throbber
Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 1 of 44 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. _______________
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`_________________________________________
`)
`
`
`)
`NATURAL LAND INSTITUTE,
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`
`THE GREATER ROCKFORD AIRPORT AUTHORITY, )
`
`
`)
`THE GREATER ROCKFORD AIRPORT AUTHORITY )
`BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`MICHAEL P. DUNN,
`
`)
`EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE GREATER
`
`)
`ROCKFORD AIRPORT AUTHORITY,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`
`)
`TRANSPORTATION,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`PETE BUTTIGIEG, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED
`)
`STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
`)
`
`
`)
`STEVE DICKSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF FEDERAL
`)
`AVIATION ADMINISTRATION,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
`)
`
`
`)
`UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`)
`
`
`)
`DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY OF UNITED STATES
`)
`DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`MARTHA WILLIAMS, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
`)
`UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE,
`)
`
`
`)
`Defendants.
`
`)
`_________________________________________
`)
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 2 of 44 PageID #:2
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting any and all
`
`activities that will adversely affect the environmental resources associated with Bell Bowl Prairie
`
`in Winnebago County, Illinois. Proposed and scheduled roadwork and expansion for a Midfield
`
`Cargo Development (the “Proposed Action”) on the publicly-owned Chicago Rockford
`
`International Airport (“RFD” or “Airport”)1, which is operated by the Greater Rockford Airport
`
`Authority (“GRAA”), scheduled to begin on November 1, 2021, will permanently destroy Bell
`
`Bowl Prairie.
`
`2.
`
`Illinois is known as the “Prairie State” because most of it was a natural grassland
`
`at the time of statehood. Since then, almost all of Illinois’ prairie has been plowed under except
`
`on land that was too steep, rocky, sandy, gravelly, or wet to cultivate. The steep, gravelly slope at
`
`Bell Bowl Prairie is what kept the prairie there from being farmed or otherwise destroyed until
`
`now.
`
`3.
`
`Only one-hundredth of one percent - 0.01% - of the original Illinois prairie remains
`
`in good condition. At most, it is estimated that only 18.4 acres of dry gravel prairie (such as Bell
`
`Bowl Prairie) is in good condition in the entire state. Native prairie such as Bell Bowl Prairie is
`
`so highly valued because it is vanishingly rare.
`
`4.
`
`Bell Bowl Prairie has a number of rare and unusual plants. Two of the plants are
`
`so rare that they are listed by the State of Illinois as endangered: Prairie Dandelion and Large-
`
`Flowered Beardtongue.
`
`
`1 The Airport also proposes a Northwest Cargo Development. That development does not impact Bell Bowl Prairie.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 3 of 44 PageID #:3
`
`5.
`
`Bell Bowl Prairie is also home to the endangered Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (the
`
`“Bee”). The Bee was sighted as recently as August of this year at Bell Bowl Prairie. Once
`
`common throughout the midwestern United States, the Bee has disappeared from the vast majority
`
`of its native range and now stands on the brink of extinction, owing to habitat loss and destruction.
`
`6.
`
`In 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) listed the Bee as an
`
`“endangered species” under the Endangered Species Act. See Endangered Species Status for
`
`Rusty Patched Bumble Bee, 82 Fed. Reg. 3186, 3205 (Jan. 11, 2017).
`
`7.
`
`The Bee once occupied grasslands and tallgrass prairies of the Upper Midwest, but
`
`most grasslands and prairies have been lost, degraded, or fragmented by conversion to other uses.
`
`The Bee needs areas that provide nectar and pollen from flowers, nesting sites (underground and
`
`abandoned rodent cavities or clumps of grasses), and overwintering sites for hibernating queens
`
`(undisturbed soil). As pollinators, Rusty Patched Bumble Bees contribute to our food security and
`
`the healthy functioning of our ecosystems.
`
`8.
`
`The GRAA’s planned roadwork and expansion of the Proposed Action into Bell
`
`Bowl Prairie will further jeopardize the existence of the Rusty Patched Bumble Bee and destroy
`
`its habitat.
`
`9.
