Illinois state agencies at odds over endangered species protections

This coverage is made possible through a partnership between WBEZ and Grist, a nonprofit environmental media organization.

In the creeks and rivers of southern Illinois, a school of bigeye shiners darting along the edge of a stream is a sign of healthy water.

The freshwater fish, which is on the state's endangered species list, has managed to survive despite habitat loss driven by decades of construction and industrial farm runoff. But an ongoing dispute between two state agencies over state species protections is testing how the tiny fish will endure.

Last summer, the state’s top wildlife regulators faced resistance from the Illinois Department of Transportation when trying to protect the darter. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources recommended that IDOT crews mapping out construction at a site in Union County should first survey the area and find out if the shiner was present. If so, IDNR would ask them to apply for a permit to minimize impacts to the paper clip-sized fish before proceeding.

IDOT declined. The department’s reason, among others, was simple: “Fish swim away.”

The standoff between IDOT and IDNR, outlined in internal state documents obtained by WBEZ and Grist, is at the center of an ongoing clash that broke out last year after IDOT repeatedly ignored recommendations from state experts to pursue permits designed to protect imperiled species during road, bridge and other transportation work.

The widening rift between the state’s largest public landowner and its top wildlife conservation agency shows how state-funded transportation projects may have overridden Illinois' Endangered Species Protection Act in 11 cases in the past year.

In response to IDOT’s handling of species protections, IDNR ended a decade-old agreement with the agency last fall that allowed IDOT to fast track through environmental reviews.

IDNR impact assessment manager Bradley Hayes pointed to “IDOT’s apparent automatic response to decline ITA recommendations” in his cancellation letter obtained by WBEZ and Grist.

An ITA, or incidental take authorization, is a permit that allows for the accidental harm of a protected species during the construction of an approved project, like building a road or fixing a bridge. These permits involve lengthy reviews in which applicants must outline potential impacts to listed species, require a public comment period and feedback from conservation specialists. The entire process can take at least 5 to 6 months.

Still, experts say these permits are crucial because they minimize harm to protected species and provide legal cover from criminal charges that can accompany the unintentional killing of a state-listed species.

IDOT’s Jack Elston responded to the termination letter at the end of last year disputing the initial allegations from the environmental regulators, saying that “IDOT does not make automatic responses regarding the IDNR recommendation for an ITA.”

In a joint statement from IDOT and IDNR to WBEZ and Grist, IDOT spokeswoman Maria Castaneda said, “IDOT continues to consult with IDNR and considers recommendations from IDNR along with multiple other factors, including known information about the species, other environmental surveys, engineering, costs and public safety.”

Castaneda added that the agencies are currently drafting a new agreement and that the agreement on file was outdated. “Updated language was needed,” she said.

Despite the agreement expiring at the beginning of 2019, IDOT continued to conduct environmental reviews until lDNR stepped in to stop them last fall.

Email exchanges between IDNR officials obtained by WBEZ and Grist show concern about how IDOT was conducting its environmental reviews.

Last December, IDOT’s Elston wrote that “fish swim away from construction noise” as justification for several projects that could harm fish and molluscs, like the harlequin darter and the American brook lamprey. In another instance, Elston wrote that the relocation of state-endangered mussels in White County was unnecessary and would delay a project by at least a construction season and add about $2 million in costs.

But emails obtained from IDNR officials showed increasing concerns with that rationale.

The American brook lamprey, for example, is unlikely to “swim away” from construction noise. It spends much of its life burrowed in sediment and dies not long after spawning.

“We are the experts,” wrote Todd Strole, IDNR assistant director, in an email earlier this year preparing for a meeting with IDOT. “Fish are not the same, some don’t swim away.”

In another email, Ann Holtrop, head of IDNR’s division of natural heritage, wrote: “We are open to professional dialog with IDOT but planning and engineering needs don’t negate or override the recommendations by scientists.”

The Illinois dispute reflects a broader erosion of species protections nationwide, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Rebecca Riley. Despite massive popularity, the Endangered Species Act, credited with resuscitating the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and gray wolf, is once again under attack by the Trump administration.

During his first term, President Donald Trump advanced new guidance under the ESA which undercut species protection, at least until the the Biden administration undid the Trump-era rules. The Trump administration has submitted a new set of rules currently under consideration.

WBEZ and the Chicago Sun-Times reached out to Governor JB Pritzker's office for comment on how the state's internal dispute fits into the Trump administration's ongoing rollback of federal species protections; however, the Governor's office offered no comments beyond what IDOT and IDNR provided.