209th Meeting - Minutes

February 20, 2026 - 10:00 a.m.
Director’s Boardroom
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, IL 62701
and remotely via WebEx

For approval at the 210^th meeting, May 15, 2026

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dr. Angelo Capparella, Ms. Samantha Chavez, Dr. Janice Coons (remote), Dr. Michael Dreslik, Dr. Jeremie Fant, Mr. Nathan Grider, Dr. Joyce Hofmann, Mr. Randy Schietzelt, Dr. Tih-Fen Ting, and Dr. Philip Willink.

OTHERS PRESENT:  Leon Hinz (IDNR), Brian Metzke (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage, Aquatic Ecologist), Natalia Maass (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage Database Program), Heather Osborn (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage ITA Coordinator), Valerie Njapa (INPC), Brooke Thurau (INPC), Ann Holtrop (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Michelle Bloomquist (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Kelly Neal (INPC), Joe Kath (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Alicia Davis

Online: Charles O’Leary (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Michelle Bloomquist (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Jason Robinson (INHS), Andrew Kuhns (INHS), Josh Nickelson (IDNR), Trent Thomas (IDNR Fisheries), David Ford, Jeff Horn (IDNR Division of Natural Heritage), Angella Moorehouse (INPC), Antonio Del Valle, Calvin Beckman, Jack Kalil, Roger Jansen, Jean Mengelkoch, John Spaeth, Marissa (IDNR), Brian Charles (INHS), Morgan Wood, Alison Stodola (INHS)

1.         Call to Order, Roll Call of Board Members, and Introduction of Guests

Chair Willink called the meeting to order at 10:02 A.M. and conducted the roll call. Eight voting Board members were in attendance, constituting a quorum. Dr. Willink welcomed the visitors and asked them to introduce themselves.

2.         Adoption of Agenda

Dr. Hofmann moved that the agenda be adopted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Schietzelt. The motion passed unanimously.

3.         Approval of Minutes from the 208^th Meeting on November 14, 2025

Draft minutes of the 208^th meeting had been distributed to Board members prior to the meeting by email. Dr. Ting moved that the minutes of the 208^th meeting be approved. Dr. Fant seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with one abstention by Dr. Hofmann who was never present. The minutes will be posted on the website.

4.         Report from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)

The Department’s report was distributed to the Board via email prior to the meeting. Ms. Holtrop.

Staffing updates were as follows:

IDNR Heritage hired Josh Nicholson as Natural Areas Program Manager

Phil Cox, former Plant Ecologist has taken a different role in the field and that former position is now vacant. IDNR is still in the process of filling the Natural Areas Manager position and the search is going well.

IDNR has hired Katie Blake as an office assistant at Prairie Ridge Natural Area.

IDNR has met with multiple staff at IDOT and continues to discuss ongoing issues and how they can work together more proactively and efficiently in an effort to work out Incidental Take Authorizations.

The Wildlife Action Plan is in the final stretch to be completed and sent for approval to USFWS.

The IDNR Natural Heritage Division was founded in 1986 and had its first meeting with INPC and the ESPB 40 years ago. In light of this anniversary year, the Division is reflecting on past documents, missions, goals, and objectives. A lot has changed about how the Division works as well as the systems it operates in. Consideration is being given to how it will do the same work but differently moving forward.

Ms. Chavez asked if IDOT is currently submitting Incidental Take Authorizations?

Ann Holtrop responds that the dry spell was broken by a submittal.

Nathan Grider comments he was in the meetings with IDOT and felt they were very productive.

Dr. Ting mentions that there have been a lot of new acquisitions during this time, and they’re curious if there’s habitat work associated with the new lands?

Ann Holtrop explains that the state DNR has little activity on parcels until after they are acquired and assessed. Once a parcel is acquired, the DNR engages as soon as partners are in place. Regarding specific parcels like Dixon Mounds and Rice Lake, Ann notes that if there is an inholding or known listed species, a management plan may already exist. However, for adjacent lands, no plan typically exists until after acquisition and on-site assessment. The situation varies depending on whether the seller is a conservation organization or a private landowner. For larger acquisitions funded through federal grants, a management plan is usually already in place.

Dr. Ting asked about solar projects and the Illinois chorus frog, noting that the species is listed for all such projects. She inquired whether there have been discussions within the division regarding how hydrology could be affected by these projects and what that might mean for the future of the Illinois chorus frog. 

Ann responded that the group is currently wrestling with the best available science today and determining what research is needed to answer more questions in the future. She says as IDNR learns more they will update the board but currently they are unsure.

5.         Report from the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission (INPC)

An INPC report was distributed to the Board prior to the meeting via email.