`
`This complaint is necessitated by the failure of all of the named Defendants to
`
`protect Bell Bowl Prairie and its endangered or threatened flora and fauna. Contrary to both the
`
`letter and spirit of applicable federal and state statutes, the Defendants have violated the detailed
`
`regulatory framework set out to protect such precious resources as Bell Bowl Prairie and its
`
`endangered flora and fauna, including the Bee. Defendants have failed to consider proper
`
`alternatives for meeting the purposes of the Proposed Action that would not destroy Bell Bowl
`
`Prairie.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 4 of 44 PageID #:4
`
`10.
`
`Defendants have also ignored the methodology and regulatory framework that
`
`requires a supplemental environmental assessment given the recent discovery of the Bee on Bell
`
`Bowl Prairie and the need for further review of viable and obvious less-harmful alternatives to the
`
`destruction of Bell Bowl Prairie given the Bee’s presence at the Prairie.
`
`11.
`
`Bell Bowl Prairie will be permanently destroyed—starting November 1, 2021—
`
`unless Defendants are stopped from proceeding with construction until further environmental and
`
`other regulatory assessment is performed, and alternative plans considered.
`
`
`
`The Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Natural Land Institute (“NLI”) is a member-supported, not-for-profit
`
`organization dedicated to preserving land and natural diversity for future generations. Since 1958,
`
`NLI has protected, managed, and restored 18,000 acres throughout Illinois and southern
`
`Wisconsin. These include prairies, forests, wetlands, and river corridors. Serving as a regional
`
`land trust, NLI accepts donations of properties, buys lands, manages natural areas, and helps
`
`landowners establish legal agreements that permanently limit harmful use and development. The
`
`mission of NLI is to create an enduring legacy of natural land in northern Illinois for people, plants,
`
`and animals. The role of NLI includes both advocacy for land preservation and land use planning
`
`and direct action to preserve areas by acquisition, either on its own or in conjunction with other
`
`organizations and agencies, or by working with landowners to voluntarily encumber their land
`
`with a conservation easement to protect its conservation values in perpetuity. NLI is headquartered
`
`in Rockford, Illinois.
`
`13.
`
`Since 1958, NLI and its members have been dedicated to preserving land and
`
`natural diversity for future generations throughout Illinois and southern Wisconsin, including
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 5 of 44 PageID #:5
`
`forests, wetlands, river corridors, and prairies. Its mission is “to create an enduring legacy of
`
`natural land in northern Illinois for people, plants, and animals.”
`
`14.
`
`NLI brings this lawsuit on behalf of its management, its employees and its
`
`approximately 700 members who have helped manage and care for Bell Bowl Prairie for decades.
`
`Many of these members regularly observe, visit, study, or otherwise enjoy threatened and
`
`endangered species at Bell Bowl Prairie. Leaving the habitat of such species without habitat
`
`protection harms the interests of these members and the public in viewing listed species, including
`
`the federally-listed endangered Bee, now and in the future, and benefiting from their existence.
`
`See Ex. A (Declaration of John White), Ex. B (Declaration of Zachary Grycan), Ex. C (Declaration
`
`of Jennifer Kuroda).
`
`15.
`
`NLI and its members derive aesthetic, recreational, professional, economic, and
`
`personal benefits from the Bee and its habitat as well as the various flora on Bell Bowl Prairie. Id.
`
`Defendants’ failure to protect Bell Bowl Prairie decreases the Bee’s chances of survival and
`
`recovery, thereby harming NLI members’ interests in enjoying and protecting the Bee. These
`
`injuries are caused by the Defendants’ violations of the National Environmental Policy Act
`
`(“NEPA”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Illinois Endangered Species Protection
`
`Act,2 as well as the GRAA’s agreement with NLI for custody and management. The violations
`
`and breaches are redressable through the relief requested by NLI.
`
`The Defendants
`
`16.
`
`Defendant The Greater Rockford Airport Authority (“GRAA”) is a public,
`
`municipal corporation duly created, organized, and existing under the laws of Illinois, pursuant to
`
`70 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5, et seq., with administration offices at 60 Airport Drive, Rockford, Illinois
`
`
`2 NLI intends to amend its Complaint to address, among other possible claims, claims under the Endangered Species
`Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 6 of 44 PageID #:6
`
`61109. Formed in 1946, GRAA has four jurisdictions who appoint a seven-member Board of
`
`Commissioners. The establishment, continued maintenance, and operation of the Airport and its
`
`facilities are in the public interest, and such purposes are declared to be public and governmental
`
`in nature and essential to the public interest under Illinois law. According to the GRAA’s 2022
`
`Annual Budget and Appropriation Ordinance, one of the objectives of the GRAA is to “[p]rotect
`
`and enhance the environment.”
