**Chicago Wilderness Regional Monitoring Workshop**

January 31---February 1, 2005

**Final Report**

Prepared by

Geoffrey A. Levin

Illinois Natural History Survey

### Executive Summary

Chicago Wilderness has long recognized that a regional monitoring
program is essential for the consortium to gauge its progress in
promoting conservation. Although Chicago Wilderness has taken some
significant steps toward regional monitoring, an integrated program is
still lacking. To further the development of regional monitoring, the
Illinois Natural History Survey was asked to organize a workshop to
address several critical issues that need to be resolved before a
regional monitoring plan can be developed. The workshop took place on
January 31---February 1, 2005, and was facilitated by Susan Parks with
assistance from Chicago Wilderness staff. A total of 48 individuals
participated, in addition to the facilitators and Natural History Survey
staff who provided technical expertise.

Through a combination of pre-workshop surveys and small- and large-group
discussions during the workshop, the participants considered the goals
of regional monitoring and priorities for monitoring terrestrial and
aquatic communities, species assemblages, and species. A clear consensus
emerged on the following issues.

-   The priority goals for regional monitoring should be (1) documenting
    trends in biodiversity or other measures of ecosystem health for
    both terrestrial and aquatic communities and selected animal species
    assemblages, and (2) assessing the effectiveness of management.

-   A comprehensive inventory of natural communities in the Chicago
    Wilderness region is urgently needed. This inventory should map the
    communities and include some measure of their quality.

-   Regional monitoring should integrate, insofar as possible,
    monitoring already underway by resource management agencies and
    other organizations in the region.

-   Monitoring should provide some information about trends in
    biodiversity/health for all communities and more in-depth
    information for selected communities or sites. This can be
    accomplished by using (1) less intensive and less frequent
    monitoring with relatively easy-to-assess indicators to provide data
    for all communities, with the communities themselves defined
    somewhat broadly (e.g., for forested communities, differentiating
    upland forests, bottomland forests, flatwoods, and woodlands);
    and (2) more intensive and more frequent monitoring with more
    sensitive indicators for the selected communities or sites.

-   For aquatic systems, in-depth monitoring should focus on high
    quality sites, especially those at high risk, and on filling in the
    gaps present in existing monitoring programs.

-   For terrestrial animal species assemblages, intensive monitoring
    should focus on species/assemblages at risk (i.e., those that are
    threatened, endangered, or otherwise known to be declining), endemic
    species or species assemblages for which the Chicago Wilderness
    region is significant nationally and globally, charismatic species,
    some invasive exotic species, and on species that are good
    indicators of habitat quality.

    There was less consensus on criteria for prioritizing terrestrial
    communities or sites for in-depth monitoring. Two different sets of
    criteria emerged. The first set focused on communities in the upper
    tiers of conservation targets for recovery found in the Chicago
    Wilderness *Biodiversity Recovery Plan*, whereas the other focused
    on sites that contained high quality habitat, sites that had a high
    potential for restoration, and sites undergoing or soon to be
    undergoing restoration or other management. The monitoring plan
    should seek to address both sets of criteria insofar as possible.

    The workshop also outlined the next steps for developing the
    regional monitoring plan. Most immediately, the consortium must
    determine who is responsible for developing the plan. Although it
    may be appropriate to have separate sub-groups develop the
    terrestrial and aquatic portions of the plan simultaneously, it is
    recommended that a single group oversee development of the plan.
    This group, either a working group within Chicago Wilderness or an
    outside organization under contract, should draw on the abundant
    expertise within the consortium throughout the plan development
    process and keep the consortium informed about the group's progress.
    Early in its process, the planning group will need to determine how
    much data from existing local monitoring programs can be integrated
    into a regional program, as this will inform the rest of the
    process. Additional steps and the necessary components of the plan
    are described in this report. The goal should be have the plan
    completed within one year, both to maintain the momentum the
    workshop produced and to allow data collection to begin in 2006.
    Coordinated regional monitoring is long overdue, and Chicago
    Wilderness cannot afford to wait longer to have good data both on
    the status and trends of the region's terrestrial and aquatic
    communities and on the effectiveness of current management
    practices.

