Residents, scientists urge Rock Island council to pause Milan Bottoms development over eagles, endangered turtles and wetlands

Dozens of residents, scientists and tribal representatives told the Rock Island City Council that a proposed development near the Milan Bottoms would harm wildlife and wetlands, and asked the council to delay approvals until more field surveys and permitting are completed.

The comments came as the council approved setting a public hearing date for proposed amendments to the Parkway I-280 casino tax-increment financing (TIF) redevelopment plan and debated a right-of-entry agreement that would allow a developer to access the property for due diligence. City staff and the city attorney said wetland conservation can be an allowable TIF expenditure, but councilors tabled a separate motion about site fencing and asked the developer for more information.

Why this matters: The area under discussion is cited by multiple speakers as an important riverine wetland and, they say, the site of a documented communal bald-eagle night roost and nesting habitat for state-listed and federally recognized species. Speakers including wildlife scientists and local residents said the environmental review available to the council is incomplete and that site access or fencing before formal permitting would risk habitat disturbance.

Scientists and local experts who addressed the council said the project’s environmental assessment relied on desktop sources rather than field surveys. Kelly McKay, a wildlife biologist from Hampton, said the assessment “never mention[ed] the word Bald Eagles” and warned that mitigation proposals the city and developer offered would be insufficient. “Those mitigations do not work,” McKay said, citing post‑construction shifts in eagle use downstream after another riverside project opened.

Madeline Markazich, who has worked on regional amphibian and herpetology field surveys, told the council that species such as Blanding’s turtles and several bat species depend on the bottoms’ current light and nesting conditions. “More scientific work needs to be done,” she said, and she said the available consultant materials appear to have been prepared using remote, desktop methods rather than comprehensive on‑site surveys.

Attorney Jared Logan told the council that approving fences or other site control measures before required permits and field studies would risk unlawful harm to endangered species. “If approved, NTI and its fat cat partners will have started their degradation of the wetlands without even laying a single brick,” Logan said, urging the council not to grant actions that would preempt environmental review.

Several speakers urged the council to move potential uses—truck stop, cannabis dispensary, boardwalks, bike paths—to alternative sites outside the bottoms. Justin Booker, who grew up in Rock Island, said the combination of a truck stop and a dispensary adjacent to wetlands and a highway raises public‑safety and pollution concerns.

City staff and legal counsel responded in public discussion that wetlands and certain park or conservation improvements can fall within allowable TIF uses under Illinois law, and that the current step before the council was to set a public hearing on proposed amendments to the Parkway I‑280 TIF plan. City attorney Miles (identified at the meeting as the city attorney) said, “You can wetlands can be included in TIF districts, and improvements can be made in those under other categories of use” and that park‑type work has been funded in other communities.

Council action and next steps: The council voted to set a public hearing for the proposed Parkway I‑280 TIF amendments (agenda item 8E). Separately, staff presented a right‑of‑entry agreement (agenda item 12A) that would permit a developer to enter the site for environmental and site investigations; councilors debated a proposed amendment to remove language allowing fencing and voted to table the right‑of‑entry discussion to the council’s April 28 meeting so the city can obtain clearer detail from the developer about the scope of site security requested.

What councilors and staff said about evidence and process: Several commenters and some councilors asked for field surveys, species inventories and clear information on what the developer would physically do during due diligence (equipment, borings, fencing or gating). Staff said the right‑of‑entry, as drafted, would not authorize construction and is intended for site investigations and to address safety and liability during those studies. Councilors asked the developer and staff to specify precisely what “securing the site” would require before allowing fencing or gate installations.

Ending: The council’s April action set a public hearing on the TIF amendments while holding further action on developer access and site control for at least two weeks. Several public commenters said they will pursue administrative or legal avenues, and one speaker said petition and litigation activity was being prepared if approvals proceed without further field study and permitting.