363.7009773 B868 ‘4 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ILLinois’ Logical Meaory RR FOR Long-Texa Ecosystew MONITORING BNGSMAME AAAI Y WMAYRy OMe Clay dives .. Library Building Ilinois' Biological A Framework for Long-Term Ecos A product of the Critical Trends Assessment Illinois Department of Natural Res« Office of Realty and Environmental f Energy and Environmental Assessment 524 S. Second Street Springfield, [linois 62701 2000 Authors: Ben Barber, Dana Curtiss, Da Publication Design: Carolyn P. N Maps: Liane Suloway Photos: Michael R. Jeffords, Carolyn P. Nixon, Philip and Illinois EcoWatch Network reference photos The Illinois Department of Natural Resources does not discriminate based upon race, color, national origin, age, sex. religion, or disability in its programs, services, activities, and facilities. If you believe that you have been discriminated against or if you wish additional information, please contact the Department at (217) 785-0067 or the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Equal Employment, Washington, D.C. 20240. Department of Natural Resources information is available to the hearing impaired by calling DNR’s Telecommunications Device for the Deaf: (217) 782-0175. The Ameritech Relay Number is (800) 526-0844. Printed by the authority of the State of Hlinois. Printed with soy ink on recycled and recyclable paper. Michael R. Jeffords The state’s ecosystems are evolving from complex natural systems to simple, less stable, managed ones. “If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what we do and how to doit... .” onitoring the condition and extent of Illinois ecosystems was probably far from the mind of Abraham Lincoln when he made this simple yet powerful observa- tion. Nevertheless, his words were the guiding principle on which the Depart- ment of Natural Resources’ Critical Trends Assessment Program (CTAP) was conceived in 1992. This first-ever comprehensive assessment of Illinois’ environment set the stage for an on- going monitoring program involving conservation minded citizens and scientists dedicated to improving the state’s scientific knowledge base. The program is already making large amounts of new information readily accessible to researchers, landowners, policy-makers, and the public. CTAP Abraham Lincoln databases, reports, and other resources will be vital assets to public and private decision-makers as they consider strategies for managing environmental resources in a manner that benefits Illinois citizens now and in the future. Where we are and whither we are tending... Determining what is known and not known about ecological conditions was the focus of the first phase of CTAP. The results, detailed in a seven volume technical report released in 1994, documented a number of disturbing conditions. Although many conven- tional sources of pollution have been reduced in Illinois, the condition of the state’s natural ecosystems is rapidly declining as a result of fragmentation and continual stress. More importantly, despite having amassed one of the largest and most comprehensive collections of environmental data anywhere in the world, state natural resource agencies lack sufficient information for accurately identifying and assessing statewide, regional, and site-specific trends in ecosystem health. Without knowing “where we are and whither we are tending,” policy-makers and land managers alike are faced with making complex and often costly decisions without the benefit of sound scientific information. Developing a Long-Term Monitoring Framework Developing a system for the collection of such information 1s the goal of CTAP IIthe second phase of CTAP. Specifically, CTAP has designed a multifaceted, ecosystem-based monitor- ing framework. This framework builds on a Statistically valid sample of major natural ecosystems within Illinois. It assesses both the condition and extent of forest, grassland, wetland, and stream ecosystems at statewide and regional levels. These assessments establish baseline conditions against which future changes in ecological conditions can be measured. They also provide enhanced opportunities for ecosystem, habitat, or species-specific research and analysis. Within this framework, extent is measured by the Illinois Land Cover Database developed using satellite remote sensing systems with advanced computer technology such as geo- graphic information systems (GIS). The database defines 20 broad categories, including three agricultural, five urban, five wetland, three woodland, one water, two grassland, and one barren/ exposed land classes. A baseline Land Cover Atlas was initially developed in 1994-95. Different regions of the state are being updated annually, with the entire database being updated on a five- year cycle. Condition is measured using selected ecological indicators and composite indices collected from a random sample of sites throughout the state by professional scientists and citizen volunteers. Vital to the success of this framework is the creation of a partnership that links the efforts of CTAP research scientists with Citizen Scientists trained through the Illinois EcoWatch Network (see sidebar “Tlinois EcoWatch Network”). Each year, CTAP scientists conduct detailed biodiversity surveys Monitoring Framework Professional Data Other data: Fisheries Forestry Natural Heritage IEPA IDOT Local / Regional Organizations Analysis and Reports Citizen Scientist Data Other users: Ecosystem Partnerships Forest Preserves Districts Schools Citizens / Landowners Site Supervisors Land Managers USDA Forest Service State Agencies Database CTAP Il combines professional and volunteer monitoring into a single, unified monitoring framework. on 30 randomly selected sites in each of 4 ecosystem types. At the same time, EcoWatch Citizen Scientists collect reliable scientific information on ecosystem conditions and biological indicators from hundreds of additional sites. Both levels of monitoring present distinct advantages. Monitoring by CTAP scientists provides detailed information and the power of trend detection necessary to draw meaningful conclusions about ecosystem health. Citizen Scientist monitoring, on the other hand, allows for more frequent monitoring over many more sites. The value of these approaches is further enhanced through their integration under a single, unified monitoring framework. Combining the scientific community's expertise with well- trained, highly motivated volunteers increases CTAP’s data collection capabilities from only a few dozen to literally hundreds of sites per year. The large volume of data produced as a result increases the speed and accuracy with which scientists can assess changes in ecosystem health. Key features of this monitoring partnership are summarized in the CTAP Monitor- ing Programs table on pages 6 and 7. Land Cover of Illinois eae Forest- Deciduous, closed canopy eS Forest- Deciduous, open canopy el Forest- Coniferous (9) Wedtland- Shallow marsh HR Wetland Deep marsh Wetland- Swamp naa Wetland- Forested (ae | Wetland- Shallow open water (ayy Open water deeper than 2m HR Urban- High density FS] Urban- Medium high density [| Urban- Medium density [|_| Urban- Low density (RD Urban- Grassland (ae Ag- Row crops |_| Ag- Small grains [_] Ag- Rural grassland Ag- Orchards and nurseries Barren and exposed land Using satellite remote sensing systems and advanced GIS technology, the Illinois Land Cover Database provides a dynamic tool for identifying critical changes in land use patterns over time. Table 1. Sampling methods for CTAP scientists and EcoWatch Citizen Scientists closely resemble one another but va CTAP/ EcoWatch Monitoring Programs Ecosystem Number of Sites Monitored * Sampling Frequency and Timeframe Professional Professional Volunteer STREAMS 30 per year 100 per year Every 5 Years Every Year 150 total 100 total April 1 — June 1 May 1 — June 30 30 per year 50 per year Every 5 Years Every 2 Years FORESTS 150 total 100 total May 15 — June 30 Spring: April 7 — May 25 Fall: August 1 — September 30 RA LANDS 30 per year 25 per year Every 5 Years Every 2 Years G SS 150 total 50 total August 1 — August 31 August 15 — October 1 30 per year 25 per year Every 5 Years Every 2 Years WETLANDS 150 total 50 total July 1 — July 31 July 1 — September 15 *Includes randomly selected priority sites only; does not include volunteer-selected Citizen Scientist sites. Illinois EcoWatch Network: Linking Citizens with Scientists As extensive as they are, existing state databases are insufficient to accurately assess ecosystem health on a statewide basis. The Illinois EcoWatch Network addresses this information gap by linking the efforts of CTAP research scientists and trained volunteers— referred to as Citizen Scientists—to collect the data necessary to track long-term trends in ecosystem health. In addition to broaden- ing the scope of citizen involvement in ecological research efforts, EcoWatch provides state scientists with comprehensive informa- tion to supplement professional scientific databases. RiverWatch is the largest and longest running program. It was established in response to citizen requests for a volunteer monitoring program that would provide standardized monitoring protocols and produce quality assured data. Since monitoring began in 1995, nearly 1,500 Citizen Scientists have collected data on more than 600 different stream sites. ForestWatch was designed in 1996 and revised in 1997. Upland and bottomland forest sites are monitored once every two years. Since 1997, over 500 Citizen Scientists have monitored more than 102 sites. PrairieWatch was developed in 1999. Due to the limited number and sensitive nature of Illinois prairies, suitable monitoring sites are limited as compared to RiverWatch and ForestWatch. Monitoring includes a census of indicator butterfly species. Wetland Watch and SoilWatch are under development. WetlandWatch surveys wetland indicator plants and includes procedures specific to forested wetlands (swamps) in southern Illinois. SoilWatch focuses on soil ecology in terrestrial environments. It uses biological monitoring as a low-cost, low-tech approach to measuring soil quality on a continual basis. UrbanWatch represents the nation’s first large-scale, volunteer monitoring program focused on urban greenspaces. Developed in partnership with The Field Museum, it