`
`17.
`
`Defendant The Greater Rockford Airport Authority Board of Commissioners is
`
`composed of seven members. The Mayor of the City of the Rockford appoints three members, the
`
`County Board Chairman of Winnebago County appoints two members, the Mayor of Loves Park
`
`appoints one member, and the Village President of Machesney Park appoints one member. The
`
`Board of Commissioners is responsible for setting policies and ordinances governing the
`
`operations at RFD, which are carried out or enforced by a professional staff.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant Michael P. Dunn (“Dunn”) is the Executive Director of the GRAA, and
`
`is sued in that capacity. As the Executive Director, Dunn is responsible for overseeing the staffing
`
`of departments and the day-to-day operations of the Airport. Dunn reports to the Board of
`
`Commissioners of the GRAA.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”)3 is the agency of
`
`the United States responsible for issuing an environmental finding to allow approval of the RFD’s
`
`Airport Layout Plan for the GRAA’s Proposed Action. DOT is charged with implementing and
`
`ensuring compliance with federal Acts and regulations, including but not limited to the National
`
`Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). It is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA)
`
`and other federal laws.
`
`
`3 Together the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Secretary Buttigieg and
`Administrator Dickson are referred to as the “FAA Defendants.”
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 7 of 44 PageID #:7
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) is a federal agency within the
`
`United States Department of Transportation. FAA is charged with implementing and ensuring
`
`compliance with federal Acts, including but not limited to NEPA. FAA is subject to the APA and
`
`other federal laws.
`
`21.
`
`Defendant Pete Buttigieg is named solely in his official capacity as Secretary of the
`
`United States Department of Transportation. In that capacity, Secretary Buttigieg is responsible
`
`for the administration, operations, and activities of the Department of Transportation, including
`
`the Federal Aviation Administration, and for the federal government’s compliance with NEPA and
`
`the APA.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Steve Dickson is named solely in his official capacity as Administrator
`
`of the Federal Aviation Administration. In that capacity, Dickson is responsible for compliance
`
`under NEPA and the APA for the Proposed Action on Bell Bowl Prairie.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant United States Department of Interior (“DOI”) 4 is the agency of the
`
`United States that is an entity responsible for consultation under the Endangered Species Act of
`
`1973 (“ESA”). DOI is charged with implementing and ensuring compliance with federal Acts and
`
`regulations, including but not limited to NEPA and ESA. It is subject to the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (“APA) and other federal laws.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) is a federal agency
`
`within the United States Department of Interior. USFWS is charged with implementing and
`
`ensuring compliance with federal Acts, including but not limited to NEPA and ESA. USFWS is
`
`subject to the APA and other federal laws.
`
`
`4 Together, the United States Department of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretary Haaland, and
`Acting Director Williams are referred to as the “USFWS Defendants”.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 8 of 44 PageID #:8
`
`25.
`
`Defendant Deb Haaland is named soley in her capacity as Secretary of the United
`
`States Department of the Interior. In that capacity, Haaland is responsible for the administration,
`
`operations and activities of the Department of Interior, including USFWS, and for compliance with
`
`NEPA, ESA, and the APA.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Martha Williams is sued in her official capacity as Acting Director of
`
`the USFWS. Through delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior,
`
`Williams is legally responsible for the failure to protect Bell Bowl Prairie.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`27.
`
`NLI brings this action under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370e, the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 2201 (Declaratory Judgment Act), 28 U.S.C. 2202 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (Injunctive and
`
`Temporary Relief), 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (mandamus actions), and state law claims for which there is
`
`jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. NLI intends to amend this Complaint for further relief in the
`
`proper course of law and time to seek relief under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1532, et seq., which provides for sixty days written notice prior to commencing an action under
`
`the ESA. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g).
`
`28.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (judicial
`
`review under APA); 28 U.S.C. § 2201. This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331, 1361 which grants federal district courts “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
`
`under the . . . laws . . . of the United States” and “any action in the nature of mandamus to compel
`
`an officer . . . of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over all other claims.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 9 of 44 PageID #:9
`
`29.