Legal protection has been secured for 6 additional tracts of land, bringing the total to 643 sites within the Illinois Nature Preserves system, encompassing 126,000 protected acres.

The staff report includes a list of species that staff are currently monitoring and evaluating.

The next INPC meeting is scheduled for May 19th in Peoria.

Several staff members attended and gave presentations at the Southern Illinois Wild Things conference. Notes that staff serve a wide variety of roles.

A special meeting was held the day before the last regular meeting aimed at building and strengthening relationships with Indigenous partners.

A new guidance document has been developed to provide staff with guidance and policy on the reinterment of remains and artifacts. The Commission wants to be as open as possible to allow the return of items to tribes when appropriate.

Caleb Baker presented this information on Monday, and commissioners voted to accept the document as a guidance document.

6.         Report from the Chair of the Illinois Endangered Species Protection Board (Board)

Chair Willink plans to review the previous timeline of the ESTAC meetings. A timeline will be distributed by the next meeting showing where the committee has been and where it is going.

He noted the large volume of questions come to the board email (including many wolf reports, approximately one per week) and raised the question of how best to handle them or whom to direct them to. Dr. Hofmann recommends creating a FAQ, noting she spends significant time replying to emails; Joe Kath agreed a FAQ would be helpful. Chair Willink requested that members send any questions, ideas, or answers (including on permitting) to help address the issue.

He reminded board members to check and address any paperwork needed for board reappointment. The committee is structured so that members appointments end each year, and the first term may only be one to two years.

Dr. Coons stated that her term ends in May and she will resign, noting this will be her last term, though she will attend the May meeting in person.

The Chair noted that later that afternoon, IDNR will hold a meeting about bird data and integration into a database. While it is technically a DNR meeting with only two board members attending, it will be added as an agenda item for the next meeting so the full board can discuss the topic, including how to integrate eBird data which contributes to new petitions.

The full chair report is included at the end of the minutes.

7.         Semi-annual Review of Whether to Keep Closed the Minutes from Previous Closed Sessions

Chair Willink pointed out that there have been no closed sessions in a decade and past closed sections were based on personal matters of the board at the time and not relevant to current affairs. Dr. Hofmann moved to keep the minutes of previously closed sessions closed and the motion was seconded by Mr. Schietzelt. The motion passed unanimously.

8.         Update on listing packets – Dr. Michael Dreslik

A January 16 meeting was held to revise the listing packet. The new structure will parallel the Species Status Assessment (SSA) template for better flow.

Listing status recommendations will now appear at the beginning of the packet, with biological information following, so readers know the outcome early.

Sections reorganized to include life history, status, range-wide and contemporary distributions, data types (publications, citizen science, unpublished observations), known threats, GIS cross-mapping with protected lands, and conservation management activities.

A guidance document will be developed, but the board will first approve a skeleton structure before detailed work proceeds.

Discussion on petition Form Revisions clarified that the draft petition form largely mirrors the previous version, with the most significant deviation being the listing status recommendation moved earlier and a new section on viability. Additionally, Section H (survey information) is new. Petitioners must describe past survey efforts, including methodology, results, and what information already exists. The possibility the form will likely no longer be a fillable PDF was considered where alternatively it will become a document or report submitted as a PDF. Dr. Dreslik suggests a web-based form as an alternative. Agreement on accompanying guidance document will explicitly spell out required survey effort information and terminology.

Item D2 (automatic listing for federally endangered species) was deemed unnecessary because such species are automatically added. The group agreed to remove D2 from the petition form.

For "new arrivals" (species expanding range into Illinois): if federally listed, they are automatically listed. If not federally listed, evidence of reproduction and use of Illinois is required (e.g., armadillos would not qualify based on newness alone).

Chair Willink suggested adding a note early in the guidance document informing petitioners that no form is needed for federally listed species; they should simply submit data.

The existing list of reasons for tree loss may be tied to administrative rules. If the language is not cited directly from the rules, it can be simplified. The group noted that updating administrative rules may need to be explored separately.

Chair Willink raised a question about splitting "breeding" from "other significant use" (for example regarding: migrating birds in decline). Dr. Ting agreed the two should be separated.

Board members will take time to review proposed changes with a potential vote being held next meeting

Michelle Bloomquist will begin drafting guidance for review. Chair Willink concluded that the board is supportive of the direction and can move forward.

9.         Update on Species Status Assessments and other Recovery Planning – Michelle Bloomquist

Michelle presented that in 2019, ORC recognized an opportunity to develop a more deliberate approach to at-risk species, including prioritizing and evaluating the work being done and collaborating across DNR. The goal is to enhance and maintain at-risk populations. The recovery process phases are: evaluation of status, planning actions to maintain, implementation of actions, evaluation and restart.