is designed to generate biodiversity profiles for urban parks, corporate campuses, golf courses, cemeteries, and other sites. UrbanWatch is an ideal springboard for more rigorous surveys offered through other EcoWatch monitor- ing programs. Piloting will take place in 2000 in Chicago. n terms of sampling scale, monitoring frequency, and level of precision. Sampling Unit and Size Level of Identification Professional Volunteer Professional Wadeable 50 m reach, minimum 10 m upstream from nearest bridge Wadeable 200 ft reach, minimum 100 ft upstream from nearest bridge Three 50 m transects; circular study area with minimum 150 m radius Three 50 m transects on sites measuring 150 m x 150 m; minimum 50% tree / shrub cover ——!! Twenty quadrats measuring '/, m°, generally along a single transect; 500 m? site with maximum 50% tree or shrub cover One 50 m transect on a minimum 1000 mé? site with maximum 50% tree or shrub cover Benthic macroinvertebrates, fishes, physical and chemical characteristics Trees, shrubs, ground cover; birds and terrestrial insects; disturbance sensitive and non- native species Trees, shrubs, ground cover (grasses, sedges and forbs); birds and terrestrial insects; native / non-native and disturbance sensitive species Twenty quadrats measuring '/, m®, generally along a single transect; 500 m? site with maximum 50% woody shrub or tree cover One 50 m transect on a minimum 2500 mé site Michael R. Jeffords Trees, shrubs, ground cover; birds and terrestrial insects; disturbance sensitive and non- native species Volunteer Professional Volunteer Benthic macroinvertebrates, physical characteristics Species Order / Family Trees, shrubs, disturbance-sensitive and invasive ground layer species Species Michael R. Jeffords Trees, shrubs, grasses, sedges, forbs, disturbance-sensitive and invasive ground layer species; butterflies tp Trees, shrubs, disturbance-sensitive and invasive ground layer species Species Genus / Species Genus / Species Species Genus / Species Even though the natural areas in Illinois are some of the most studied in the country, long-term, systematic data collection is needed to fully understand the changes that are taking place within our native habitats, such as forests (left), streams (center), and wetlands (right). Ecological Indicators: Taking the Pulse of Ecosystem Health Illinois is uniquely situated at America’s ecological crossroads. Five distinct eco-regions or “biomes” come together within our state. They include the eastern deciduous forest, western great plain, northern boreal forest, Ozark uplift, and southern coastal plain. This patchwork of biomes is a melting pot for an extremely diverse range of flora and fauna. As host to more than 54,000 species of native organisms, Illinois contains some of the richest natural areas in the entire Midwest. Given the abundance and variety of species throughout Illinois, using an inventory approach to track ecosystem health is both time consuming and expensive. Instead, scientists have devised a set of key ecological indica- tors to measure ecological trends and biodiversity. Indicators include native and non-native species known to reflect the condition of biotic integrity. Certain physical parameters describing habitat structure are also examined. Select species can be used as indicators themselves or as components of composite indices, which provide a snapshot of ecosystem health. Changes in the abundance or distribution of indicator organisms also reflect underlying changes in ecological factors influencing biodiversity. Ecological indicators offer many advantages over other methods of measuring ecosystem health. They tend to be highly sensitive to small changes in ecosystem quality and allow condi- tions over a wide area to be assessed in a short period of time. Moreover, indicator-based monitoring methods are widely recognized and accepted among the scientific community, and are easily adapted for use by Citizen Scientists. Five major taxanomic groups have been selected from which the primary CTAP/EcoWatch ecological indicators will be developed: vascular plants, birds, terrestrial insects, fishes, and aquatic macroinvertebrates (see Table 2 on page 10). Vascular plants are being monitored in forest, wetland, and Ecowatch Citizen Scientists collect aquatic macroinvertebrates from an Illinois stream. grassland habitats to detect changes in biotic integrity. Encroachment by invasive and/or exotic species, disease. or altered fire regimes can lead to changes in community structure, the loss of sensitive native plant species, and the homogenization of historically diverse plant communities. Plant community indicators include the presence of “disturbance sensitive” native species, the diversity of native plant species, and the percent cover of exotic versus native plants. Other indicators are also being investigated. Long-term monitoring will reveal patterns of change within plant communities. Bird populations are also being monitored in forests, wetlands, and grasslands. Indicators include, but are not limited to: the abundance and diversity of habitat specialists (for example, species that can only survive in wetlands); threatened