`
`Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)-(2) and (e)
`
`because the Bell Bowl Prairie located on the RFD is within the Western Division of the Northern
`
`District of Illinois.
`
`30.
`
`The federal agencies have waived sovereign immunity in this action pursuant to
`
`5 U.S.C. § 702.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
`
`The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)
`
`31.
`
`NEPA’s central goals are “[t]o declare a national policy which will encourage
`
`productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which
`
`will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and
`
`welfare of man; [and] to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources
`
`important to the Nation . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
`
`32.
`
`NEPA requires that “Federal agencies consider the environmental impacts of their
`
`actions in the decision-making process” and “provide a detailed statement on proposals for major
`
`Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. . . . The purpose
`
`and function of NEPA is satisfied if Federal agencies have considered relevant environmental
`
`information, and the public has been informed regarding the decision-making process.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1500.1(a).
`
`33.
`
`As the Nation’s environmental policy, Congress has declared that “it is the
`
`continuing policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State and local governments,
`
`and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures,
`
`including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the
`
`general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 10 of 44 PageID #:10
`
`productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future
`
`generations of Americans.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(a).
`
`34.
`
`“Congress recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment and
`
`that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
`
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4331(c).
`
`35.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 4342, Congress created the Council on Environmental Quality
`
`(CEQ) to promulgate regulations applicable to all federal agencies consistent with the intent and
`
`purposes of NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500 et seq. NEPA is binding on all Federal agencies. Id.
`
`§ 1500.3(a).
`
`36.
`
`Under NEPA, federal, state, and local agencies are authorized to cooperate with one
`
`another in preparing environmental documents. 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2. Federal, state and local agencies
`
`as well as any applicants and the public are also required to be involved in preparing the environmental
`
`assessments and implementing NEPA. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.5(e), 1506.6. Agencies shall further consult
`
`with other agencies concerning concurrence on statutory determinations. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.1(b)(2).
`
`37.
`
`All agencies of the Federal Government shall also “study, develop, and describe
`
`appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved
`
`conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(E).
`
`38.
`
`NEPA regulations permit federal agencies, such as the FAA, to set forth their own
`
`policies and procedures for implementation and compliance with NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1500.6. The
`
`FAA’s policies and procedures for implementing NEPA, in addition to those found in the NEPA
`
`regulations, are found in FAA Order 1050.1F and the FAA’s implementing instructions for airport
`
`actions are found in FAA Order 5050.4B.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 11 of 44 PageID #:11
`
`39.
`
`In determining the appropriate level of review under NEPA, when the proposed
`
`action is not categorically excluded, federal agencies are required to determine whether the proposed
`
`action “[i]s not likely to have significant effects or the significance of the effects is unknown and is
`
`therefore appropriate for an environmental assessment” or “[i]s likely to have significant effects and
`
`is therefore appropriate for an environmental impact statement.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3.
`
`40.
`
`Environmental assessments (“EA”) assess the proposed action’s environmental
`
`impacts and determine whether those impacts require a more extensive review in the form of an
`
`environmental impact statement. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(h). “In considering whether the effects of the
`
`proposed action are significant, agencies shall analyze the potentially affected environment and degree
`
`of the effects of the action. . . . In considering the potentially affected environment, agencies should
`
`consider, as appropriate to the specific action, the affected area (national, regional, or local) and its
`
`resources, such as listed species and designated critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act.
`
`Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific
`
`action, significance would usually depend only upon the effects in the local area. In considering the
`
`degree of the effects, agencies should consider the following, as appropriate to the specific action: (i)
`
`Both short- and long-term effects. (ii) Both beneficial and adverse effects. (iii) Effects on public health
`
`and safety. [and] (iv) Effects that would violate Federal, State, Tribal, or local law protecting the
`
`environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3(b).
`
`41.
`
`In preparing the EA, coordination with agencies, industry groups, and the affected
`
`community are required to ensure that the “issues of greatest public concern” are addressed. FAA
`
`Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 704.a.
`
`42.
`
`“The FAA must advise and assist the applicant during preparation of the EA, and
`
`must independently evaluate and take responsibility for the EA to ensure that: (1) the applicant’s
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 12 of 44 PageID #:12
`
`potential conflict of interest does not impair the objectivity of the document; and (2) the EA meets
`
`the requirements” of FAA Order 1050.1F. FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 2.2-1.d.