    *As the Chicago Wilderness consortium moves forward, particular
    attention needs to be paid to developing indicators of success, both
    in terms of ecological results and activities needed to attain them.
    With a few notable exceptions, the majority of community and
    assemblage assessments remain primarily based on anecdotal
    information. In line with recommendations contained in the Recovery
    Plan, the consortium needs to establish region-wide consensus on
    some basic terminology, definitions, reliable indicators, recovery
    targets and monitoring protocols, as well as establish baseline data
    against which to measure future gains and losses. Not only do such
    mechanisms provide for more specific, region-wide guidance for
    recovery efforts, but ultimately make for more meaningful,
    quantifiable reporting -- to consortium members, certainly, but also
    to decision makers and the general public.* (From *The State of Our
    Chicago Wilderness: A Report Card on the Ecological Health of the
    Region and the Goals of the Biodiversity Recovery Plan,* Draft of
    December 2004)

    If the Chicago Wilderness consortium is to gauge its progress in
    promoting conservation, it must gain a better understanding of the
    status and trends in the region's biodiversity. This need became
    very clear as it developed its Report Card, which relied primarily
    on anecdotal information rather than quantitative data. Thus one of
    the long-term objectives in the consortium's new strategic plan is
    to improve understanding of regional biodiversity status and trends.
    The plan also contains short-term objectives that speak to better
    monitoring. The first step toward these ends is development of a
    regional monitoring plan.

Almost from its inception, Chicago Wilderness has recognized the
importance of regional monitoring. The Biodiversity Recovery Plan (1999)
includes many objectives related to monitoring. It also includes tiered
rankings of communities, species assemblages, and species. Although
these focus on management, they could also help frame the consortium's
priorities for monitoring. Several other significant steps have been
taken toward developing a regional monitoring program for Chicago
Wilderness. For example,

-   The Plants of Concern monitoring program is generating region-wide
    quantitative data on the status and management of rare plant
    species.

-   The Bird Conservation Network, with financial support from Chicago
    Wilderness, has developed protocols for conducting bird censuses and
    gathered extensive data on bird populations throughout the region.
    Similar organizations are gathering region-wide information on
    butterfly and frog populations.

-   The Chicago Wilderness Woods Audit developed a monitoring protocol
    for the region's upland forests, woodlands and savannas, and
    established baseline data for future trends.

-   A regional grassland bird survey, which includes assessment of
    grasslands themselves, is being planned for 2005; like the Woods
    Audit, this will include protocols and provide baseline data.

-   Conservation Designs, which include some monitoring goals, have been
    drafted for woodlands, grassland birds, and savanna reptiles and
    amphibians.

In addition, governmental agencies and not-for-profit organizations are
conducting myriad local monitoring programs. It may be possible to
integrate some of this information to gain a regional perspective.

Despite its strong support for monitoring, Chicago Wilderness has yet to
develop an integrated regional monitoring program. Efforts remain
disjointed, piecemeal, and sometimes contentious. To develop a regional
monitoring plan, the Chicago Wilderness consortium must reach agreement
on many issues. These include the goals of monitoring, priorities among
communities and species assemblages, and indicators to be used. When
these are resolved, protocols and sampling regimes can be developed and
monitoring implemented.

At the recommendation of the Chicago Wilderness Regional Monitoring
Taskforce, which includes agencies and organizations active in natural
resource management in the Chicago Wilderness region, and with support
from the Steering Committee, the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS)
was asked to organize a workshop to address issues related to goals,
priorities, and indicators. Susan Parks of the Parks Consulting Group
was employed to facilitate the workshop.

### Workshop Preparation

At the recommendation of members of the Regional Monitoring Taskforce
and other leaders in the Chicago Wilderness organization, invitations to
participate in the workshop were extended to members of the Chicago
Wilderness Science and Natural Resource Management teams, the Chicago
Wilderness Aquatics Taskforce, individuals who participated in the
Report Card workshops, and selected additional individuals who had
specific monitoring or regional expertise. An announcement also was sent
to all Chicago Wilderness member organizations. These efforts were
intended to balance the needs for broad participation and critical
expertise.

