for adap-tive management, leading to both short-term andlong-term responses

• Using, for the first time, standardized protocolsthroughout the region to gain uniform data on aregional basis

• Training volunteers as citizen scientists to leveragesignificant opportunities to monitor rare species,at the same time creating an informed con-stituency

• Working collaboratively with public and privatelandowners, land managers and agencies to gen-erate a shared approach to regional monitoring

Comparisons between pre-2001 data with data collected by the Plants of Concern program startingin 2001, even for the same populations, should be made with caution because different protocolswere used and methods of counting plants may havebeen different.

At its most basic level, the Plants of Concern programgathers census data about the status and trends ofindividual populations. In its fourth year, alreadysome trends are apparent. For example, of the 215subpopulations of monitored plants, 106 showedincreases while 109 showed decreases. Whengrouped into species, there are 57 that have measur-able short-term trends—26 showing increases and 31showing decreases. Since the Plants of Concern data-base contains certain records for select species fromthe early 1980s through the early 1990s, it is possible

to identify some longer-term trends for 26 subpopu-lations representing 18 different species. Of the 26subpopulations, 11 increased or remained the same,while 15 decreased in numbers. Of the species havingmeasurable long-term trends, six showed numericalincreases or remained unchanged, while twice thatmany showed decreases. As is the case with currenttrends, these are actual increases or decreases in eachsubpopulation, and are not the result of increases ordecreases in Plants of Concern monitoring activity(Milde 2004).

The monitoring also provides census data aboutinvasive species. When invasive species werelumped together by genus, the most commonly citedgenera was Rhamnus, representing 24.5 percent of allinvasive citations, up from 19 percent in 2002.Lonicera (6.7 percent) is the second most cited genusfollowed, by Cornus (5.2 percent), and Rosa (4.8 per-cent). Monitors identified 99 different species of inva-sive plants. Of all monitored subpopulations, 73.2percent had at least one invasive species present in2003 (Milde 2004).

As reported to the Chicago Wilderness consortium,“Management implications of Plants of Concernmonitoring are already becoming apparent. At bothindividual population locations and region-wide,Plants of Concern is recording the types and levelsof threats, including invasive species, which impactpopulations. This information has value for long-term planning on a regional basis; for example, theresponse of certain species to fire may help determinefire management for those species. It also has a short-term problem-solving benefit; for example, monitor-ing reports are helping managers respond toimmediate problems, such as the protection ofAmelanchier species from fire and deer browse orrerouting a trail around a Tomanthera auriculata popu-lation” (Masi, 2004, p.6).

Over time, the program is intended to correlate per-formance and trends of rare species with manage-ment of community types within the region.Although no strong conclusions can be made at thistime, management appears to be on the rise. Basedon monitors’ observations, 51 percent of Plants ofConcern populations showed evidence of manage-ment activity in 2003, up from 34 percent in 2002.Preliminarily, in some instances, as in the case with

Viola conspersa, which has increased 10.5 percent from1999 to 2004 and 125 percent since the early 1980s,increases or decreases in subpopulations do not seemto correlate directly with any management activity orthreat. However, monitors of significantly decliningspecies, including Triflolium reflexum and Arenaria pat-ula, which decreased 100 percent and 69 percent,respectively, surmise that the lack of fire or othermanagement tools may be the reason for the precipi-tous decline in numbers.

4.3INDICATORSRegional experts convened in 2004 to assess theregion’s plants of concern. They identified the belowas indicators of general status and trends for endan-gered, threatened, and other rare plant species:• New occurrences

o Arising new populations, due to natural spreador due to positive effects of management

o New observations, which might occur duringnew land acquisitions or increased monitoringefforts

• Flowering/Reproductive status/Seed set and via-bility

• Redefining of historically lost sites• General habitat improvement or degradation;

more/less stabilized ecological interactionsinvolving the species in question

• Loss/gain of habitat• Loss of indicator species, for example:

o Cirsium muticumo Gentiana spp.o Festuca obtusao Panicum spp.o Helianthus spp.o Aster spp.o Silene virginicao Legumes

• Additional species that may indicate higher-qual-ity sites include, by habitat:o Bogs

◊ Menyanthes trifoliata◊ Chamaedaphne calyculata◊ Vaccinium oxycoccus◊ Sarracenia purpurea◊ Drosera spp.

o Fens◊ Cirsium muticum◊ Utricularia spp.

◊ Cypripedium candidum◊ Eleocharis spp.◊ Triglochin spp.◊ Valeriana uliginosa

o Gravel Prairie◊ Cirsium hillii◊ Ranunculus rhomboideus

o Dolomite Prairies◊ Isoetes butleri◊ Arenaria patula◊ Dalea foliosa

o Remaining habitats were not covered• Loss/gain of deer-sensitive species

o Trillium spp.o Platantera psycodeso Lilium philadelphicum var. andinumo Lilium michiganense

4.4RECOMMENDED ACTIONS• Clarify the Biodiversity Recovery Plan recom-

mended action, “Rotate and diversify manage-ment treatments in order to maintain a variety ofhabitats needed by many species”

• Create a list made of the possible rare plants thatcan occur in the various Chicago Wilderness com-munity types—this might help in selecting com-munities that are especially important to protectbecause of their rare plant potential

• Protect any plant community with a mean conser-vatism value of 3.8 or greater

• Create recovery plans for each rare, endangered orthreatened species

• Reorganize and clarify the priority species list• Create a watch list of all species in decline• Define criteria for what additional non-rare,

endangered or threatened indicator species shouldbe added to the Plants of Concern monitoring pro-gram

• Determine which plant groups should be added tothe Biodiversity Recovery Plan, i.e., lichens, liver-worts, mosses, fungi and aquatic species

• Add an additional category to the priority specieslist: species that are rare and remnant but are com-mon in restorations, (i.e., Ratibida pinnata, Ratibidapurpureum, Heuchera richardsonii) and those whichare commonly used but haven’t done well inrestorations, (i.e., Baptisia leucophaea)

94



95

CHAPTER 5ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH AND MONITORING

5.1INTRODUCTIONA major conclusion of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan isthat increased management of both protected andunprotected natural areas is essential to preserve thisregion’s biodiversity. The Report Card findings rein-force the same conclusion. The member organizationsof Chicago Wilderness are working on a variety offronts to effect change, including increased manage-ment of natural areas. For example, since the publica-tion of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the ChicagoWilderness Natural Resources Management andScience Teams, often working in conjunction with eachother, have initiated a number of efforts in line withthe management, research and monitoring actions rec-ommended in chapter nine of the plan. After the briefoverview of the Natural Resources Management andScience Teams below, there follows an overview ofprogress made toward these recommendations.

5.1.2 CHICAGO WILDERNESS NATURAL

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT TEAMThe mission of the Natural Resources ManagementTeam is to promote, coordinate and facilitate therestoration and management of existing and futurepreserves, including the identification of stewardshippriorities. The 100-member team currently overseesthe work of two task forces. The aquatics task forcewas established in December of 2003 to promote theprotection and management of the region’s aquaticresources. The regional monitoring task force hasbeen working to develop a comprehensive plan forecological monitoring in the region.

Each year, the team holds a series of restorationroundtables, each a forum for natural resource pro-fessionals to exchange information on restorationtechniques and view project sites throughout theregion. Roundtables in 2004 included sessions onaquatic indices, aquatic invasive species, shoreline

stabilization and restoration, stream re-meanderingand ravine restoration. Sites visited included JamesWoodworth Prairie, Boone Creek Fen and Clark andPine Nature Preserve.

A variety of projects have come under the auspices ofthe Natural Resources Management Team. Examplesinclude the following:• Plants of Concern

A program that monitors threatened and endan-gered plant populations throughout the region,discussed below and in chapter four.

• Conservation DesignsSince the publication of the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan, which recommends the development of con-servation designs for the region’s natural commu-nities and animal assemblages, conservationdesigns have been developed for woodlands,grassland birds, and savanna herpetofauna. Theseinstruments outline recovery goals, threats, man-agement strategies and monitoring protocols,which provide a framework for quantifying recov-ery progress and may facilitate management.Specific conservation designs are discussed inchapters two and three.

• Data Resources Inventory, Data CompatibilityAssessment and Planning Process for a RegionalChicago Wilderness Information ManagementSystemThis project established an online database of theregion’s ecological data sources. The system main-tains metadata type information (i.e., databaseplatform, type of data collected, years, etc.) on theecological databases of contributing memberorganizations within the Chicago Wilderness con-sortium. The link is currently housed on theChicago Wilderness member web site and allowsusers to search existing records or input andupdate their information.

CHAPTER 5ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT, RESEARCH

AND MONITORING

• Chicago Wilderness Woodlands AuditThis project gathered the first region-wide data onthe condition of forests and woodlands through-out Chicago Wilderness, providing baseline datato establish future trends. This effort is discussedin chapter two.

• Historic landscape vegetation patterns of theChicago Wilderness region based on U.S. PublicLand Survey recordsThis multi-staged project has created historic vegetation maps for DuPage, Will and CookCounties. Maps are currently being prepared forKane, McHenry and Lake Counties.

• Wetlands Conservation StrategyThis project is creating a model to identify criticalwetlands within the Chicago Wilderness regionbased on a number of criteria, such as wetlandbird habitat and the distribution of amphibiansand reptiles.

5.1.3 CHICAGO WILDERNESS SCIENCE TEAMClosely linked to the work of the Natural ResourcesManagement Team, the Science Team pursues a mis-sion to:• Provide scientifically sound input to assist deci-

sion-makers in devising policy and action con-cerning the protection, acquisition, restoration,and management of natural areas.

• Establish a research agenda to enhance and facili-tate the protection of biodiversity of the ChicagoWilderness region.

• Foster region-wide communication and coopera-tion among the scientific community to expandour knowledge base and encourage understand-ing and appreciation of the region's biodiversity.

Currently, the Science Team’s efforts are focused pri-marily on the development of a natural scienceresearch agenda that will identify and prioritize theconsortium’s scientific research needs related to bio-diversity conservation. The invasive species taskforce also operates under the Science Team.

A partial list of the research efforts conducted byScience Team members and funded by the ChicagoWilderness consortium includes the following:

• Impact of European buckthorn on soil propertiesThis project revealed that areas dominated bybuckthorn have higher levels of carbon and nitro-gen, higher pH values, and increased soil mois-ture. In addition, higher densities of buckthornsupport larger populations of invasive earth-worms, which rapidly incorporate buckthorn leaflitter into the soil, further altering other inverte-brate populations.

• Long-term changes in Chicago region prairie veg-etationThis project re-sampled prairie stands originallysampled in 1976 by the Illinois Natural AreasInventory. It also correlated changes in species rich-ness, composition and structure with fire frequencyto identify appropriate burning regimes. The resultsof this research are discussed in chapter two.

• Biodiversity and distribution of batsThis project assessed the distribution of bat specieswithin Cook and McHenry Counties. It also cor-related landscape characteristics with bat activityto determine the effects of urbanization on bat bio-diversity.

• Restoration effects in an oak-woodland commu-nity at Swallow Cliff WoodsUsing pre- and post-restoration inventories of avariety of taxonomic groups at an oak-woodlandsite, investigators examined the effects of cuttingand burning on a variety of taxonomic groups.

5.2ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION ANDMANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan relates that the ChicagoWilderness Land Management Team (now known asthe Natural Resources Management Team) had initi-ated the task of developing ecological restoration andmanagement guidelines. Accomplished and adoptedto date are model policies related to the managementof woodlands (summarized in chapter two) and theuse of prescribed burns (also known as controlledburns and summarized below). Currently in draftform are guidelines for native seed, covering the fol-lowing issues: a philosophy of using wild seed,where and how seed should be collected, how itshould be handled and processed and how its pro-

96



97


duction should be amplified. Also being drafted byChicago Wilderness members is the Lake MichiganAction Plan, a supplement to the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan that will address biodiversity conservation as itrelates to the water and shores of Lake Michigan.

5.3CONTROLLED BURNINGMost of the region’s natural landscapes originallydeveloped in response to regular, seasonal fires. TheBiodiversity Recovery Plan identifies controlled burn-ing as the single most important management tech-nique at the disposal of the region’s land managers.Several studies completed in the past few years sup-port the importance of using controlled burns as amanagement tool. Apfelbaum et al. (2000) reported thebeneficial effects of fire management in restoring therichness of oak woodland ground-layer vegetation;albeit over a long time period and perhaps in concertwith the removal of shrub-layer species, specifically“[non-native] species and tree saplings that have thecapability of directly altering canopy structure.”

In their 2001 re-assessment of 109 grade A and Bprairie and wetland stands originally sampled in 1976by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, Marlin Bowlesand Michael Jones determined that their data supportthe conclusion that fire is a critical factor in maintain-ing the composition and structure of midwesternprairies and graminoid wetlands (Bowles & Jones2003). In a later publication they assert that controlledburning conducted roughly biennally is necessary tomaintain the composition and structure of mesic andwet-mesic prairies, although few sites are burned atthis rate, causing the long-term deterioration of manysites. They also propose that increased use of fire as amanagement tool will be needed to maintain local nat-ural areas (Bowles and Jones 2004).

5.3.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN RECOM-MENDED ACTION: DEVELOP A TRAINING

PROGRAM FOR PRESCRIBED BURNINGA Model Training ProgramIn 2001, the Chicago Wilderness Burn Training TaskForce developed the Midwest Ecological PrescriptionBurn Crew Member Training program to increase thenumber of staff and volunteers qualified to partici-pate in prescribed burns. This two-day course ismodeled after the U.S. Forest Service 130 and 190

courses, but is modified to specifically focus on mid-western ecosystems as opposed to those in the West.

A Model PolicyIn 2003, Chicago Wilderness developed and approved“Natural Fire and Controlled Burning in the ChicagoWilderness Region: A Model Policy” (Frankel 2003).Intended to aid decision-makers in developing andimplementing controlled burn regimens, the modelburn policy provides an overview of the scientificimportance of fire to the region’s natural communitiesand the resulting public benefits of healthy ecosys-tems. Controlled burns control invasive woody andherbaceous species, support fire-adapted native habi-tats, foster the survival of woodland trees and com-munities and benefit the soil. Healthy ecosystemssignificantly contribute to clean water and clean air,conserve soil, reduce global climate change, providehabitat for native species and aesthetic value for cur-rent and future generations.

In line with the Biodiversity Recovery Plan’s overallemphasis on developing region-wide standards andpractices, the model burn policy outlines safety prac-tices to minimize any negative impacts of controlledburning and regionally-accepted controlled burningprocedures in the major habitat types. The policy rec-ommends that any agency developing policies andprocedures for controlled burns incorporate the fol-lowing guidelines:• Develop a controlled burn plan for each site• Obtain all required permits and abide conscien-

tiously to all related guidelines• Follow the Illinois EPA air quality and safety regu-

lations to protect the public• Conduct controlled burns only when weather con-

ditions fall within the range set in the site’s fireplan

• Notify local police and fire departments inadvance and again on the day of the burn

• Notify people living near natural areas scheduledfor controlled burns

• Assign equipment and trained personnel com-mensurate with the size and condition of the con-trolled burn site

• Maintain detailed and accurate records of all con-trolled burns conducted on public lands

• Minimize the production of smoke and the drift-ing of smoke into residential and commercial areas

• Prohibit controlled burns on ozone action days inthe summer

The policy also lays out a range of general controlledburn procedures, including the monitoring of all sitesto document the effects of management, or lackthereof, and recommends controlled burn intervalsfor various habitat types, depending on their condi-tion. The entire document is available online atwww.chicagowilderness.org/biodiversity/policy/index.cfm.

A Nascent Database of Controlled BurnsSince 1999, Chicago WILDERNESS Magazine has pub-lished the number of acres burned per season on theregion’s public lands. This listing is not comprehen-sive and it fluctuates from year to year, depending onwhich agencies submit reports. Trends are not readilydiscernible due to the fact that the number of acresburned annually depends on weather conditions,which are highly variable. Nonetheless, on averagethe number of acres burned per year since 1999 is7,351. This represents roughly 3.5 percent of the totalacreage held in public trust in the region. A numberof the Report Card working groups strongly recom-mended that significantly more acres be managed ata minimum with controlled burns until such time asadditional resources become available to implementmore comprehensive management.

5.3.2 ADDITIONAL BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY

PLAN RECOMMENDED ACTIONSThe Natural Resources Management and ScienceTeams will be examining the the following Bio-diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as theyrelate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur-rent strategic plan. The recommended actions willbe evaluated to determine which, if any, fit into thebroader spectrum of the strategic plan, and, if so,how each might be accomplished.• Procure sufficient equipment and workforce so

that enough natural areas can be managed withcontrolled burns within the appropriate time peri-ods to achieve the goals of this plan

• Monitor and participate in the development ofnew legislation that affects prescribed burning inIllinois; work with state environmental protectionagencies as they develop air-quality regulationsto facilitate prescribed burns

• Develop outreach programs to educate local offi-cials, fire chiefs, preserve neighbors, etc., about theuse of fire in managing natural ecosystems

• Cooperate to improve knowledge about researchquestions such as:o What are the positive and negative effects of

prescribed burning on endangered, threatenedand watch species?

o What is the optimum timing and frequency offire to conserve designated ecological targets?

o What are the effects of various prescribed-burn-ing regimens on native shrubs?

o What are the best uses of fire to control invasivespecies?

5.4RESTORATION ANDMANAGEMENT OF HYDROLOGY

As development increases throughout the region,hydrology altered by draining land, increasing theamount and rate of runoff, and changing the flow ofstreams, becomes more of a central concern to thelong-term health of the region’s natural areas. Asreported in chapter two, increased development hasincreased the proportion of impervious surface coverin the region. Most estimates suggest that there existsa threshold of 10-20 percent of impervious surfacecover, after which point, stream conditions begin acontinuous decline. Additionally, impervious sur-faces prohibit rainwater from seeping naturally intothe ground and recharging aquifers. Other humanactivities further alter the region’s hydrology. A pro-posed mining operation adjacent to Bluff Spring Fenin Elgin, Illinois would seriously interrupt thehydrology to the highly sensitive site, an IllinoisNature Preserve and one of the region’s premier eco-logical recovery stories.

Countering these negative effects are a number ofwetland restoration efforts, many of which, as a firststep, require the modification or disabling of draintile systems. Beginning in the late 1800s, drain tileswere installed extensively throughout the midwest todrain wet acreage for agricultural purposes. Asreported by Brown (2004, p.14), by “1935, farmershad laid enough drain tiles in Illinois to circle theworld six times.” Whereas in the beginning of the20th century, hundreds of drainage districts wereformed to move water off-site into drainage ways,streams and rivers as fast as possible, today “a grow-

98



99


ing number of communities and counties tax them-selves to protect and restore open space that wasonce farmed. They seek to return water to the landin order to welcome back nature, recreating wetlandsthat once harbored egrets, black-crowned nightherons, snakes, crayfish, and frogs; and the wetprairies that once favored northern harriers andshort-eared owls” (Brown 2004, p.14).

At the Geneva Park District’s Peck Farm, drain tilesare being removed by trenching. The Village ofSleepy Hollow has left drain tiles in place at its JelkesCreek Wetland, but has plugged them at strategicpoints. The restoration of the Bartel Grasslands,detailed in chapter three, required drain tiles to bevalved, which allows on-site soils to be rehydratedwhile allowing floodwaters to pass through to neigh-boring sites. As reported by Parker (2004), theMiddlefork Savanna restoration effort in LakeCounty (detailed in chapter two) has included theremoval of miles of drain tiles, allowing for thehydrological recovery of approximately 200 acres ofwetland area. This effort, in concert with a suite ofrelated recovery efforts, has resulted in the modelreestablishment of a rare complex of wetland, prairieand savanna habitat.

As summarized in chapter three, the McHenryCounty Conservation District has remeandered achannelized portion of the upper reaches ofNippersink Creek below Wonder Lake.

5.4.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN

RECOMMENDED ACTIONSThe Natural Resources Management and ScienceTeams will be examining the the following Bio-diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as theyrelate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur-rent strategic plan. The following recommendedactions will be evaluated to determine which, if any,fit into the broader spectrum of the strategic plan,and, if so, how each might be accomplished:• Standardize methods for collection of hydrological

data, including the use of remote data-sensingequipment

• Provide training to landowners and land managersin techniques for identifying hydrological distur-bances, locating and removing agricultural fieldtiles and installing groundwater-monitoring wells

• Identify large, artificially drained wetlands andprioritize them for restoration

• Develop additional education and outreach pro-grams on wetland ecosystems, making use ofdemonstration and restoration projects

• Address key research questions, such as:o How do off-site factors affect hydrology and

what are best methods to restore hydrology?o What are the best methods for restoring hydrol-

ogy, and when should they be implemented?• Create a database of current hydrological data

from restoration and mitigation projectso The Stream Restoration Assessment Project has

inventoried and followed up on a variety ofstream restoration efforts throughout the regionwith the goal of identifying factors for success.

5.5REESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVESPECIES

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan advocates for the rein-troduction of native species where natural dispersalpatterns have been disrupted. Some species, such asbirds and mammals, or select plants whose seedshave lain dormant in the soil, return unaided torestored natural areas. Conservative species, espe-cially less mobile species such as insects, reptiles,amphibians and some plant species, often do not. Asnoted in chapter three, the translocation of rare but-terfly species is in process at select Illinois sites.Chapter three also relates information about thetranslocation of five Illinois endangered and threat-ened fish species.

The Center for Plant Conservation, a joint programof the Chicago Botanic Garden and The MortonArboretum, is part of a national network of America’sleading botanical institutions, the purpose of whichis to prevent the extinction of America’s imperiled,native flora. In addition to monitoring rare, threat-ened and endangered plants, participating institu-tions conduct horticultural research and learn how togrow the plants from seed or from cuttings, whichare then available for restoration efforts in the wild.

5.5.1 BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN

RECOMMENDED ACTIONSThe Natural Resources Management and ScienceTeams will be examining the the following Bio-diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as they

relate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur-rent strategic plan. The following recommendedactions will be evaluated to determine which, if any,fit into the broader spectrum of the plan and, if so,how each might be accomplished:• Develop in-house native nurseries• Expand seed and plant exchanges• Donate or exchange the use of facilities to build up

the number of available propagules• Conduct propagation research• Work with home gardeners to develop native

nurseries

5.6CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTSPECIES

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan attests that the invasionof aggressive species is an international conservationissue of the most serious concern, because it threat-ens native biodiversity across the globe. The ChicagoWilderness Woods Audit seems to substantiate this(Glennemeier 2004). It provides the estimate of 558stems (sapling size) of buckthorn (Rhamnus cathar-tica and R. frangula) per acre, which translates intomore than 26 million stems in the region’s woodlandsoverall. Furthermore, the greatest number of buck-thorn stems is located in Cook, DuPage and LakeCounties, suggesting a strong geographic pattern.

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan outlines three primarymethods of invasive species control: physical, biolog-ical and chemical. Physical controls include controlledburns and certain types of hydrological restorations,which are addressed in preceding sections.

5.6.1 PHYSICAL CONTROLThroughout the Chicago Wilderness region, a varietyof physical controls are utilized as part of manage-ment efforts—from schoolchildren hand-pulling gar-lic mustard to professional land managers utilizingearth moving equipment to remeander the flow ofstreams. Often times, physical controls are needed tocomplement other control methods. In their study,Apfelbaum et al. (2000) suggest that controlled burnsalone may be insufficient to affect a positive changein the ground-layer composition and structure ofwoodlands. During the first six years of a 13-yearstudy period, the management units at Reed-TurnerWoodland Nature Preserve in Lake County, Illinoiswere only managed with controlled fire, with noresulting differences in plot species richness between

treatment and control areas; and resprouting hadactually increased shrub-layer stem densities. Onlyafter the subsequent use of cutting and herbiciding toremove shrub-layer species was an increase in plotrichness of native ground-layer species observed.“Although an effect of shrub-layer removal could notbe detected statistically, it may have contributed tothe increase in plot richness, especially if supple-mented by wide scale removal of [non-native]shrubs” (Apfelbaum et al. 2000, pp. 6-7). As withmany recovery efforts, the results of this study implythe need for additional research.

5.6.2 BIOLOGICAL CONTROLAesthetically pleasing with its clusters of deep pur-ple blossoms, but biologically destructive for itshighly invasive nature, purple loosestrife (Lythrumsalicaria) has come to dominate many of the region’swetland areas, which has significantly reduced theirbiodiversity. Introduced to the United States early inthe 1800s, today it is found throughout the ChicagoWilderness region, but especially in Kane, Lake,McHenry, Cook and DuPage Counties in Illinois. Tocombat this non-native invasive species, two beetlespecies, which feed exclusively and voraciously onpurple loosestrife, have been imported.

In 1998, the Illinois Natural History Survey, with par-tial funding support from the Chicago Wildernessconsortium, developed an educational curriculum,which included the rearing of purple loosestrife bee-tle larvae and the releasing of adults into purpleloosestrife-infested wetland areas. Since the develop-ment of this program, more than 350 educators havebeen trained in this curriculum, 325 in the ChicagoWilderness area.

Prior to the development of the program, the IllinoisNatural History Survey began partnering with agen-cies throughout the state to institute purple looses-trife beetle release programs. In northeastern Illinois,the number of beetles released between 1994 and2004 are listed in Table 5.1.

In general, the number of beetles sent by the IllinoisNatural History Survey to northeastern Illinois part-ners is decreasing after having peaked in 1999 dueto the fact that the beetles have reproduced success-fully enough that they may be harvested from ear-lier release sites and released at new sites.