and endan- gered species: species sensitive to fragmentation and other forms of habitat alteration: and the ratio of cowbirds (brood parasites) to host species. Because birds are highly mobile, these indicators can reflect landscape conditions that extend beyond the boundaries of the habitat patches being investigated. Terrestrial insects are the third taxa group being monitored in forests, wetlands and grasslands. They are the most diverse group of terrestrial organisms, both in number of species and in behavioral and ecological traits. CTAP is the first statewide, long-term monitoring program in the U.S. to incorporate data on a wide variety of arthropod taxa (primarily insects). Because insects are so diverse, CTAP research scientists are using indicators at two scales: the diversity of morpho- species (species that appear the same based on body structure) and the diversity of homopterans (leafhoppers, plant hoppers, cicadas, etc.). Homopter- ans are diverse, occupy a wide variety of habitats and exhibit a range of habitat specialization, making them a useful surrogate for insects as a whole. In aquatic habitats, fishes are poten- tially good indicators of long-term impacts that occur over a range of scales, from individual stream sites to the watershed as a whole. They feed at various trophic levels (plants, insects, other fish), and are consumed by humans and other terrestrial species for food. Fishes are relatively easy to collect, are directly related to water quality standards used by many government agencies, and account for nearly half of the endangered vertebrate species and subspecies in the U.S. Moreover, environmental tolerance levels, life histories, and geographic distributions are better known for fishes than for any other group of freshwater organisms. Indicators generated from fish data include species richness, relative abundance, community structure (ratios of the different fish types in each sample), and the diversity and abundance of hybrids and exotic species. Aquatic insects and other macroinverte- brates are also being monitored to assess the quality of aquatic habitats. Because sensitive aquatic insects are less mobile than fish and potentially respond more quickly to changes in stream health, they are better suited for interpreting site-specific impacts than are fish. Macro-invertebrates are abundant in most streams, while the numbers of fish in the smallest streams may be meager. Indicators include species richness, relative abundance, community structure, and dominance. These data form the basis for composite indices such as the Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index (MBI), the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI), and the Ephemeroptera (mayflies)-Plecoptera (stoneflies)-Trichoptera (caddisflies) index (EPT). While the use of ecological indicators to track trends in ecosystem health is not a new concept, Illinois is unique in its comprehensive use of biological indicators to assess all major aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Many of the indicators have been borrowed or adapted from those used in other states; others are being tested for the first time in Illinois. The indicators and sampling methods for each ecosystem type are being reviewed and modified where necessary to ensure they are effective in measuring conditions in Illinois ecosystems. Carolyn P. Nixon Michael R. Jeffords Michael R. Jeffords Garlic mustard (top) is an exotic weed that is replacing native wildflowers in Illinois forests; stoneflies (middle) are often abundant in clean, healthy streams; and pale purple coneflower (bottom) can disappear from a disturbed prairie. 10 Table 2. Key ecological indicators can be examined independently and combined to produce additional indices for assessin g ecosystem health. CTAP/EcoWatch Ecological Indicators STREAMS \ Fishes === FORESTS GRASSLANDS Plants Plants Species richness Species dominance Percent exotic (non-native) species Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Species richness Species richness Species dominance Species dominance Community structure Community structure Coverage of non-native, sensitive and threatened / endangered species Coverage of non-native, sensitive and threatened / endangered species Species turnover (e.g., maple takeover) Species turnover Index of Floristic Quality (IFQ Index of Floristic Quality (IFQ) WETLANDS Plants Species richness Species dominance Community structure Coverage of non-native, sensitive and threatened / endangered species Species turnover ) Index of Floristic Quality (IFQ) Benthic Macroinvertebrates Terrestrial Insects Terrestrial Insects Terrestrial Insects Taxa richness Taxa dominance Macroinvertebrate Biotic Index Hilsenhoff Biotic Index Richness of morpho-species * Richness of morpho-species Presence of Auchenorrhychus Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Arthropod funcitonal diversity Arthropod funcitonal diversity index index Index of rarity, endemicity, and Index of rarity, endemicity, an simplicity for Auchenorrhychus Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Presence of Auchenorrhychus simplicity for Auchenorrhychus Richness