Two steps were taken to help participants prepare for the workshop.
First, INHS staff wrote a background paper that was posted on the
Chicago Wilderness members' website and announced to all registered
participants. The paper summarized monitoring goals that had been
articulated in the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan* and Conservation Designs
and classified these into a framework of monitoring functions for the
workshop. The paper also described several regional monitoring efforts
currently underway in the Chicago Wilderness region. Some specific
issues that must be resolved to address specific monitoring goals were
listed. Appendices described management and restoration goals from the
*Biodiversity Recovery Plan*; monitoring procedures from the
Conservation Designs; the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan* community
classifications, terrestrial community tiered priorities for
conservation recovery, and animal species assemblages (and mammal
species) for conservation planning and of special concern; and the
Illinois Department of Natural Resources' Critical Trends Assessment
Program and Ecowatch Network. In addition, an interim report from a
Chicago Wilderness funded effort to develop a database of inventory and
monitoring data maintained by Chicago Wilderness members was made
available to workshop participants. This report described information on
these data received to date and some of the technological challenges
that would be involved in sharing these data.

The second step was a survey on regional monitoring priorities
administered through the online survey tool SurveyMonkey.com. All
registered workshop participants were invited to participate and we
received 52 responses. To increase sampling of interested individuals
involved with Chicago Wilderness, responses to the same survey questions
were solicited from those who were invited to the workshop but were
unable to attend. Seventeen responses were received for this second
survey. Results of the surveys were summarized during the workshop.
Complete results from the survey of the larger group are included in
Appendix 1; results from the second survey to the smaller group did not
differ substantially from those of the first survey and are not reported
here.

### Workshop Results

The workshop itself was hosted by the Field Museum on January 31 and
February 1, 2005. A total of 48 individuals attended (46 the first day
and 32 the second), in addition to the facilitator, Susan Parks; Chicago
Wilderness staff members Catherine Bendowitz, Elizabeth McCance, and
Chris Mulvaney, who helped facilitate; and INHS staff members Connie
Carroll-Cunningham, Ed DeWalt, Chris Dietrich, Geoff Levin, Brenda
Molano-Flores, Greg Spyreas, and John Taft, who provided technical
expertise. The workshop included background presentations by Geoff Levin
and facilitated small- and full-group discussions. Specific issues
addressed included identifying the major monitoring questions the
Chicago Wilderness consortium should be answering; developing monitoring
priorities for terrestrial and aquatic communities, species assemblages,
and species; and describing the next steps to be taken in developing a
regional monitoring plan.

*Monitoring Goals*

For the purposes of the workshop, we recognized six broad goals for
monitoring. These can be separated into two groups depending on whether
they are focused on reporting changes in ecosystem conditions or on
programmatic activities, particularly management. These goals are:

[Ecosystem Conditions]{.underline}

A.  Reporting on changes in the extent and distribution of communities.

B.  Reporting on changes in the populations of species

C.  Determining long-term trends in biodiversity or other measures of
    health of communities.

> [Programmatic Activities]{.underline}

D.  Determining the effectiveness of management practices.

E.  Measuring indicators that trigger management action.

F.  Assessing the extent to which management is being undertaken.

    The pre-workshop surveys made it clear that workshop participants
    strongly believe that Chicago Wilderness should conduct monitoring
    of both ecosystem conditions and programmatic activities. Survey
    respondents ranked the relative importance of the functions fairly
    consistently. Both when asked to indicate the absolute importance
    and the relative rank of the functions, community distribution and
    extent (A), biodiversity/health of communities (B), and management
    effects (D) were considered most important, although the order
    varied somewhat depending on how the question was asked (see Tables
    1 and 2). Monitoring species populations was considered somewhat
    less important than these three, and both management triggers and
    management extent were considered much less important. When
    participants were asked to list the three to five most important
    monitoring questions for Chicago Wilderness, their answers were
    consistent with the rankings, with the most questions (34) relating
    to (C) trends in biodiversity/health of communities, followed by (D)
    management effects (18), (B) species populations (15, counting
    native and exotic invasive species separately), and (A) community
    distribution and extent (11). Very few questions related to (E)
    management triggers or (F) management extent (2 and 6, respectively;
    see Appendix 1, Question 22).

  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------
  **Table 1.** Summary of workshop                            
  participant responses to survey                             
  question 1: "Please indicate how                            
  important you think each of the                             
  functions listed below is for                               
  regional monitoring by Chicago                              
  Wilderness." See Appendix 1 for                             
  the complete survey results.                                