The Contemporary Species Status Assessment (SSA) evaluates trends and can be written by the species lead or someone inside or outside DNR. The Planning Document is written only by the species lead and identifies threats, conservation objectives, and prioritized actions. Both documents are peer-reviewed internally. Once both are complete, the species lead can request resources. Requests go to the ORC Director and all ORC Chiefs for review, approval, or amendment, followed by funding or staff assignment. The species lead then facilitates implementation, which can be done internally or hired out, and subsequently evaluates and reports on the outcomes.

As of 2025, there are 76 species in recovery, with 22 species added during the year. Two new species leads were also established. Taxa currently in recovery include mostly least concern species, mammals, and insects, with fewer amphibians, fishes, and mammals represented.

The first Executive Committee meeting took place in January of the previous year.

Discussion commenced at the end of the presentation.

Ms. Chavez confirmed the species lead is within DNR. Mr. Schietzelt asked about metapopulations. Ms. Holtrop replied that their vision is to maintain, not necessarily delist (unlike FWS). She noted that in several edge-of-range cases, delisting may never happen, so the focus is on interim goals of maintaining and enhancing through an iterative process.

Mr. Schietzelt asked if local land trusts can fit into the process. Ms. Holtrop responded that for some species, they lack baseline viability or location data, and there are varying information needs. For species they are confident exist only in four locations, collaboration is possible. She added that they need more hands, more people, and more organizations to care.

Ms. Bloomquist stated that all documents are on the DNR website.

Dr. Ting asked if peer review involves scientists outside the agency. Ms. Bloomquist replied that all peer reviewers are within DNR, but they try to include at least one taxa expert.

Ms. Holtrop explained that DNR cannot write every SSA, and having other entities write SSAs has been very helpful. Peer review ensures documents meet department needs. During SSA development, they approach experts so technical input happens before internal review.

Chair Willink asked if topics in petitions come directly from SSA or planning documents, and whether there is overlap. Ms. Bloomquist answered that data gaps and management needs overlap with planning documents, as stressors and threats are captured there. Chair Willink observed that it is a mix, and the effort is to cut, paste, and align. He asked if DNR is happy with where SSAs are. Ms. Bloomquist confirmed yes.

Ms. Holtrop noted it is encouraging to see momentum and more species entering the process. She stated that the goal is to have an SSA for every species in the state — still far away, but they are getting there. Ms. Bloomquist added that she will circulate a spreadsheet of all species and leads.

Chair Willink then asked Dr. Fant whether the "plants" category should be broken up. Dr. Fant replied that they are comfortable keeping them together, as they are used to it.

10.       Group Discussion – Species in Greatest Information Need – Presentation on how Species in Greatest Conservation Need and Species in Greatest Information Need were identified in Illinois Wildlife Action Plan by Dr. Leon Hinz

Mr. Hinz explained the Illinois Wildlife Action Plan focuses on native species conservation but not solely on species most at risk of extirpation. The goal is to be inclusive of the full range of biodiversity in the state. Specific objectives include increasing the extent and quality of shared lands, maintaining native wildlife and plant species populations, and increasing people's connections to these species. Campaigns operate at state and federal regional levels.

Regarding the section on native species, Mr. Hinz explained how species are assessed. The approach begins with state-listed species, each of which is automatically reviewed and considered as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). If a species is not an Element of Occurrence (EO), it was not considered further. A timeline cut was applied: species present when the state became a state in 1818. Out of 2,100 elements, 360 met the criteria for SGCN. Sixty-six species were classified as SGIN (Species of Greatest Information Need) due to lack of information or all records being historical (three generations or ten years). Thirty-three species would not have qualified but are state-listed. Plants are grouped taxonomically. Species are assigned to natural communities, with broad-scale objectives for the conservation of native species and identification of broad stressors to species.

Following the presentation, discussion ensued.

Dr. Ting asked for clarification on whether Illinois stewardship species could be included in the process because of regional considerations. Mr. Hinz replied that due to regional or national factors, a species could be considered a stewardship species even if it was not federally or state listed. Dr. Ting noted that this does not preclude such species. Mr. Hinz agreed, explaining that a crayfish doing well in Illinois and not federally listed could potentially be considered a stewardship species, though none currently exist but it is possible.

Mr. Hinz then clarified several rank designations: SH for historic, SU for not enough information and not comfortable assigning a rank, SX for extirpated, SNA for mainly invasive species, a question mark for unknown status, and SNR for species that have never been ranked. Ms. Holtrop added that SGIN is really for species for which they do not have the "right" information to make a rank, as distinct from ideas about what may or may not be declining.