`
`43.
`
`An EA must be “a ‘concise document’ that takes a ‘hard look’ at expected
`
`environmental effects of a proposed action.” FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 700. To meet NEPA’s
`
`“hard look” requirement, the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory
`
`explanation for its action. This includes requiring that environmental impacts are discussed in
`
`sufficient detail. “The EA must show that FAA took the required ‘hard look’ at these impacts to
`
`support an FAA decision to prepare a FONSI or an EIS.” FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 706.f.
`
`44.
`
`“The EA must discuss, in comparative form, the reasonably foreseeable environmental
`
`impacts of the proposed action, the no action alternative, and any other alternatives being considered
`
`in detail. . . . The discussion of environmental impacts must focus on substantive issues and provide
`
`sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI.” FAA Order
`
`1050.1F, Paragraph 6-2.1.f. The factors that must be considered include: Unique characteristics
`
`of the geographic area (e.g., proximity to historic or cultural resources, parks, prime farmlands,
`
`wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, ecologically critical areas); Adverse impacts on properties listed
`
`or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; Loss or destruction of significant
`
`scientific, cultural, or historical resources; Adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species
`
`or critical habitat; Whether an action threatens a violation of Federal, state, or local law or
`
`requirements imposed for the protection of the environment; Impacts that may be both beneficial
`
`and adverse. A significant impact may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance
`
`the impact will be beneficial; The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human
`
`environment are likely to be highly controversial; and Whether the action is related to other actions
`
`with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance cannot be
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 13 of 44 PageID #:13
`
`avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into component parts.” FAA Order
`
`1050.1F, Paragraph 4-3.2.
`
`45.
`
`“The focus of this analysis is on resources that would be directly, indirectly, and
`
`cumulatively affected. The analysis should include consideration of possible conflicts with the
`
`objectives of Federal, regional, state, tribal, and local land use plans, policies, and controls for the
`
`area concerned, as well as any other unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
`
`resources.” FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 6-2.1.f.
`
`46.
`
`The EA should include information on existing and planned land uses and zoning for
`
`a number of items, including federally-listed threatened, or endangered species as well as information
`
`on state-listed species as well as historic, archeological, or cultural resources on or eligible for inclusion
`
`on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 706.e.(3)(e), (g).
`
`47.
`
`Proposed alternatives must be considered, and “[g]enerally, the greater degree of
`
`impacts, the wider range of alternatives that should be considered.” FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph
`
`6-2.1.d.
`
`48.
`
`If, after completing an EA, the agency concludes that an EIS is not required, it will
`
`issue a “finding of no significant impact” (“FONSI”). 40 C.F.R. § 1501.6. However, if an EA
`
`results in a finding that an action will likely have significant effects on the human environment,
`
`then the agency must prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.3.
`
`49.
`
`FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 9-3 and FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 1402 identify
`
`when a supplemental environmental assessment must be prepared and the required contents for the
`
`supplement.
`
`50.
`
`FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 9-3 provides in relevant part that: “The responsible
`
`FAA official must prepare a supplemental EA, draft EIS, or final EIS if either of the following occurs:
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 14 of 44 PageID #:14
`
`(1) there are substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental concerns, or
`
`(2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and
`
`bearing on the proposed action or its impacts . . . .” (emphasis added). “Significant information is
`
`information that paints a dramatically different picture of impacts compared to the description of
`
`impacts in the EA or EIS. The FAA also may prepare supplements when the purposes of NEPA will
`
`be furthered by doing so . . . . If a supplement changes a FONSI or a ROD, the FAA must issue a new
`
`FONSI or ROD.” Id.
`
`51.
`
`FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 1402.b. provides: “Text at 40 CFR 1502.9(c) discusses
`
`the need for supplementing EISs. Based on that regulation, the following situations require FAA to
`
`supplement EAs and EISs. (1) The airport sponsor or FAA makes substantial changes in the proposed
`
`action that could affect the action’s environmental effects. or (2) Significant new changes,
`
`circumstances or information relevant to the proposed action, its affected environment, or its
`
`environmental impacts becomes available.”
`
`52.
`
`The supplement to the environmental assessment must be approved or disapproved and
`
`used in the decision-making process to issue a new FONSI or other document. FAA Order 5050.4B,
`
`Paragraph 1402.d.