100



101


TABLE 5.1THE NUMBER OF PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE BEETLES RELEASED IN COUNTIES WITHIN

THE ILLINOIS PORTION OF CHICAGO WILLDERNESS, 1994–2004

Cook DuPage Kane Lake McHenry Will

1994 1,000 1,000 3,000 1,000

1995 250 300 750 500

1996 25,000 17,000 25,000 48,600 44,700

1997 60,061 34,825 43,275 109,500 119,300

1998 76,075 49,676 27,000 184,400 106,050

1999 121,950 27,500 53,300 199,900 67,500 6,000

2000 94,730 20,100 26,000 122,160 44,775 2,000

2001 47,174 2,000 885 74,620 31,250

2002 54,395 67,960 27,825 3,100

2003 1,200 5,300 53,630 3,000

2004 18,950 3,000 40,000 4,200

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

Among the many sites where released beetles havehad a significant effect in controlling purple looses-trife are: Lake Powderhorn and Beaubien Preservein Cook County, Weingart Road Sedge MeadowNature Preserve in McHenry County, and Fox ValleyPreserve and Hosa Prairie in Lake County, Illinois.

Illinois Natural History Survey measurements offlower stems and dry weights over a several yearperiod at Weingart Road Sedge Meadow reveal thatpurple loosestrife no longer flowers at the site andhas just become a background plant, resulting in arebound of native vegetation (Post 2004).

Key partners in the beetle release program have beenthe Illinois Department of Natural Resources, theForest Preserve Districts of Cook, DuPage, Kane andLake Counties, McHenry County Conservation

District, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, St Charles Park District, PalatinePark District, Fox Valley Park District, Crystal LakePark District, Bolingbrook Park District, MaxMcGraw Wildlife Foundation, Chicago BotanicGarden, Village of Lake Zurich, Harper College, LakeBluff Open Lands, Lake Forest Open Lands, ChicagoDepartment of the Environment, Glenview AirbaseRedevelopment Office and several environmentalconsulting firms.

5.6.3 CHEMICAL CONTROLAs reported in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, selectiveuse of herbicides, most often in combination withphysical or biological controls, is an effective meansof establishing a balanced condition in which natu-ral processes such as fire and competition by nativeplants are sufficient to control non-native species.

Interviews with several land managers suggested theneed for a database that could be updated to reflectthe development and application of new herbicideproducts.

5.6.4 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS FOR CONTROL

OF INVASIVE SPECIESThe Natural Resources Management and ScienceTeams will be examining the the following Bio-diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as theyrelate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur-rent strategic plan. The following recommendedactions will be evaluated to determine which, if any,fit into the broader spectrum of the plan, and, if so,how each might be accomplished:• Develop and share cost-effective protocols for con-

trolling targeted invasive species• Monitor species locally and regionally to identify

and anticipate problems before they reach epi-demic proportions

• Develop region-wide collaborative efforts to con-trol invasive species on all public land, includingutility and transportation rights of way

• Develop and promote native landscaping recom-mendations for residential and commercial prop-erties that strongly discourage the use ofpotentially invasive species

5.7MANAGEMENT OF PROBLEMWILDLIFE

On land and in the water, an overabundance of bothnative and non-native species can have a devastat-ing effect on the region’s biodiversity. The BiodiversityRecovery Plan identified several problem species,including the zebra mussel, round goby, rusty craw-fish, common carp, Canada goose, brown-headedcowbird, white-tailed deer, feral cats, and even, insome instances, raccoons, skunks and opossums.

5.7.1 LAKE COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE

DISTRICT DEER MANAGEMENT STUDYPursuant to the white-tailed deer objectives of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan and the conservationdesign and model policy for woodlands, the LakeCounty Forest Preserve District in Illinois has estab-lished deer exclosures at a number of sites to helpquantify the impact that deer have on vegetation andto monitor vegetation recovery following deer man-agement. These exclosures are located within mature

mesic forests at Ryerson Conservation Area,MacArthur Woods, Wright/Lloyd’s/Half DayWoods and St. Francis Woods. These exclosures aremonitored both inside (where only deer areexcluded) and outside where deer are free to browseon vegetation. The district uses great white trillium(Trillium grandiflorum) as an index of deer browsepressure on mesic forests. Researchers record stemdensity, percent cover and proportion flowering(Anderson 1991).

Outside the exclosures the data are generally incon-clusive on whether deer reduction programs havebeen sufficient to benefit the vegetation. This may bedue to the short term of the study (three years) or thefact that extra deer may be attracted to the areabecause of the more lush growth within the exclosure,accounting for high herbivory on the trilliums out-side. However, inside the exclosures, all parametersare significantly higher. This indicates that a greaterreduction in deer numbers would lead to a significantrecovery in vegetation. For the four sites, trillium stemheights average 32 percent greater within the exclo-sures. Relative importance values—a combination ofrelative cover and abundance—are 100 percent higherinside the exclosures (Anderson 1991).

Continued deer management over time likely wouldshow an overall recovery of trillium and other speciespreferentially browsed by the deer throughout thesites. Studies in other counties show similar results.

5.7.2 AN ELECTRONIC BARRIER FOR ASIAN

CARPThe fish composition of Lake Michigan is very dif-ferent from what it was historically, and it remainsin a near-constant state of flux due to the size of thewater body and the steady spate of potential threats.The lake supports many non-native fish species,many purposefully introduced for food and sport,which support a multi-billion dollar commercial andrecreational industry. Other non-native species,including the sea lamprey, round goby, zebra musseland spiny water flea, have not been so beneficial. Asreported in section 2, an electronic barrier is beingerected in the Sanitary and Ship Canal to prevent thepassage of yet another potentially destructive non-native fish species from entering Lake Michigan fromthe Illinois River. Experts predict that Asian carp, with

102



103


their voracious appetites and prolific breeding habits,could have a devastating impact upon the alreadystressed fish assemblage of Lake Michigan.

5.7.3 OTHER RECOVERY PLAN

RECOMMENDED ACTIONSThe Natural Resources Management and ScienceTeams will be examining the the following Bio-diversity Recovery Plan recommended actions as theyrelate to the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s cur-rent strategic plan. The recommended actions willbe evaluated to determine which, if any, fit into thebroader spectrum of the plan, and, if so, how eachmight be accomplished.

Deer• Harvest deer regularly until effective alternative

methods become available, to support a balancethat sustains a full range of native plants and pro-vides diverse habitat for birds and other animals.

• Disseminate to land managers any new informa-tion on alternative control methods.

• Disseminate to land managers models that pre-dict responses of deer populations to managementand encourage their widespread use.

• Develop more effective deer census methods.

Zebra mussels and the round goby• Support continued research on limiting the spread

of zebra mussels and the round goby.• Provide more public outreach and education call-

ing for boat owners to take responsibility for clean-ing boats and boating equipment prior totransporting them from one water body to another.

Feral cats• Lead a public education effort explaining the

problems caused by feral cats and advocating forferal cat control and keeping domestic catsindoors.

5.8NATURAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT PLANS

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan recognizes several tiersof management plans. At the broadest level, theBiodiversity Recovery Plan provides the overall man-agement vision for the region. At the other end of thescale lie specific management plans for each individ-ual site. In between may be a variety of plans by

counties and other land managers based on their par-ticular policies and needs.

To provide a region-wide cohesiveness in the man-agement of the region’s natural lands, the ChicagoWilderness consortium has approved model policiesfor the conservation of wooded lands and controlledburning. These policies are discussed in chapters twoand five, respectively.

5.9RESEARCH, MONITORING ANDINVENTORYING

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan reinforces the interre-lated nature of research, monitoring and inventoryand moreover, their collective linkage to manage-ment. Although the term conservation design maymean different things to different people, the planasserts that as “a process for deriving conservationgoals and strategies directly from assessment of bio-logical values and the threats to those values,” it is ameans to focus the efforts of research, monitoringand inventorying “so that they contribute directly toconservation action” (Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil 1999, p.113).

5.9.1 CONSERVATION DESIGNAs related in the community and assemblage sec-tions, to date, region-wide conservation designs havebeen completed for grassland birds, savanna her-petofauna and woodlands—all ranked of highestconservation concern in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.Essentially, these designs expand upon and refine thegeneral goals and objectives in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, setting specific targets for habitat,number of species and number of sites monitored infive-year increments over a 25-year period. The con-servation designs also outline more specific threatsand recommended management actions to counterthreats, again with specific, measurable benchmarksin five-year increments over 25 years.

As should be evident in the community or assem-blage sections, having measurable objectives, suchas those provided by conservation designs, greatlyfacilitates the reporting process and ultimately allowsland managers, elected officials and the general pub-lic to chart the progress of recovery efforts locally aswell as on a region-wide basis. For example, in 2004,there were 1,216 breeding pairs of bobolinks

recorded in the region, nearly halfway toward the2025 goal of 2,500 breeding pairs. On the other hand,with only 316 breeding pairs of grasshopper spar-rows recorded in 2004, we are less than 13 percenttoward our goal of 2,500 breeding pairs (Glennemeier2002b; Audubon Chicago Region 2004). Such datamay tell us that we are doing a good job managingfor bobolinks, but that additional research and/orrefined or even different management practices maybe necessary to facilitate the recovery of grasshop-per sparrows.

5.9.2 INDICATORSThere has been little progress made in the develop-ment of region-wide indicators. The BiodiversityRecovery Plan makes the case for utilizing indicatorsto “measure change toward a goal/objective or incompleting a strategy/action. Outcome indicatorsshow whether we are reaching our threat-relatedmanagement goals and objectives; performance indi-cators show whether we actually have implementedthe strategies and actions that we devised to accom-plish these goals” (Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil 1999 p.114). Although there may be occa-sions when a single indicator suffices to measureprogress toward a goal, in most instances a suite ofindicators would be the norm.

For each indicator, there are to be established thresh-olds, which, when crossed, trigger one or moreresponses from a pre-planned range of managementoptions. Knowing what to look for and when to inter-vene should inform the design and implementation ofsampling protocols and monitoring programs.

As is evident in the community and assemblage sec-tions, to date no true indicators have been identifiedin accordance with the methodology outlined in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan. One of the challenges iden-tified during the 2004 natural community and taxo-nomic workshops was the disparity of perceptionsand opinions about what constitutes an indicator andwhat indicators’ values are for the region.

For the purposes of this report, an indicator isdefined as a type of information that tells us some-thing about the conditions of concern. It is a tool thatcan provide information about the state of complexsystems—such as the environment, the weather or

even human health. It gives a clue about the “biggerpicture” by looking at a small piece of the puzzle, orat several pieces together.

Atmospheric pressure is an indicator of the weather.To a doctor, blood pressure provides a clue about theoverall health of the patient. To an economist, theGross Domestic Product (GDP) gives a snapshot ofthe state of the country’s economy. Each of these indi-cators provides information about conditions at aparticular point in time. To be fully useful, however,we need indicators to give us information abouttrends over time. Is the barometric pressure rising,falling or remaining the same? Is our blood pressurehigher or lower than the last time we checked? Is theGDP growing or shrinking?

One of the best ways to track trends in the conditionof a system, such as an ecosystem, is through devel-opment of a suite of indicators. By looking at a num-ber of indicators, together we can see in whichdirection a system is moving.

So why do we need indicators for biodiversity of theChicago Wilderness region? Simply put, we needindicators to get the big-picture perspective for some-thing as big and complex as our region and the stateof nature within it. Developing a suite of indicatorswill enable the regional community—governmentand non-government organizations, industry andindividual citizens—to work together within a con-sistent framework to monitor and assess changes inthe state of the regional ecosystem.

Indicators can be used to:• Assess changes in the state of the ecosystem and

progress in protecting and restoring its biodiver-sity

• Gain a clearer understanding of existing andemerging problems and their solutions

• Better understand how our actions affect theecosystem and biodiversity and to determine thetypes of programs, regulations, and policiesneeded to address problems

• Provide information that will help managers bet-ter assess the success of current programs

• Provide information that will help set priorities forresearch, data collection, monitoring and manage-ment programs

104



105


Additionally, looking at the Chicago Wilderness con-sortium’s goal to protect the natural communities ofthe Chicago Region and restore them to long-termviability, a three-layer illustration helps to provideperspective in developing indicators (Figure 5.1).

The upper layer includes the health of living com-munities and species. Their numbers, genetic diver-sity and long term viability are the top measures ofsuccess.

The middle layer consists of habitats that provideessential support for the communities. Three kinds ofhabitats—physical, chemical and biological—providethe essential food and shelter required for survival. • Physical habitat includes shelter, substrate, water,

minimum spatial size and connectedness, whichprovides the means of dispersal

• Chemical habitat includes nutrients, pollution lev-els and the quality of air, water and soil

• Biological habitat includes non-native species, thefood web, predation, disease and the biologicalactivity needed to support various species. Ashabitat factors, these biological aspects are distinctfrom the health of communities and speciesincluded in the top layer

The bottom layer consists of human activities, whichsupport or threaten long-term viability. The positiveactivities include those such as acquisition and man-agement of natural areas, which are intended to sup-port the goal. There are some activities, such asphysical aspects of urban development, which havedirect negative impacts. There are also a vast arrayof activities which have unintended indirect conse-quences, mostly negative.

Indicators are needed at each level in the three-lay-ered model, ranging from living species throughhabitats to human activities. One view of this is thatthey must range from green (living) to gray (pro-gram) ends of the spectrum. Regardless of thenomenclature, it is not an either/or situation.Progress needs to be tracked at all levels.

Indicators can be simple facts, simple summaries offacts, or complex summaries, often based on mathe-matical models. At one extreme, a single data pointcan be said to indicate something. A series of data

points can indicate a trend. But the system is verycomplex and multiple bits of information are neededto provide a reasonable picture of what is happening.One way of integrating large amounts of data andmultiple variables is to create an index, which com-bines information into a simplified representation,usually a score of some kind.

A widely recognized index is the Index of BioticIntegrity (IBI), which combines multiple factors. Asanother example, the State of Illinois RiverWatch pro-gram (suspended in 2004 due to budget cuts) hadboiled down its stream monitoring results for eachsegment into two scores: a biological (species/com-munity) score and a habitat score. These scores com-bine other complex scores into a single comparativevalue. The biological score combines five factors: TheMacroinvertebrate Biotic Index, taxa richness (basedon 37 indicator taxa), EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecop-tera, and Trichoptera) taxa richness (based on thenumber of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa pres-ent), taxa dominance, and percent worms.Glennemeier (2004) advances a draft definition ofwooded lands quality, an index of wooded landshealth, by assessing Floristic Quality Index (FQI),canopy trees and four measures of invasive species.

Creating indices that summarize and integrate multi-ple factors gives up precision, but has the advantageof vastly simplifying complex information. It alsoleaves room for much debate about the appropriate-ness of weighting given to various factors.

5.9.3 REGION-WIDE MONITORING EFFORTSPlants of ConcernThe Plants of Concern project follows the BiodiversityRecovery Plan recommendation to institute a region-wide monitoring program for rare species. Over afour-year period, the program piloted and refinedregion-wide monitoring protocols and collected cen-sus data about not only the status and trends of rarespecies, but of invasive species, as well. The ultimatepurpose of the program is to “provide managers withthe scientifically-acquired information needed toaddress management problems on their sites andalso to collaborate, on a regional scale, in adapting,developing and implementing management strate-gies that will ensure the presence of these species ona sustainable basis” (Masi 2004, p.3). As of 2004, the

program had utilized 177 volunteers to monitor atotal of 149 different species at 144 separate sites.

Among the information the project collects are:• Population Information

o Number of stemso Population sizeo Percent reproductiveo Juveniles presento Plant distribution

◊ Uniform◊ Clustered◊ Random

• Associate species information (the most numerousdominant native plants within the population andwithin one to two meters of the population)

• Threats to the populationo Invasive species, including:

◊ Invasive brush encroachment (one meter tallor less)

◊ Invasive large brush/tree encroachment(greater than one meter tall)

o Deer browseo Erosion

o Authorized/unauthorized trailso Other types of threats, including insect damage,

drought stress, human trampling, humantheft/damage, damage from all-terrain vehi-cles, nearby development and other land usesthat would negatively impact the population

• Management within the populationo Burningo Buckthorn, brush, or invasive tree removalo Herbaceous invasive plant removalo Mowingo Other

Critical Trends Assessment ProgramAccording to the Illinois Natural History Survey’sCritical Trends Assessment Program Web site, since1997, the Critical Trends Assessment Program(CTAP) has monitored “the condition of forests, wet-lands, grasslands, and streams throughout the stateof Illinois. This project seeks to assess changes in eco-logical conditions as well as to serve as a baselinefrom which to compare regional and site-specific pat-terns throughout Illinois. This program is uniquebecause it is the first-ever attempt at a state-wide

106



LIVINGCOMMUNITIES

biodiversity and biological health

HUMAN ACTIVITY

HABITAT / ENVIRONMENT

physical chemical biological

Figure 5.1. Three-layer illustration that places ecosystem health in the contet of human activity.

107


comprehensive assessment undertaken by a statenatural resource organization” (Illinois NaturalHistory Survey 2004). In undertaking this effort,CTAP has developed specific monitoring protocols,which could be used or adapted for the region’sdeveloping ecosystem monitoring efforts.

For forests, grasslands and wetlands, the CTAPmeasures:• Plant species richness in ground layer, shrub layer

and tree layer• Dominant species percentage coverage in all lay-

ers• Number of species and percentage coverage of

introduced plant species• Floristic Quality Index (FQI), the weighted aver-

age of individual plant species’ coefficient of con-servation value)

• Terrestrial insect species richness (Index of rarityand endemicity for leafhoppers, spittlebugs andtreehoppers)

• Diversity and density of habitat dependent (e.g.,wetland-dependent) and area-sensitive birdspecies that need a minimum area in which tobreed

• Presence of threatened and/or endangered birdspecies

For streams, the program measures:• EPT index, which is the number of Ephemeroptera

(mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies) and Trichoptera(caddisflies)

• Hilsenhoff’s Biotic Index or HBI, which is theweighted average of individual species’ tolerancesto organic pollution and general disturbance

• Habitat Quality Index, which includes 12 param-eters measuring the ability of a stream to provideshelter and food for aquatic organisms

• Selected water chemistry parameters (tempera-ture, dissolved oxygen, pH and conductivity)

Within the six-county region of northeastern Illinois,the CTAP has the following number of sites wheredata is collected:• Plants

7 Forest Sites:6 Dry-mesic upland forestUpland mesic-wet/mesic/dry-mesic

5 Grassland Sites:2 Successional field1 Mesic prairie1 Cultural-developed land1 Wet prairie restoration

11 Wetland Sites:2 Successional field9 Marsh

• Birds7 Forest sites6 Grassland sites29 Wetland sites

• EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera)23 stream sites:

4 in Cook County (Willow, Long Run, Plum,Butterfield)

6 in Kane County (Fox River, two at Ferson,Blackberry, tributary of Brewster, Tyler)

2 in Lake County (Sequoit, Bull)3 in McHenry County (three at Kishwaukee

River)8 in Will County (tributary of DuPage River,

DuPage River, North Branch Rock Creek,Trim, Terry, two at Plum, Jackson)

Within the six-county region of northeastern Illinois,the EcoWatch Program had the following number ofsites where data had been collected:• ForestWatch

21 in Cook County6 in DuPage County6 in Kane County3 in Lake County3 in McHenry County2 in Will County

• PrairieWatch4 in Cook County4 in DuPage County1 in Kane County6 in Lake County2 in McHenry County1 in Will County

• RiverWatch92 sites on 27 different streams in Cook County34 sites on 11 different streams in DuPage County

31 sites on 14 different streams in Kane County39 sites on 16 different streams in Lake County23 sites on 9 different streams in McHenry County36 sites on 16 different streams in Will County

According to the CTAP Web site:Between 1997-2001 the CTAP professional sci-entists of the Illinois Natural History Survey(INHS) conducted surveys at 140 forest, 139wetland, 126 grassland, and 149 stream sites.These 554 sites (approximately 30 sites per yearper habitat) were randomly selected fromacross the state on both public and privatelands. During this first five-year cycle, data onbirds, insects and herbaceous and woody vege-tation were collected. Several ecological indica-tors such as species richness, diversity,dominance of native vs. non-native taxa, andpresence of threatened and endangered specieswere measured at every site. In the case ofbirds, we also collected data on cowbird abun-dance. In streams, aquatic insects were the pri-mary assemblage used as indicators of quality.Currently, CTAP is in its second five-year cycle(2002-2006). During this cycle we will resampleall the sites that were visited from 1997-2001. Itwas the initial intent of the program that a totalof 150 sites (30 sites per year per habitat) besampled per five-year cycle. During the secondfive year cycle, additional sites will be addedto bring us up to this goal.

The success of CTAP data collection depends ona cooperative effort between INHS profession-als and EcoWatch citizen scientists. EcoWatchcitizen scientists are part of the IllinoisEcoWatch Network (RiverWatch, ForestWatch,PrairieWatch, and UrbanWatch) a statewidevolunteer monitoring initiative collecting scien-tific data on Illinois streams, forests, prairiesand urban green spaces. Protocols for this pro-gram are complementary to those of the pro-

fessional scientists. The INHS professional sci-entists conduct detailed surveys at each habitat.The EcoWatch citizen scientists monitor moresites but conduct a subset of procedures doneby the professionals, using less taxonomic res-olution, at random and from volunteer-chosenlocations. The combination of both data setswill allow us to have a better understanding ofthe quality and quantity of our habitats (IllinoisNatural History Survey 2004).

Unfortunately, although CTAP survived recent statebudget cuts, the EcoWatch program lost all of itsfunding in the 2005 fiscal year.

The Development of Region-wide MonitoringStandardsIn early 2005, the Illinois Natural History Surveyfacilitated a process to further the development of aregional monitoring plan. Building upon previousefforts of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, includ-ing the Biodiversity Recovery Plan, the draft ReportCard and the work of the Regional MonitoringTaskforce, goals of the process include:• Develop a prioritized list of natural communities,

species assemblages and species to be monitoredin the Chicago Wilderness region, derived fromthe lists in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan

• Identify potential roles for professional scientistsand volunteer citizen scientists in regional moni-toring

• Initiate discussions of the indicators that will bemonitored for each community, assemblage, andspecies, and protocols that could be used to moni-tor these indicators

• Gather information on monitoring already under-way within the Chicago Wilderness region thatcan be used to address the priorities of the ChicagoWilderness consortium

• Identify individuals with expertise who can con-tribute to developing or reviewing the completemonitoring plan

108



CHAPTER 6EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

109


6.1INTRODUCTIONThe community and assemblage assessments in theprevious sections attest to the variety of pressuresthat continue to impinge upon the region’s ecologicalhealth. Addressing biological issues alone is insuffi-cient to meet these challenges. Reaching out to thegeneral public and the full spectrum of decision-makers—those who establish policy priorities, deviseordinances and laws and allocate resources—isneeded as well. Today, environmental issues competewith a seeming inexhaustible number of other issues,but people continue to consider environmental pro-tection a priority. A recent Chicago Wilderness sur-vey of the public’s attitudes toward prescribed burnsfound that a core of support for natural area restora-tion exists in the greater region of southwestern LakeMichigan (Miller et al. 2002). The survey also foundthat a general understanding of ecosystem restora-tion and management issues is lacking among individuals who oppose controlled burns and fur-thermore, that there are not great differences in valueorientations and attitudes between those who sup-port or oppose controlled burning, so that the promotion of information on restoration and man-agement can influence attitudes toward controlledburns (Miller et al. 2002). Education and communica-tion, therefore, are key to recovering the biologicalhealth of the region.

EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION TEAMStarting out with a handful of dedicated educatorsin the late 1990s, the Chicago Wilderness Educationand Communication Team now boasts more than 200members and five active task forces. The team worksto increase and diversify public participation in andthe understanding of the region’s biodiversity bydeveloping collaborative education and communi-cation programs, events and professional develop-ment opportunities. The goals of the team are to:• Increase level of local biodiversity programming

throughout the Chicago area.

• Develop a long-term process for evaluating theeffectiveness of biodiversity education and out-reach activities.

• Increase and diversify public participation in con-servation activities, including stewardship, advo-cacy, and support for funding.

• Develop mechanisms for professional develop-ment opportunities and capacity-building forteam members.

6.2LONG-TERM EDUCATION GOALSAlthough the Chicago Wilderness education andcommunication efforts often work hand-in-glovewith each other, the Biodiversity Recovery Plan broadlyoutlined separate goals and recommended actionsfor each, divided primarily along the lines of time-frame; communication goals being more immediateand education goals more long-term.

Goal 1: Ensure that every student graduating froma school system in the Chicago Wilderness regionis “biodiversity-literate.”

Recommendation: Develop a commonly held defini-tion of “biodiversity literacy”—what knowledge,skills, attitudes and experiences are essential to helppeople make informed decisions and participate inbiodiversity protection.

The Education and Communication Team is engagedin the first part of a multi-phased study to establisha common definition of biodiversity literacy by sur-veying conservation professionals to determine howkey elements of their knowledge, skills, attitudes,and behaviors contributed to their entering the con-servation field. Other phases will include furtherdata collection, research on various socio-economicgroups and how they relate to environmental issues,and analysis and research of national and regionalstudies on environmental literacy to establish a com-mon baseline definition. The team then plans toreview Chicago Wilderness, regional, and national

110



public opinion data on environmental literacy todetermine the areas of biodiversity-related topicsmost critical to present to various audiences. ExistingChicago Wilderness education and communicationtools then will be evaluated to determine the effec-tiveness of current tools and to identify gaps in pro-gramming or audience(s).

Recommendation: Increase the visibility of biodiver-sity concepts and issues in state education standardsto encourage teachers to integrate biodiversity con-tent into other programs.