  Monitoring Goal                   Average      Very         Extremely
                                    Score        Important    Important

  A. Community Distribution and     4.15         29%          46%
  Extent                                                      

  B. Species Populations            3.96         44%          29%

  C. Biodiversity/Health of         4.23         38%          44%
  Communities                                                 

  D. Management Effects             4.10         33%          42%

  E. Management Triggers            3.79         40%          29%

  F. Management Extent              3.61         25%          24%
  --------------------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------

  ------------------------------- --------- ------- ------ ---------------
  **Table 2.** Summary of                                  
  workshop participant responses                           
  to survey question 2: "Which of                          
  the monitoring functions do you                          
  feel are most important? Please                          
  list the three most important                            
  functions in order of                                    
  decreasing importance." The                              
  weighted rank was calculated by                          
  assigning a score of 3 for rank                          
  1, 2 for rank 2, and 1 for rank                          
  3.                                                       

                                  Rank                     

  Monitoring Goal                 1         2       3      Weighted Rank

  A. Community Distribution and   9         12      7      58
  Extent                                                   

  B. Species Populations          6         7       10     42

  C. Biodiversity/Health of       16        11      8      78
  Communities                                              

  D. Management Effects           9         13      8      61

  E. Management Triggers          5         1       7      24

  F. Management Extent            1         2       6      13
  ------------------------------- --------- ------- ------ ---------------

The workshop discussion on major monitoring questions came to generally
similar conclusions, i.e., that both ecosystem conditions and
programmatic activities should be monitored, and that the most important
goals are understanding community distribution and extent, trends in
biodiversity/health of communities, and management effectiveness. An
important distinction emerged, however: community distribution and
extent are best addressed through a comprehensive *inventory* of natural
lands and waters within the Chicago Wilderness area. This inventory
would map the current locations of natural communities and provide some
level of information about community quality, perhaps using the Illinois
Natural Areas Inventory grading system. This inventory is urgently
needed and should be completed as soon as possible. In addition to being
an important snapshot of the status of natural habitats in the Chicago
region, such an inventory is needed to guide monitoring activities
(helping determine sampling locations, for example), inform management
and land use planning, and identify gaps in our knowledge. It appeared
from the discussion that the need for an inventory is what drove many
participants to consider monitoring the extent and distribution of
communities to be so important. There was general agreement that when
the inventory was completed, it would not have to be repeated
frequently, e.g., no more than once every 10 years.

The workshop discussions and survey results yielded comments on each of
the other monitoring goals that will be helpful in developing a
monitoring plan. These are summarized here.

B. Reporting on changes in the populations of species

-   Although we are interested in threatened or endangered (T/E)
    species, we should also monitor more common species that are good
    indicators of habitat quality. These may include species from
    taxonomic groups that frequently are neglected, e.g., ants and
    lichens.

-   Further comments on monitoring animal species, including criteria
    for selecting species assemblages for monitoring, are included in
    the section on animal species assemblages below.

C. Determining long-term trends in biodiversity or other measures of
health of communities

-   Monitoring needs to include both high quality and lower quality
    sites.

-   Both biotic and abiotic aspects need to be monitored.

-   Stressors should be monitored.

-   Community viability should be considered.

D. Determining the effectiveness of management practices.

-   Some suggested substituting the phrase "monitoring to inform
    management."

-   Recording management activities at the sites selected for
    biodiversity/health monitoring may be an effective way to achieve
    this monitoring goal.

-   The effects of management on non-target species should be
    considered.

-   Management effectiveness is rarely assessed using controls; although
    efforts should be made to design monitoring so that appropriate
    control (un-managed) sites are included, this may be difficult, and
    in some cases a rigorous research program may be required.

E. Measuring indicators that trigger management action.

-   Triggers are generally more valuable locally rather than as part of
    regional monitoring.

-   The exception may be monitoring for specific exotic invasive
    species, where identification and eradication of small populations
    just arriving in the region may be the only effective means of
    controlling the species.

    F. Assessing the extent to which management is being undertaken.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It may be possible to design a reporting system that allows Chicago
    Wilderness to collect some data relatively easily, for example
    information about controlled burns. Although monitoring the extent
    of management may be a relatively low priority, the resulting data
    would be valuable, so if it can be collected easily it would be
    worthwhile doing so.

    *Monitoring Priorities*

    An effort was made during the workshop to prioritize communities and
    animal assemblages for regional monitoring. Developing clear
    priorities is important so that resources---both human and
    financial---can be allocated where the need for immediate
    information is greatest. Terrestrial communities, aquatic
    communities, and animal species assemblages were discussed
    separately.