of morpho-species * Presence of Auchenorrhychus Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Arthropod funcitonal diversity index d | Index of rarity, endemicity, and simplicity for Auchenorrhychus Homoptera (leaf hoppers) Physical / Chemical Parameters Birds Birds —— Birds Stream width, depth, discharge Temperature © Dissolved oxygen pH Conductivity Habitat Quality Index Diversity / density of habitat Diversity / density of habitat dependent species dependent species Diversity / density of area Diversity / density of area sensitive species sensitive species Presence of threatened / Presence of threatened / endangered species endangered species * Species that appear the same based on body structure Philip L. Nixon such as this burrowing mayfly ny programs. Diversity / density of habitat dependent species Diversity / density of area sensitive species Presence of threatened endangered species Changes in abundance of indicator species, mph, can be tracked by CTAP’s long-term monitoring Random Site Selection Assessing the condition and extent of natural environments is a daunting task in a state as big as Illinois. Document- ing changes in Illinois ecosystems requires that data be gathered over extended periods of time. They must also be gathered in a way that supports drawing conclusions from a representa- tive sample of sites. To achieve this goal, a systematic, statistically reliable sampling design was developed using Geographic Information System technology, current land cover maps, and other databases to identify potential sampling locations. To select Citizen Scientist monitoring sites, Illinois’ 56,000 public land survey sections (each covering approxi- mately one square mile) were randomly ranked for each of the four ecosystem types. To select professional monitoring sites, more than 1,700 townships (each covering approximately 36 square miles) were used. In order of rank, several potential sampling locations were randomly identified within each section or township and subsequently evaluated in the field. Working from the resulting lists, sites that met safety, accessibility, size, and other habitat- specific criteria are considered suitable for monitoring. Sites are approved for monitoring once landowner permission to access the property was obtained. One hundred sites each have been targeted for annual monitoring under the ForestWatch and RiverWatch programs. Due to the delicate nature and limited number of suitable prairie and wetland ecosystems, fewer sites are targeted under PrairieWatch and WetlandWatch. These randomly selected Citizen Scientist sites will be combined with more than 700 volun- teer-selected sites contained in the EcoWatch Network database. For professional monitoring sites, sampling occurs on 30 sites per year for 5 years. Scientists return to the initial sites on the sixth year, then repeat the cycle. This process results in 150 sites Sampling sites are randomly selected using Geographic Information System and Global Positioning System technology. Chuck Wheeler being monitored for each habitat once With over 90% of Illinois’ land in private ownership, the vast majority of selected sites are on private property. Prior to monitoring, landowner permission to access the property is obtained for all sites. Scientific collection permits and other special use permits are obtained where necessary. Since 1994, hundreds of Illinois landowners and land management agencies at all levels have supported the CTAP process by allowing research scientists and Citizen Scientists access to their land. 11 12 Each year 30 randomly selected sites are monitored by CTAP research scientists in each of 4 habitat types—forest, wetland, grassland, and stream. These sites are monitored on a five-year cycle; for example, sites sampled in 1997 will be resampled in 2002, etc. Site selection consisted of randomly ranking Public Land Survey Townships for each of the four habitat types, as illustrated on the four maps below. Within townships, potential sampling sites were also randomly selected and ranked. CTAP research scientists evaluate sites beginning with rank | until reaching the first suitable site; one site is sampled in each township. FOREST Forested land was identified using the deciduous, coniferous, and forested wetland classes of the Land Cover of Illinois database. For this monitoring program, forests had to be at least 20 acres in size and have a minimum width of 200 meters. WETLAND Potential sampling locations for wetlands were determined using the digital Illinois Wetlands Inventory database. Potential wetland sampling sites had to be dominated by emergent vegetation and greater than two acres in size. GRASSLAND Grasslands were identified using rural and urban grassland classes of the Land Cover of Illinois database. Rural grassland includes pastures, hayfields, idle fields, and non-agricultural land such as reclaimed mineland, road and railroad right-of-ways, and remnant prairies. Urban grassland includes open space, parks, and golf courses in urban areas. STREAM The Illinois Streams Information System (ISIS), a digital database of Illinois streams, was used as the basis for identification