After seeing the list of forest preserves developed as athletic fields, gardens, and parks, a second FOIA request was submitted in January 2013 requesting the total acreage of land owned by the KCFPD broken down into:
- Preserved natural areas;
- Developed recreational areas (athletic fields, ice arena, golf courses, etc.);
- Historic or cultural areas (Durant House, Fabyan Villa site, Japanese garden, museums, etc.);
- Utilitarian uses (roadways, maintenance yards, storage, nursery, parking, etc.)
The document supplied in response, an October 2012 Agency Overview, included the following:
a) Total number of sites: 92 preserves; Total Acreage: 19,932
b) Number of conservation easements: 5 /Easement acreage: 595
c) Total acreage specifically for active recreation purposes: 2,500
d) Number/acres of natural areas included in a.: 7,400
e) Managed natural areas – ecosystem types
i) Prairie acreage 5,300 Grassland
ii) Forest acreage 2,600 Woodland
iii) Wetland acreage 2,500
iv) Other ecosystem acreage
f) Restored areas acreage 10,400
g) Open space (minimal management ) acreage 2,300
h) Storm water management acreage
i) Number of rivers/creeks 31
j) Estimated total miles of rivers/creeks 37
k) Number of lakes/ponds 336
l) Estimated total acreage of lakes/ponds 337
The numbers did not add up to the total, so a request for clarification of categories resulted in:
Total acreage: 19,931.55 acres
Preserved natural areas (targeted for restoration): 13,537.55 acres
Recreational areas: 494 acres
Cropland: 4,635 acres
Historic areas: 60 acres
Non-native natural areas (multi-purpose open space): 1,205 acres
While the categories provided did not correspond exactly to the categories requested, it would seem that roughly 68% of the total acreage is actually preserved natural areas, 23% is cropland (that could potentially be replanted and/or restored to a more natural area), and another 9% is developed recreational or historic areas and multi-purpose open space, which includes utilitarian, non-natural areas. There is no way to check the accuracy of those figures, or the apparent discrepancy between the 2,500 acres (12.5%) listed in the first section as specifically for active recreation, versus the 494 acres listed in the clarification as recreational areas. What is clear is that roughly one-third of the land acquired by the Forest Preserve District does not meet the definition of natural lands.
Since 1925, the Kane County Forest Preserve District’s mission has been
“To acquire, hold and maintain lands within Kane County that contribute to the preservation of natural and historic resources, habitats, flora, and fauna; and to restore, restock, protect and preserve such lands for the education, recreation, and pleasure of all its citizens.”
That bears repeating, because too many outside interests increasingly see forest preserves as land banks from which they can take, or borrow, acres. And the Forest Preserve Commissioners have been complicit in allowing them do so. Any agreement which constitutes a taking of forest preserve land for uses contrary to the mission to preserve, protect, and restore natural lands is inappropriate. A vote to turn over forest preserve land to another organization for development for any use, even recreational fields, is a step in the wrong direction, away from the core mission.
The DuPage County Forest Preserve District has repeatedly fended off attempts by St. Francis Catholic High School officials to acquire land for a parking lot. The private school in Wheaton wants to get state law changed to make it possible to get a couple of acres in neighboring Belleau Woods Forest Preserve in exchange for land elsewhere in the county. They have enlisted the aid of State Representative Jeanne Ives of Wheaton to advance their cause. In a 5-8-13 Daily Herald article, she was quoted as saying, “I am 100% behind St. Francis acquiring – in a fair and equitable way – land for its parking needs.” This intended encroachment/land swap fails to recognize the importance of preserving undisturbed natural areas for many reasons, including natural flood control. Nor does it acknowledge that a “couple of acres” elsewhere in the county would not have the same value as the land in Belleau Woods. Preserved land, by definition, is not available for development. The DuPage County Forest Preserve District should be commended for refusing to accommodate this land grab. The Kane County Forest Preserve District should be equally unwilling to serve as a land bank for other organizations.
The Chicago Tribune published an editorial about the Cook County Forest Preserve District on May 24, 2011 entitled “Protect the Preserves” which clearly stated the problem. “The district’s role is to acquire, preserve, and protect natural land, not to approve use of them for other worthy causes.” As Laurence Msall, head of the Chicago Civic Federation said, “The people who sacrificed, who fought to preserve this forest land, knew there would be hundreds of good ideas for other uses, but when they wrote the charter, they said no.” Development and tight budgets have made it difficult for park districts and municipalities to acquire land for athletic fields, community gardens, and other worthy uses, but the forest preserves are about protecting natural land for generations to come. The Kane County Forest Preserve District should reconsider policies that allow for the diversion of preserved land to any other use by any other entity, however admirable, and stick to its own mission.