    [Terrestrial plant communities]{.underline}. Despite extensive
    discussions during both break-out and full group sessions, workshop
    participants had a more difficult time coming to consensus on
    monitoring priorities for terrestrial communities. This lack of
    agreement is reflected clearly in the results of the pre-workshop
    survey, in which 55% of respondents felt that "all terrestrial
    communities should be monitored, even if it means monitoring is less
    intense or uses fewer indicators", while 45% felt that "monitoring
    should focus only on selected communities, allowing more intense
    monitoring of those communities, even if it means we know little
    about the status of other communities" (Appendix 1, Question 4).

    Careful analysis of the survey results and workshop discussions
    reveal two facets to these differences. The first is that part the
    motivation for wanting to know a little bit about everything is the
    lack of a comprehensive inventory. Many of the questions
    participants wanted to address "across the board" involve acreage,
    connectivity, and coarse indicators of habitat quality (e.g., the
    INAI grades), exactly the kind of information that would be included
    in the inventory described above. The second facet is that these two
    responses represent a false dichotomy: what participants want is
    basic information about all communities *and* more detailed
    information about a subset. Less intensive and less frequent
    monitoring using relatively easy-to-assess indicators could be used
    to provide information across all communities, with communities
    themselves defined somewhat broadly (e.g., for forested communities,
    differentiating upland forests, bottomland forests, flatwoods, and
    woodlands). More intensive and more frequent monitoring using more
    sensitive indicators would be selectively applied.

    This interpretation begs the question, "Where should in-depth
    monitoring take place?" Workshop participants were divided in their
    answers. A majority (see, for example, Appendix 1, Question 5) felt
    that priorities should follow the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan*
    terrestrial community conservation targets for recovery (Table 4.7
    of the *Plan*). These tiers reflect conservation status (a composite
    of proportion of original area remaining, quality of remaining
    sites, degree of protection, and effectiveness of management),
    biological importance (including species richness, number of
    threatened or endangered species, and presence of important
    ecological functions), and the role of the Chicago Wilderness region
    in the global conservation of the community type. A second set of
    participants felt that priorities should reflect "other criteria."
    It appeared, however, that these criteria were a subset of those
    used to determine the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan* targets for
    recovery, and applying them yielded essentially the same set of high
    priority communities as were included in the *Plan's* top tier (see
    Appendix 1, Question 6, for relevant survey results). A third group
    took another path altogether. Rather than emphasizing community
    types, this group wanted to select specific sites for intensive
    monitoring. Sites they would include are those with high
    quality/high species richness (perhaps equivalent to INAI grade A
    and B sites), those with lower quality but high potential for
    recovery under management (INAI grade high C sites), and those
    either currently or soon to be undergoing restoration or other
    management.

    Thus there is a fundamental split between those who want in-depth
    monitoring to focus on a set of relatively rare but regionally and
    globally important communities and those who want to focus on high
    quality sites or those potentially or actively undergoing
    restoration or other management. This split likely reflects
    different values held by group members. The first group is primarily
    interested in knowing (and acting to sustain or improve) the status
    of those communities that make the Chicago Wilderness region unique.
    The second group is more interested in maintaining and improving the
    best quality sites in the region, regardless of their global
    significance, and learning about the effectiveness of management.

    [Aquatic communities]{.underline}. In contrast to the terrestrial
    group, the aquatic group easily reached consensus on its monitoring
    priorities. As with the terrestrial group, they wanted some
    information on the status of all communities. According to the
    participants, most of this can be gleaned by integrating data from
    ongoing monitoring already being undertaken by a variety of
    agencies. More in-depth monitoring should focus on high quality
    sites, especially those at high risk, and on filling in the gaps
    present in existing monitoring programs. Many high quality sites
    have already been identified (see the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan*,
    Table XX). Risks the group felt should receive particular attention
    are those associated with urbanization, both development itself and
    especially high impact activities like construction of new
    wastewater treatment plants, so watersheds in areas that are
    currently less developed are generally going to be higher priority.
    Known gaps include small streams (those with watersheds smaller than
    10 km^2^), headwater streams, and glacial lakes. In addition, there
    are critical gaps in information regarding macroinvertebrates (e.g.,
    mussels and insects), which provide different measures of habitat
    quality than the more frequently monitored fish. For lakes, non-game
    fish represent another data gap. Data gathered by in-depth
    monitoring should include vertebrates (i.e., fish),
    macroinvertebrates, abiotic conditions, stressors (e.g., non-point
    source pollution, wastewater treatment facilities), and management
    activities.