The Illinois learning standards, adopted by theIllinois State Board of Education in 1997, includeextensive coverage of the aspects of the life, physicaland earth/space sciences related to the environmentand biodiversity. The science standards also makerepeated reference to understanding the interconnec-tion between human actions and the environment.In 2003, the Illinois State Board of Education pub-lished performance descriptors as a tool for helpingteachers apply the Illinois learning standards to class-room curricula and instruction. The performancedescriptors suggest many environmental and biodi-versity-related examples.

Recommendation: Give school staff the incentive todevote precious instructional time to biodiversity top-ics by demonstrating to teachers how using biodiver-sity as a unifying theme can improve test scores.

The Education and Communication Team’s teachertraining hubs, discussed in more detail below, offercollaborative biodiversity-related professional devel-opment programs for teachers. Many of the pro-grams model for teachers how to integrateenvironmental and biodiversity-related themes intostandards-based math, science, social studies, art andreading and language arts curricula.

Recommendation: Support state plans that integrateenvironmental education into schools. In particular,work to support the passage of the EnvironmentalEducation Literacy of Illinois Master Plan. Developbest practices for teacher training, such as the pack-age being produced for the Mighty Acorns youthstewardship education program.

The Chicago Wilderness Teacher Training HubProject has established five regional collaborationsof Chicago Wilderness member organizations thatoffer biodiversity-related teacher training programsand professional development workshops for edu-cation staff from Chicago Wilderness member organ-izations. Several workshops have been heldregarding the integration of biodiversity-related bestpractices into the Chicago public schools’ Readingand Math + Science Initiatives, Illinois learning stan-dards and performance descriptors, and teacher re-certification. Additionally, the Education andCommunication Team hosts 12 workshops per yearto build the professional capacity of the staff ofChicago Wilderness member organizations in biodi-versity-related content, share current trends in edu-cational research and policy, and provide exposure tovarious pedagogical techniques.

Goal 2: Expand the scope of existing and future pro-grams in biodiversity education to include compo-nents for attitudes, skills and participation incurricular design.

Recommendation: Determine the effectiveness ofexisting biodiversity education programs for achiev-ing biodiversity literacy, and use successful programsas models.

This recommended action is to be included in afuture phase of the biodiversity literacy project and isoutlined as a major goal in the Chicago Wildernessconsortium’s strategic plan.

Recommendation: Foster professional developmentfor organizations inaugurating biodiversity educa-tion, and increase the number of pre-service and in-service opportunities for teachers to strengthen theirqualifications to teach about biodiversity.

The Education and Communication Team hosts pro-fessional development and capacity building work-shops on a variety of education and communicationtopics related to the goals outlined in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan. Workshops are held every other monthand are hosted by member organizations of theChicago Wilderness consortium. Additionally, theInterpretive Training Task Force has undertaken amulti-phased effort to train interpreters from

111


Chicago Wilderness member institutions on how tointerpret regional biodiversity to various audiences.The teacher training hubs, described earlier, offer avariety of professional development opportunitiesfor teachers regarding biodiversity-related topics. In2000, the Education and Communication Team alsohosted a two-day conference for Chicago Wildernessmembers on biodiversity education and the educa-tion goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

Another program that addresses this goal is theMighty Acorns youth education program. In-augurated in 1993, Mighty Acorns helps young peo-ple in the greater Chicago metropolitan area becomeland stewards and citizen scientists, as well as learnthe value of biodiversity. The curriculum is com-prised of three levels, for grades four through six,and meets Illinois state standards developed by theIllinois State Board of Education. Each level includeseducational activities that take place before, duringand after field visits to a Chicago Wilderness naturalarea. Each level involves discussion of biodiversitybut there are key foci for each as well. Level one, forfourth graders, focuses on adaptations and interrela-tionships. Level two deals with competition andinterdependence. Level three focuses on biodiversity:what is it, how we impact it both negatively and pos-itively and how we value it. As of 2004, the ChicagoWilderness Mighty Acorns program had 16 activepartners, located in the six collar counties of Chicagoand northwest Indiana. The program serves approx-imately 8,000 students, taught by 325 teachers in 80schools and involves more than 250 volunteers. Thechildren in approximately 70 percent of participat-ing schools are considered underserved or at risk.

Goal 3: Make biodiversity in Chicago Wilderness acomponent of the degree programs of local collegesand universities.

Recommendation: Survey existing course selectionsat local universities. Identify courses that effectivelyand thoroughly communicate key information aboutlocal biodiversity and work to increase their visibility.Develop a degree program in restoration ecology at alocal university with an accompanying field station.Promote practicum opportunities by linking univer-sities with professional land managers in the region.

The Education and Communication Team estab-lished a Higher Education Task Force in 2000 toaddress the above recommendation. To date, theteam as a whole has made little progress in this area,although individual members, most recently theChicago Botanic Garden, have had some success. Theteam acknowledges that developing a degree pro-gram involves working with science departments atarea universities. The team has identified this goalas a collaborative endeavor with the Science Team,and this will be an area of future focus.

Goal 4: Expand and improve the use of existingtools for biodiversity education, and create newtools as needed.

Recommendation: Work toward the better distribu-tion of existing tools by forming a distribution cen-ter and investing in publicity about the center.

Chicago Wilderness has published several documentsdesigned for use by educators, decision-makers andinterested members of the general public, such as theAtlas of Biodiversity. To date, more than 25,000 copiesof the Atlas have been distributed to local elementaryschools, high schools, colleges, and other institutions,as well as to individual members of the public. Thepublications are advertised through the ChicagoWilderness web sites, through the member organiza-tions of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, and atvarious special events throughout the region. TheForest Preserve District of DuPage County, as a mem-ber of the Chicago Wilderness consortium, nowserves as the distribution center for most ChicagoWilderness publications, including the Atlas.

Recommendation: Assess the effectiveness of toolsfor reaching their target audiences.

The Education and Communication Team has devel-oped a matrix to map the five essential elements ofenvironmental education as described in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan to determine the extent andtypes of tools to be offered. This matrix is intendedto help identify further areas for tool development.It has been used to create new tools and areas of audi-ence focus including the Asset-Based CommunityDevelopment Project and the Biodiversity Basics cur-riculum project conducted in partnership with the

112



World Wildlife Fund. Work in this area will be linkedto a future phase of the biodiversity literacy project.

A subsequent analysis of program breadth and depthof programs offered, as well as the diversity of audi-ences served, will be conducted in the future as partof the implementation of the Chicago Wildernessconsortium’s strategic plan.

Recommendation: Create new tools for groups start-ing community-based, non-school projects in biodi-versity education. For example, create a biodiversityprogram primer with a list of potential partners.

The Community-Based Programs Task Force has cre-ated a manual for using the Asset-Based CommunityDevelopment model to develop biodiversity-relatedprograms in various communities. Also, the Volun-teer Managers Task Force is producing a workbookfor training volunteers on how to communicate onbiodiversity. This workbook is a part of the taskforce’s current project to train volunteers at ChicagoWilderness member organizations on common biodi-versity content, messages, and strategies for commu-nicating these messages.

Goal 5: Increase the number of communities beingreached with non-school-based programs in biodi-versity education.

Recommendation: Foster neighborhood and com-munity-based programs aimed at improving theenvironment and biodiversity locally to unify differ-ent cultural groups for concerted community action.

The Community-Based Programs Task Force con-ducted a two-phase project to develop a biodiversity-related program in four diverse communities basedon their respective resources and interests. The AssetBased Community Development model was used inWaukegan (IL), Bartlett (IL), Gary (IN) and JacksonPark in Chicago. Chicago Wilderness representativesand community leaders collaboratively planned andimplemented biodiversity-related programming ineach location. Now that the project is complete, themodel needs to be expanded to other sites.

Recommendation: Devote more effort to recruitingcitizen scientists from more diverse communities.

Build effective tools to track the success of recruitingtechniques, and use the effective techniques toexpand the reach of volunteer-recruitment programs.

The Education and Communication Team estab-lished the Volunteer Managers Task Force to providea venue for volunteer managers for sharing resourceson recruiting and retaining volunteers. As mentionedabove, the task force is currently involved in a projectto better train volunteers from Chicago Wildernessmember organizations in biodiversity-related mes-sages and content.

Additional Recommendations to Achieve Goal 5:• Create a diverse base of spokespeople, including

professionals and volunteers, who can serve asambassadors for biodiversity to a wider variety ofcommunities.

• Produce tools and materials in multiple lan-guages.

• Develop collaborations between Chicago Wild-erness member organizations and cultural, ethnic,and arts and humanities organizations to fosterthe exploration of nature through culturalavenues.

• Improve the infrastructure within conservationagencies and organizations to better support com-munity-based biodiversity conservation projects.

• Develop links between school-based biodiversity-related programs and community projects.

• Find new ways of providing urban populationswith opportunities to become aware of andexplore the region’s natural communities (forexample, a “biodiversity bus” to bring urban resi-dents to outlying natural areas).

• Encourage the providers of non-formal educationprograms to recruit and employ professional edu-cators who reflect the diversity of the communitiesthey serve.

The Education and Communication Team will beexamining these recommendations as they relate tothe Chicago Wilderness consortium’s strategic plan.The goals will be evaluated to determine which, ifany, fit into the broader spectrum of the strategic plan,and if so, how each goal will be accomplished. It isimportant to note that many Chicago Wildernessmember institutions conduct programs and activitiesthat support each of these recommendations. Indeed,

113


the majority of the goals of the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan are accomplished each day through the activi-ties of individual member institutions. To better high-light the work of individual organizations in helpingto achieve Chicago Wilderness’ education and com-munication goals, a survey is currently underway tocollect attendance data from each member who offerseducation programs. This information will be pro-vided in future reports to augment the collective workof the Education and Communication Team and toidentify specific leaders in cultural and ethnic com-munities who can inform educators and communica-tors and serve as partners for collaborative programs.

Goal 6: Measure local citizens’ understanding ofbiodiversity by developing appropriate gauges forlong-term effectiveness of education programs.

Recommendations: Create appropriate gauges andgather baseline data on targeted communities.Gather data at set intervals to measure long-termchange. Disseminate findings to agencies and organ-izations involved in biodiversity education.

The Education and Communication Team establishedthe Evaluation Task Force to focus on evaluating theeffectiveness of biodiversity-related programmingoffered collaboratively and by individual memberorganizations. This is a future goal related to theimplementation of the strategic plan and is related,in part, to a later phase of the biodiversity literacyproject.

6.3CHICAGO WILDERNESSEDUCATION & COMMUNICATION

TEAM WORKSHOPS AND PROGRAMSThe Education and Communication Team providesmultiple workshops and interpreter programs eachyear for the staff and volunteers of ChicagoWilderness member organizations. Workshops areheld every other month and are designed to buildcapacity in relation to the education and communica-tion goals outlined in Chapter 10 of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan. Interpreter programs, which highlightrecent trends in the interpretive field, are three-hourmini-workshops open to all members. Table 6.1 sum-marizes the number of people who have attendedteam workshops or interpreter programs during thepast five years.

6.4SHORT-TERM COMMUNICATIONGOALS

Public support is a critical component of conserva-tion efforts, and is therefore crucial to successfulimplementation of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Tofoster public support, in 2001 the Chicago WildernessSteering Committee approved a public communica-tion plan that is based on, and expands upon, thecommunication goals set forth in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan. The public communication plan listsfive key areas in which the consortium wishes toachieve communication results:

1. Increase understanding of our regional biodiver-sity: where it’s found, why it’s important, how it’sthreatened, and what people can do to helpaddress the threats. Inform, involve and influencetarget audiences on regional biodiversity issues,including support for land management pro-grams. (Knowledge goal)

TABLE 6.1NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDING

CHICAGO WILDERNESS EDUCATION

AND COMMUNICATION TEAM

WORKSHOPS AND INTERPRETER

PROGRAMS

Year Number of Attendees atWorkshops/Interpreter Programs

Education InterpreterWorkshops Programs

2000 94 N/A

2001 136 N/A

2002 141 N/A

2003 322 85

2004 148 77

114



2. Create a sense of regional pride, a sense of belong-ing, and feelings of connection to and valuing ofour regional biodiversity. (Affective goal)

3. Provide opportunities for involvement and moti-vate target audiences to take part in local natureactivities and conservation efforts. (Behavior goal)

4. Promote awareness within targeted audiences ofthe Chicago Wilderness consortium, its missionand activities. (Marketing goal)

5. Build the capacity of Chicago Wilderness memberorganizations to inform and engage their audi-ences with biodiversity-related information andactivities. (Internal goal—strengthen the consor-tium’s communication capacity)

To achieve these goals, the communication plan out-lines five key areas of endeavor recommended for theChicago Wilderness consortium:• Create celebrations of biodiversity• Conduct targeted outreach• Build Chicago Wilderness members’ capacity to

communicate on issues of biodiversity conserva-tion

• Create and maintain a communication infrastruc-ture

• Evaluate communication programs and tools

Below are descriptions of much of the communica-tion work that has been undertaken both in supportof the goals outlined in the communication plan andof the recommendations within the BiodiversityRecovery Plan. However, since the Report Card is ameasure of progress against Biodiversity Recovery Plangoals and recommendations, not all of the workundertaken in the Chicago Wilderness communica-tion program is described within this document. Formore information on Chicago Wilderness’ commu-nication activities, contact the Chicago Wildernesscommunication office at 708-485-0263, ext. 253.

Goal 1: Gain a better understanding of the views ofa broader segment of the Chicago-area populationon biodiversity issues such as ecological restoration.

Recommendations: Compile existing local marketresearch, including that gathered through land-acqui-

sition bond campaigns, to determine gaps in theunderstanding of public values and perceptions.Commission professional market research locally tobetter inform communication strategies and mes-sages. Disseminate research findings to decision-mak-ers and conservation agencies and organizations.

To address these recommendations, Chicago Wilder-ness members have engaged in two audience re-search projects. The first was the Chicago WildernessPrescribed Burn Communication Project. The projectinvolved conducting surveys and focus groups onarea residents’ attitudes and knowledge related toprescribed burns, as well as residents’ preferred com-munication cues related to this topic. Survey resultsrevealed that slightly less than three-fourths ofrespondents supported controlled burning in at leastsome cases, and more individuals support burning inall cases than total opposition combined. The greatestdifference between those supportive and thoseopposed to prescribed burns was in their level ofknowledge of restoration practices and managementof natural areas, as well as experience with burns andother restoration activities. Moreover, burn support-ers were more supportive of other restoration prac-tices in general than were those opposed to burning.Individuals opposed to burning were more support-ive of leaving natural areas alone and were morelikely to see other restoration or management prac-tices (such as the removal of non-native trees orshrubs) as degrading natural areas (Miller et al.2002). The full research results are available on theChicago Wilderness member web site and wereshared during a daylong workshop held at DePaulUniversity in 2002. The workshop also included pre-sentations on public communication efforts related torestoration efforts at the Chicago Botanic Garden andThe Grove National Historic Landmark. Workshopparticipants also engaged in message developmentsessions. The messages were later used to developtemplate communication tools, now available forChicago Wilderness members to use in communicat-ing about controlled burns.

In 2002, Chicago Wilderness members embarkedupon a second and more expansive project, theChicago Wilderness Audience Research Project. Thisproject was designed to help Chicago Wildernesscommunicators be more effective in reaching their

115


target audiences, continually improve their commu-nication processes and products, and measure theircollective success in achieving the communicationgoals listed at the beginning of this section. The proj-ect is also designed to provide baseline audiencecharacteristics that can be measured over time andreported as part of the Report Card.

The project has been conducted in several phases: • A literature review of existing local audience

research (completed)• Identification of gaps and trends in existing

research and recommendation of possible audi-ence segmentations (completed)

• Development of an audience monitoring tool(completed)

• Refinement of the monitoring tool and periodicrepetition of its use (currently underway)

As information from existing sources was collectedand analyzed during the first two phases of work,some interesting trends emerged. Most notably, resi-dents of the Chicago Wilderness region generally fellinto one of four groups:• The Core Supporters (16% of the total population)

These people disagree a little or disagree stronglywith the statement, “There is too much concern forthe environment,” and are members of, volunteersfor or donors to conservation organizations.

• The Periphery (33% of the total population)These people disagree a little or disagree stronglywith the statement, “There is too much concern forthe environment,” but are not members of, volun-teers for, or donors to conservation organizations.

• The Uninterested (47% of the total population)These people agree a little, or neither agree nordisagree with the statement, “There is too muchconcern for the environment,” and are not mem-bers of, volunteers for, nor donors to conservationorganizations.

• The Anti’s (4% of the total population)The people in this group strongly agree with thestatement, “There is too much concern for theenvironment,” and are not members of, volunteersfor, nor donors to conservation organizations (TheMoran Group 2003).

The next phase of the project was to create a surveytool to help fill in knowledge gaps and measurechange in key benchmarks over time:

1. General awareness and attitudes toward biodiver-sity conservation issues

2. Perceived quality of life as it relates to nearbynature and open space

3. Level of participation/involvement in conserva-tion events and activities

In September 2004, telephone interviews were con-ducted with 803 residents of the Chicago Wildernessservice area (Richard Day Research 2004). The keyfindings are:• Chicago Wilderness issues (those related to local

biodiversity and its conservation) are rated some-what important, but below some other issues fac-ing area residents. Safety from crime is veryimportant. Issues related to air and water qualityare very important.

• In terms of awareness of biodiversity: 26% of thosesurveyed had heard about the issue of loss of bio-diversity and were able to provide a definition,19% said they have heard of the issue but wereunable to define the term, and 55% had not heardof the issue of loss of biodiversity. This comparesto a national study conducted by BeldenRussonello & Stewart (2002): the percentage thathad not heard of the loss of biodiversity was 80%in 1996 and 68% in 2002.

• In terms of self-reported knowledge: 49% ofrespondents said they were somewhat or veryknowledgeable about plants and animals that livein this region. Of those, 35% said they were veryproud to live here because of the region’s nature,and 55% said they were somewhat proud to live inthis region because of its nature.

• In terms of attitudes about nearby nature: 65% ofarea residents value the idea of having naturalareas and open space “a great deal,” and 27% sayit matters “somewhat.” Area residents supportpreserving open space by a substantial margin.Fifty-five percent of area residents strongly sup-port preserving open space, 11% support it, butnot strongly.

• In terms of attitudes about removing invasivespecies: When asked, “ Do you support or opposevolunteers and staff at Forest Preserves and otherconservation areas removing plants and animalsthat are not native to this area?” Forty-two per-

116



cent supported it, 38% opposed, and 20% were notsure. When those who opposed it were asked thefollow-up question, “Would you support remov-ing non-native plants and animals if it improveshabitat for native plants and animals?” the num-bers changed: 65% of respondents supported it,11% were still opposed, and 24% were not sure.

• Respondents were segmented into one of fourgroups, depending on their degree of concern withChicago Wilderness issues and whether or not theyhave acted environmentally (been a member, vol-unteer or donor to an environmental organization,or volunteered their time to help the environmentthrough clean ups, restoration or recycling).

Have Not Have Acted Acted

Above Average 16% 9%Concern with Chicago Wilderness Issues

Less Concern 52% 23%with Chicago Wilderness Issues

• The 9% that are concerned about Chicago Wilde-rness issues and have acted are a committedgroup. People in this group tend to be very activeoutdoors, age 44-52, have a high income, andmany are female Caucasians with no young chil-dren in the household.

• The 16% that are concerned about ChicagoWilderness issues and have not acted might be dif-ficult to engage but provide an opportunity tobuild on their interest. Many people in this groupare African-American or Hispanic females, age 53or older, have lower levels of education, have anincome under $50,000, and are renters who live inChicago and Lake County, Illinois.

• The 23% that are not concerned about ChicagoWilderness issues but have acted are potentially afruitful group. They tend to look like the commit-ted group (higher income, suburban) but justdon’t care as much about Chicago Wildernessissues. These people tend to be very active out-doors, age 35-43, have some college education,have an income over $50,000, and live in McHenryCounty and suburban Cook County, Illinois.

• The 52% that are not concerned about ChicagoWilderness issues and have not acted would be themost difficult to reach. These people are typicallythe least active outdoors, are younger, have anincome under $30,000, are African-American, arerenters living in urban areas, and are not regis-tered to vote. (Richard Day Research 2004)

Results from this study were presented at theChicago Wilderness Congress in November 2004.

The survey instrument will continue to be modifiedto improve its ability to monitor knowledge, atti-tudes and behaviors related to biodiversity andChicago Wilderness. Likely additions include morequestions about the way different audiences valuethe natural world, and new ways to document envi-ronmental literacy that have been successfully usedin other states.

Goal 2: Increase the public’s understanding of therole of management in natural areas.

Recommendation: Craft a common lexicon thatdescribes restoration efforts, and create methods toevaluate and adapt the messages to improve theireffectiveness.

As mentioned earlier in this section, the burn com-munication project resulted in researched-based lan-guage and communication tools for use by ChicagoWilderness members. In addition, several workshopsmentioned in this section have been conducted toimprove teachers, volunteers and others’ ability tocommunicate about biodiversity and its conserva-tion. That said, there are opportunities to developfurther specific language on a variety of restorationand natural resource management-related topics andfurther increase the use of a common lexicon byChicago Wilderness members and volunteers.

Recommendations: Foster the delivery of essentialmessage points not only through conservation agen-cies and organizations, but also through a broaderrange of institutions and channels. Engage and edu-cate those who interpret conservation issues for thepublic, including community leaders, media, andelected officials.

117


Multiple projects have been targeted at these audi-ences. These are described in sections 6.2 and 6.3, andin chapter seven.

Goal 3: Improve communication with those imme-diately affected by management decisions.

Recommendations: Ensure that restoration efforts,particularly in new areas, include plans for commu-nications to local residents, and that resources areavailable for efficient and appropriate communica-tion efforts. Create a communication guide thatrestoration agencies can use to help develop theseplans, including resources that already exist and suc-cessful examples from other agencies.

In 2001 and 2002, a Chicago Wilderness-funded proj-ect involved developing a public communicationplan for wetland, prairie, and woodland restorationefforts scheduled to take place at The Grove NationalHistoric Landmark. The project was successful inbuilding public support for the restoration effortsand alleviating area residents’ concerns through out-reach and education, and culminated in a guidebookfor communicating with nearby residents aboutrestoration efforts at natural areas.

Recommendation: Conduct direct outreach to organ-izations in local communities, such as block clubsand religious groups that are interested in environ-mental work.

As mentioned in the education section above, theCommunity-Based Programs Task Force of theEducation and Communication Team created a man-ual for using the Asset-Based Community Develop-ment model to develop biodiversity-related programsin various communities.

Recommendation: Engage advocacy organizationsthat work on environmental issues (such as air andwater quality or sprawl) and educate them about bio-diversity loss.

No projects yet have been undertaken to address thisrecommendation specifically.

Recommendation: Seek opportunities to informjournalists and increase media coverage of restora-tion and land management.

The Chicago Wilderness communication infrastruc-ture includes a media relations program conductedby the communication staff members. The staff reg-ularly works with local media outlets to increase andimprove media coverage of restoration and landmanagement topics, as well as other topics related tobiodiversity conservation. More than 90 percent ofthe coverage resulting from these efforts has beenpositive in its approach.

Recommendation: Review current mechanisms forpublic involvement in land-management decisionsand make improvements, using models that are suc-cessful in other arenas.


Recommendation: Create a structure for collaborat-ing partners not only to react quickly but also toanticipate issues that arise in the public forum.

In 2002, the Chicago Wilderness communicationstaff, in conjunction with an advisory group com-prised of Chicago Wilderness members, created a cri-sis communication plan for the Chicago Wildernessconsortium.

Goal 4: Communicate documented benefits of localrestoration efforts, especially those of most value tohumans.

Recommendation: Gather data on the results ofrestoration efforts, translating the data into easilyunderstood benefits.

The Report Card is the best example of work beingdone to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: Create communications tools thatconnect restoration results to core values: the beautyand wonder of nature, our responsibility to futuregenerations and the desire for a healthy environment.

The Chicago Wilderness Education and Commun-ication team held workshops in 1998 and 2004 on values-based communication to build ChicagoWilderness members’ capacity to communicate withthe public on issues of biodiversity conservation. In

118



2002 the team held a similar workshop focusedspecifically on communicating about prescribedburns. All of these workshops included multiple pre-sentations on why communicating through values iseffective, audience research that’s been conducted inthis area, public communication techniques and mes-sage development exercises.

Recommendation: Include illustrations of restora-tion results in programs, nature walks, signs andother communication vehicles.

As described earlier, the last phase of the burn com-munication project involved producing images ofprescribed burns and before and after shots of burnsites that demonstrate the value of controlled fire as arestoration and land management tool. ManyChicago Wilderness member organizations are usingthese and other types of illustrations in their pro-grams, signage and other communication vehicles.

Recommendation: Develop innovative campaignsand programs that position habitat restoration inmainstream culture (such as museum exhibits, adcampaigns, and retail promotions).

In 2003, the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s com-munication program sponsored several events cen-tered on habitat restoration. These included a publiccelebration at Bartel Grassland and a restoration bustour of Chicago parks. Both events included tours ofnatural areas that highlighted the benefits of restora-tion and active land management. Programs withsimilar themes are planned for the future.

Goal 5: Improve the credibility and public percep-tion of the people involved in restoration efforts.

Recommendation: Seek trusted local spokespeoplewho represent the sound, scientific thinking behindrestoration and/or exemplify the role of the local vol-unteer.


Recommendation: Provide support for volunteerswho interact with the public, and offer training in pub-lic speaking, ecological concepts, interpretation, etc.

