In the delicate ecosystems of southern Illinois, the presence of the bigeye shiner, a small freshwater fish, has long served as a bellwether for water health. This diminutive species, currently listed as endangered within the state, has demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of persistent habitat degradation stemming from decades of unchecked development and industrial agricultural runoff. However, a burgeoning dispute between two powerful state agencies—the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)—is now casting a shadow of uncertainty over the future survival of this imperiled fish and many other vulnerable species across the state.
The conflict, brought to light through internal documents obtained by WBEZ and Grist, centers on IDOT’s repeated refusal to comply with IDNR’s recommendations for safeguarding species during transportation projects. This impasse escalated last summer when IDNR, the state’s primary wildlife authority, sought to ensure that IDOT crews conducting construction site mapping in Union County would first survey for the presence of the bigeye shiner. IDNR’s protocol, if the fish were found, would require IDOT to apply for an Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) permit to minimize potential harm to the paper-clip-sized fish before proceeding with any ground-breaking activities.
IDOT’s response, as documented in internal communications, was dismissive, with one official stating, "Fish swim away." This seemingly flippant remark encapsulates a fundamental disagreement about the responsibilities and obligations enshrined in Illinois’s Endangered Species Protection Act. According to public records, IDOT, as the state’s largest public landowner, may have bypassed the mandates of this crucial legislation in as many as 11 instances over the past year alone.
The Legal Framework: Safeguarding Biodiversity in Illinois
Endangered species legislation, at both federal and state levels, is designed to create a protective buffer for vulnerable flora and fauna against the impacts of publicly funded endeavors. The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), enacted in 1973, currently provides a vital shield for approximately 1,700 species across the United States, and has been instrumental in preventing the extinction of close to 300 species. Illinois, recognizing the unique ecological significance of its own biodiversity, predates the federal act with its own robust Endangered Species Act. This state-level legislation safeguards 513 species, including those also recognized under federal protection, such as the rusty patched bumblebee, the piping plover, and the gray wolf. While often perceived as a bureaucratic hurdle that can lead to project delays and increased costs, these laws fundamentally prohibit construction crews from initiating work until potential impacts on listed species are thoroughly assessed and minimized.
The effectiveness of these protections, despite their broad public support and proven track record in species recovery—exemplified by the resurgence of bald eagle, grizzly bear, and gray wolf populations—has come under increasing scrutiny and attack. At the federal level, recent legislative efforts, including a failed House Republican bill on Earth Day, aimed to significantly curtail these protections. Furthermore, the Trump administration took several actions that threatened to weaken the ESA, including convening the so-called "God Squad" to potentially bypass the act for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and proposing a rule to redefine the meaning of "harm" to species, a move that conservationists argued would significantly undermine protections.
A Breakdown in State-Level Enforcement: The IDOT-IDNR Standoff
The erosion of species protections is not confined to the federal arena; it is demonstrably manifesting at the state level as well. In Illinois, the protracted disagreement between IDOT and IDNR reached a critical juncture last fall. In response to IDOT’s persistent disregard for species protection protocols, IDNR terminated a decade-old agreement that had streamlined environmental reviews for the transportation agency. Bradley Hayes, IDNR’s impact assessment manager, cited "IDOT’s apparent automatic response to decline ITA recommendations" as the primary reason for the cancellation in his official letter.
An Incidental Take Authorization (ITA) is a critical permit mechanism designed to legally address the unavoidable, accidental harm to a protected species that might occur during the construction of an otherwise approved project, such as road construction or bridge repair. The ITA process is rigorous, demanding detailed impact assessments, a public comment period, and the incorporation of feedback from conservation experts. Typically, this comprehensive review can take anywhere from five to six months to complete. Experts emphasize that ITAs are not merely bureaucratic requirements but are essential tools for mitigating ecological damage and providing legal recourse, shielding project proponents from potential criminal charges that can arise from the unintentional killing of a state-listed species.
Jack Elston, representing IDOT, countered IDNR’s assessment in a letter sent towards the end of last year. He disputed the allegations of automatic responses, stating that IDOT "does not make automatic responses regarding the IDNR recommendation for an ITA." In a joint statement to WBEZ and Grist, IDOT spokeswoman Maria Castaneda elaborated on the department’s position. She stated that 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 also indicated that the agencies were in the process of drafting a new agreement, suggesting the existing one was outdated and required revised language. Despite the expiration of the previous agreement at the beginning of 2019, IDOT reportedly continued to conduct environmental reviews until IDNR intervened last fall.
Escalating Concerns and Expert Rebuttals
Internal email exchanges obtained by WBEZ and Grist reveal a growing unease within IDNR regarding IDOT’s approach to environmental reviews. In one instance last December, IDOT’s Jack Elston justified several projects that could potentially harm fish and mollusks, such as the harlequin darter and the American brook lamprey, by asserting that "fish swim away from construction noise." This rationale was applied to rivers and streams in southeastern and northeastern Illinois where these species are found. In another documented case, Elston deemed the relocation of state-endangered mussels in White County as unnecessary, estimating that it would delay a project by at least a construction season and incur an additional cost of approximately $2 million.
However, IDNR officials expressed increasing skepticism regarding these justifications. The American brook lamprey, for example, is known to spend a significant portion of its life burrowed in sediment and has a short lifespan post-spawning, making the notion of it simply "swimming away" from disturbances scientifically questionable. Todd Strole, IDNR’s assistant director, articulated this concern in an email prepared for a meeting with IDOT: "We are the experts. Fish are not the same, some don’t swim away." This sentiment was echoed by Ann Holtrop, head of IDNR’s division of natural heritage, who wrote in a separate email, "We are open to professional dialogue with IDOT, but planning and engineering needs don’t negate or override the recommendations by scientists."
Broader Implications and the National Context
The internal friction between IDOT and IDNR in Illinois mirrors a broader national trend of declining species protections, according to Rebecca Riley of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She noted that the Trump administration’s tenure saw the introduction of new guidance that weakened species protections. While the Biden administration rescinded these Trump-era rules, the federal government has recently proposed a new rule that could once again diminish the strength of the Endangered Species Act. This ongoing back-and-forth at the federal level creates a climate of uncertainty for conservation efforts nationwide.
The Governor JB Pritzker’s office was approached for comment regarding the state’s internal dispute and its alignment with the national rollback of federal species protections. However, the Governor’s office offered no further comment beyond the joint statement provided by IDOT and IDNR. This silence from the executive branch leaves the resolution of this critical inter-agency conflict and its implications for Illinois’s biodiversity hanging in the balance.
The ongoing dispute between the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources highlights a fundamental tension between infrastructure development and environmental preservation. As IDOT pushes forward with projects that reshape the state’s landscape, the commitment to upholding the spirit and letter of endangered species laws is being tested. The fate of the bigeye shiner and countless other species hinges on the ability of these state agencies to reconcile their differing priorities and reaffirm their shared responsibility to protect the natural heritage of Illinois for future generations. The repercussions of this internal conflict extend beyond the borders of Illinois, serving as a microcosm of the larger national struggle to balance economic development with the urgent need for robust environmental stewardship.
