Plan Title page

Natural Areas Management Plan

 

Jarvis Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Lincoln Park

located south of Addison Drive and east of Recreation Drive

Prepared by:

Stewards: Terry Schilling (co-steward, lead writer)
Charlotte Newfeld (co-steward)
Associate Stewards: Cathey Kasper, Joslyn Zost

Chicago Park District Staff

Date
started: 1 September 2009
tentative completion: 1 July 2012

Natural Area Program

This text is verbatim (although I have applied some web styling to it). Sections that look like this, and the Table of Contents itself, are direcly from the Natural Areas Management Plan template.

Chicago Park District Natural Areas Program

• Provide goals for the overall program
• Describe how urban natural areas differ from other natural areas plans (created, other pressures,
  importance of aesthetics)
• Map of all sites (addresses in appendix), use map from the Nature Brochure
• Explain how the program is part of Chicago Wilderness and GIV, Leave No Child Inside
• Explain IBA, USFWS Urban Migratory Bird Treaty, Nature and Wildlife Plan, and other special
  designations and partnerships

Plan Preface

I've made small editorial changes to this page, numbering the bullet points and titled them "Sections" to make it easier to refer to. I've also added the chart referenced in #2. This section will mostly be completed by CPD staff, but I'll start to fill things in based on our discussions and meetings. However, this section of the final published plan will undoubtedly look somewhat different.

Table of Contents

This covers 3 pages in the original outline, but again, I'm including it here verbatim as one page. Of course, I've done some web formatting and styling. I'll eventually be creating links from this page to the following pages, where my drafts of the apprpriate sections will be found.

Table of Contents

Chicago Park District Natural Areas program

Preface

Table of Contents

1. Vision/Goals
   
   1. Identify Management Goals (Provide cultural benefits, Improve habitat function)
   2. Short term vision (zero to five years)
   3. Long term vision (optimal condition, time depends on each site)
2. Site description and history
   
   1. Original land use and other historical aspects
   2. Origin/creation of nature area
   3. Is the nature area part of a large park?
3. Current conditions
   
   1. Habitat classifications and management units (dune, prairie, woodland, etc.), include aerial with boundaries and labels of each unit (GIS map).
      
      1. How large is the nature area and management units?
      2. What habitats (community types) are present at this nature area?
   2. Soils (if data available)
   3. Hydrology (if data available)
   4. Wildlife (whatever is applicable)
      
      1. Important bird habitats, inventory of bird presence, if BCN data exists (in appendix)
      2. Insects
      3. Coyotes, foxes, etc
      4. Nuisance wildlife (rabbits, beavers, raccoons)
   5. Vegetation
      
      1. Description of what is present; inventory in appendix, if available
      2. Plants of concern, if applicable
      3. Ecological threats (weeds, human disturbance, nuisance wildlife)
   6. Connectivity, current and/or potential, to other natural areas, if applicable
   7. Other baseline inventory based on measures of success in section “Management”
   8. Special Conditions
4. Related plans, guidelines, partnerships
   
   1. Biodiversity Recovery Plan, Nature and Wildlife Plan, etc
   2. Partnerships (Audubon, etc)
5. Installation History (maps, plant lists, etc)
   
   1. Describe when/ how the nature area was created? (Installation maps, etc.)
   2. Create timeline for past activities, if it makes sense for the site
   3. Plant list, photos, etc will be in the appendix
6. List of public uses
   
   1. Who are the main users or constituents of this nature area?
      
      1. Stewardship
      2. Nature education/programming, location to nearby school
      3. Passive recreation
   2. Issues of concern, human dimension (safety, aesthetics, nuisance wildlife feeding, water quality, etc.)
7. Infrastructure Information
   
   1. What infrastructure is present at this nature area (trails, signage, permanent fencing, bird viewing platforms, aeration systems, bird baths)
   2. Include GIS map with locations
   3. Specifications or descriptions for products for easy replacement/repair if/when necessary (include in appendix)
8. Management
   
   1. Objectives
      
      1. Provide social benefits
         
         1. Aesthetics (color, fencing)
         2. Access (trails, viewing platforms)
         3. Education (signage)
         4. Passive recreation (birding, nature photography)
         5. Stewardship
      2. Improve ecological function
         