of stream sampling sites. The database includes streams draining areas greater than 10 square miles and is based on USGS 1:100,000 data. Each stream is represented by discrete segments beginning and ending at the public land survey section lines or at stream confluences. Forest A CTAP botanist collects voucher specimens that will be added to the Illinois Natural History Survey’s extensive herbarium collection. Ecowatch Sites Potential Sections for Sampling (statewide rank 1- 100) * ~ForestWatch * RiverWatch For Citizen Scientist monitoring (RiverWatch and ForestWatch), 100 randomly selected sites are to be sampled throughout the state, as shown on the map above. Public Land Survey sections were randomly ranked for sampling order. The Land Cover of Illinois, the Illinois Streams Information System, the Illinois Wetlands Inventory, and other databases were utilized to determine potential sampling sites within the sections Quality Assurance Producing reliable scientific informa- tion is central to CTAP’s long-term monitoring program. Data quality is maintained through extensive quality assurance measures. Because some of the protocols developed for use with CTAP are being tested for the first time, on-going efforts to determine how well they measure ecosystem health are necessary. Most Citizen Scientists have no prior experience in the collection of scientific data. This makes training. review, and data verification especially important. Many quality assurance efforts focus on the validity of data collected from Citizen Scientist sites, which compose more than two-thirds of all CTAP I monitoring sites. While quality assurance is stressed throughout EcoWatch, it begins with the monitor- ing procedures themselves. Equipment, sampling methods, and indicators for all EcoWatch monitoring programs are developed, tested, and reviewed by professional scientists. In many cases, Citizen Scientist sampling protocols are identical to those used by CTAP research scientists; others are stream- lined versions of more complex a w professional methods. This ensures a high level of compatibility between professional and volunteer data. Citizen Scientists are required to complete a comprehensive training program before they can monitor and submit data. Training in each program typically lasts 6-8 hours and includes field- and lab-based learning. Follow- up practice and review sessions are offered periodically throughout the year. EcoWatch Trainers are routinely available to answer questions and provide technical support during monitoring periods. Citizen Scientists receive on-site assistance during their first monitoring season, and supervised open-lab sessions are available to assist all volunteers with specimen identifica- tion and data submission. Data verification occurs at three levels. First, Citizen Scientist datasheets are reviewed for completeness and accuracy, once by Citizen Scientist group leaders and again by EcoWatch Trainers. Next, all data are entered through an on-line data entry system that includes automated quality control checks. Finally, approximately one- third of all Citizen Scientists are randomly selected to submit macroinvertebrate specimens or leaf collections for accuracy checks by program technical staff. Data quality is also a chief concern of CTAP’s professional monitoring program. CTAP research scientists have extensive experience and training in the systematics of the groups they are studying, and their professional opinions are relied upon for proper identifications. They also make extensive use of the collections housed at INHS to verify identifications. In many cases, samples collected from the field are incorporated into the Survey’s permanent collections. Sampling protocols are well documented and designed to be repeatable in order to reduce observer-dependent differences in the data collection process. Cross checking and examination of outlier data points (both manually and with computer programs) help minimize data entry error. Finally, data analyses and research reports are peer reviewed by INHS and other colleagues prior to their official release. Quality Control Measures Implemented by CTAP Volunteer QA/QC * Professional review of equipment, protocols, and indicators * Certified trainers ¢ Comprehensive training ¢ Practice and review sessions * On-site field assistance ¢ Supervised specimen identification sessions * Electronic data entry * Random verification of sample collections Professional QA/QC ¢ Use of Survey collections to verify samples * Vouchering * Automated cross checks ¢ Examination of outliers * Peer review Beyond the data verification process, CTAP staff periodically conduct replication and comparison studies to analyze specific data quality issues over the long term. These studies require the collaborative efforts of Citizen Scientists, EcoWatch Trainers and CTAP research scientists. In replication studies, EcoWatch Trainers replicate Citizen Scientist sampling at randomly selected monitoring sites and compare the resulting data sets to measure how well Citizen Scientists are adhering to standardized data collection procedures. In comparison studies, research scientists