    [Animal assemblages]{.underline}. Workshop participants felt very
    strongly that Chicago Wilderness should be monitoring species
    richness or some other indicator of integrity for selected animal
    species assemblages (see Appendix 1, Question 11). Two issues are of
    interest: the trends shown by the animal assemblages themselves, and
    what the trends tell us about the health of the rest of the
    ecosystem. More specifically, trend-related questions included
    changes over time in

-   species distributions,

-   species richness or diversity at sampling sites,

-   population sizes, and

-   population viability or source/sink relationships.

    In addition, participants wanted information on how management and
    habitat changes are affecting these measures.

    The pre-workshop survey sought input on which animal species
    assemblages identified as being of conservation concern by the
    *Biodiversity Recovery Plan* were of highest priority (Appendix 1,
    Questions 13-15). The highest ranking assemblages (i.e., those that
    averaged "very important" or higher in survey responses) were

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   grassland birds (both moist, with and without shrubs, and dry)

-   sedge meadow/fen/dolomite prairie reptiles and amphibians

-   blacksoil prairie insects

-   sand prairie insects

-   fen insects.

    A second tier of assemblages included

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   savanna birds

-   hemi-marsh birds

-   savanna reptiles and amphibians

-   grassland reptiles and amphibians

-   sand savanna/sand prairie reptiles and amphibians

-   gravel prairie insects

-   blacksoil savanna and woodland insects

-   sand savanna insects

-   sedge meadow insects.

    Rather than trying to prioritize specific animal assemblages during
    the workshop itself, the discussion focused on criteria for
    prioritizing species or species assemblages for monitoring. The
    criteria differed somewhat depending on the issue being addressed.
    When the focus is the trends themselves, the emphasis was on
    species/assemblages at risk (i.e., those that are threatened,
    endangered, or otherwise known to be declining), endemic species or
    species assemblages for which the Chicago Wilderness region is
    significant nationally and globally, charismatic species, and some
    invasive exotic species. In contrast, when the focus is on the
    trends serving as indicators of the health of the rest of the
    ecosystem, the emphasis was on conservative or remnant-dependent
    species, species with complex life cycles, and species that respond
    to overall habitat quality rather than the presence or absence of
    specific plant (or other host) species. In other words, monitoring
    should focus on species that are good indicators of habitat quality.
    It is likely that the many of the same species/assemblages will
    emerge as high priority for monitoring under both sets of criteria,
    and that these will include many of the assemblages listed above.

    The workshop participants also provided some additional criteria
    that can be characterized as pragmatic. When selecting species or
    assemblages for monitoring, consideration must be given as to the
    ease with which the species can be sampled and then identified.
    These issues are particularly relevant to insect and other
    invertebrate groups.

    *Summary of the Workshop Results*

    The workshop clearly identified the priority goals for regional
    monitoring as documenting trends in biodiversity or other measures
    of ecosystem health for both terrestrial and aquatic communities and
    selected animal species assemblages, and assessing the effectiveness
    of management. In addition, there was agreement that monitoring
    should provide at least some information about trends in
    biodiversity/health for all communities and more in-depth
    information for selected communities or sites. Consensus was easily
    reached on criteria for prioritizing aquatic communities/sites and
    terrestrial animal species assemblages for more intensive
    monitoring. In contrast, two different sets of criteria emerged for
    prioritizing terrestrial communities/sites for in-depth monitoring.
    One set focused on communities in the upper tiers of conservation
    targets for recovery found in the *Biodiversity Recovery Plan*,
    whereas the other focused on sites that contained high quality (INAI
    grades A and B) habitat, sites that had a high potential for
    restoration (high INAI grade C), and sites undergoing or soon to be
    undergoing restoration or other management. Due to the difficulties
    reaching consensus on these issues, little progress was made during
    the workshop on identifying indicators, although there was agreement
    that these should be both biotic and abiotic. Thus some of the
    issues that remain to be resolved early in the process of developing
    the regional monitoring plan include:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Applying the criteria to select specific aquatic communities/sites
    and animal assemblages for in-depth monitoring

-   Deciding how to address the two sets of priorities for in-depth
    monitoring of terrestrial communities

-   Selecting indicators to answer the priority questions for regional
    monitoring.