As mentioned in the education section above, theEducation and Communication Team established theVolunteer Managers Task Force to provide a venuefor volunteer managers to share resources on recruit-ing and retaining volunteers. The task force is cur-rently involved in a project to better train volunteersfrom Chicago Wilderness members in biodiversity-related messages and content.

Recommendation: Emphasize the public service pro-vided by volunteers and the leverage of public fundsthrough donated time. Ensure that decision-makersare aware of the value of conservation volunteers.

Much outreach has been conducted to decision-mak-ers (see chapter seven) and key messages ofteninclude the value of volunteers’ donated time.

Goal 6: Improve communication about biodiver-sity with key decision-makers such as elected offi-cials and their staff, land managers, and planners.

Recommendations: Assess current tools and pro-grams to inform key decision-makers for content,availability and effectiveness in increasing under-standing of the importance of local biodiversity.Survey, as necessary, to assess key decision-makers’knowledge, attitudes and information needs.

In 2002, the Chicago Wilderness Sustainability Teamconvened an advisory group of Chicago Wildernessmembers and local elected officials to address thechallenges in conducting outreach to elected officialsand other decision-makers. The group conducted asurvey of those target groups on their preferredmethods of receiving information, and gained insightinto the more effective ways of reaching out to theseaudiences.

Recommendation: Develop vehicles to keep deci-sion-makers regularly informed, such as tours, litera-ture, up-to-date scientific information and contactsfor further information.

119


In 2001, Chicago Wilderness funded a full-time personto conduct outreach to local governments through pre-sentations and consulting on specific projects.

In 2003, the Chicago Wilderness Sustainability Teamconvened a series of roundtables that broughttogether developers, elected officials, conservation-ists and others to develop a set of guidelines for pro-moting sustainable development in the region. Theroundtables culminated in the publication of “Sus-tainable Development Principles for ProtectingNature in the Chicago Wilderness Region” (ChicagoRegion Biodiversity Council 2004), a guidebook con-taining eight key recommendations and correspon-ding implementation checklists. The publication isnow available for use by Chicago Wilderness mem-bers as an outreach tool to local officials, land-useplanners and developers.

In 2004 the team created a web portal featuring infor-mation to promote sustainable development in localcommunities. This online resource includes bestpractices, tools and techniques that individuals, busi-nesses, governments and other organizations canimplement in the areas of biodiversity and naturalhabitat conservation, conservation design, sustain-able development, natural landscaping, and waterresource protection.

The team also formed a Sustainable WatershedAction Team to provide technical assistance andguidance to local governments in implementing sus-tainable development principles.

120



7.1INTRODUCTIONThe issue of sustainability is a complex one. There isno clear consensus on exactly what sustainabilitymeans, although most people agree with the defini-tion, “meeting the needs of the present generationwithout compromising the ability of future genera-tions to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987,p.43). Regardless of the definition, most experts alsoagree that sprawling development is one of the great-est threats to sustainability. It causes us to be overlydependent on automobiles, increasing pollution. Italso destroys open space, natural areas and farmland,and contributes to a range of serious social problems,including the need for new infrastructure even asexisting infrastructure is not fully utilized.

Throughout the Chicago Wilderness region, theamount of developed land is growing faster than thepopulation. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 show the change inpopulation and land coverage since 1970. As you cansee, since 1970, the population in the Chicago metro-politan region increased approximately 16 percent,with today’s population covering approximately 81percent of the land. Additionally, since 1970 the acresof unpopulated land have decreased by 20 percent.Along with fewer areas with no population, the totalland area comprising the highest level of density hasalso decreased.

The next series of maps demonstrate population pro-jections through 2030. They examine the relationshipbetween existing protected open space and both cur-rent and projected population. It is anticipated thatan additional 1.7 million people—21.6 percent of thepopulation—will live in the Illinois portion of theChicago Metropolitan region, for a total of 9.8 millionpeople in 2030. The maps in Figures 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5demonstrate where existing protected lands arelocated, where population growth is expected tooccur, and where existing protected lands are locatedand where preservation efforts may be most needed.

Openlands Project and the Metropolitan PlanningCouncil recently released a report that examined howthese population and land use changes affect just twofactors that impact biodiversity: water quality andsupply. The report, “Changing Course: Recommend-ations for Balancing Regional Growth and WaterResources in Northeastern Illinois,” shows thatdespite improvements in wastewater treatment andcombined sewer overflow control, the conditions inthe majority of the region’s streams are too disturbedto support high quality fish communities in urbanand suburban stream watersheds (Goldstein et al.2004). Given the population projections for theregion, these conditions are likely to continue.

Another impact of population growth and sprawl ison the region’s land cover, i.e. vegetation, bare soil,rock, sand and water. The state of Illinois analyzedland cover composition in 1995 and again in 2000,showing increased urbanization of the land in theChicago metropolitan region. This analysis showedthat:• In 1995 agricultural land and & rural grassland (1

million acres, or 42 percent of total land) combinedto be the highest types of land cover

• In 2000 urban built-up and urban open space (1.1million acres, or 45 percent of the total land) hadbecome the dominant land cover

• In 2000 agricultural land and rural grassland hadfallen to 900,000 acres or 38 percent of the totalland

• Between 1995 and 2000, the six-county area com-prising the Illinois portion of the Chicago metro-politan region lost 53 percent of lands classifiedas wetlands (Luman et al. 1996; USDA NationalAgriculture Statistics Service et al. 2002)

Table 7.6 lists land cover types, with their changesover time.

Although the land cover classifications used by thestate are broader than the Chicago Wilderness classi-fication types, the general trends are significant interms of biodiversity conservation. Additionally,

CHAPTER 7SUSTAINABILITY

121


these data are collected regularly and thus providethe opportunity to track changes over time.

In response to these issues, one Chicago Wildernessproject resulted in the publication of the “SustainableDevelopment Principles for Protecting Nature in theChicago Wilderness Region” (Chicago Region Bio-diversity Council 2004), endorsed by the ChicagoWilderness consortium in 2004. These principles, dis-cussed more fully later in this chapter, focus broadlyon the natural resource aspects of sustainable devel-opment, specifically land, water, habitat, and soils.

7.2SUSTAINABILITYRECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE

BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLANSustainability is not afforded its own chapter in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, but recommended actionsrelated to sustainability run through several of theplan’s chapters. These are summarized below.

RECOMMENDATIONS• Preserve more land with existing or potential ben-

efits for biodiversity. A high priority should begiven to identifying and preserving important but

unprotected natural communities, especially thosethreatened by development, and to protectingareas that can function as large blocks of naturalhabitat through restoration and management.High-quality remnants, even if small, however, areimportant reservoirs of genetic material for main-taining regional biodiversity. These areas shouldbe preserved, where possible, by the expansion ofpublic preserves, by the public acquisition of largenew sites, or by the actions of private owners.

• Chicago Wilderness and the regions’ land-own-ing agencies should develop a priority list of areasneeding protection based on regional priorities forbiodiversity conservation.

• Land acquisition plans of public agencies shouldgive consideration to the presence of endangeredand threatened species.

• Protect remaining high-quality streams and lakes,those that support high numbers of native andthreatened species, through watershed planning,mitigation of harmful activities, and stormwatermanagement, in order to conserve aquatic biodi-versity.

• Local agencies should promote natural drainage,create buffer strips and greenways along streams,

TABLE 7.6PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN LAND COVER BY TYPE IN THE SIX-COUNTY ILLINOIS

PORTION OF THE CHICAGO METROPOLITAN REGION FROM 1995–2000.

Land Cover Type 1995 Totals 2000 Totals Raw Change % Change

Agricultural Land 661,593 638,744 (22,849) -3%

Rural Grassland 353,522 269,255 (84,267) -24%

Forested Land 282,268 296,173 13,905 5%

Urban & Built Up Land 675,214 719,664 44,450 7%

Urban Open Space 265,487 359,476 93,989 35%

Wetland 106,733 49,934 (56,799) -53%

Surface Water 52,610 56,318 3,708 7%

Barren and Exposed Land 4,854 8,087 3,233 67%

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

122



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

POPULATION 1970

123


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

POPULATION 2000

124



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

YEAR 2004 CONCENTRATION OF

PROTECTED LAND BY TOWNSHIP

125


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

YEAR 2030 POPULATION GROWTH

ESTIMATES BY TOWNSHIP

126



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

YEAR 2030: TOWNSHIPS WITH FEWER EXISTING

ACRES OF PROTECTED OPEN SPACE AND HIGHER

PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH

127


Fig. 7.7. Comparison of Protected Natural Areas Between 1996 and 2004 (Center for Neighborhood Technology2005).

PROTECTED LANDS: 1996 AND 2004

128



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

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE VISION

129


and create or restore streamside wetlands. Atten-tion should be given to changes in groundwaterlevels for terrestrial communities and wetlands.

• Public agencies should adopt local and regionaldevelopment policies that reflect the need torestore and maintain biodiversity.

• Counties and municipalities should amend theircomprehensive plans, zoning ordinances, and otherregulations to incorporate relevant recommenda-tions contained in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

• State agencies responsible for major transportationinfrastructure should incorporate biodiversityprinciples into their planning and implementationdecisions.

• Support the Regional Greenways Plan for north-eastern Illinois and the Natural Areas Plan forsoutheastern Wisconsin; plans that identify actionsto protect and manage critical habitats for plantsand animals and generally improve ecosystems incomplement to the objectives of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan.

• Participate in the discussions of the Campaign forSensible Growth and Metropolis 2020, whichbroadly promote actions to help the regiondevelop in a manner that will protect its economicvitality, while maintaining its high quality of life.

• Support implementation of regional growth strate-gies by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission, the Southeastern Wisconsin RegionalPlanning Commission, and the Northwest IndianaRegional Planning Commission, insofar as thesestrategies seek to reduce the region’s excessive rateof land consumption, preserve important openspaces, and promote improved water quality.

7.3HIGHLIGHTS OF WORK BEINGDONE TO ADDRESS

SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THEBIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLANFollowing are highlights of actions being taken thataddress the sustainability recommendations of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan. Many of these initiativesaddress multiple issues related to sustainability.

Note that the highlights are not meant to be a com-prehensive representation of all efforts being under-taken to promote sustainability, but rather, they are a

representative set of examples, gleaned from infor-mation that was accessible to the project team at thetime the Report Card was developed.

IDENTIFICATION AND PROTECTION OF HIGH-PRIORITY NATURAL AREASIt is useful to begin by looking at the overall progressmade by members of the Chicago Wilderness consor-tium in identifying and protecting the region’s naturalareas. In 1996, the consortium inventoried the loca-tions of federal, state, county, and privately-ownednatural areas, nature preserves and scientific areas.This effort created an illustrative map of the locationof these areas, but did not quantify specific acreage. In2004, another project, entitled Natural Connections:Green Infrastructure in Wisconsin, Illinois andIndiana (a collaboration between Open Lands Projectand the Center for Neighborhood Technology),resulted in a geographic information system databasethat mapped and quantified protected areas. Asdemonstrated in Figure 7.7, by overlaying these twoefforts on top of each other, one can get a sense of howthe amount of protected areas has changed.

In a separate project, entitled the Green InfrastructureVision, Dreher (2004) defined areas where opportu-nities for protection, expansion, restoration and con-nection of resource-rich natural areas exist at theregional scale (see Figure 7.8).

In the Green Infrastructure Vision, Dreher (2004), iden-tified areas that could and should be protected withinthe tri-state region of Chicago Wilderness. As definedin the project, a green infrastructure is the intercon-nected network of land and water that supports biodiversity and provides habitat for diverse commu-nities of native flora and fauna at the regional scale.Green infrastructure may also include areas adjacentto and connecting natural communities that provideboth buffers and opportunities for ecosystem restora-tion. The project resulted in three main products:

1. Mapped resource protection areas: Recommendedresource protection areas totaling 1.8 million acres,extending from southeast Wisconsin, throughnortheastern Illinois and encompassing northwestIndiana (see number 2 below).

130



2. Recommended Protection Techniques: For each ofthe identified resource protection areas, projectparticipants identified the special natural featuresof the area and recommended conservationapproaches. Participants also made recommenda-tions about appropriate development withinresource protection areas, ranging from no newdevelopment to limited conservation develop-ment. These recommendations are detailed in thefull report (Dreher 2004).

Examples of the types of resource protection areasidentified, and the recommended conservationstrategies, include:o Boone Creek Complex–McHenry County,

Illinois: This recommended resource protectionarea is largely private land, but contains someof the most biodiverse landscapes in northeast-ern Illinois. It contains a large woodland/savanna complex, high quality fens and sedgemeadows, and a high quality, cold-waterstream with silt intolerant fish. While there hasbeen some recent public acquisition of naturallands, this area is unique for its high concentra-tion of conservation easements and dedicatednature preserves on private land. The recom-mended conservation approaches include addi-tional acquisition and conservation easements,wetland restoration in large drained hydric soilzones, and identification and protection ofground water recharge zones for fens and sedgemeadows. Recommended development con-trols call for low-intensity, conservation-designed residential development only, with nodevelopment in hydric soil zones. These recom-mendations are being promoted through arecently adopted watershed plan.

o Lake Calumet Region–Cook County, Illinois:This recommended resource protection areacontains a complex mix of natural areas host-ing threatened and endangered species, highlydegraded habitats, and adjacent industrial landin the midst of a large urban complex. It hasbeen the subject of a comprehensive, long-termplanning process spearheaded by the City ofChicago and other members of the ChicagoWilderness consortium, in partnership withCalumet-based conservation and community

groups and representatives of local industry.Conservation recommendations emphasizewetland and prairie restoration, greenway con-nections along the Calumet and Grand CalumetRivers and to Wolf Lake, and additional publicland acquisition. The recommendations alsocall for industrial redevelopment utilizing con-servation design approaches that fully mitigatehydrologic and water quality impacts.

3. Guidelines for Conservation Development:Recognizing that development will continue tooccur within many of the recommended resourceprotection areas, it was decided that recommenda-tions were needed for conservation developmentthat would be compatible with biodiversity pro-tection and restoration. The recommendations arebased on the premise that, in order to be truly sus-tainable, development must not only protect thenatural environment but must improve systemsdegraded by past disturbances. The recommen-dations are:o Minimize the total consumption of land, par-

ticularly the creation of impervious surfaces, bynew development

o Utilize existing infrastructure by maximizinginfill and redevelopment

o Maintain and reestablish functional natural sys-tems: soils, plants, water

o Minimize disturbance of soil structure andtopography

o Develop landscapes sustainably, utilizing adiversity of native plant species

o Manage precipitation as a resource close towhere it falls, not as a disposable waste product

o Utilize the landscape to naturally filter andinfiltrate runoff before it leaves the develop-ment site

o Eliminate adverse off-site and downstreameffects of runoff and wastewater

o Maximize, interconnect, and restore naturalopen space

o Maximize opportunities for local access to openspace

o Establish administrative and financial mecha-nisms for the long-term management of the nat-ural elements of developed sites (Dreher 2004)

131


NATURAL AREA ACQUISITIONOne of the key factors in preserving natural areas ishow to pay for the acquisition of land. In the face ofincreasing development pressures, residents ofnortheastern Illinois have continued to pass bond ref-erenda for the acquisition of open space, includingnatural areas. From 1997 through 1999, there were sixsuccessful bond referenda in northeastern Illinois,totaling $281.5 million for conservation (TheConservation Foundation 2004). Since 1999, at least13 additional bond referenda have passed, totalingmore than $259 million. According to the Trust forPublic Land’s LandVote web site, since 1999 therehave been 856 open space bond referenda passed in33 states, netting $17.99 billion for conservation pur-poses (The Trust for Public Land 2004).

For the following successful open space referenda innortheastern Illinois, the number in parentheses isthe percentage by which the measure passed (TheConservation Foundation 2004):• November 5, 2002–Lake Forest–$6 million (69%)• November 5, 2002–Kendall County Forest Pre-

serve District–$5 million (64%)• March 19, 2002–Barrington Park District–$11.5

million (61%)• April 3, 2001–McHenry County Conservation

District–$68.5 million (52%)• April 3, 2001–Lemont Township (Cook

County)–$10 million (62%)• April 3, 2001–Campton Township (Kane County) -

$19 million (54%)• November 7, 2000–Plainfield Township Park

District–$6 million (71%)• November 7, 2000–Orland Park–$20 million (57%)• November 7, 2000–Lake County Forest Preserve

District–$85 million (67%)• March 21, 2000–Carol Stream Park District–$12

million (67%)• March 21, 2000–Barrington Park District–$8 mil-

lion (61%)• March 21, 2000–Geneva Park District–$7.9 million

(79%)• April 13, 1999–Lake county Forest Preserve

District–$55 million (66%)• April 13, 1999–Homer Township (Will County)–$8

million (63%)• April 13, 1999–Glen Ellyn Park District–$3.5 mil-

lion (56%)

• April 13, 1999–Kane County Forest PreserveDistrict–$70 million (66%)

• April 13, 1999–Will County Forest PreserveDistrict–$70 million (51%)

• November 4, 1997–Forest Preserve District ofDuPage County–$75 million (58%)

As a result of the bond referenda passed, county for-est preserve and conservation districts in northeast-ern Illinois have significantly increased their landholdings (Table 7.9).

DESIGNATION OF NATURE PRESERVESAcquisition of natural areas is not the only means ofpreserving them. The Illinois Nature PreservesCommission, in designating high-quality naturalareas as Nature Preserves, provides them the high-est level of permanent protection in the state. Thevoluntary program is available to private, corporateand government landowners, who continue to ownthe land but agree to restrict uses in perpetuity to pre-serve its natural state, and to perpetuate natural con-ditions. As of this writing, there are 323 dedicatedNature Preserves in 80 of Illinois’ 102 counties, com-prising 43,595 acres. Testament to the rich biodiver-sity in the Chicago Wilderness portion of the state,more than one-third of the preserves are locatedwithin the six collar counties of Chicago. Since thepublication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan in 1999,there have been eight new Nature Preserves dedi-cated within the boundaries of Chicago Wilderness,and additions to 30 others, bringing the total num-ber of Nature Preserves in Chicago Wilderness to 116.The total acreage of these preserves is 18,472 (IllinoisNature Preserves Commission 2004).

The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission also offersa less restrictive designation, called Illinois Land andWater Reserve, to both public and private landown-ers. Statewide, there are 113 Land and WaterReserves in 53 counties, totaling 34,425 acres. Priorto the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan in1999, there were only five Land and Water Reserves,totaling 824 acres, in northeastern Illinois. Since 2000,12 Land and Water Reserves comprising 2,874 acreshave been added within the Chicago Wildernessregion (Illinois Nature Preserves Commission 2004).

132



The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission recentlydeveloped an additional option for conservation des-ignation: Natural Heritage Landmarks. This is arecognition program that introduces landowners tothe concept of natural area protection and allows thestate to assist with management of the natural area. Itis a voluntary program that increases understandingof the value of natural areas and encourages theirpreservation by private landowners. An agreementdocument determines provisions and can be termi-nated by either party. Prior to 2000, there were onlytwo Natural Heritage Landmarks, totaling 46 acres,in northeastern Illinois. Since 2000, an additional 78acres within eight different sites have been desig-nated as Natural Heritage Landmarks (IllinoisNature Preserves Commission 2004).

CONSERVATION 2000In 1995, Illinois passed a bill establishing Cons-ervation 2000, a comprehensive, six-year, $100 mil-lion initiative, designed to take a holistic, long-termapproach to protecting and managing Illinois’ natu-ral resources. The Illinois Department of NaturalResources administers the Conservation 2000 pro-gram. In 1999, legislation was signed extending thefour components of the program through 2009: • Assessment and Monitoring• Integrated Technical Assistance • Ecosystem Project, Planning, and Support Grants • Ecosystem Interpretation and Education

The voluntary Ecosystems Project, Planning andSupport Grants is a critical component, the purpose

TABLE 7.9THE AMOUNT OF LAND ADDED TO NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS’

FOREST PRESERVE AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AS A

RESULT OF BOND REFERENDA SINCE 1997.

FPD of FPD of FPD of FPD of Lake McHenryCook DuPage Kane Will County CountyCounty County County County Forest Conservation

Preserves District

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

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

n/a

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

1 As reported in Table 11.1 of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan

2 Data for 2004 were collected by Christopher Mulvaney in consultation with the Forest Preserve District of CookCounty, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, the Forest Preserve District of Kane County, the ForestPreserve District of Will County, Lake County Forest Preserves, and the McHenry County Conservation District.

133


of which is to integrate the interests and participationof local communities and private, public and corpo-rate landowners to enhance and protect watershedsthrough ecosystem-based management. According tothe C2000 web site, “The Ecosystems Program ismade up of Ecosystem Partnerships, which are coali-tions of local stakeholders—private landowners,businesses, scientists, environmental organizations,recreational enthusiasts, and policy makers. They areunited by a common interest in the natural resourcesof their areas’ watersheds. Partnership designationbrings financial and technical support, which is inte-gral in addressing watershed concerns” (IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources 2004). Currently,there are 41 Ecosystem Partnerships, covering morethan 84 percent of Illinois. Eleven are located all orpartially within the Chicago Wilderness region.These are listed below, followed by the year in whicheach partnership was designated:• Chicago Wilderness Ecosystem Partnership–1996• DuPage River Coalition Ecosystem Partnership–

1998• Fox River Ecosystem Partnership–1996• Kankakee River Ecosystem Partnership–1996• Kishwaukee River Ecosystem Partnership–1996• Lake Calumet Ecosystem Partnership–1999• Lower Des Plaines Ecosystem Partnership–2000• North Branch of the Chicago River Ecosystem–

2000• Prairie Parklands Ecosystem Partnership–1996• Thorn Creek Macrosite Ecosystem Partnership–

1997• Upper Des Plaines Ecosystem Partnership–1996

By way of example, the goals of the Wisconsin-Illinois Upper Des Plaines River EcosystemPartnership are:• Wildlife habitat and open space protection and

restoration• Floodplain and stormwater management• Water quality improvement and reduction of soil

erosion• Enhancement of recreational opportunities• Demonstration of the feasibility of interstate and

public/private partnerships

Building upon grassroots conservation efforts initi-ated in the early 1980s, the Lake Calumet EcosystemPartnership was established in 1999 with the follow-ing goals:

CORLANDS: TAKING A CREATIVE

APPROACH TO LAND

ACQUISITION AND PRESERVATION

Corlands is the land acquisition affiliate ofthe Openlands Project. Working primarily innortheastern Illinois, Corlands has acquired70 sites totaling approximately 4,000 acres onbehalf of government agencies, which thenacquired the sites when funding becameavailable. Corlands has also provided techni-cal assistance to government agencies andother organizations, facilitating their directacquisition of an additional 5,800 acres. Inaddition to its acquisition work, Corlandshas permanently preserved additional natu-ral areas by securing 30 conservation ease-ments on acreage totaling approximately1,636 acres.

Among Corlands’ recent acquisition efforts isthe 408-acre Hoover Outdoor EducationCenter, located along nearly a mile of the FoxRiver in Kendall County, Illinois. The ForestPreserve District of Kendall County long hadidentified the property as important to pre-serve, and when the Boy Scouts of Americadecided to look for a conservation-mindedbuyer for the camp, the Forest Preserve Dist-rict, along with the City of Yorkville, steppedforward. They turned to Corlands, whichnegotiated the acquisition in three roughlyequal parts, acquiring and holding one parcelat a time until the Forest Preserve District cansecure the funds to buy it from Corlands.Other partners in the effort include theConservation Fund, LaSalle Bank, and Speak-er of the U.S. House of Representatives, Den-nis Hastert (R-Yorkville), who shepherded thepassage of an appropriation of approximately$5 million toward the purchase price. Theaddition of the camp virtually doubles theForest Preserve District’s land holdings, andpreserves for the residents of Kendall Countyand the region a prime riverfront site of oak-hickory woodlands, bluff savannas and rav-ines (R. Megquier 2004).

134



Marianne Hahn initially acquired 60 acres of blackoak savanna, sand prairie, flatwoods and farmfields in the Kankakee Sands area of KankakeeCounty, Illinois. Naming the site Sweet Fern forthe presence of the sweet-scented and state-listedendangered native shrub, she gradually added 25additional acres to the site. In 2001, the former fac-ulty member of the Chicago College of Osteo-pathic Medicine enrolled 62.2 acres in the Landand Water Reserve program run by the IllinoisNature Preserves Commission. At the time of theenrollment, the site boasted more than 320 nativeplant species, including six state-listed endan-gered plant species: sweet fern, shore St. John’swort, Carey’s smartweed, eastern blue-eyed grass,bristly blackberry and primrose violet.

An active conservationist in her retirement (amongher many volunteer efforts, she is co-founder andcurrent President of the Midewin Tallgrass PrairieAlliance), Hahn is active in the ongoing manage-ment of her private Land and Water Reserve. Withsupport from the Illinois Nature PreservesCommission and the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources, a drainage ditch on the westend of the property has been filled in to helprestore the hydrological conditions in that area,and bare areas have been sown with seed fromadjacent areas. Many invasive plant species havebeen removed or treated with herbicide, and in thespring of 2003, a controlled burn was conductedon 80 percent of the property.

Hahn carefully monitors the recovery of the sweetfern colony, as well as the reestablishment ofnative vegetation in areas formerly planted withcorn or soybeans. There are now more than 400native plant species on site, including 12 state-listed endangered plant species. And in the sum-mer of 2004, Hahn reported an abundance of thestate-listed Regal Fritillary butterfly. She also hasdocumented the site’s avifauna and reptile andamphibian populations, and supported a study bya University of Illinois graduate student on theresident red-headed woodpecker population.