Dr. Ting suggested there would be overlap between SNR and SGCN. Mr. Hinz disagreed. Chair Willink reported that the algorithm is outputting species with a question mark. Mr. Hinz explained that there is a review process for ranks before the database adds them. They pulled all elements from the database for this exercise and did not modify after the fact, with the intent that as updates occur, they can update the SGCN list.

Mr. Schietzelt asked whether all old historical lists are used or only what is in the database. Mr. Hinz replied that the database does a good job of adding old records, but only what is in the database is used. He noted there are two listed plant species that are SGIN.

Mr. Hinz explained that the S-rank process is supposed to recognize the current condition of a species, and the board should consider threats acting on species now or in the future. He noted that Blanding's turtle is S3 but state listed. It is fairly widespread with much work being done including headstarting, but it is clearly at risk. If they used this process alone, it would not be SGCN based solely on rank, suggesting the rank might not be right. Ranks continue to be updated.

Chair Willink observed that rank comes out different from state status, which can influence confidence in the algorithm as something is not being captured. He noted that most are good, but the ones that do not match are interesting. Mr. Hinz responded that people who know something about the species review the rank, but it is generally not moved more than one rank.

Chair Willink asked whether any taxonomic patterns were observed for SGIN and what the board should do when constructing ESTACS. Mr. Hinz replied that some taxonomic groups have high numbers while some have very low, noting SGIN of butterflies and moths. From a plan perspective, they cannot deal with all 360 wildlife species at once due to lack of capacity. The focus in the plan is on natural communities and habitat structure, with the idea that by enhancing these, they can support more species, including E&T. However, this approach is more focused on species without highly specific habitat, such as the Illinois cave arthropod, which would require species-specific work. He suggested the board's focus on individual species is more toward that part, noting there are many species with information needs beyond those needed for a status rank.

Chair Willink remarked there are biases in what people like and do not like.

Mr. Jason Robinson offered a thought regarding SGIN and what the information should look like to be most useful. He explained that he was part of a SWG Lonestar proposition at Starved Rock, which was transferred to DNR. DNR asked them to look for SGCN on the property, but there was an enormous number of species on the list, making it difficult for him as an entomologist to know what to look for. He noted that putting that information into practice is very difficult. A graduate student looked at doing a first pass on what information is needed and how that information would be used by those making decisions on priorities, which he thought would be a helpful addition.

Mr. Hinz responded that the shift between the previous watch list and the new SGIN is really focused on updated status ranks using the calculator, so the most important information to obtain is the information used to populate the calculator, including range, distribution, and abundance.

Ms. Holtrop added that now they have one list for which they have a reason to obtain types of information. The next step is to compile lists and see if there is overlap or shared interests, as multiple groups may want more information on certain species, presenting an opportunity for groups to come together and find commonality. Mr. Hinz noted that a lot of information needs are already identified in the SSA.

Mr. Grider asked for clarification on whether plants are new to this process. Mr. Hinz explained that a minor revision in 2022 added plants as SGCN, but only plants on the board's list. Now another 50 plant species have been added during this revision, specifically those with S1 or S2 ranks but are not listed. He noted that part of the issue with plants is that they are working through a program for wildlife conservation, not plant conservation. There was hope the federal government would fund more state wildlife action plans and fund plants, which is why the revision was done, but that has not happened at this time.

Ms. Holtrop noted that the list of species was generated by ESTACs. Chair Willink confirmed that the list is in the minutes from ESTACs. Dr. Hofmann offered to compile the list and distribute it to the board. Dr. Fant noted that a number of species petitions were meant to be filed but did not end up getting filed.

11.       Other Business (topics may be discussion, but no actions taken)

There was no other business.

12.       Public Comment Period

There were no public comments.

13.       Next Meeting Information

May 15, 2026

14.       Adjournment

Chair Willink adjourned the meeting at 11:56 A.M. 

Activities for the period between the 208^th and 209^th Board meetings

• performed follow-up for 208^th meeting – arranged for the final agenda of the 208^th meeting and approved minutes of the 207^th Board meeting to be posted on the website
• monitored the Board’s email account – responded to some messages, forwarded others to appropriate personnel at the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR)
• reviewed minutes of the 208^th Endangered Species Protection Board meeting
• attended the Illinois Nature Preserve Commission meeting on February 3
• distributed four draft Incidental Take Authorizations to Board members for potential review
• updated the file containing the term ending dates for Board members
• prepared for the 209^th Board meeting – prepared the notice for the 209^th meeting, developed a draft agenda for the 209^th meeting, arranged to have the notice and draft agenda posted on the Board’s website and at the IDNR building, and distributed materials for the 209^th meeting to Board members