### Next Steps in Developing the Plan

At the end of the workshop, we discussed the next steps in developing a
regional monitoring plan for Chicago Wilderness. Two broad issues were
identified. These are completion of an inventory of natural communities
and development of the monitoring plan itself.

*Inventory Recommendation*

As discussed above, workshop participants strongly recommend that
Chicago Wilderness complete a comprehensive inventory of natural lands
and waters within the Chicago Wilderness area. This inventory is
urgently needed and should be completed as soon as possible. The
inventory should be GIS-based and include the current locations of
natural communities and provide some level of information about
community quality, perhaps using the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory
grading system. In addition to being an important snapshot of the status
of natural habitats in the Chicago region, such an inventory is needed
to guide monitoring activities (helping determine sampling locations,
for example), inform management and land use planning, and identify gaps
in our knowledge. Development of the inventory and monitoring plan
should proceed simultaneously.

There is a lot of existing information that can contribute to the
inventory, although much of it will have to be compiled from disparate
sources. For example, there are fairly recent land cover maps of the
region in GIS format, and plans are underway to prepare a detailed
vegetation map of Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore and vicinity (Rickie
White, personal communication). Many of the forest preserve districts
have detailed maps of their lands. The Illinois Department of Natural
Resources Natural Heritage Database contains information on INAI sites
and other high quality natural communities in that state. Marlin Bowles
(Morton Arboretum) recently conducted botanical inventories at many of
the terrestrial INAI sites. Together, these last two sources cover most
of the INAI grade A and B terrestrial communities in the Illinois
portion of the region. The first step in completing the inventory will
be to integrate these and other relevant data sources from all three
states and to use the result to identify gaps in our knowledge. Probably
the most extensive on-the-ground work will involve visiting potential
grade C sites and verifying their status.

*Monitoring Plan Recommendations*

1\. Assign responsibility for developing the plan.

The immediate next step in developing the regional monitoring plan is to
identify who will be responsible for developing the plan. Two
alternatives were discussed at the workshop. It may be possible to find
an existing or new working group or taskforce within Chicago Wilderness
that will voluntarily take on this responsibility. Alternatively, an
organization could be contracted to develop the plan. In either case, it
will be important to involve existing groups within Chicago Wilderness
like the Science and Natural Resources Management teams and the Regional
Monitoring and Aquatics taskforces. It may be appropriate for the group
responsible for developing the plan to work with a "steering committee"
consisting of representatives from these teams and taskforces. In
addition, there is abundant expertise within Chicago Wilderness as
exemplified by the groups convened for the Regional Report Card. This
expertise could be drawn into the process by inviting appropriate
individuals to participate in meetings or small workshops on particular
topics. In addition, it will be appropriate for the planning group to
regularly apprise these teams and taskforces, and the Chicago Wilderness
Steering Committee and Council, of its progress through a combination of
interim reports and presentations. It is critical that communication be
open throughout the process so Chicago Wilderness can continue to build
consensus on the plan.

More rapid progress toward completing the plan can be made if the
terrestrial and aquatic components are developed in parallel. This is
because there is relatively little overlap between groups of individuals
with expertise in these two areas. To ensure coordination between the
terrestrial and aquatic aspects of the plan, there should be extensive
and frequent communication between those working on the two components.
Having a single group with overarching responsibility for developing the
plan coordinate the two subgroups is probably the most effective way to
achieve a well-integrated plan.

2\. Assess existing data.

Throughout the workshop, various participants asserted that Chicago
Wilderness members and others are already gathering a lot of data
relevant to regional monitoring, and that bringing together existing
data will allow regional monitoring to move forward rapidly with little
additional investment. The extent to which this is true remains to be
demonstrated. Some information about existing data, albeit dated, can be
found in the report by Jennifer Shopland (Interviews With Chicago
Wilderness Stakeholders On Ecological Monitoring: A Summary of Efforts,
Issues, and Recommendations, 1999). More valuable is a report by Diane
Trgovcich-Zacok (Land Managers Monitoring Information Project, 2003).
Although this report contains some fairly detailed information about
existing monitoring, there are gaps in its coverage and it has little
information about how many sites are being monitored. A more recent
effort to bring together data was headed by Ed DeWalt, with the goal of
identifying data sources, their metadata, and the data management
systems in use.