         1. Ecosystem services (Habitat for birds, insect, mammals)
         2. Ecosystem health
   2. Targets for specific objectives
      More birds, more color/flowers, better seasonal interest, etc
   3. Threats to the target
      Invasive species, Trampling, Erosion, Nuisance Wildlife
   4. Actions to address threats
      Supplemental Seed, native herbaceous planting, seed collection, erosion control, prescribed burning, mowing, herbicide application, mechanical weed control, woody vegetation control, dredging, etc
   5. Timeframe for Actions
   6. Measures of Success
      Monitoring parameters to measure success of achieving objectives or targets
      *Items b-f would be also in a table specific to the site that is reviewed in the beginning of each year to set priorities, budgets and guide specific actions. In the body of the document, there will be an explanation of the targets, threats, actions, timeline, and measures of success.
   7. Stewardship Activities
      
      1. Is there a steward? If so, how long has the steward been involved at the nature area?
      2. Describe general stewardship activities
   8. Annual Updates (based on table) to the management plan (including maps, species lists, etc)
      *Along with the table of actions, this is where the management plan will be updated year by year, with plants lists, maps, etc in Appendices.
9. Glossary and Definitions
   
   1. How we define the different habitat
   2. What is the definition of a Bird and Butterfly Sanctuary?
   3. Other terms, such as ecosystem services, etc
10. Acknowledgements
    Stewards, Advisory committee, Reviewers, Volunteers
11. Appendices
    
    1. Plant/seed lists
    2. Maps
    3. Invasive species lists
    4. Photos
12. Bibliography

Vision, Site, Current status

1. Vision/Goals
   
   1. Unlike many other areas around Chicago, the Sanctuary is not really a habitat restoration project. Sometimes it's a habitat enhancement project, but largely it's a habitat creation project. The goal is to gradually convert the site into a relatively self-sustaining, high quality native habitat. This idea comes from the current and future use of this area. One thing we don't see changing much is that the woodland canopy along this stretch of lakefront is used by migratory birds, and that's a very important use. So let's start with the idea that this area will need to remain a woodland, not a prairie nor an athletic field. What kind of woodland? If this were a sandy environment, like the original lakefront, we'd be thinking black oaks (or white pines), but it's not. This area is made land, and the ridges and swales inside the Sanctuary proper are part of Carl Poppe's landscape design. It's mostly mesic to wet soil, brought here to top off the original lakefill. There are areas that have sand underneath the surface layer, probably a remnant of was once a sandy island that was covered with the same soil as the rest of the area.
      
      So ultimately the habitat we'll create will be an oak woodland. It will be a mixed oak woodland, with several species of oaks - there were 4 species of oak (and 1 hybrid) here when we started. In fact, the southwest corner is dominated by swamp white oaks (Quercus bicolor) and bur oaks (Q. macrocarpa). Underneath this canopy of oaks (and associated species) will be a native understory. This understory will need to be maintained with periodic prescribed burns, as oak woodlands are fire-mitigated ecosystems.
      
      
   2. In the short term, through 2017, the vision is one of continuing the work we've started, greatly increasing the diversity of the very degraded central areas while maintaining and enhancing the more stable areas closer to the fence.
      Work on the marsh area will continue, with the goal of creating a kind of wetland not often seen in this vicinity, one that is not dominated by cattails, but rather one dominated by higher quality, more conservative plants. To the untrained eye, it should look more like a grassland than a "typical" cattail marsh, but one with an abundance of unusual flowers, shrubs and the occasional fern.
      
      Replanting of the northeast corner of the Sanctuary with new trees and shrubs, to replace the Norway maples that were removed, is one of the main projects we'll undertake this year. The other important project will be to reintroduce herps to the ponds, specifically native frogs and toads. They have not been present in the Sanctuary in over 30 years, but we'd like to see that change.
      
      Building another small pond, in an area of a swale that right now is more or less wet throughout the year, is also a goal to accomplish over the next few years.
      