Hahn acknowledges some tax benefits for hav-ing taken the land out of agricultural productionand permanently protecting it. However, themost gratifying benefit, she says, is the pride shefeels in actively recovering the sheer beauty of arare ecosystem. “I love the scent of sweet fern asI walk through its leaves that glisten bright greenin dappled sunlight. I love the diversity of theplants and the changes that occur among themfrom week to week, season to season, year toyear. And the surprises! In September 2004, I dis-covered native plant number 411—Polygonumsagitatum, arrow-leaved tear thumb—a plant I'dnever seen before now growing in an area thathad supported a soybean crop in 1999. Absol-utely thrilling!” (M. Hahn 2004).

STEWARDSHIP OF SWEET FERN: A LAND AND WATER RESERVE

• Restore the natural environment• Interpret our history• Foster a sustainable economy• Revitalize our community• Protect environmental health

Representative of the diversity of public and privatepartners in most, if not all, Ecosystem Partnerships,members of the Lake Calumet Ecosystem Partner-ship include:• Acme Steel Company

• Bird Conservation Network• Calumet Ecological Park Association• Center for Neighborhood Technology• Centrol Comunitario Juan Diego• Chicago Audubon Society• Chicago State University• Citizens for a Better Environment• City of Chicago Department of Environment• Friends of the Parks• Illinois Environmental Protection Agency• Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant

135


• Illinois Audubon Society, Fort Dearborn Chapter• Openlands Project• Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter• Southeast Chicago Development Commission• Southeast Environmental Task Force• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• U.S.D.A. Forest Service, North Central Research

Station• Veterans Park Improvement Association

To date, ecosystem partnership members throughoutthe entire state have raised approximately $37.8 mil-lion to match $29.9 million in project grants, for a totalof $67.7 million. With these funds, the partnershipshave protected nearly 6,000 acres through acquisitionor conservation easements, and have restored morethan 62,000 acres. In recognition of these achieve-ments, in 2004 the program won honors from theNational Association of Resource Conservation andDevelopment Councils (Illinois Department ofNatural Resources 2005).

USE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS AND

OUTREACH TO PROPERTY OWNERSAmong the other tools for preserving natural areasare conservation easements, which the Land TrustAlliance describes as “legal agreement[s] between alandowner and a land trust or government agencythat permanently limits uses of the land in order toprotect its conservation values” (Land Trust Alliance2004). According to the Alliance’s web site, in 2004, “arecord five million acres were protected through vol-untary conservation easements, more than triple theamount (1.4 million acres) protected just five yearsago” (Land Trust Alliance 2004).

Mirroring this national trend, a growing number ofnonprofit land trust organizations in the region havebeen increasing the number of conservation ease-ments held or negotiated on behalf of other agencies,by focusing their efforts on outreach to individuallandowners of small- to medium-sized, high-qualitynatural areas.

For example, in 2003, the Land Conservancy ofMcHenry County identified high-quality naturalareas under threat of development and/or with noplan by a public agency to protect them, based oninformation from the McHenry County Conservation

District and the Illinois Natural Areas Inventories.Outreach to more than 200 landowners within thesemost vulnerable natural areas has resulted in theConservancy accepting conservation easements attwo of the sites and purchasing land at another site.Two additional sites were enrolled in the Con-servancy’s Land Heritage Registry program, a volun-tary, non-binding program by which the landowneragrees to manage his/her natural area in accordancewith sound conservation principles. To assist thelandowners, the Conservancy offers to help draft amanagement plan for each site. To date, 119 acres atsix sites have been enrolled in the program.Additionally, the Conservancy holds title to 33 acres ofland and 16 conservation easements on 236 acres,bringing the total number of acres permanently pro-tected to 269 (L. Haderlein 2004).

In another example, in 2004, the Fox Valley LandFoundation hired its first land protection specialist toimplement a private landowner contact program.Guided by the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory, theFox River Watershed Biodiversity Inventory and theKane County Advanced Identification of WetlandsInventory, the program targets privately-owned,high-quality natural areas with no formal protection,or those that would expand or buffer existing pro-tected areas. As a result of outreach efforts, 14 sites,comprised of 307 acres, have been enrolled in theFoundation’s Heritage Land Registry program, mod-eled after the program pioneered by the LandConservancy of McHenry County. The Foundationholds six conservation easements, three of which areon privately owned land. The other easements per-manently protect a Natural Areas Inventory site,expand an Illinois Nature Preserve and protect a rare,high-quality fen. Since 1999, the Foundation hasraised nearly $1 million to acquire three adjoiningland areas, or buffers, to protected natural areas andhas donated them to public agencies. The foundationhas also raised more than $900,000 to manage andrestore more than two dozen protected natural areas,including 11 sites that contain the state-endangeredeastern prairie fringed orchid (M. Nelson 2004).

In yet another example of the use of conservationeasements, The Conservation Foundation currentlyholds 16 easements totaling 506 acres, of which 438have been protected since 2000. The Conservation

136



Foundation has negotiated three additional ease-ments, comprising 75 acres, on behalf of public agen-cies, including the nation’s first conservationeasement on a Girl Scout camp. Approximately halfof the 135-acre Whispering Oaks Camp, locatedalong the lower Fox River near Sheridan, Illinois, andhome to the state-threatened northern white cedar,is now permanently protected (D. Lobbes 2004).

REGIONAL PLANNING INITIATIVESThere are four major regional planning efforts in theChicago Wilderness region:• Common Ground, Northeastern Illinois Planning

Commission (NIPC)• The Metropolis Plan, Chicago Metropolis 2020• Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality

Commission, the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology

• 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Chicago AreaTransportation Study (CATS)

With the exception of Common Ground, none men-tion the importance of restoring and protecting bio-diversity, although each addresses the importance ofnatural areas.

In March 2003, Chicago Metropolis 2020 released“The Metropolis Plan: Choices for the ChicagoRegion.” Although the plan does not explicitlyaddress biodiversity, it does make three recommen-dations to protect natural areas, open space andfarmland:

1. Use regional land use and transportation plans toset priorities for the preservation of natural areas,open space, and farmland.

2. Provide state funding for the acquisition andpreservation of open lands and natural areas con-sistent with the state’s goals for growth and theregional land use and transportation plans.

3. Provide state funding and technical assistance inorder to map, inventory and preserve key naturalareas and farmland in urbanizing counties(Chicago Metropolis 2020 2003, p.35).

Common Ground is led by NIPC. It is a comprehen-sive planning process that brings the six-county

Chicago region together to create a shared vision forthe common future. In June 2005, NIPC adopted its2040 Regional Framework Plan. Participants identi-fied a number of types of green areas they wanted tosee preserved or protected by 2040. In addition toopen space, water resources and agricultural land,participants identified biodiversity areas for protec-tion along the Kankakee River in southwest WillCounty, along the Calumet River near the Indianaborder, along the Chain-of-Lakes in Lake andMcHenry Counties, and along the Nippersink Creek.Additional biodiverse areas were identified in theDes Plaines River area near the Palos/Sag ForestPreserves.

The Chicagoland Transportation and Air QualityCommission is a coalition of more than 200 organi-zations that work together to make recommenda-tions to CATS on transportation-related issues. TheCommission is led by the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology. Again, Commission participants do notalways explicitly address the need to protect biodi-versity, but in both McHenry and Lake Counties inIllinois, the need to protect natural areas and openspace was the number one concern.

The CATS Policy Committee is designated by stateand local officials as the Metropolitan PlanningOrganization (MPO) for the northeastern Illinoisregion. In October, 2003, CATS released the 2030Regional Transportation Plan for NortheasternIllinois. One of the accompanying documents to theplan is an analysis completed by NIPC, “NaturalResource and Socio-Economic Impacts of 2030Regional Transportation Proposals.” (NortheasternIllinois Planning Commission 2003). NIPC’s analysisidentifies which proposed projects have the highestpotential for negative impacts on natural resources.However, CATS did not include this analysis in itsfinal plan for the region. CATS did note when a pro-posed project will cross high- quality streams, ortransect forest preserves or agricultural areas. Forexample, NIPC identified the proposed PrairieParkway as having a high natural resource impact, asit is located in a watershed identified as very highpriority for protection and restoration, contains agri-cultural areas and passes the southeast side ofMidewin National Tallgrass Prairie. CATS’ planmentions the project’s location, but limits its recom-

137


mendation to “consideration of farmland protectionis recommended” (Chicago Area TransportationStudy 2003 p.190).

Note that as this report goes to print, CATS and NIPCare beginning a merger as recommended to the Illinois gov-ernor and General Assembly in an April 2004 report bythe Northeastern Illinois Regional Transportation TaskForce.

OUTREACH TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTSIn broad terms, it is safe to conclude that local gov-ernment ordinances, plans and development poli-cies are improving in the protections they provide forhabitat and natural areas in the Chicago Wildernessregion. In fact, the use of the term “conservationdevelopment” is becoming much more common andthe list of developments meeting conservation designprinciples is growing steadily. There also appears tobe an increasing acceptance of open space and habi-tat protection in many communities to enhance qual-ity of life, as well as protect biodiversity. Someexamples of positive trends in development ordi-nances include:• An increasing acceptance of cluster development

to protect open space and sensitive habitats• An increasing number of development projects

that incorporate habitat restoration, particularly ofaquatic systems

• An increasing number of communities that requireopen space set-asides as part of developmentapproval

• Improved, more holistic stormwater ordinances• A growing acceptance of non-traditional, ecologi-

cally friendly stormwater drainage approaches.• A growing acceptance of natural landscaping as

an alternative to turf grass• An evolving awareness of the need for effective

management of preserved and created naturallandscapes

There do not appear to be any negative trends, orweakening, of local development ordinances. How-ever, there is at least one area in which ecosystemprotections have been weakened due to changes infederal law and/or policy. Specifically, the elimina-tion of federal regulation of isolated wetlands due toa decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has created a

regulatory gap in our region. Fortunately, the Stateof Wisconsin, several countywide stormwater man-agement agencies in northeastern Illinois, and someindividual local governments have instituted theirown protections for isolated wetlands. Nonetheless,there are numerous isolated wetlands in our regionthat are no longer protected.

It is important to specifically note the role that manymembers of the Chicago Wilderness consortium playin supporting improved development ordinancesand programs. The consortium has financially sup-ported the development of important publicationsand projects that directly support local governmentefforts in conserving biodiversity. These include:• The Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure

Vision Project• The Conservation Design Resource Manual• Protecting Nature in Your Community: A Guidebook

for Preserving and Enhancing Biodiversity• Restoring and Managing Stream Greenways: A

Landowner’s Handbook• Sustainable Development Principles for Protecting

Nature in the Chicago Wilderness Region• The Ecological Planning and Design Directory:

Resources for Developers, Local Officials andStakeholders (an online resource)

Members of the Chicago Wilderness consortium arealso directly involved in outreach and technical assis-tance to local governments. A new project—theSustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT)—isbringing the expertise of progressive conservationdesign engineers, planners and landscape architectsinto select communities. Their mission is to workwith municipal officials and the consultants repre-senting developers to find more sustainable designsolutions for sensitive development projects.Combined with the efforts of Chicago Wildernessmember organizations, these actions bode well forcontinued improvement in the sustainability ofdevelopment in the face of relentless developmentpressures in the region.

Through the lens of the eight sustainable developmentprinciples adopted by the Chicago Wilderness con-sortium in 2004, what follows is an overview of thestatus of existing county and municipal ordinances:

138



1. Promote infill development and redevelop-ment where transportation facilities and utili-ties already exist in order to minimize thedevelopment of open lands, such as naturalareas and farmland. Encourage developmentthat is compact and contiguous to existingcommunity infrastructure.

This principle is largely focused on improved com-prehensive planning at the regional and local level,versus regulatory ordinances. However, zoning alsocan be used in ways to encourage and require moreinfill and contiguous development. Broadly, regionalplans adopted by the Northeastern Illinois PlanningCommission (NIPC), Northwest Indiana RegionalPlanning Commission and Southeastern WisconsinRegional Planning Commission support this principle.

Locally, some county and municipal plans stronglysupport this principle. One of the best examples isKane County’s 2020 Land Resource ManagementPlan, which identifies three distinct zones in thecounty: an urban corridor, a critical growth corridorwhere natural resource protection is paramount, andan agricultural priority area where little developmentis foreseen (Kane County Regional Planning Com-mission 1996).

The Chicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision(Dreher 2004) referenced earlier in this chapter, mayprovide additional leverage and information to com-munities desiring to support this principle. Zoningmaps and regulations also can support this principleat the local level by designating the density and typeof development for an area. Similarly, zoning ordi-nances could more aggressively restrict developmentto locations where appropriate transportation andinfrastructure already exist; could require a heavy feefor “greenfield” development; or provide incentivesto use the already built environment for new devel-opment. Unfortunately, very few communities in thehigh-growth portions of our region where biodiver-sity is at greatest risk utilize such innovative zoningapproaches.

2. Locate and plan new development in waysthat protect natural resources and habitat andprovide buffers between sensitive naturalareas and intensive use areas.

This principle encompasses a number of actions,some of which entail planning and inventories and others that involve ordinance approaches.Implementing this principle initially requires effectiveinventorying of natural resources and incorporatingthem into maps and comprehensive land use plans.NIPC recently conducted an inventory of the compre-hensive land use plans in its region. It concluded that77 percent of the municipalities have plans, althoughthey range extensively in thoroughness and content,and many are outdated. Of these plans, just 49 percentgave moderate to high emphasis to protecting wet-lands, greenways and forest preserves.

One of the most remarkable examples of biodiver-sity planning at the community level is the Villageof Schaumburg’s recently adopted SchaumburgBiodiversity Recovery Plan (Applied EcologicalServices 2004). The plan includes an ecologicalassessment of natural areas in the village; naturalarea restoration recommendations; recommenda-tions for conservation development; identification ofgreenway opportunities; identification of fundingopportunities; and recommended ordinance changes.It also has residential and business guides for biodi-versity-friendly practices. In Wisconsin, state lawsrequire the development of comprehensive “smartgrowth” plans by local governments.

Beyond planning, the next logical step is the adop-tion of zoning and subdivision ordinance languagethat explicitly prevents development in and adjacentto sensitive natural areas. From an ordinance per-spective, counties and municipalities in the ChicagoWilderness region have been relatively progressive inendorsing this principle. However, the ordinanceshave generally focused on a fairly limited range ofhabitat types—principally streams and wetlands—in their protections. The principal reason for this lim-ited focus is that habitat protection, per se, is not ahigh priority to most local governments. Rather,streams and wetlands are offered protection prima-rily because of their importance to stormwater man-agement and flood prevention.

In general, southeast Wisconsin communities are inmuch better shape with respect to wetland protection.This is largely due to protections provided through

139


statewide wetland regulations. In northwest Indiana,relatively few local governments offer stream andwetland protection through local ordinances.

Beyond streams and wetlands, there are other criti-cal natural areas that need protection to preserve bio-diversity. Included in this category would beremnant prairies, savannas, and woodlands, as wellas sensitive groundwater recharge areas. The situa-tion is much less favorable here. In general, very fewlocal ordinances explicitly address these resources.

Finally, principally because of concerns over futurewater supplies, an increasing number of communi-ties are requiring consideration of groundwaterrecharge zones in the development process. Withinthis realm, a few communities, like South Elgin andYorkville in Illinois, also have begun to address pro-tection of fen recharge areas.

3. Use the development process to enhance andrestore streams, wetlands and lakes, and toenhance their potential as recreational andaesthetic amenities.

This principle involves a number of possible actionsand is based on the premise that avoidance alone isnot sufficient to ensure the long-term viability andvalue of aquatic ecosystems. Enhancement andrestoration of aquatic ecosystems requires severalthings. There must be a clear understanding ofhydrology and plant communities on the develop-ment site. There must be an appreciation of the eco-logic and economic feasibility of potential restorationmeasures. And there must be an understanding ofthe value of such restoration—such as the recre-ational benefits of a stream greenway—to both thedeveloper and the community.

Because of the complexity and site-specific nature ofaquatic restoration projects, very few communities inthe region have ordinances that formally address thisissue. Rather, in the more ecologically progressivecommunities, or in projects involving progressivedevelopers, restoration and enhancement are negoti-ated between the developer and the local govern-ment (and other relevant regulatory agencies, such asthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

Ordinances do have a role, however, in encouraging,if not requiring, restoration of streams, lakes and wet-lands. A number of communities do have compre-hensive ordinances protecting aquatic systems,which typically require protection of buffers adja-cent to aquatic resources and mitigation of any directimpacts to the resource or the buffer. Another anglefor enhancing recreation and access to aquatic sys-tems via the development process is through landuse plans and zoning codes that identify communitygreenways and trails. Encouragingly, many commu-nities in the region have begun to use this approachto establish community greenways and “riverwalks,” even though these improvements may not beexplicitly mandated by the local ordinances.

4. Preserve permanent open space as an integralpart of new development to both protect criti-cal natural areas and to provide opportunitiesfor recreation and environmental education.Design developments to create open spacelinkages to adjacent and regional natural areasso that nature exists not as islands but as con-nected habitat.

This principle is accomplished through a combina-tion of good land use planning, coordinationbetween local governments and developers, andordinances that specify minimum open spacerequirements. According to NIPC’s recent inventoryof the comprehensive land use plans in its region,from a planning perspective, 75 percent of the munic-ipal comprehensive plans in northeastern Illinoisgive moderate to high emphasis to parks and openspace protection.

From an ordinance perspective, preserving perma-nent open space is commonly achieved by require-ments for park donations and/or establishingminimum percentages of open space for differentdevelopment types. Most communities in growthareas now require park donations or set-asides fornew development. However, it isn’t clear how manyof these requirements are structured to protect natu-ral land.

There is an increasing trend to require that a certainpercentage of residential developments, specified byordinance, be set aside as natural open space. Often,

140



this requirement is in addition to natural lands thatare considered unbuildable (e.g., wetlands and flood-plains). Examples of such requirements can be foundin the plans and development ordinances of Kane,Lake and Will Counties in Illinois, where require-ments typically range from 20 to 40 percent openspace. Porter County, Indiana is presently consideringthe adoption of an open space ordinance. However,there is some variability in how open space is defined(i.e., it may not always have significant biodiversityvalue). Also, existing open space ordinances may notalways be clear in specifying ownership and long-term management of such areas.

5. Recognize the value of water as a resource andmanage it to protect downstream water bodiesand wetlands, prevent increased flooding,preserve groundwater resources and maintainnatural hydrology.

This principle entails the adoption of progressiveordinances and guidelines for the holistic manage-ment of stormwater runoff in development projects.Traditionally, stormwater ordinances have focusedon end-of-the-pipe, engineered treatment options—typically catch basins and detention structures. Suchapproaches are very limited in their focus and do lit-tle to protect the hydrology and water quality ofdownstream wetlands, lakes and river systems.

Progressive approaches, in contrast, attempt to pre-serve, as much as possible, the natural hydrology of asite, and limit off-site water quality impacts. This isaccomplished by limiting impervious areas, preserv-ing natural drainage and storage features, routingrunoff through “naturalized” swales and filter strips,and storing and filtering excess runoff in naturallylandscaped detention basins.

As with most of the other principles, this can beaccomplished by a combination of good site plan-ning, design guidelines and prescriptive ordinances.More specifically, it is recognized that effective pro-tection of water resources cannot be accomplishedthrough the implementation and enforcement of tra-ditional development ordinances alone. A more inte-grated approach is necessary, principally becauseconventional subdivision and zoning codes oftenconflict with at least some of the requirements of pro-

gressive water resource ordinances. In recognition ofsome of these concerns, NIPC and other members ofthe Chicago Wilderness consortium recently devel-oped the Conservation Design Resource Manual,which is designed to help communities effectivelyupdate local plans and ordinances to be moreamenable to conservation design practices.

As a development site is being planned, site layoutand drainage system design are governed by the com-munity’s subdivision code, in combination with itsstormwater ordinance. Regarding the latter, there hasbeen tremendous progress in community approachesto stormwater management. NIPC, from an advisoryperspective, has long-promoted progressive stormwa-ter management approaches through its “ModelStormwater Drainage and Detention Ordinance”(Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission 1994).While individual communities have adopted themodel ordinance, perhaps the biggest positive impacthas been the action of countywide stormwater man-agement commissions. Beginning in the early 1990s,these commissions have been adopting relatively pro-gressive ordinances that are mandated for adoption byevery municipality in the county as well as the countyitself. To date, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and WillCounties in Illinois have adopted and are now enforc-ing county-wide ordinances.

Beyond the county-wide ordinances, individual com-munities in northeastern Illinois have adopted pro-gressive stormwater ordinances as a condition for theexpansion of wastewater facility planning areas ormunicipal wastewater treatment plants. In Wisc-onsin, community regulations are guided by newstormwater management requirements enforced anddelegated through the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources. Wisconsin has developed anaggressive model ordinance for construction activi-ties that addresses hydrology, water quality andbuffer strips on development sites.

While there has been substantial progress in theadoption of improved stormwater ordinances in thelast 10 years, actual development practices oftenleave much to be desired. One of the biggest con-straints to more effective stormwater and waterresource management in most communities is theinflexibility of the conventional subdivision ordi-

141


nances. Traditional subdivision ordinances may beconstraining in a number of areas, including require-ments related to street widths, parking lots, curbs,gutters, storm sewers, landscape islands and imper-meable paving.

6. Minimize changes to natural topography, soilsand vegetation to preserve land, water and soilrelationships that are essential for sustainingplant and animal habitat. Where sites havebeen previously altered, attempt to restore nat-ural conditions to the extent possible.

This principle is focused on preserving and restor-ing the integrity of the soils and vegetation on adevelopment site. Much of this can be accomplishedby progressive ordinances, in combination withincentives and guidelines. The traditional approachto this issue has been a focus on nuisance soil erosion,but without consideration of the long-term implica-tions of compacted soils. Traditional approaches alsohave failed to consider the consequences of land-scaping sites with non-native, shallow rooted vegeta-tion, with the conventional default being turf grass.Not only do such landscapes provide little local ben-efit to biodiversity, they also cause off-site impactsdue to fertilizer and pesticide runoff and dewateringof local aquifers for irrigation.

A progressive response to these concerns is adoptionof ordinances and guidelines that:• Minimize the amount of soil disturbance and com-

paction on a development site• Minimize soil erosion and off-site sedimentation

during construction• Protect remnant native vegetation• Encourage the use of native vegetation for on-site

landscaping

Fortunately, municipalities and counties have madesignificant progress in the recent past in requiringmore progressive approaches, particularly in the areaof soil erosion control. Unfortunately, significantproblems remain. In most communities, the empha-sis remains principally on avoiding sediment lossthat causes a public nuisance or disrupts roadwaysand other infrastructure. Commonly, the more perva-sive problems of elevated turbidity and silt loads

reaching downstream aquatic systems receive muchless attention.

Local government programs to preserve and expandnative landscapes have expanded substantially inrecent years. There have been some successes in pro-tecting small remnant natural areas from develop-ment, but much improvement is needed in this area.Specifically, while many community and county ordi-nances now address the protection of wetlands, rela-tively few address remnant woodland, savanna orprairie communities.

More significant progress has been made in commu-nities accepting, and even promoting, natural land-scaping in lieu of conventional turf. It has nowbecome commonplace, for example, to see nativelandscaping around stormwater detention facili-ties—something rarely observed only 10 to 15 yearsago. It also is becoming more common to see naturallandscaping on large corporate campuses and insti-tutional properties. Nonetheless, many communities’subdivision ordinances, or separate “weed” ordi-nances, preclude natural landscaping in many resi-dential and commercial development applications.Fortunately, the member organizations of the Chi-cago Wilderness consortium are making efforts toovercome these obstacles. For example, model ordi-nance language is available from NIPC’s recentlyrevised Source Book on Natural Landscaping for LocalOfficials (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission2004), and Openlands Project is spearheading theCorporateLands program to help corporations insti-tute natural landscaping in office campus settings.

7. Establish procedures that assure the ongoingmanagement of natural areas within develop-ments as part of an overall strategy for achiev-ing sustainability.

This principle recognizes that land protection, natu-ral landscaping and related preservation efforts willnot be successful in the long term without effectivemechanisms for the restoration and management ofnatural areas. Implementation of this principlerequires both effective education of landowners andordinance requirements that stipulate clear responsi-bilities for long-term management.

142



Implementation of actions under this principle doesnot have a long history among local governments inthe region. In particular, most local governments cur-rently do not have clear ordinance directives toensure that management and maintenance responsi-bilities will be met for natural areas and created nat-ural landscapes. In most communities, it appears thatmaintenance and management responsibilities aredetermined on a project-by-project basis. Theseresponsibilities are commonly negotiated betweenmunicipal staff and developers and their consultants.

Recent positive examples include the development ofdesign criteria, performance criteria, monitoringguidelines and maintenance and management re-quirements adopted by the Butterfield Creek SteeringCommittee, a group of communities in southern CookCounty. These communities took on a number of newnatural landscaping and restoration projects andwanted assurances that the projects would be sustain-able in the long term, both from the perspective of aes-thetics and functionality. On another positive note, anumber of park districts in the region have stepped upto the plate to provide ownership and managementof natural areas. One of the leading examples is St.Charles Park District in Kane County, Illinois. ThePark District has worked with the City of St. Charles toidentify natural areas within new developments—including wetlands, stream corridors, and naturalizedstormwater facilities—that are suitable for its manage-ment capabilities. The Park District also acquires landthrough purchase. In total, it manages more than 500acres of natural land, including two dedicated IllinoisNature Preserves.