Although these three studies contain information about existing
monitoring, they lack the detail needed to fully assess the extent of
relevant monitoring efforts. The most immediate task for the planning
group therefore will be determining how much data truly are available.
To get at this issue, the Trgovcich-Zacok and DeWalt studies should be
used as starting points for compiling more complete information about
the locations, habitats, protocols, frequencies, and other details of
existing monitoring. The answers to these questions will inform the rest
of the process of developing the plan. For example, if existing data are
abundant, the group will want to focus on indicators and indices that
can be extracted from these data, and on using protocols that already in
use to gather supplemental data. If existing data are scanty, however,
the choice of indicators, indices, and protocols will depend more on how
the necessary information can be gathered most efficiently, either
through the use of trained volunteers or professionals.

The Chicago Wilderness Aquatics Taskforce is proposing an aquatic data
"gap analysis" that would identify (but not collect) the region's
aquatic related data and point out where there are major gaps in
knowledge. Completing this project this year would be an important step
toward developing a regional monitoring plan for aquatic systems.

Several participants pointed out that bringing together the existing
data will not be a trivial technological task and that using existing
data will require some compromises. These issues are typical of any
meta-analysis and there is a body of literature that can help. Clearly
every effort should be made to use existing data insofar as they are
available and appropriate to the consortium's regional monitoring
priorities.

3\. Necessary components of the plan

When the planning group has a better sense of the availability and
suitability of existing data, it can then move on to developing the plan
itself. It will be important to make decisions on two issues the
workshop left unresolved, specifically

-   Selecting aquatic communities/sites and animal assemblages for
    in-depth monitoring, using the criteria agreed upon during the
    workshop; and

-   Deciding how to address the two sets of priorities for in-depth
    monitoring of terrestrial communities.

    In addition the regional monitoring plan will need to contain the
    following components:

    -   Indicators and indices that will be used, both for monitoring
        all communities and for in-depth monitoring of the selected
        communities

    -   Protocols for gathering data that are needed to fill gaps,
        including both biotic and abiotic conditions

    -   Sampling regimes that reflect the stratified randomization
        appropriate for the monitoring questions; strata may include
        such variables as community type, community quality, and control
        sites, as dictated by the specific question

    -   Quality control and assurance mechanisms to ensure data are
        reliable

    -   Data management mechanisms sufficient to bring together the data
        and support their long-term maintenance and accessibility

    -   Analysis and reporting goals so that results of monitoring can
        be used by managers, scientists, educators, policy makers, and
        others.

        The goal should be to have the monitoring plan completed within
        a year. Although this is an ambitious deadline, it is important
        both to maintain the momentum the workshop produced and to allow
        data collection to begin in 2006. Coordinated regional
        monitoring is long overdue, and Chicago Wilderness cannot afford
        to wait longer to have good data on the status and trends of the
        region's terrestrial and aquatic communities and the
        effectiveness of current management practices.

### Conclusions

The results of this workshop have advanced the development of regional
monitoring by Chicago Wilderness by providing consensus on the high
priority questions to be addressed by regional monitoring and criteria
for selecting aquatic communities/sites and animal assemblages for
intensive monitoring. Although consensus was not reached on criteria for
selecting terrestrial communities or sites for intensive monitoring, the
issues were clearly defined. Considerable work remains, including making
many decisions that will be controversial. But the workshop clearly
demonstrated that there is strong support for regional monitoring, and
this support can provide the momentum necessary to carry the planning
process to completion.

### Acknowledgements

Many people deserve credit for the success of this workshop. The Chicago
Wilderness Regional Monitoring and Aquatic taskforces consulted on the
organization of the workshop and helped recruit participants. Laurel
Ross arranged meeting space at the Field Museum and provided lunches for
the workshop participants. INHS staff helped develop the background
paper and provided technical support during the workshop. Susan Parks
provided excellent guidance as we organized the workshop and prepared
the surveys, and without her masterful facilitation we would have
accomplished far less during the workshop itself. She was ably assisted
by the other facilitators, Catherine Bendowitz, Elizabeth McCance, and
Chris Mulvaney. Elizabeth also shared her insights on survey design and
provided timely and constructive reviews of pre-and post-workshop
documents. Chris cheerfully provided invaluable logistical support
before, during, and after the workshop; without his assistance on myriad
details the workshop would not have happened. This project was funded
through a grant program supported by the USDA Forest Service
Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service, in support of Chicago Wilderness. USFWS and USFS
grants of federal monies are administered by the Illinois Conservation
Foundation.