      
   3. What's become more apparent recently, as discussion has begun about managing larger areas outside the fenced core, is that we need to have a vision that looks well past 10 years, which of course is a blink of the eye in landscape terms. What could this nature area look like in 50 or 100 years? What should it look like?
      
      One might ask, why think about a time when many of the current volunteers and staff will no longer be around? It really only makes sense when you look at the fact that much of Carl Poppe's original landscape design is what we're looking at today. He obviously was thinking long-term. It's brought home by seeing and counting the 80+ rings that those downed honey locust logs have, telling us they were planted right at the beginning of the Sanctuary's existence. It's necessary when we think about the structure of this habitat, and how we change it by planting shrubs and trees, many of which will outlive our involvement with the Sanctuary.
      
      This leads to thinking in terms of an oak woodland, interspersed with other species with some fire tolerance. Currently, there are 4 species of oaks that are mature and were undoubtedly among the original plantings. A few trees of 2 more species of oak have since been planted. What this means in terms of planning is that we need to plant trees to further this vision, and think about those trees in 50 years, and how they will influence the rest of the habitat then. It will also influence how decisions are made about removing trees that are there now. There have been only about a dozen mature trees that have been removed to this point; we've lost more in storms over the last 10 years, including one of only 2 hickories on the site. About 3 were removed in 2001 because of the excavation to increase the size of the ponds and marsh, and to remove retaining walls that were collapsing or no longer desired.
      
      We can see that in future more trees will need to be removed for various reasons, one of which will be to give us space - and light - to allow planting oaks and hickories. If given proper care and put in the right environment, many of these trees can live for 100 - 200 or more years. That's why the management plan needs to address issues beyond a 5 or 10 year timeframe.
      
      
2. Site description and history
   
   1. Original land use and other historical aspects
      
      
   2. The origin of this as a managed natural area was the beginning of the volunteer management initiative, sponsored by the Lake View Citizens Council in 1999. At that point the Sanctuary was a woodland comprised of (mostly) native tree species, many of which were planted 80+ years before. There was a ring of interesting native wildflowers, mostly spring ephemerals, along the old fence line. Several native species of wildflowers managed to establish themselves in parts of the interior, including areas of Wild Ginger, Mayapple, Starry False Solomon's Seal, and Wild Onion, with a sprinkling of Tall Bellflower. Two native shrub species were doing nicely, Chokecherry and Wild Black Currant, and Prickly Ash had established itself in a nice sized clump just northwest of the marsh.
      However, most of the ground was taken over by non-native species, both those deliberately planted and others obviously adventive. Garlic mustard covered much of the central upland area, bordered by daylilies in one of the large swales. Three 15 - 20 foot tall European buckthorns were growing in a clump directly outside the northwest corner of the fence, obviously planted many years ago as landscape elements. Thousands of young buckthorns (and some not so young) were growing in the interior, especially in the northwest corner. Lilies of the valley were found in a couple of different spots, and the pretty blue early spring flowers of scilla covered large areas on the east side - as they do to this day.
      
      We've know it's been a bird and wildflower sanctuary for almost all of its history, and we know that some of the plants were put here by the Park District, some undoubtedly by Lincoln Park Zoo, and some by Bill Jarvis and his ad hoc group of volunteers in the 1970's and 1980's.
      
      
   3. This nature area, while a tiny part of Lincoln Park, could eventually become part of a contiguous slice of lakefront parkland that would be managed as a natural area. Connecting to Montrose Point and Dune via the eastern edge of the Marovitz Golf Course would be relatively easy, and involve relatively small changes in management of relatively small areas of the park. Connecting to the south to North Pond and South Pond would be a greater challenge.
      
      
3. Current conditions
   
   1. Habitat classifications and management units (dune, prairie, woodland, etc.), include aerial with boundaries and labels of each unit (GIS map).
      