There are other entities that communities haveapproached to meet their needs for management ofnatural lands dedicated through the developmentprocess, including land trusts and similar local con-servation groups and even forest preserve districts.One notable example is the Forest Preserve District ofKane County’s management of parcels in the MillCreek corridor that were set aside in a large conser-vation development project.

8. Design development to achieve the broadersustainability of human and natural commu-nities, including the social and economicdimensions of sustainability.

This principle targets measures that improve sustain-ability at the regional and global scale. Such meas-ures might include zoning to enhance access topublic transportation and building codes that requireenergy efficiency and the use of recycled and recy-clable materials. Such measures are important to theheath of the planet and can protect air quality andreduce sprawl. However, in comparison to the pre-ceding principles, their benefits to biodiversity in theChicago Wilderness region are less direct and notevaluated at this time.

IMPROVEMENT OF WATER QUALITYAccording to the Environmental Law and PolicyCenter web site:

“Ammonia is discharged to Illinois waters fromsewage treatment plants and from such indus-trial sources as fertilizer manufacturers and oilrefineries. In addition, fertilizer runoff fromfarm fields is a major source of ammonia pol-lution. Ammonia is toxic to many forms ofaquatic life. In fish, ammonia affects hatchingand growth rates, and it can cause changes intissues of gills, the liver and the kidneys. Manyspecies of wildlife native to Illinois, such assmallmouth bass and fingernail clams, are sen-sitive to ammonia, and they are also an impor-tant part of the food chain for waterfowl andother wildlife. In addition to its toxicity, ammo-nia causes problems when it degrades, consum-ing oxygen needed by fish to breathe. Ammoniaalso degrades into nutrients that contribute toalgae blooms, which further deprive waterwaysof oxygen” (Environmental Law and PolicyCenter 2004).

According to the Prairie Rivers Network, Illinois’ onlystatewide river conservation organization, sometimein 1996, a discharge standard for ammonia nitrogenwas adopted that was much stronger than the oldstandard but had a very large loophole—essentiallythat the standard would not apply if it was too diffi-cult to implement. Environmental groups spent thenext several years fighting that loophole and in 2000,new implementation rules were adopted for theammonia standard that eliminated the loophole andprovided significant benefits for aquatic life. Minorchanges were made to the rules in 2002, but they

143


remain more protective than they were prior to theadoption of the implementation rules in 2000 (J.Flemma 2004).

In February 2002, new antidegradation regulationswere adopted by the Illinois Environmental Pro-tection Agency under the Clean Water Act after atwo-year effort by Prairie Rivers Network, theEnvironmental Law and Policy Center and the SierraClub. The new regulations are among the best in thecountry and enable clean water advocates to demandgreater protection from new discharges to high-qual-ity waters. Specifically, the new regulations requirethe Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and thedischarger to 1) demonstrate that the socioeconomicbenefits of the pollution outweigh the potential envi-ronmental degradation, 2) perform an analysis ofpossible alternatives to the discharge, and 3) ensurethat the new discharges do not destroy existing ben-eficial uses of the receiving waters such as providingdrinking water and supporting aquatic life.

A proposal by the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency to the Illinois Pollution Control Board wouldlimit phosphorus levels to one milligram per liter inany case where a new or expanding discharge is pro-posed that would discharge at least one million gal-lons per day (a one milligram per liter limit meansthat each liter of water discharged by a polluter canonly contain a maximum of one milligram of phos-phorus). This proposal, if adopted by the Board,would reduce algae and bacteria growth that killsfish and other wildlife and can turn waters into greenslime that is undesirable for swimming or other uses.While the proposal to limit new or increased sourcesof phosphorus is modest, it represents the first realrequirement to reduce phosphorus discharges tostreams in Illinois.

144



8.1INTRODUCTIONThe Biodiversity Recovery Plan contains numerousgoals and recommended actions related to individualnatural communities, animal assemblages and policyinitiatives. Together they reflect the overall objectivesexpressed in the plan’s executive summary. And theplan is meant to be a living document that evolvesas new information becomes available. Already, someof the objectives listed below have been supercededby the evolving work of the Chicago Wilderness con-sortium’s teams. Some objectives are addressed com-prehensively within the preceding chapters. Someare difficult to assess due to their subjective natureand more than a few overlap with each other.Nonetheless, what follows are highlights of theprogress made toward the Biodiversity Recovery Planobjectives, the “big picture” perspective on theChicago Wilderness consortium’s efforts to protectand restore the region’s natural communities to long-term viability, in order to contribute to the conserva-tion of global biodiversity and enrich local citizens’quality of life. The following examples reflect dataavailable at the time this report was developed.

8.2INVOLVE THE CITIZENS,ORGANIZATIONS AND

AGENCIES OF THE REGION IN EFFORTSTO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY

a. Obtain broad-based and active public participa-tion in the long-term protection, restoration andstewardship of the region’s natural communities.

The Chicago Wilderness consortium, itself, is a primeexample of involving a broad diversity of organiza-tions in the preservation of the region’s biodiversity.What began in 1996 as an exploratory idea by 34organizations has blossomed a decade later into adiverse consortium of more than 180 public and pri-vate organizations, including universities, museums,municipalities, park districts, conservation organiza-tions, federal agencies, state agencies, county agen-

cies, and volunteer-based groups. Corporate interestsparticipate by enrolling as members of the ChicagoWilderness Corporate Council and individuals—numbering more than 5,000—regularly volunteertheir time and talents in hands-on restoration andmonitoring of the region’s natural communities.

b. Strengthen local government support by com-municating with and involving officials in plan-ning efforts and conservation programs.

In 2000, Chicago Wilderness funded a full-time posi-tion for one year, staffed by Dennis Dreher of theNortheastern Illinois Planning Commission, to con-duct outreach to local governments through presen-tations and consulting on specific projects, namelythose related to sustainable development. Drehercompleted a comprehensive survey of local govern-ment ordinances as they relate to preserving the bio-diversity of the Chicago Wilderness region, asummary of which is included in chapter seven. Ingeneral, Dreher finds that an increasing number oflocal government ordinances, plans and develop-ment policies are improving in the protections theyprovide for natural areas within Chicago Wilderness.In fact, the use of the term “conservation develop-ment” is becoming much more common and the listof developments meeting conservation design prin-ciples is growing steadily. There also appears to be agrowing acceptance of open space and habitat pro-tection in many communities in order to enhancequality of life, as well as protect biodiversity.

In chapter seven, Dreher points out the role theChicago Wilderness consortium and its members haveplayed in supporting the development of improvedordinances and programs. Direct outreach and tech-nical support efforts include the publication of sev-eral development guidelines and the development ofthe Sustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT), inwhich engineers, planners and landscape architectswork with municipal officials and the consultants rep-resenting developers to find more sustainable designsolutions for sensitive development projects.

CHAPTER 8BIODIVERSITY RECOVERY PLAN PROGRESS

145


c. Maintain and strengthen volunteer participationin stewardship and research.

Throughout the history of the nation’s conservationmovement, volunteers have played a pivotal role, arole that remains of vital importance today. Withinthe Chicago Wilderness region, substantial monitor-ing of natural communities is conducted by volun-teers. Without volunteer monitors, much of the dataavailable for the Report Card would not exist.Likewise, volunteers play an invaluable role inhands-on restoration work. The Habitat Project,which facilitates several regional volunteer initia-tives, conservatively estimates the number of hoursvolunteered in Chicago Wilderness in 2003 at 66,043.Using a standard volunteer dollar valuation, thattranslates into a total service amount of $1,068,649—a number all the more significant in the current cli-mate of reduced management budgets amongst stateagencies and nonprofit organizations alike (K.Glennemeier 2004).

Established in 1999, the Chicago Wilderness HabitatProject coordinates the Bird Conservation NetworkCensus and the Chicago Wilderness grassland birdblitz, manages the Chicago Wilderness Calling FrogSurvey and the savanna reptile and amphibian study,and publishes a thrice-annual newsletter. Thenewsletter provides more than 700 volunteers withinformation about annual training opportunities,news, and monitoring and stewardship success sto-ries. Coordinating these and other volunteer effortson a regional basis, the Habitat Project is able to mar-shal quick responses to emergent issues, such as the2003 outbreak of West Nile Virus. In that case, vol-unteers were mobilized to document the effect of thevirus on the region’s bird populations. This rapidresponse provided reliable, quantified information ofgreat conservation value, but which also helped pub-lic health officials identify geographic “hot spots” ofviral outbreak in the region.

Another highly significant volunteer program is theVolunteer Stewardship Network (VSN). Establishedin 1983 by The Nature Conservancy and the IllinoisNature Preserves Commission, the network is com-prised of numerous independent volunteer groupsoperating throughout the state, including 27 in north-eastern Illinois. These groups coordinate more than

5,000 volunteers who help public and privatelandowners maintain more than 300 high-qualitynatural areas (The Nature Conservancy 2005). TheVSN is guided by a volunteer steering committee andsupported by a coordinator employed by the Illinoischapter of The Nature Conservancy. In addition toproviding outreach, education and training assis-tance, the coordinator facilitates communicationamong volunteers and network members via a list-serve and a thrice-annual newsletter published byThe Nature Conservancy.

Although there is no formal register of volunteermonitoring groups within the region, other impor-tant groups include the Bird Conservation Network,the Chicago Wilderness Calling Frog survey, Plantsof Concern, Plant Community Monitoring, theIllinois Butterfly Monitoring Network and theDragonfly Monitoring Network, to name some thatare active within the Chicago Wilderness region.

d. Stimulate active private-sector involvement andintegrate a broader range of stakeholders,including businesses and constituency organiza-tions, into biodiversity conservation efforts.

Recognizing the profound effect that the businesscommunity has on the ecological health and biologi-cal diversity of the Chicago region through its peo-ple, land development practices, managementpractices, political activity and philanthropy, in 2002,the Chicago Wilderness consortium established theChicago Wilderness Corporate Council. At the timeof this Report Card’s publication, 27 businesses havejoined the council, making a commitment to improveour region’s environment.

In 2003 the Openlands Project, a member of theChicago Wilderness consortium, launched itsCorporatelands Program in partnership with theClean Air Counts Campaign, a regional effort toreduce ozone-causing emissions. The CorporatelandsProgram helps corporations and large institutions,such as colleges and hospitals, design natural land-scapes as a means to improve the environmentalquality of their corporate campuses. Converting tra-ditional turf grass landscapes into natural landscapesusing native plants and grasses results in numerousbenefits to the land owners and the region, includ-



146

ing the improvement of stormwater managementand flood control, a reduction in landscape mainte-nance costs, an increase in regional biodiversity, andthe reduction of air pollution.

Another program that encourages native landscap-ing is the Conservation and Native LandscapingAward Program, developed in 2000 by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency–Region 5 and theChicago Wilderness consortium. The program isdesigned to recognize developments, corporate cam-puses, industrial parks, public parks, schools, gov-ernment complexes and other sites that creativelyimplement the use of native landscaping on theirproperties. Among the 2003 award recipients was theCity of Chicago’s Chicago Center for Green Tech-nology, which sits on a former dump site from which600,000 tons of construction and demolition debriswere cleared. The site is now home to an environ-mentally sustainable facility where people can learnhow to make their own homes and businesses moreenergy efficient and environmentally friendly. Thesite’s landscape is planted entirely with native plantsthat are botanically diverse and provide a good foodsource for many native species of insects, birds andsmall mammals. The site also features a wetland,which has already become home to some nativebirds, as well as a variety of non-invasive insects. Theparking lot features an absence of curbs so that drive-way waste is filtered through bioswales before itreaches the detention pond.

A complete list of Conservation and NativeLandscaping Award recipients and other informationabout natural landscaping may be found at www.epa.gov/glnpo/greenacres.

8.3IMPROVE THE SCIENTIFIC BASISOF ECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT

a. Increase knowledge of species, communities andecological relationships and processes.

As noted above and elsewhere in the Report Card, theregion’s numerous volunteer efforts are contributinginvaluable data about the region’s habitats andspecies. Since the publication of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, the Chicago Wilderness consortium hassupported numerous other research efforts. A repre-sentative few are listed in chapter five. Appendix A

contains a complete list of projects funded by theChicago Wilderness consortium through 2004.

b. Specify results to be achieved in biodiversityconservation and increased sustainability, includ-ing reliable indicators, baselines and targets.

A key recommendation of both the BiodiversityRecovery Plan and the Report Card is to develop spe-cific, measurable recovery goals and indicators, alongwith monitoring protocols, as well as to establishbaseline data. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan sets forthbroad recovery goals for the region’s plant commu-nities and animal assemblages, but recognizes theneed for more specific targets, standards and meas-ures to allow for progress measurement. The conser-vation designs developed for grassland birds,savanna herpetofauna and woodlands—each ratedof highest conservation concern in the BiodiversityRecovery Plan—are significant steps in the right direc-tion. Although each varies according to the uniqueattributes and threats to the community or assem-blage it addresses, each is a model of establishingmeasurable recovery benchmarks in five-year incre-ments through 2025.

The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design forSavanna Herpetofauna” does not establish specifictargets for individual species, but it does call for noloss or decline of 27 target species at 80 percent of 100monitored sites throughout the region by 2025. It alsocalls for the preservation and management of at leastone large (at least 800 acre) habitat complex—consist-ing of multiple habitat types—in each of the region’snatural divisions: Grand Prairie, Western Morainal,Kettle Moraine, Lake Plain and Gary LakePlain/High Dune/Ridge and Swale. Another indica-tor of progress is for 100 percent of monitored sites tohave written, approved and active management plansin place. In response to identified threats, the conser-vation design calls for management plans to addresscontrolled burns, hydrology, invasive species,groundcover, fragmentation and dispersal, acquisi-tion and easements, and fundraising. Acknowledgingthat there are several knowledge gaps related tosavanna reptiles and amphibians, the conservationdesign includes an appendix that outlines a numberof research, inventory and policy questions to beaddressed in the future. (Glennemeier 2002c).

147


The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design forWoodlands” calls for a minimum number of moder-ately large (400-800 acre) and large (at least 800 acre)sites that are healthy, publicly owned and ecologi-cally managed, and a minimum total number ofhealthy acres for each of four woodland types: flat-woods; wet-mesic, mesic and dry-mesic woodlands.By 2025, 100 percent of sites are to be consistentlymonitored for health and biodiversity. One hundredpercent of sites are to have written, approved andactive management plans in place. In response toidentified threats, the conservation design calls formanagement plans to address invasive species, con-trolled burns, groundcover, hydrology, deer control,land acquisition and fundraising. Regarding deercontrol, by 2025, the conservation design calls for 50percent of woodland sites to have instituted deercontrol measures, resulting in a measured decrease inthe percentage of 13 indicator species browsed and adecline in the number of car-deer collisions (Glenne-meier 2002a).

The woodland conservation design also calls for allcounties to have written, approved and active educa-tion and outreach plans related to woodland ecologyand restoration. These should include specific, meas-urable targets for:• The number of new policy papers addressing

woodland issues• The number of county workshops held and other

educational products produced related to wood-lands

• The number of water quality regulations intro-duced or improved for the region as a whole

• The number of classrooms per year (for grades 6-12) for whom an education unit on woodlands hasbeen presented by a volunteer or professionalecologist

• The percentage of residential yards adjacent tonatural areas that are planted with native vegeta-tion and that minimize the use of herbicides, pes-ticides and fertilizer (Glennemeier 2002a)

In addition to an appendix that outlines research,inventory and policy questions to be addressed in thefuture, the conservation design establishes specifictargets for the number of scientific research projectsto be completed that examine priority questions forwoodlands. It also includes specific targets for the

number of restoration, management or acquisitionprojects that should be implemented, based on com-pleted woodland priority research.

Whereas indicator species were identified only inrelation to deer browsing, the conservation design inits appendix set general parameters for a possiblewoodland health index. This index includes theattributes:• The ratio of young trees to mature trees• A similar species diversity among seedlings,

saplings and adults• Per 1/4m2 quadrat:

o A high Floristic Quality Index or other diversityindex for the herbaceous layer

o A high number of herbaceous layer indicatorspecies (yet to be determined)

o A high average cover of native, non-invasivespecies

o A low average cover of non-native, invasivespecies

• A high number of woodland bird, butterfly, reptileand amphibian indicator species (yet to be deter-mined) (Glennemeier 2002a)

The “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design forGrassland Birds” does provide specific targets forbreeding pairs of 10 indicator species of grasslandbirds. It also specifies the targets of having a mini-mum of 9,000 acres of each of three grassland habi-tat sub-types: dry, mesic and wet. Within the 9,000acres for each sub-type, 2,500 acres should be in indi-vidual sites of at least 500 acres. Overall, at least fivegrassland sites should be at least 4,000 acres in size(Glennemeier 2002b).

This conservation design also sets specific targets forthe number of sites monitored, improved, and of ahigh quality; the number of indicator species whoseconservation targets have been met; and the numberof species whose regional abundance has not declinedin three successive years.

Similar to the conservation designs for woodlandsand savanna herpetofauna, the conservation designfor grassland birds specifies that by 2025, 100 per-cent of sites are to have written, approved and activemanagement plans in place. In response to identifiedthreats, management plans are to address invasive

148



species, controlled burns, mowing, fragmentation,hedgerows and land acquisition. Fifty percent ofmoderately large sites (of approximately 500 acres)are to have written, approved, active plans to addressresearch and monitoring of the effects of differentplant assemblages on grassland birds. For all grass-land sites, there is to be a 50 percent increase in thenumber of native prairie plants, with the compositionof these plants reflecting the results of the researchdescribed above. The conservation design’s appendixincludes a number of research and inventory ques-tions to be addressed (Glennemeier 2002b).

c. Evaluate the results of restoration and manage-ment alternatives based on data in order toaddress those alternatives’ effects on targetspecies and communities.

Among the research projects supported by theChicago Wilderness consortium is the Bowles/Jonesre-assessment of Grade A and B Illinois NaturalAreas Inventory prairie sites. The re-assessmentestablishes a strong link between prairie quality andthe frequency of controlled burns. Their data suggestthat mesic and wet-mesic prairies be managed withcontrolled burns at least every two years and thatgraminoid fens and sedge meadows require con-trolled burns at least once every five years (Bowlesand Jones 2003). The report acknowledges that“Multiple environmental factors may be interactingwith fire to affect changes in native and alien speciesrichness in both prairies and wetlands” (Bowles andJones 2003, p.11), such as an increasingly larger deerpopulation, altered hydrology, and increasing sedi-mentation and pollution rates.

Also, as outlined in chapter five, the ChicagoWilderness Science Team is in the process of estab-lishing an agenda to address all areas of local biodi-versity conservation research.

d. Clearly identify conservation priorities.

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan identifies conservationpriorities for terrestrial and aquatic communities, aswell as select animal assemblages. There are nochanges in the plan’s rankings. However, birdexperts have recommended, in accordance withnational bird conservation findings, that shrubland

birds across all habitat types be added as a secondpriority area during the next five years.

Although the recovery of all of the region’s commu-nities and assemblages is encouraged, the purposeof identifying conservation priorities is to guide theallocation of efforts and resources toward those habi-tats and species of particularly critical importance.Accordingly, the three conservation designs devel-oped since the publication of the Biodiversity RecoveryPlan all focused on the communities or assemblagesof highest conservation concern within their respec-tive groupings.

e. Develop region-wide performance standardsand monitoring techniques that can be imple-mented by land managers.

One of the benchmarks identified by Glennemeier(2002a) in the “Chicago Wilderness ConservationDesign for Woodlands” is the development of twopolicy papers addressing woodland issues by 2005.In 2003, Chicago Wilderness approved “Conser-vation of Wooded Lands in the Chicago WildernessRegion: A Model Policy” (Frankel and Mariner 2003)and the more generally related, “Natural Fire andControlled Burning in the Chicago WildernessRegion: A Model Policy” (Frankel 2003). Summarizedin chapters two and five, respectively, these twopapers build upon the information related in theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, providing expanded anddetailed background information, as well as compre-hensive standards to guide the development of indi-vidual site management plans.

Regarding monitoring techniques, Glennemeier(2002a) outlines parameters for a woodland healthindex. Glennemeier (2004) advances a more specificmodel as shown in Table 8.1.

As indicated in Table 8.1, four invasive species cate-gories were averaged to get a 1-4 Invasives score.Then the FQI, Canopy Trees and Invasive categorieswere averaged to get an overall quality score. For theCanopy Tree category: The tree data are divided intothe following size classes: 3-6-inch DBH, 7-9-inch, 10-12-inch, 13-19-inch, and 20-plus-inch. The 20-plus-inch size class determines which trees are consideredthe canopy species for that plot. Presence of the

149


canopy species in the smaller size classes determinesthe quality rank. Invasives in quadrats and 4x4 plotsare defined as Rhamnus sp., Lonicera maackii, Loniceratatarica, Alliaria petiolata, and Rosa multiflora.Invasives in the 3-6 inch category are defined as thegenera Acer, Prunus, Lonicera, Rhamnus, and Fraxinus.Grade cutoffs for the last three invasive species cate-gories were based on the geometric means of expo-nentially distributed data.

The Plants of Concern program has also developedspecific monitoring protocols, as discussed in chapterfour. The region-wide adoptions of such protocolsfacilitate consistent assessments throughout theregion, thereby providing for a true region-wideoverview of the health and condition of the region’s

natural assets. A key recommendation of the ReportCard, therefore, is to develop specific monitoring pro-tocols, along with recovery goals and indicators, forall natural communities and animal assemblages.

8.4PROTECT GLOBALLY ANDREGIONALLY IMPORTANT

NATURAL COMMUNITIES

a. Identify priority areas and elements for protec-tion based on an assessment of their contributionto conserving biodiversity at global and regionallevels.

In the Chicago Wilderness Green InfrastructureVision, which was approved by the Chicago Wilder-

TABLE 8.1A DRAFT DEFINITION OF WOODED LANDS BASED ON DATA

FROM THE STATE OF OUR WOODED LANDS: RESULTS FROM

THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS WOODS AUDIT

Quality Grade

Excellent = 4

Good = 3

Fair = 2

Poor = 1

Quadrat Floristic QualityIndex (FQI)

> 9

7-9

4-6

< 4

Canopy Trees

Present in 3-4 size classes

Present in 2 size classes

Present in 1 size class

Present in 0 size classes

Frequency of Invasive Species

Present in0 out of 9 quadrats

Present in1-3 quadrats

Present in4-6 quadrats

Present7-9 quadrats

Average Cover ofInvasives in Quadrats

0%

1-4%

4-14%

14-50%(50=max)

Average Number of Invasive Stems in 4x4 Subplots

0 stems

1-2 stems

2-9 stems

9-57 stems(57=max)

Invasive SpeciesTotal Basal Area of3-6-inch Diameterat Breast Height(DBH) Size Class

0 in

9-46 in

47-271 in

272-1600 in(1600=max)

Data from Woods Audit Plot

150



ness consortium in 2004, Dreher (2004) identifies 1.8million acres of resource protection areas that couldand should be protected within the tri-state regionof Chicago Wilderness. Developed by more than 80experts representing a broad diversity of ChicagoWilderness organizations and resource agencies, thevision is discussed at some length in chapter seven.

b. Protect high-quality natural areas in sufficientacreage to permit restoration and managementfor sustainability.

As reported in chapter seven, since the publication ofthe Biodiversity Recovery Plan in 1999, the IllinoisNature Preserves Commission has dedicated eightnew nature preserves and expanded 30 others withinthe Chicago Wilderness region, bringing the region’stotal number of dedicated nature preserve acres18,472. Also since 1999, county forest preserve dis-tricts and county conservation districts in Illinoishave added more than 25,000 acres to their perma-nent holdings. In many cases the newly acquiredacres serve to increase or connect existing preserves.The Biodiversity Recovery Plan calls for the establish-ment of habitat complexes of certain large minimumsizes to sustain certain communities of plants andassemblages of species. The conservation designs forwoodlands, grassland birds and savanna herpeto-fauna refine these goals and set benchmarks in five-year increments through 2025.

As reported in chapter five, the 2005 conservationdesign benchmark for flatwoods is 300 acres, towardwhich goal 107 “healthy” acres of Grade A and B flat-woods have been identified in the Illinois NaturalAreas Inventory. The number of woodlands of allmoisture classes rated as excellent and good totalsapproximately 1,130 acres, according to Glennemeier(2004). This is almost 25 percent of the 2005 benchmarkof a combined 4,800 acres of all woodland types.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Glennemeier(2002b) recommends that the following benchmarksbe achieved by 2025:• At least 9,000 acres of dry and dry-mesic grassland

with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites of atleast 500 acres each

• At least 9,000 acres of mesic grassland with at least2,500 acres in individual sites of at least 500 acreseach

• At least 9,000 acres of wet and wet-mesic grass-land with at least 2,500 acres in individual sites ofat least 500 acres each

• At least five grassland habitat complexes of atleast 4,000 acres in size

The conservation design noted that there werealready approximately 27,000 grassland acres in theregion, with 7,200 acres in sites of 500 acres or more(Glennemeier 2002b). The emphasis during the pastfive years has been on grassland management, rang-ing from small sites such as Bartel Grasslands to largesites such as Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie.

In the “Chicago Wilderness Conservation Design forSavanna Herpetofauna,” Glennemeier (2002c) rec-ommends the preservation and maintenance of atleast one large (at least 800 acre) habitat complex,consisting of multiple habitat types, in each of theregion’s five natural divisions by the year 2025. Asrelated in chapter three, at least two large complexesof 1,100 and 2,200 acres each have been secured in theNortheast Morainal division and one complex of1,200 acres secured in the Grand Prairie division.Nine hundred of the total 4,500 acres were acquiredsince the publication of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan.

c. Maintain existing quality of publicly owned,high-quality natural areas.