compare Citizen Scientist data to their own from the same site to determine how accurately volunteer data reflect ecosystem health. To date, quality assurance reviews have produced encouraging results. Citizen Scientist data verification has docu- mented identification accuracy rates that exceed 80%. Replication studies have identified ways to reduce variabil- ity in stream habitat characterization. Comparison studies have confirmed high levels of precision and significant correlation between Citizen Scientist and professional data for certain key parameters. Data quality review and additional quality assurance measures will continue to be implemented where appropriate to assure the highest quality data possible. To ensure high quality data, extensive quality assurance and control (QA/QC) measures have been instituted. Many of Joint Professional / Volunteer QA/QC * Replication studies (trainer / volunteer) ¢ Comparison studies (professional / volunteer) 14 these efforts focus on the validity of Citizen Scientist data, while others are common to both professional and volunteer monitoring. Data Analysis and Use Compiling, analyzing, and reporting the results of CTAP research can be as challenging as collecting the data itself. Professional and volunteer data from hundreds of sites covering four different ecosystems must be merged into a series of reports and other products that present research findings in easy-to-use formats for a variety of audiences. Charged with this task is a data analysis team consisting of CTAP research scientists at the Illinois Natural History Survey and DNR’s Office of Realty and Environmental Planning. The team also includes specialists in GIS mapping, statistical analysis, technical writing, and editing. Their products include annual research summaries, statewide and regional assessment reports, and ecosystem updates designed to address a range of questions concerning the condition and extent of the state’s ecological re- sources. For example: Michael R. Jeffords Tracking the changes that are taking place in a habitat, such as this Illinois prairie, is important when developing a management plan. » Where are the state’s highest quality ecosystems? » How are the state’s disturbance- sensitive species faring in forests, prairies, wetlands, and streams? * Which habitats are most disturbed by human activities? » What are the most threatening invasive species? Where are they located and how is their distribution changing over time? » How successful are regional and watershed-based ecosystem manage- ment and restoration efforts in improv- ing ecosystem quality? * How successful are local restoration projects such as streambank stabiliza- tion, buffer strips, or controlled burns in increasing ecosystem health and biodiversity? CTAP’s Phase I summary and technical reports, Illinois Land Cover Atlas, Inventory of Resource Rich Areas in Illinois, and regional assessment reports provide a firm foundation for addressing these and other concerns. These reports will culminate in a comprehensive Critical Trends Assess- ment Report released once every three to five years. CTAP reports and data files are currently available through the internet on the Illinois Natural Resources Information System (INRIN). Addi- tional on-line features, such as on-line mapping, user-defined data queries, and integration of CTAP data with other statewide and regional databases, will be developed as resources allow. In the future, data collected through the CTAP/EcoWatch long-term monitoring program will be accessible through a centralized data-sharing framework. Development of this framework will incorporate the efforts of a diverse team of data management technicians, GIS specialists, scientists, and other natural resource professionals. It will also rely heavily on a wide variety of information management and other tools made possible by the internet. These tools will provide structure for the continued collection, analysis, and dissemination of biological resource information for a variety of audiences. ... What we do and how to do it. CTAP represents Illinois’ first attempt at establishing meaningful baseline information against which future ecological conditions can be measured. As the first phase of CTAP described the reality of ecosys- tem decline in Illinois, a more comprehensive approach emerged under CTAP II for assessing the condition of the state’s ecological resources. Data generated from the use of biological indicators is supporting voluntary, incentive-based programs focusing on whole ecosystems to provide a blueprint for “what we do and how to do it.” Through CTAP II, professional and volunteer monitors will continue to provide reliable scientific information essential for the long-term preservation of Illinois® rich biological heritage. 15 gat Published by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources Office of Realty and Environmental Planning with assistance from the Illinois Natural History Survey. For more information about CTAP, ‘3 1 call (217) 524-0500 or e-mail ctap2@dnrmail.state.il.us. Documents are also available on the * World Wide Web at http://dnr.state.il.us/orep/inrin.