      1. How large is the nature area and management units?
      2. What habitats (community types) are present at this nature area?
   2. Soils (if data available)
   3. Hydrology (if data available)
   4. Wildlife (whatever is applicable)
      
      1. Important bird habitats, inventory of bird presence, if BCN data exists (in appendix)
      2. The Field Museum has data collected by entomologists Jim Louderman and Dave Pollock several years ago. Insects are major issue in herp reintroduction. We needed to know if there was enough of the right kind of insect life to support frog and toads. The study turned up evidence that there are adequate insect populations to support the herps. It also discovered that the Sanctuary is an insect "refugium" of sorts, in that there are several species living there that aren't found within miles of the area, due to real estate development.
      3. Coyotes, foxes, etc
      4. Nuisance wildlife (rabbits, beavers, raccoons): see under "Ecological threats", below. We have only had a problem with a beaver taken up residence once. The beaver build a small lodge and blocked the drain in the marsh, causing the water in the marsh to rise just about up to the level of the sidewalk outside. The beaver also killed several large trees, including one of the few remaining paper birches. The beaver was trapped and removed, but the flooding of the marsh that winter killed many shoreline plants, including skunk cabbage and marsh marigold. We need to be vigilant, because it's always possible that another beaver could take up residence.
   5. Vegetation
      
      1. Description of what is present; inventory in appendix, if available
      2. Plants of concern, if applicable: Don't believe PoC issues are applicable here, as the few that are here were planted by volunteers.
      3. Ecological threats (weeds, human disturbance, nuisance wildlife)
         
         1. Allaria petiolata (garlic mustard)
         2. Torilis japonica (Japanese hedgeparsley)
         3. Morus alba (white mulberry)
         4. Viburnum opulus (European highbush cranberry)
         5. Rhamnus cathartica (European buckthorn)
         6. Rhamnus frangula (glossy buckthorn)
         7. Convallaria majalis (lily of the valley)
         8. Solanum dulcamara (bittersweet nightshade)
         9. Acer negundo (Box elder)
         10. Acer platanoides (Norway maple)
         11. Cirsium arvense (Canada thistle)
         12. Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle)
         13. Glechoma hederacea (creeping charlie)
         14. Euonymus alatus (winged euonymus)
         15. Convolvulus arvensis (field bindweed)
         16. Solanum nigrum (black nightshade)
         17. Iris pseudacorus (yellow iris)
         18. Hemerocallis fulva (orange daylily)
         19. Solidago altissima (tall goldenrod) *
         20. Solidago canadensis (Canada goldenrod) *
         21. Ambrosia artemisiifolia (common ragweed) **
         22. Ambrosia trifida (giant ragweed) **
         23. Rats (Rattus norvegicus) were a serious issue in the past, but removal of the concrete pad at the south end, and not building large brushpiles from cut wood, has eliminated two of their favorite areas to den. we've seen very few in in 2011 compared to 10 years ago.
         24. Rabbits (Sylvilagus floridanus) have damaged many young shrubs that were planted in the past, particularly during the winter. Fencing is regularly used around new plantings now, so rabbit damage is not as big a problem, but this practice needs to be continued.
         25. Raccoon (Procyon lotor) overpopulation, which is directly connected to the next item. Undoubtedly this has an impact on birds that may try to nest in the Sanctuary, and probably has other as-yet undocumented effects as well. The volunteers have regularly had to clean up raccoon carcasses in the winter and early spring each year.
         26. Human disturbance. Actual physical destruction of habitat has overall been tolerable, and is really only an issue is a few areas, where the homeless have sometimes set up camp. The worst disturbance comes from the feeding of raccoons in particular. Areas where raccoons are regularly fed lose many native plants from this disturbance. Feeding birds (which also can provide some food to raccoons) is also a problem, especially because the birdseed put down is often viable weed seed. Additionally, the viewing platform and signage is regularly defaced by graffiti, and drinking parties often throw beer cans and bottles into the Sanctuary and ponds, or leave the ground littered. All these issues need to be addressed by the police and park security to mitigate these problems.
      4. Connectivity, current and/or potential, to other natural areas, if applicable
      5. Other baseline inventory based on measures of success in section “Management”
      6. Special Conditions:

Notes:

*     Aggressive native species that could become a problem in the future.
**   Native species that are listed as "noxious weeds" by the State of Illinois and by law must be eradicated.  

Clock: 8 hours, 00 minutes