As documented in the community sections, themajority of the region’s natural areas are under-man-aged or unmanaged. Indications are that sites receiv-ing the most management appear to be those ofhigher quality. In their re-assessment of IllinoisNatural Areas Inventory prairie sites, Bowles andJones (2003) found that only one of 25 Grade A standswas lost, whereas 35 percent of Grade B sites hadbeen destroyed. To the authors, this difference, inpart, reflected a greater interest in preserving higherquality sites. This study also underscores the criticalvalue of management beyond the use of controlledburns, as non-native species increased in abundanceover time in Grade A and B prairies, regardless of firefrequencies (Bowles and Jones 2003).

151


d. Protect high-quality natural areas in privateownership.

Dreher (2004) identifies 1.8 million acres of resourceprotection areas that could and should be protectedwithin the tri-state Chicago Wilderness region. This isa far cry from the 226,000 of protected natural areascurrently documented. Although a diversity of openspace advocates were successful in preserving twoopen space acquisition programs in the Illinois fiscalyear 2005 budget, it is unlikely that governmentsources ever would be sufficient to protect theapproximately 1.5 million available resource protec-tion area acres. Therefore, individual landownersmust be encouraged to protect and preserve theirnatural lands. Chapter seven outlines the threeinstruments offered by the Illinois Nature PreservesCommission to public and, increasingly, to privatelandowners to protect their natural lands. Chapterseven also chronicles a growing number of nonprofitland trusts concentrating their efforts on outreach toprivate landowners, encouraging them to place con-servation easements on their natural lands, whichensures their permanent protection.

e. Mitigate factors with negative impacts that occuroutside of natural areas but within watersheds orbuffer zones.

Individual recovery efforts are of critical importance inthe recovery of the region’s biodiversity. However, off-site development can have negative effects on even thebest restoration efforts. Several of the region’s rare fencommunities are threatened with off-site developmentthat would significantly alter the water tables uponwhich the fens depend. At Churchill Prairie NaturePreserve in DuPage County, Illinois, road salt from I-355 has turned a Grade C prairie into a Grade D/E siteat its eastern end, in spite of regular controlled burnsand periodic brush removal. Chapter seven relates arange of efforts, from the adoption of individualmunicipal stormwater plans to statewide antidegra-dation regulations that can protect high-quality water-ways, and that are designed to mitigate the negativeeffects of development.

8.5RESTORE NATURALCOMMUNITIES TO ECOLOGICAL

HEALTH

a. Reestablish the ecological health of the deterio-rating high-quality natural areas.

b. Improve all natural areas, concentrating first onthose that contribute most to global and regionalbiodiversity.

c. Provide corridors that link areas as needed.

d. Restore ecological processes that support sus-tainable systems.

e. Return natural communities to sufficient size forviable animal populations by restoring or recre-ating them.

Chapters two and three include examples of restora-tion efforts and reiterate a wide range of recom-mended actions to promote the recovery of theregion’s natural communities, animal assemblagesand rare individual species. Across the board, thoseefforts and recommendations reflect the objectiveslisted above and more.

8.6MANAGE NATURALCOMMUNITIES TO SUSTAIN

NATIVE BIODIVERSITY

a. Attain greater capability for ecological manage-ment within public entities.

b. Encourage the sharing of experience andresources among natural area managers in differ-ent jurisdictions.

c. Monitor the recovery progress and status of nat-ural communities.

d. Demonstrate the feasibility of protection andrestoration in fragmented, human-dominatedlandscapes, making use of such tools as pre-scribed burning, restoration of hydrology andremoval of invasive species.

152



A key recommendation of both the BiodiversityRecovery Plan and the Report Card, one that can notbe stressed enough, is the need to manage more nat-ural areas. The Report Card confirms that the major-ity of the region’s natural areas are unmanaged orunder-managed, resulting in an overall decline in theregion’s biodiversity in spite of a number of signifi-cant recovery efforts.

Equally critical, as identified below, is the need tomonitor recovery progress and the status of naturalcommunities. To do this effectively, the Report Cardfurther recommends strongly that specific, measura-ble recovery goals, along with indicators and moni-toring protocols, be developed for each naturalcommunity and animal assemblage. The conserva-tion designs developed thus far for woodlands,grassland birds and savanna herpetofauna providepotential examples to follow.

Chapter five details a full complement of manage-ment, research and monitoring activities and recom-mendations that include and build upon the aboveobjectives.

8.7DEVELOP CITIZEN AWARENESSAND UNDERSTANDING OF

LOCAL BIODIVERSITY TO ENSURESUPPORT AND PARTICIPATION

a. Form educational partnerships among citizens,organizations and agencies to promote aware-ness.

b. Build sufficient awareness of natural communi-ties of the region and their global significanceso that they become a recognized part of the cul-ture of the region.

c. Develop programs to promote broad-basedunderstanding of the global significance of theregion’s natural communities.

d. Design education strategies to meet the needs ofall audiences at all levels.

e. Reach those not traditionally involved in natu-ral history or conservation.

Chapter six provides a thorough review of the effortsof the Chicago Wilderness Education and Com-munication Team and the consortium’s communica-tion program in addressing these objectives.

8.8FOSTER A SUSTAINABLERELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

SOCIETY AND NATURE IN THE REGION

a. Integrate conservation of biodiversity into ongo-ing development and planning for land use,transportation and infrastructure.

b. Encourage major land users to adopt practicesthat promote biodiversity and its sustainabilityby integrating the beauty and function of natureinto our neighborhood, corporate and publiclands.

c. Encourage inclusion of biodiversity goals inlocal planning and implementation.

d. Identify and address factors that lead to sustain-able use.

e. Regularly monitor indicators of biodiversity andsustainability throughout the region.

f. Support and encourage efforts of citizen scien-tists working to conserve biodiversity.

By 2030, the six-county northeastern Illinois regionalone is expected to boast a population of 10 mil-lion—1.9 million more people than lived in the areain 2000 (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission2005). Almost every day, the effects of this explosivegrowth are evident in once-open spaces being con-verted to housing developments. Unchecked, con-ventional development practices will continue tohave a negative effect on the region’s remaining nat-ural areas. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, how-ever, has been aggressively advocating for a differentkind of development. Sustainable development maybe variously defined, but in general it strives for abalance between the built and the natural environ-ment. Chapter seven provides a comprehensivereview of the numerous sustainable developmentefforts occurring throughout the region, manyguided by the Chicago Wilderness consortium’smembers and its Sustainability Team.

153


8.9ENRICH THE QUALITY OF THELIVES OF THE REGION’S

CITIZENS

a. Increase opportunities for all citizens to experi-ence the beauty and restorative powers of nature.

To some, the sight of prairie dropseed, big bluestemand Indian grass are dramatic reminders of ourregion’s natural heritage. To others, they’re justweeds. But a recent Chicago Wilderness survey, sum-marized in chapter six, reveals that the more peopleknow about our natural heritage, the more theyunderstand and appreciate its value. And theChicago Wilderness consortium and its membersprovide a number of different avenues of entry intothe natural world, from Chicago WILDERNESSMagazine to various volunteer opportunities.

It is not yet documented how many volunteer oppor-tunities there are in the region, but it appears that thenumber is growing steadily, as is the number of vol-unteers. The work is often challenging, but with itcomes a deep sense of accomplishment in the recov-ery of a living thing or a living community.

The Education and Communication Team and theconsortium’s communication staff, as outlined inchapter six, also actively pursue multi-faceted strate-gies to provide even more information and invita-tions to the region’s diverse residents to learn aboutand participate in local biodiversity conservation.

b. Enhance human health through improved airand water quality, as well as protection fromflooding, by restoring and maintaining the eco-logical integrity of natural communities.

Established in 1999, the publication year of theBiodiversity Recovery Plan, the Clean Air CountsCampaign is a voluntary, multi-year, regional initia-tive to improve air quality and reduce ozone-caus-ing emissions. A collaborative effort between the

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus, the City of Chicago,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–Region5, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency andthe Delta Institute, the initiative seeks to achieve spe-cific and significant reductions in targeted smog-forming pollutants and major reductions in energyconsumption.

c. Identify strategies that promote economicgrowth while sustaining biodiversity.

Part of the rationale for the Clean Air CountsCampaign is to ensure the continued economic via-bility of the region. In response to repeated violationsof the National Ambient Air Quality Standard forground-level ozone (smog), the Chicago region wasone of 10 areas in the country designated as a severenon-attainment area for one-hour ozone concentra-tions. With the recent implementation of the morestringent eight-hour standard, the Chicago regioncontinues to be a non-attainment area. Not only doesthis affect the health of the region’s residents, but itcould have serious consequences for the region’s eco-nomic health, such as a more restrictive, federally-imposed regulatory environment, which couldcompromise the output of existing business and dis-courage new businesses from moving into the region.Through partnerships with the Clean Air CountsCampaign, the Corporatelands Program, and theChicago Wilderness Corporate Council, members ofthe Chicago Wilderness consortium seek to work inpursuit of the long-term environmental, social andeconomic health of the region.

Any long-term view of the region must acknowledgethat the population of the region is expected toincrease markedly. Chapter seven details a range ofstrategies, led by the members of the ChicagoWilderness consortium and by its SustainabilityTeam, to manage growth in ways that support eco-nomic development that is ecologically sustainableas well.

The objectives of this Report Card are to assesschanges in the condition of the region’s natural com-munities since the publication of the BiodiversityRecovery Plan, document the condition of availabledata, measure progress toward achieving BiodiversityRecovery Plan objectives and make recommendationsfor future report cards. The preceding chapters evi-dence that the Chicago Wilderness consortium hasmade progress in recovering the biodiversity of theregion. However, there is much work left to do. Tofacilitate that work and the process of developing thenext report card, the recommendations of this ReportCard to members of the Chicago Wilderness consor-tium are:

1. Aggressively spur the development and region-wide adoption of specific recovery goals, indica-tors and monitoring protocols for each ChicagoWilderness community and assemblage type.

2. Utilize these goals, indicators and monitoringprotocols to guide site-specific managementplans and the collection of data.

3. Develop baseline data for each of the region’scommunities and assemblages.

As noted in the preceding sections, the BiodiversityRecovery Plan outlines broad recovery goals andobjectives. This, of course, was an enormously signif-icant advance for the region’s conservation commu-nity, but as the plan is intended to be a livingdocument that will continue to evolve as new ideasand information arise, the next step of creatingrefined, specific, measurable recovery goals is athand. The three conservation designs accomplishedto date—for woodlands, grassland birds and savannaherpetofauna—serve as examples of the type ofrefined, region-wide guides needed for the develop-ment of site-specific management plans, and the typeof guides that will ultimately allow for more effectiveprogress reporting. The development in 2001 ofregional plants of concern monitoring protocols isalso a step in the right direction toward developing

indicators. Additionally, the Chicago WildernessWoods Audit marks an important advance in devel-oping a monitoring protocol for the region’s uplandforests, woodlands and savannas, and establishesbaseline data for quantifying future trends.

Refined recovery goals, along with the developmentof region-wide indicators and monitoring protocols,should also guide the future collection of data.Currently, there are any number of research and datacollection efforts underway throughout the region,however it is unclear the extent to which many relatespecifically to Chicago Wilderness biodiversityrecovery goals. The region would greatly benefitfrom region-wide consensus about how to monitor,and specifically what is to be monitored over whatperiod of time, toward the goal of establishing reli-able, quantified baseline data from which futuretrends may be discerned.

4. Develop a repository for the region’s data.

5. Coordinate the region’s data collection andreporting.

The process of future reporting would be greatlyfacilitated by the development of a repository fordata and analysis. Hand in hand with this is the needfor dedicated resources for the coordination of datagathering. During the Report Card process, manyexperts provided generously of their time to fulfillinformation requests, but much of the informationgathering took several months, and in many cases,data were not available. Coordinated data collectionwould greatly aid future reporting and perhaps assistnatural resource management agencies and organi-zations in partnering in the implementation ofregion-wide practices and standards.

6. Secure more broad-based participation through-out the region.

The Biodiversity Recovery Plan and Report Card remainprimarily Illinois-centric. The Indiana portion of

CHAPTER 9REPORT CARD RECOMMENDATIONS

154



155

CHAPTER 9REPORT CARD RECOMMENDATIONS

Chicago Wilderness is somewhat represented in thedata and the Wisconsin portion of the region decid-edly less so.

7. Clarify and potentially refine the boundaries ofthe Chicago Wilderness region.

Chicago Wilderness is defined as a regional naturereserve that includes more than 225,000 acres of pro-tected natural areas located in Kenosha County,Wisconsin; in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenryand Will Counties in Illinois; and in Lake and PorterCounties in Indiana. The Chicago Wilderness regionwas originally defined by natural area features andintended to help organizations work across geo-polit-ical boundaries.

Currently, there is discussion within the ChicagoWilderness consortium as to whether or not theboundaries of the Chicago Wilderness region shouldbe expanded and more clearly defined, either againby geographic features or perhaps by county bound-aries. In line with the Report Card recommendationsto be specific in the development of recovery goals,etc., it is also the recommendation of the Report Cardproject team that the Chicago Wilderness consortiumrefine and clarify its boundaries. This would facilitatethe collection of data from land-managing agencies,aid in the analysis of that data, and further the con-sortium’s ability to measure its own progress in con-serving local biodiversity.

8. Come to region-wide consensus on a naturalcommunity classification system.

In the course of the Report Card’s natural communityworkshops, there was debate about the current natu-ral community definitions. There is a fundamentalneed to achieve consensus on how the various naturalcommunities within the region are classified. Uponthis hinges the critical recommendation to developspecific recovery goals, indicators and monitoringprotocols.

9. Articulate specific goals for non-biologicalobjectives.

Just as specific goals are recommended for theregion’s biological objectives, so, too, are the devel-opment of specific goals recommended for the vari-ous non-biological objectives, including education,communication and sustainability. Annual work-plans, outlining specific process and outcome meas-ures, would allow for more precise, targeted reportingin future iterations of the Report Card.

10. Schedule the development of the next ReportCard to aggressively spur the completion of theabove recommendations.

Above all, the development of the Report Card hasbeen a learning process. It marks another significantstep in the Chicago Wilderness consortium’s modeleffort to recover the long-term health of the region’snatural resources.

Finally, there is little doubt that our region will con-tinue to increase in population, and that means evenmore pressures on our remaining natural areas. Topromote a balance between continued growth andthe preservation of our natural heritage, the recom-mendations of this Report Card to members of theChicago Wilderness consortium, state and local gov-ernments, and other local decision-makers are:

1. Significantly increase the number of naturalareas under active management.

2. Acquire or otherwise protect additional naturalareas to balance sustainable growth with the con-servation of local biodiversity.

These last recommendations are further discussed inthe Summary Report–The State of Our Chicago Wilder-ness: A Report Card on the Health of the Region’s Eco-systems, published as a supplement to this document.

156



Anderson, R.C. 1991. Final report on the project todevelop methodology to determine the influenceof deer browsing on forested natural areas in theLake County Forest Preserve District. Final proj-ect report to the Lake County Forest PreserveDistrict. Illinois State University, Normal, IL.

Apfelbaum, S., M.B. Bowles, M. O’Leary, and B. Stoll.2000. Vegetation change after thirteen years of firemanagement of a northeastern Illinois oak wood-land. Unpublished report by Applied EcologicalServices, Inc. and The Morton Arboretum.

Applied Ecological Services. 2004. Schaumburg bio-diversity recovery plan. Planning document pre-pared for the Village of Schaumburg. Schaumburg,IL. Available at: http://www.ci.schaumburg.il.us/vos.nsf/schaumburg/MFRK-62NP7C

Audubon-Chicago Region. 2004. Unpublishedanalysis completed for the report card. Skokie, IL.

Belden Russonello & Steward. 2002. Americans andbiodiversity: new perspectives in 2002.Questionnaire and topline results for theBiodiversity Project. Washington, D.C.

Bird Conservation Network. 2004. eBird [Electronicdatabase]. Bird Conservation Network, Skokie, IL.Available at: http://www.ebird.org/bcn

Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2003. Twenty-five yeartrends of change in prairie and wetland naturalareas in the Chicago region of northeasternIllinois. Report to the ChicagoRegion BiodiversityCouncil. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL.

Bowles, M. and M. Jones. 2004. Long-term changes inChicago region prairie vegetation in relation to firemanagement. CW Journal 2 (2): 7-15.

Bowles, M.L. and J.L. McBride. 1998. Vegetation com-position, structure, and chronological change in adecadent midwestern North American savannaremnant. Natural Areas Journal 18:14-27.

Bowles, M., M. Jones, C. Dunn, J. McBride, C. Bushey,and R. Moran. 2003. Twenty-year woody vegeta-tion changes in northern flatwoods and mesic for-est at Ryerson Conservation Area, Lake County,Illinois. Erigenia 19:31-51.

Bowles, M., M. Jones, J. McBride, T. Bell, and C.Dunn. 2000. Twenty-year woody vegetationchanges in northeastern Illinois upland forests.

Report to the Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil. The Morton Arboretum, Lisle, IL.

Brawn, J.D. 1998. Effects of oak savanna restorationon avian populations and communities in Illinois:final report. Illinois Natural History Survey,Champaign, IL.

Brigham, W.U., D.A. McCormick, and M.J. Wetzel.1978. The watersheds of northeastern Illinois:quality of the aquatic environment based uponwater quality and fishery data. Technical reportprepared by the Illinois Natural History Surveyfor the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission. Urbana, IL.

Brodman, R., T. Anton, K. Glennemeier, P. Seth, D.Didion, and A. Luksus. Status of amphibians andreptiles in savanna habitats and savanna mosaiccommunities of the Chicago Wilderness region.CW Journal 3(2):38-44.

Brown, A.C. 2004. Miles of tiles. Chicago WildernessMagazine, Spring, p.14

Brundtland, G.H., ed. 1987. Our Common Future: TheWorld Commission on Environment and Development.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Burr, B.M., V.J. Santucci, M.E. Roberts, A.M. Davis, andM.R. Whiles. 2005. Conservation status and life his-tory characteristics of the blacknose shiner, Notropisheterolepis (Cyprinidae), and blackchin shiner,Notropis heterodon (Cyprinidae), with conservationevaluations of the pugnose shiner, Notropis anogenus(Cyprinidae), and banded killifish, Fundulusdiaphanous (Fundulidae), in Illinois. Final projectreport to Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation.Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Butcher, G. 2004. State of the birds USA 2004.Audubon Magazine, September-October.

Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2004.Unpublished analysis for the report card based ondata from the Natural Connections project com-pleted by the Center for NeighborhoodTechnology and Openlands. Data available at:http://www.greenmapping.org

Chicago Area Transportation Study. 2003. 2030Regional transportation plan for northeasternIllinois. Chicago Area Transportation Study,Chicago, IL. Available at: http://www.sp2030.com/2030rtp/index.html

LITERATURE CITED

157



Chicago Metropolis 2020. 2003. The metropolis plan:choices for the Chicago region. ChicagoMetropolis, Chicago, IL. Available at:http://www.metropolisplan.org/5_3.htm

Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. 1999.Biodiversity Recovery Plan. Chicago RegionBiodiversity Council, Chicago, IL

Chicago Region Biodiversity Council. 2004. Sus-tainable development principles for protectingnature in the Chicago Wilderness region. North-eastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.Available at: http://www.nipc.org/environment/sustainable/content.htm#Development

Critical Trends Assessment Project. 1994. The chang-ing Illinois environment: critical trends. Technicalreport of the Critical Trends Assessment Project.Illinois Department of Energy and NaturalResources, Springfield, IL.

DeWalt, R.E. 2002. Comparison of reference qualityand randomly chosen streams in the northeasternmorainal natural division of Illinois. IllinoisNatural History Survey Center for BiodiversityTechnical Report 10. Illinois Natural HistorySurvey, Champaign, IL.

DeWalt, R.E. 2003. Aquatic insects report: biologicaland habitat condition of Illinois streams. Pages 28-33 in: B. Molano-Flores, editor. Critical TrendsAssessment Program 2002 Report. Illinois NaturalHistory Survey, Champaign, IL.

Dreher, D. 2004. Chicago Wilderness green infra-structure vision. Project report to the ChicagoRegion Biodiversity Council. Northeastern IllinoisPlanning Commission, Chicago, IL. Available at:http://www.nipc.org/environment/sustainable/biodiversity/greeninfrastructure/

Duane, H. Unpublished data compiled from theIllinois spring bird count.

Environmental Law and Policy Center. 2004. Illinoisrivers protection initiative. Web page available at:http://www.elpc.org/forest/water/ammonia.htm(Accessed November 2004).

Flemma, J. 2004. Personal Communication. PrairieRivers Network, Champaign, IL.

Forest Preserve District of Cook County. 2004. Strogerannounces three FPDCC nature preserve honors.Web page available at: http://www.fpdcc.com/tier3.php?release_id=189 (AccessedDecember 2004).

Frankel, S. 2003. Natural fire and controlled burningin the Chicago Wilderness region: a model policy.A policy paper adopted by the Chicago RegionBiodiversity Council. Available at: http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/resources/index.cfm

Frankel, S and R. Mariner, eds. 2003. Conservationof wooded lands in the Chicago Wildernessregion: a model policy. A policy paper adopted bythe Chicago Region Biodiversity Council.Available at:http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/resources/index.cfm

Frese, P.W. 2003. Tallgrass prairie amphibian and rep-tile assemblage. Fire mortality. HerpetologicalReview 34:159-160.

Glennemeier, K. 2002a. Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Woodlands (draft). Adraft report for the Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil. Available at: http://www.chicagowilder-ness.org/members/repository/folders/index.cfm?folderid=131

Glennemeier, K. 2002b. Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Grassland Birds (draft).A draft report for the Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil. Available at: http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/repository/folders/index.cfm?folderid=131

Glennemeier, K. 2002c. Chicago WildernessConservation Design for Savanna Herpetofauna(draft). A draft report for the Chicago RegionBiodiversity Council. Available at: http://www.chicagowilderness.org/members/repository/folders/index.cfm?folderid=131

Glennemeier, K. 2004. Personal Communication.Audubon-Chicago Region, Skokie, IL.

Glennemeier, K. 2004. The state of our wooded lands:results from the Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit.CW Journal 2(2):16-22.

Goldstein, S., J. O’Keefe, E. Shubart, R. Acker, K.Bucar, D. Dreher, K.G. Bolton, and L.B. Lynch.2004. Changing Course: Recommendations forbalancing regional growth and water resources innortheastern Illinois. Report completed as part of ajoint project between the Campaign for SensibleGrowth, Metropolitan Planning Council, andOpenlands Project. Chicago, IL.

Haderlein, L. 2004. Personal Communication. LandConservancy of McHenry County, Woodstock, IL.

158



Hahn, M. 2004. Personal Communication. Kankakee,IL.

Heaton, D. 2000. Conserving local habitat for declin-ing grassland birds: a green paper by the bird con-servation network. The Bird ConservationNetwork, Skokie, IL. Available at: http://www.bcbirds.org/greenpapers_files/GPgrassland.html

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2004.Ecosystem program. Web page available at:http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/ecosystem/(Accessed November 2004)

Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2005.Ecosystem program. Web page available at:http://www.dnr.state.il.us/orep/c2000/ecosys-tem/ (Accessed July 2005).

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Riverand stream monitoring programs. Web page avail-able at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/ sur-face-water/river-stream-mon.html (Accessed July2005).

Illinois Natural History Survey. 2004. Critical trendsassessment program: about CTAP. Web page avail-able at: http://ctap.inhs.uiuc.edu/index.asp(Accessed 19 November 2004).

Illinois Natures Preserves Commission. 2004.Unpublished report compiled for the report card.Submitted December 2004.

Illinois State Museum. 2004. Hine’s emerald dragon-fly. Web page available at:http://www.museum.state.il.us/research/ento-mology/hines/ (Accessed November 2004).

Kane County Regional Planning Commission. 1996.Kane county 2020 land resource managementplan. Geneva, IL.

Kleen, V.M. 2003. The 2003 Illinois Statewide SpringBird Count. Meadowlark 12:133-142.

Kobal, S. 2004. Personal Communication. ForestPreserve District of DuPage County, Wheaton, IL.

Lampa, W. 2004. Examples of community quality andbiodiversity increases with management.Unpublished report compiled for the report card.Submitted 12 September 2004.

Land Trust Alliance. 2004. Land trust alliance. Webpage available at: www.lta.org (AccessedNovember 2004).

Lobbes, D. 2004. Personal Communication. TheConservation Foundation, Naperville, IL.

Luman, D., Joselyn, M., and L. Suloway. 1996. CriticalTrends Assessment Land Cover Database of

Illinios, 1991-1995: IDNR GIS Database*path_name_suppressed*/landcov, Champaign,IL: Illinois Natural History Survey. Metadataavailable at: http://www.isgs.uiuc.edu/nsdi-home/webdocs/st-naths.html

Masi, S. P. Vitt, L. Reich, and K. Theiss. 2004. Plantsof concern: training volunteers to conduct rareplant monitoring on a regional scale. Project reportsubmitted to the Chicago Region BiodiversityCouncil. Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL.

Matre, L.V. 2004. Dragonfly habitat protectionordered. Chicago Tribune, 24 September, p.4.

Megquier, R. 2004. Personal Communication.Corlands, Chicago, IL.

Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie. 2005. AboutMidewin: healing the land. Web page available at:http://www.fs.fed.us/mntp/process.htm(Accessed July 2005).

Milde, M. 2004. Unpublished analysis of the plants ofconcern database compiled for the report card.Submitted 27 August.

Miller, C.A., L.K. Campbell, J.A. Yeagle. 2002.Attitudes of residents in the greater Chicagoregion toward prescribed burns and ecologicalrestoration: a report to the Chicago Wildernessburn communications team. Human DimensionsResearch Program Report SR-02-02. IllinoisNatural History Survey, Champaign, IL.

Nelson, M. 2004. Personal Communication. FoxValley Land Foundation, Elgin, IL.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1994.Model stormwater drainage and detention ordi-nance. Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-mission, Chicago, IL.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2003.Natural Resource and Socio-Economic Impacts of2030 Regional Transportation Proposals.Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,Chicago, IL. Available at: http://www.sp2030.com/2030rtp/index.html

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2004.Sourcebook on natural landscaping for local offi-cials. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission,Chicago, IL.

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 2005.Commission endorsed 2030 forecast numbers fornortheastern Illinois (September 30, 2003). Webpage available at: http://www.nipc.org/2030_forecast_endorsed_093003.htm (AccessedJuly 2005).

159



Page, L.M. and M.E. Retzer. 2002. The status ofIllinois' rarest fishes and crustaceans. Transactionsof the Illinois State Academy of Sciences 95:311-326.

Page, L.M., K.S. Cummings, C.A. Mayer, S.L. Post,and M.E. Retzer. 1992. Biologically significantIllinois streams, an evaluation of the streams ofIllinois based on aquatic biodiversity. IllinoisNatural History Survey Center for BiodiversityTechnical Report 1. Illinois Natural HistorySurvey, Champaign, IL.

Paine, C. and V. Santucci. Manuscript in preparation. Panzer, R. 2004. Personal Communication.Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago, IL.

Panzer, R. 2005. Database of insect species collectedfrom prairie and savanna sites throughout theChicago Wilderness region. Personal database ofRon Panzer of Northeastern Illinois University.Platform: Filemaker Pro.

Parker, D. 2004. Phantom savanna. Chicago WildernessMagazine, Fall 2004, pp. 7-11.

Pergams, O. 2004. Personal communication.University of Illinois-Chicago.

Post, S.L. 2004. Unpublished report compiled for thereport card. Submitted 16 December.

Retzer, M.E. 2005. Changes in the diversity of nativefishes in seven basins in Illinois, USA. TheAmerican Midland Naturalist 153:121-134.

Richard Day Research. 2004. Chicago Wildernessstudy. Report prepared for Chicago Wilderness byRichard Day Research, Inc., Evanston, IL.

Richter, S. 2004. Personal Communication. TheNature Conservancy–Wisconsin Chapter,Madison, WI.

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher,M.S.W. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest,E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Iñigo-Elias, J.A.Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N.Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt,and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight NorthAmerican Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Labof Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Partners in Flight Website available at: http://www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/ (VERSION: March 2005).

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The NorthAmerican Breeding Bird Survey, Results andAnalysis 1966-2004. Version 2005.2. USGSPatuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.Available at: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov

Smith, P.W. 2002. The Fishes of Illinois. University ofIllinois Press, Champaign, IL.

Stotz, D. Unpublished data compiled from theIllinois spring bird count

Stuart, S.N., J.S. Chanson, N.A. Cox, B.E. Young,A.S.L. Rodrigues, D.L. Fischman, and R.W. Waller.2004. Status and trends of amphibian declines andextinctions worldwide. Science 306:1783-1786.

Taron, D. 2004. Restoring the butterfly tapestry.Chicago Wilderness Magazine, Summer, p. 16

Taylor, K. 1998. Stream biodiversity recovery priori-ties. Project report submitted to the ChicagoRegion Biodiversity Council. Openlands Project,Chicago, IL.

The Conservation Foundation. 2004. Open space ref-erenda passed. Web page available at: http://www.theconservationfoundation.org/tcf/lp/referenda.asp (Accessed November 2004).

The Moran Group. 2003. Biodiversity and biodiver-sity related issues in the Chicagoland: a literaturereview, and biodiversity awareness & biodiver-sity-related issues in Chicagoland: a meta analysis.Reports prepared for Chicago Wilderness by TheMoran Group. Evanston, IL.

The Nature Conservancy. 2004. Bluff spring fen. Webpage available at: http://nature.org/wherewe-work/northamerica/states/illinois/preserves/art1117.html (Accessed December 2004).

The Nature Conservancy. 2005. The volunteer stew-ardship network (vsn). Web page available at:http://nature.org/wherewework/northamer-ica/states/illinois/volunteer/art9844.html(Accessed July 2005)

The Trust for Public Land. 2004. Landvote database.Web page available at: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=15266&folder_id=2607 (Accessed November 2004).

USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service, IllinoisDepartment of Natural Resources, and IllinoisDepartment of Agriculture. 2002. Land Cover ofIllinois 1999-2000. Springfield, IL. Available at:http://www.agr.state.il.us/gis/landcover99-00.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Federalfunding available for enhanced protection againstAsian carp. Press release, 13 October. Available at:http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686?openview

160



U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery planfor the great lakes piping plover (Charadrius melo-dus). Ft. Snelling, MN.

Watson, R.T., V.H. Heywood, I. Baste, B. Dias, R.Gamez, T. Janetos, W. Reid, and G. Ruark, eds.1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment: Summary forPolicy-Makers. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.

White, B., J. Beardsley, J. Rodsater, and L. Duong.2003. Biological and physical monitoring ofWaukegan River restoration efforts in biotechni-cal bank protection and pool/riffle creation. Anannual report prepared by the Illinois State Water

Survey for the Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency and the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (Region 5). Champaign, IL.

White, J. 1978. Illinois natural areas inventory tech-nical report. Department of LandscapeArchitecture, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and Natural Land Institute,Rockford, Illinois.

Wikipedia Contributors. 2005. Biodiversity. Wiki-pedia: the free encyclopedia. Web page availableat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity(Accessed 28 July 2005).

161



1998 Midwestern Rare Plant Conference and TaskForce Meeting

1999 Unionid Mussel Survey and ConservationProgram

A Baseline Inventory of Soil Microarthropods fromThree Remnant Oak Woodland Communities inNortheastern Illinois

A Framework for Regionwide Ecological MonitoringA Model for Engaging High School and College

Students in Biodiversity Research on ChicagoWilderness

A Model for Managing Overabundant DeerPopulations in the Natural Areas of the ChicagoWilderness

A Multi-organizational Effort to Revitalize theEcology of the Calumet Region

A Multi-organizational Effort to Revitalize theEcology of the Calumet Region: Phase II

Abundance and Nesting Productivity of Wetland-Dependent Birds in Northeastern Illinois

Accessing and Assessing Local Government DecisionMaker Needs to Enhance Natural ResourceProtection and Sustainable Watershed Planning

Advanced Prescribed Fire Use Training for ChicagoWilderness Member Organizations

Analysis of the Northeastern Illinois Wetland BirdSurvey: 25 Years of Change

Baseline Survey of Invertebrates at Indian RidgeMarsh, Indian Creek and Hegewisch Marsh

Biodiversity and Distribution of Bats in the ChicagoWilderness

Biodiversity Extension ServiceBiodiversity Summer Camps at Indiana Dunes

Environmental Learning CenterBird Conservation Network Conference (1999)Breeding Birds of Cook County 1985-1997Building Capacity in Teacher Training and Testing a

Model for a Chicago Wilderness Teacher TrainingNetwork

Calumet Partnership WorkshopCertified Interpretive Training Workshop

Change in Physical Stream Parameters Related to theDechannelization of a Section of Nippersink Creek

Chicago Lake Plain Prairie Insect SurveyChicago Region Birding Trail GuideChicago Region Sustainability Indicator ProjectChicago Wilderness Audience Research ProjectChicago Wilderness Education and Outreach

Workshop on Research-Based BiodiversityMessage Points

Chicago Wilderness Good Neighbor Focus GroupProject: Discovering How Homeowners BecomeGood Neighbors

Chicago Wilderness Grassland AuditChicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure VisionChicago Wilderness Green Infrastructure Vision

Phase II: Product DisseminationChicago Wilderness Mighty Acorns ProgramChicago Wilderness Mighty Acorns Program: A Self-

sustaining FutureChicago Wilderness Outreach Materials: Putting

Conservation into the Hands of Developers andMunicipalities

Chicago Wilderness Prescribed Burn Commun-ication Strategy Development

Chicago Wilderness Regional Monitoring PlanDevelopment Workshop

Chicago Wilderness Restoration Video: Creating aCompelling Tool to Demonstrate the Benefits ofEcological Restoration

Chicago Wilderness Teacher Training Hubs: Buildingon Success

Civic Community Outreach in a DevelopingSuburban Watershed

Conservation DesignConservation Design Model OrdinanceConservation Policy InitiativesCost Analysis of Conservation Versus Conventional

Development in Northeastern Illinois andNorthern Indiana

Crafting a Common Lexicon: Nature's RecoveryCampaign

APPENDIX APROJECTS FUNDED BY THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS

CONSORTIUM, 1998 – 2004

162



Crane Chronicles: Critical Thinking About HumanActivity & Wetland Health

Creating an Interactive Green Infrastructure Data-base for the Chicago Wilderness Region

Creating More Effective Web-Based CommunicationTools for the Chicagoland Environmental Net-work and Chicago Wilderness

Data Resources Inventory, Data CompatibilityAssessment, and Planning Process for a RegionalChicago Wilderness Information ManagementSystem

Developing a Natural Science Research Agenda forChicago Wilderness

Development of a Uniform Scientific RelationalDatabase Management System for LandManagement Agencies in Northeastern Illinois

Development of Ecological Inventories UsingGeographical Information System

Direct Outreach to the Professional and DevelopmentCommunities on Sustainable Development forBiodiversity Benefits

Early Warning and Rapid Response Invasive SpeciesProgram

Ecological Investigation of Invertebrate Populationsof Spring Bluff, Elm Road Forest, and Grainger

Ecological Monitoring of the MacArthur WoodHabitat Restoration Project

Ecosystem Restoration and the Viability of BirdPopulations in the Chicago Wilderness

Ecosystem Restoration within Four Illinois NatureReserves Owned by the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources

Eden Place: Biodiversity Training for ResponsibleStewardship

Education Materials about Biological Control ofPurple Loosestrife in Illinois Wetlands

Education, Outreach, and Monitoring NorthwestIndiana’s Avifauna

Effective Bird Monitoring for Conservation in theChicago Wilderness Region: Devising aStandardized Protocol and Creating an ImmediateData Bank

Effective Vegetation Monitoring in a ManagementContext: Taking the Pulse of the Wilderness

Enhancing the Chicago Wilderness Prescribed BurnTraining Manual

Evaluation of Diversity of Nongame Fish Species inLake County, Illinois

Experimental Restoration of Oak-Savanna in theIndiana Dunes National Lakeshore

Ferson/Otter Creek Restoration ProjectFinalizing the Chicago Wilderness Interactive Bird

Data Entry ProcessFox River Biodiversity Inventory Phase-II GIS

DevelopmentGIS Land Cover Map and Ecological Model of the

Savannas, Woodlands, and Forests of Will andCook Counties

GIS Products and Analyses for the ChicagoWilderness Recovery Plan

Glacial Park Headwater RestorationGreen Gary 2004: Celebrating Our Natural SpacesGuiding Families Towards Recovery (Nature’s

Recovery)Habitat Base Map for Ecological Restoration

Planning in the Butterfield Creek WatershedHistoric Landscape Vegetation Pattern, Composition,

and Structure of McHenry and Lake Counties,Illinois

Historic Vegetation Pattern, Composition, andStructure of Kane County, Illinois as reported bythe U.S. Public Land Survey

Identifying the Characteristics of BiodiversityLiteracy

Illinois Biodiversity Basics RevisionsIllinois Biodiversity Basics: A Program for Formal

and Non-formal EducatorsImpact of European Buckthorn on Aspects of

Ecosystem Structure and Functioning inWoodlands Around Chicago

Impact of Nitrogen Deposition on Macrofungi inChicago Wilderness

Impact of Prescription Burns on Prairie SpidersImpacts of Deer Herbivory Upon Natural Areas

Restoration in the Chicago WildernessImplementation of the Chicago Wilderness Strategic

PlanIndian Boundary Prairies Wetland Restoration

ProjectInfluence of Excessive Deer Browsing on Prairie

ForbsInfluencing Public Infrastructure Design and

Implementation Phase IInteraction of Armillaria Root Rot, Canker Disease

and Prescribed Burning on Woodland Structureand Health

163



Interpretive Skills Training WorkshopInterpretive Skills Training Workshop, Step 2:

Thematic DevelopmentInvasive Plants: Global Issues, Local ConcernsLake Michigan Action PlanLake Michigan Urban Aquatic Habitat Restoration

InitiativeLand Use Media GuideLife History and Current Status of State of Illinois

Endangered and Threatened Fish Species FromGlacial Lakes and Marshes of Northeastern Illinois

Linking Watersheds Conference: Creating a Networkfor Watersheds within Chicago Wilderness

Marketing of and Technical Assistance on theConservation Design Resource Manual

Metropolitan Natural Landscaping InitiativeMidwest Ecological Burn TrainingMobilizing a Community’s AssetsMobilizing a Community’s Assets Phase 4:

ImplementationMonitoring Northeastern Illinois Forest Diversity:

Interactions Between DendrochronologicalHistory

Natural Area Volunteer Stewardship in ChicagoParks

Natural Community GIS Mapping ProjectNatural Landscaping Video: Managing Large Land

Parcels for Increased Biodiversity and OtherBenefits

Natural Science Research Agenda Project Phase 2Nature and Culture: A Multicultural Pilot Project in

Uptown and EdgewaterNippersink Creek Remeandering ProjectNippersink Creek Subwatershed ProjectNorthwest Indiana Mighty Acorns ProgramNorthwest Indiana Teachers’ Hub InitiativeOne Year Natural Resources Data Specialist Term

Position with the Lake County Forest PreserveDistrict

Outreach and Technical Assistance to LocalGovernment Officials and Decision-Makers

Planning Conference to Address the EnvironmentalEducation Goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan

Planning for Teacher Training in BiodiversityEducation

Planning for the Chicago Wilderness State of theRegion Report Card

Plant-Pollinator Associations in ReconstructedPrairies

Plants of ConcernPlants of Concern: Scientific Data Gathering and

Volunteer Vegetation Monitoring TrainingPlants of Concern: Scientific Data Gathering &

Volunteer Vegetation Monitor Training Year TwoPlants of Concern: Standardized Rare Plant

Monitoring Using Trained VolunteersPlants of Concern: Training Volunteers to Conduct

Standardized Rare Plant Monitoring on a RegionalScale

Preservation Partners: Applying Problem-SolvingSkills to Restoration Activities

Program Evaluation Plan for Indiana DunesEnvironmental Learning Center

Programming for the Indian Ridge Marsh Environ-mental Center and the Calumet Region

Promoting Sound Policies for Grassland, Shrublandand Migratory Bids

Reed-Turner Woodland Illinois State Preserve-Vegetation Sampling and Analysis

Regional Conservation DesignRelocation, Mapping and Assessment of Cook

County's Endangered and Threatened PlantSpecies: Updating former records - Phase II

Relocation, Mapping and Status Assessment of CookCounty's Endangered and Threatened PlantSpecies: Updating former records

Restoration Alternatives for Large Waterways: ADesign Charette and Handbook

Restoration and Interpretation of The Grove NationalHistoric Landmark Glenview Park District

Restoration and Interpretation of the Mary MixMcDonald Woods

Restoration Effects in an Oak-Woodland Communityat Swallow Cliff Woods

Restoration Effects in an Oak-Woodland Communityat Swallow Cliff Woods III

Restoration of Sterne's Graminoid FenRestoring Oak Savanna Community Structure

Through Manual Removal of Woody SpeciesRevisions to Chicago Wilderness Community

Classification SystemsScience in the CityState of the Region Report CardStatus and Temporal Change in Chicago Region

Prairies, Savannas, and Wetlands Sampled by theIllinois Natural Areas Inventory

Status of Amphibians and Reptiles in SavannaHabitats and Savanna Mosaic Communities of theChicago Wilderness Region

164



Strategies for Survival: The ExSitu Plant Conser-vation Symposium

Stream Restoration InventoryStream Restoration Inventory, Phase 2Sustainable Calumet NetworkSustainable Watershed Action Team (SWAT)Sustainable Watershed Action Team Enhancement:

Regulatory CoordinationSustaining and Expanding Regional Volunteer

Monitoring Through the Chicago WildernessHabitat Project

Targeted Natural Landscaping Outreach forBiodiversity Benefits

The Biodiversity Education Through ActionProgram: Project Evaluation and Dissemination

The Correspondence of Soil Types with PlantCommunity Types in the Natural Areas ofMcHenry County, Illinois

The Establishment of Long-Term Research atChiwaukee Prairie

The Habitat Project: Monitoring for AdaptiveManagement

The Habitat Project: Region-wide Monitoring forChicago Wilderness

The Impacts of Eurasian Earthworm and InvasiveShrubs on Chicago Woodland Ecosystems:Surveying Distribution and Evaluating PotentialEcosystem Damage

The Regional Transportation Plan and Biodiversity

The Science of Natural Landscaping: Quantifying theBenefits

The Use of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Imageryfor Monitoring Prairie Ecosystem Restoration

Thirty-First Natural Area Conference: EmergingIssues–Possibilities and Perils, Chicago, Illinois

Training Chicago Wilderness Volunteers toCommunicate on Biodiversity

Training/Technical Assistance for Local GovernmentOfficials on Biodiversity Protection Techniques

Update of Natural Landscaping for Local Officials:A Source Book

Use of Macroinvertebrate Functional Groups toAssess Ecosystem Attributes in the Restored Areaof Nippersink Creek, McHenry County, Illinois

Using Doppler Radar to Quantify Habitat Use byForest Dwelling Migratory Songbirds

Wetland Conservation Strategy Model DevelopmentWolf Road Prairie Buffer RestorationWolf Road Prairie Eco-Literacy ProjectWoodland and Savanna Communities in Chicago

Wilderness and Their Current Conditions:Identification and Mapping Through Integrationof Landsat and Transection Data

Woodlands Audit Pilot ProjectYellow-Headed Blackbird Conservation in Northeast

Illinois

165



Alliance for the Great LakesAssociation for the Wolf Lake InitiativeAudubon–Chicago Region Barrington Area Council of Governments (BACOG)Batavia Plain Dirt GardenersBird Conservation NetworkBoone Creek Watershed AllianceBroadtree Adventures in EducationBrookfield ZooButterfield Creek Steering CommitteeCalumet Ecological Park AssociationCalumet Environmental Resource CenterCampaign for Sensible GrowthCampton Historic Agricultural Lands, Inc.Campton TownshipCanal Corridor AssociationCary Park DistrictCenter for Neighborhood TechnologyChicago Academy of Sciences/Peggy Notebaert

Nature MuseumChicago Audubon SocietyChicago Botanic GardenChicago Herpetological SocietyChicago Ornithological SocietyChicago Park DistrictChicago Wilderness Corporate CouncilChicago’s Green City MarketChicagoland Bird ObservatoryChiwaukee Prairie Preservation Fund, Inc.Citizens for ConservationCity of Chicago, Department of EnvironmentCity of Park RidgeCity of Rolling MeadowsClarendon Hills Park DistrictCoffee Creek Watershed ConservancyCollege of DuPageThe Conservation FoundationThe Conservation FundConservation Research InstituteCorLandsCrystal Lake Park District

DePaul University, Environmental Science ProgramDowners Grove Park DistrictDucks Unlimited–Great Lakes/ Regional OfficeDuPage Birding ClubEden Place Nature CenterElmhurst Park DistrictEmily Oaks Nature CenterEnvironmental Law and Policy Center of the MidwestEvanston Environmental AssociationFaith in PlaceThe Field MuseumFlagg-Rochelle Community Park DistrictForest Preserve District of Cook CountyForest Preserve District of DuPage CountyForest Preserve District of Kane CountyForest Preserve District of Will CountyFox Valley Land FoundationFriends of the Chicago RiverFriends of the Forest Preserves (Cook County)Friends of the Morton Grove Forest PreservesFriends of the ParksFriends of Ryerson WoodsThe Garden Clubs of Illinois, Inc.Garfield Park Conservatory AllianceGeneva Lake ConservancyGeneva Park DistrictGlenview Prairie Preservation ProjectThe Grove National Historic LandmarkHomewood Izaak Walton Preserve, Inc.I&M Canal National Heritage Corridor Civic

Center AuthorityIllinois Audubon SocietyIllinois Audubon Society, Ft. Dearborn ChapterIllinois Butterfly Monitoring NetworkIllinois Department of Natural ResourcesIllinois Endangered Species Protection BoardIllinois Natural History SurveyIllinois Nature Preserves CommissionIllinois Ornithological SocietyIllinois-Indiana Sea Grant College ProgramIndian Creek Watershed Project, Ltd.

APPENDIX BMEMBERS OF THE CHICAGO WILDERNESS CONSORTIUM

185 MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS AS OF FEBRUARY 2006

166



Indiana Department of Natural ResourcesIndiana Dunes Environmental Learning CenterIndiana University NorthwestIrons Oaks Environmental Learning CenterJurica Nature MuseumKane-DuPage Soil & Water Conservation DistrictKendall County Forest Preserve DistrictLake Bluff Open Lands AssociationLake County Forest PreservesLake County Health Department–Environmental

Health ServicesLake County (IN) Parks and Recreation DepartmentLake County Soil & Water Conservation DistrictLake County (IN) Solid Waste ManagementLake County Stormwater Management CommissionLake Forest CollegeLake Forest Open Lands AssociationLake Katherine Nature PreserveLand Conservancy of McHenry CountyLand Trust AllianceLand Trust of Walworth CountyLiberty Prairie ConservancyLincoln Park ZooLong Grove Park DistrictLoyola University, College of Arts and SciencesMax McGraw Wildlife FoundationMcHenry County Conservation DistrictMcHenry County Conservation FoundationMcHenry County Defenders, Inc.Metropolitan Water Reclamation District The Morton ArboretumNaperville Park District National Association for Interpretation–Region 5Natural Land InstituteThe Nature Conservancy–Illinois ChapterNiSource Environmental Challenge FundNorth Branch Restoration Project North Cook County Soil & Water Conservation

DistrictNorthbrook Park DistrictNortheastern Illinois Planning CommissionNortheastern Illinois UniversityNorthwest Indiana Forum Foundation, Inc.Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning

CommissionNorthwestern University Environmental CouncilOakbrook Terrace Park DistrictOpenlands Project

Palos-Orland Conservation CommitteePalos Park Tree FoundationPark District of Highland ParkPortage Park and Recreation Department (IN)Porter County (IN) Plan CommissionPrairie ClubPrairie Club Conservation Education FundPrairie Crossing Homeowners AssociationPrairie Woods Audubon SocietyPrairies ForeverPringle Nature CenterPurdue University CalumetResurrection CenterRichardson Wildlife SanctuaryRiver Forest Park DistrictSave the Dunes Conservation FundSave the Prairie SocietySchaumburg Park DistrictJohn G. Shedd AquariumShirley Heinze Land TrustSierra Club, Illinois ChapterSoutheast Environmental Task ForceSpring Brook Nature CenterSt. Charles Park DistrictSustain, The Environmental Information GroupTaltree Arboretum and GardensThorn Creek Audubon SocietyThe Trust for Public LandTown Square Condominium AssociationUniversity of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois Extension, Northeast RegionUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign US Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago DistrictUS Dept. of Energy, Argonne National LaboratoryUS Dept. of Energy, Fermi National Accelerator LabUS Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5US EPA Great Lakes National Program OfficeUS Fish & Wildlife ServiceUSDA Forest ServiceUSDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUSDI National Park ServiceVillage of BrookfieldVillage of Deer ParkVillage of FrankfortVillage of GlenviewVillage of Hoffman Estates Environmental

CommissionVillage of Homer Glen

167



Village of Lake BarringtonVillage of LincolnshireVillage of North BarringtonVillage of Orland ParkVillage of RiversideVillage of SchaumburgWaukegan Harbor Citizens’ Advisory GroupWayne Park CommissionThe Wetlands InitiativeWheaton Park DistrictWild Ones Natural Landscapers, Ltd.Wild Flower Preservation Society of IllinoisWoodland Savanna Land Conservancy

Members of the Chicago Wilderness Corporate Council27 Members as of February 2006Agrecol CorporationApplied Ecological Services, Inc.ARAMARK Facility ServicesBP America, Inc.The Care of TreesChristopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.ComEdFuturity, Inc.Hitchcock Design GroupHSBC North AmericaJFNew Kabbes Engineering, Inc.Kirk HomesLaSalle BankMcGinty BrothersMidwest GenerationMotorolaNicor GasNiSource, Inc.Northern Trust CorporationParsons CorporationPizzo and Associates, Ltd.Prairie Holdings CorporationRRM Foundations/CantignySkidmore, Owings & Merrill LLPV3 ConsultantsWRD Environmental

Chicago Wilderness is a regional nature reserve that includes

more than 225,000 acres of protected natural areas. It stretches from southeastern Wisconsin,

through northeastern Illinois and into northwestern Indiana.

The protected lands and waters of Chicago Wilderness include county preserves,

state parks, federal preserves, and privately owned areas.

There are also many unprotected natural areas within Chicago Wilderness.

The Chicago Wilderness consortium is an alliance of more than 180 organizations

working to study, restore, protect and manage the natural ecosystems

of the Chicago region in order to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity

and enrich local residents’ quality of life.

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

Documents

T STATE OF OUR CHICAGO WILDERNESSThe State of Our Chicago Wilderness: A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the Region. The Chicago Wilderness consortium, Chicago, IL. TABLE OF