CHICAGO WILDERNESS 2005 MONITORING PRIORITIES

If anyone is interested in pursuing this on behalf of VCW, please let Walt know. (Sent from CW in April 2004)

Chicago Wilderness has considerable funding and expertise they are willing to provide to our watershed if someone is willing to step forward and take the lead in communicating and organizing a response to the attached announcement.  I have some time and commitment to the idea of cataloguing and protecting the diversity in the watershed, and invite any who wish to participate in this endeavor to contact Christopher Mulvaney <cmulvaney@chicagobotanic.org>

Dear scientists, land managers, stewards, and monitors:

The Chicago Wilderness Regional Monitoring Taskforce has been charged with developing a list of monitoring questions that should be asked of each community type and species assemblage in Chicago Wilderness.  We need your help in developing and prioritizing the list of monitoring questions, and in identifying those communities and taxa for which monitoring should begin immediately.

The Taskforce has suggested that we first ask two Key Questions of each community type or species assemblage:

Key Questions:

1. What do we have and how is it distributed (i.e., how many acres of what key communities and species, and where are they)?
2. What condition is it in (by acreage of agreed upon quality grades)?

We can then ask more specific "sub-questions" (see list below) that address detailed components of condition, threats, management, trends, and so on.

Please tell us if there are questions you would add or remove, or changes you would make to listed items.  Then rank these questions in order of importance (1 = most important).  Then please list the community or taxon (see list below) for which you think addressing these questions is most urgent (this will help us develop the 2005 CW Work Plan).  Also give your 2nd and 3rd most urgent choices.  Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this.  Your input is critical to an effective monitoring Work Plan for Chicago Wilderness.

Monitoring Sub-questions:

For each community type:

1. How many acres do we have?  (This is part of Key Question 1.)
2. What percentage are in what condition (excellent, good, fair, poor, or unknown quality)?  (This is part of Key Question 2.)
3. Number (and acreage) of large sites, and sub-acreage for specific community types (e.g., 500 acres of grassland
            within a 1000 acre site).
4. How many large sites (and their acreage, including sub-acreage as above) are healthy and managed (needs further definition)?
5. Condition trends for high quality sites and the acreage getting better and worse.
6. Number (and acreage) of sites with invasive plants under control ("under control" to be defined for each community type).
7. Acreage burned as often as recommended by the CW fire model policy (or other standard?).
8. Number (and acreage) of sites that need deer control; that have effective deer control measures in place; and that don't need deer                          control.
9. Number (and acreage) of sites where deer damage to plants is decreasing over time.
10. Regionwide acres being sustained at "good" or higher quality by "maintenance" level management.

For each species assemblage:

1. Number/abundance targets (and trends) for individual species.
2. Number (and acreage) of sites with high quality assemblages of a given taxon (and trends).
3. Number of sites with no loss of abundance/diversity of a given taxon over time.
4. Number of sites with good representation of species from all of the different taxa expected on the site.

Below is the complete list of community types and species assemblages from the Biodiversity Recovery Plan. 
Those in CAPITALS are ranked highest priority in the Recovery Plan.

Terrestrial community types

WOODLAND,   FINE-TEXTURED SOIL SAVANNA,  MESIC SAND SAVANNA,   SAND PRAIRIE,  DOLOMITE PRAIRIE, 
PANNE,  GRAMINOID FEN,  FINE-TEXTURED-SOIL PRAIRIE
Upland Forest,  Floodplain Forest,  Flatwoods,  Fine-textured-soil shrubland,   Sand shrubland,  Gravel prairie,  Marsh,  Bog
Sedge Meadow,  Seep and spring,  Eroding cliff,  Dolomite bluff,  Beach,  Foredune,  High Dune

Aquatic community types

Continuous flow headwater stream,  Intermittent flow headwater stream,  High gradient low order stream,  Low gradient low order stream,  High gradient mid order stream,  Low gradient mid order stream,  Natural lake,  Lake Michigan,  Glacial lake,  Bottomland
Vernal pond,  Manmade lake

Species assemblages

BIRDS OF MOIST GRASSLANDS (WITH AND WITHOUT SHRUBS),   SAVANNA BIRDS,  OPEN WOODLAND BIRDS
SAVANNA REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS (HEREAFTER 'HERPS'),  MARSH HERPS,  SEDGE MEADOW, FEN, AND DOLOMITE PRAIRIE HERPS,   DRY AND MESIC BLACKSOIL PRAIRIE INSECTS,   DRY AND MESIC SAND PRAIRIE INSECTS,  WET PRAIRIE INSECTS,  SAND SAVANNA INSECTS,  WET BLACKSOIL SAVANNA AND WOODLAND INSECTS,  DRY BLACKSOIL SAVANNA AND WOODLAND INSECTS
Birds of dry grasslands,   Hemi-marsh birds,  Shoreline birds,  Closed upland woods birds,  Closed bottomland woods birds,  Pinewood birds,  Forest and woodland herps,  Grassland herps,  Sand savanna and sand prairie herps,  Panne herps,  High gradient stream herps,  River, lake, and pond herps,  Dry and mesic gravel prairie insects,  Fen insects,  Marsh insects,  Sedge meadow insects,  Bog insects,  Floodplain forest insects,  Upland forest insects,  Foredune insects,  Mammals of concern (fourteen listed in the Biodiversity Recovery Plan),  Endangered and threatened species