`
`Illinois Endangered Species Protection and Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Acts
`
`53.
`
`In Illinois “[i]t is the public policy of all agencies of State and local governments to
`
`utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of th[e] [Illinois Endangered Species Protection
`
`Act] by evaluating through a consultation process with the Department [of Natural Resources] whether
`
`actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
`
`Illinois listed endangered and threatened species or are likely to result in the destruction or adverse
`
`modification of the designated essential habitat of such species . . . and where a State or local agency
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 15 of 44 PageID #:15
`
`does so consult in furtherance of this public policy, such State or local agency shall be deemed to have
`
`complied with its obligations under the “Illinois Endangered Species Act”, provided the agency action
`
`shall not result in the killing or injuring of any Illinois listed animal species, or provided that
`
`authorization for taking a listed species has been issued under Section 4, 5, or 5.5 of this Act.” 520 Ill.
`
`Comp. Stat. Ann. 10/11(b).
`
`54.
`
`Likewise, the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act provides that: “All areas within
`
`the State except those that are expressly designated by law for preservation and protection in their
`
`natural condition are liable to be altered by human activity. Natural lands and waters together with the
`
`plants and animals living thereon in natural communities are a part of the heritage of the people. They
`
`are of value for scientific research, for teaching, as reservoirs of natural materials not all of the potential
`
`uses of which are now known, as habitats for rare and vanishing species, as places of historic and
`
`natural interest and scenic beauty and as living museums of the native landscape wherein one may
`
`envision and experience primeval conditions in a wilderness-like environment. They also contribute
`
`generally to the public health and welfare and the environmental quality of the State. It is therefore the
`
`public policy of the State of Illinois to secure for the people of present and future generations the
`
`benefits of an enduring resource of natural areas, including the elements of natural diversity present in
`
`the State, by establishing a system of nature preserves, protecting nature preserves and gathering and
`
`disseminating information regarding them, providing for appropriate use of nature preserves that will
`
`not damage them, establishing and maintaining a register of natural areas and buffer areas, providing
`
`certain forms of protection and control of registered natural areas and registered buffer areas and
`
`otherwise encouraging and assisting in the preservation of natural areas and features.” 525 Ill. Comp.
`
`Stat. Ann. 30/2.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 16 of 44 PageID #:16
`
`55.
`
`A consultation process among the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and other
`
`State and local agencies and governments under the Illinois Endangered Species Act has been
`
`implemented under Part 1075 of the Illinois Administrative Code concerning the impacts on State
`
`endangered and threatened species and Natural Areas. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1075.10. In order to
`
`promote the conservation of threatened and endangered species and Natural Areas, it is the policy of
`
`Illinois to avoid adverse impacts to those species and Natural Areas. See id. An “adverse impact” is
`
`defined as a direct or indirect alteration of the physical or biological features of the air, land or water
`
`that may affect the survival, reproduction or recovery of a listed species or that may diminish the
`
`viability of a natural area.” Ill. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1075.20. A “natural area” includes “any area of
`
`land in public or private ownership that is registered under the Natural Areas Act or is identified in the
`
`Illinois Natural Areas Inventory.” Id.
`
`56.
`
`Consultation is required when “[a]ny construction, land management or other activity
`
`authorized, funded or performed by a State agency or local unit of government that will result in a
`
`change to the existing environmental conditions and/or may have a cumulative, direct or indirect
`
`adverse impact on a listed species or its essential habitat or that otherwise jeopardizes the survival of
`
`that species and/or may have a cumulative, direct or indirect adverse impact on a Natural Area,”
`
`including but not limited to: “the alteration, removal, excavation or plowing of non-farmed, non-
`
`cultivated areas, or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, minerals, organic matter, vegetation, or naturally
`
`occurring materials of any kind . . . or the grading or removal of materials that would alter existing
`
`topography. . . .” Ill. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1075.30(a).
`
`57.
`
`Any proposed action shall not commence until the completion of the consultation
`
`process as required under Part 1075, including but not limited to the preparation of agency action
`
`reports. See Ill. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1075.40.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 3:21-cv-50410 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/26/21 Page 17 of 44 PageID #:17
`
`58.
`
`Incidental taking may not be authorized if the

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket