U.S. Department of Defense
Date of this Version
1992
Abstract
This is in response to your May 21, 1992, letter requesting review and concurrence on a biological assessment prepared to evaluate routine actions of Section 404 and Section 10 of the Clean Water Act along the Missouri National Recreational River. This response has been prepared in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) Nebraska Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office.
This revision of your March 6, 1991, assessment addressed many of the concerns and recommendations that we brought to your attention in our April 2, 1991, letter to Mr. Kenneth Cooper and subsequent meeting on May 6, 1991. However, some concerns were not addressed, such as the need to include the bald eagle in your assessment (see our March 6, 1991, letter concerning the bald eagle).
We understand the need to proceed with a generic Section 7 clearance for minor Section 404 and Section 10 actions. This clearance is complicated by the need to look at secondary and cumulative impacts for each of the minor actions described in the biological assessment. Secondary and cumulative impacts were not fully addressed by the biological assessment. We believe that impacts to all federally listed species from the minor actions defined in the biological assessment can be avoided if these actions are conditioned as part of the permitting process. The following recommended conditions would allow the Service to provide a concurrence on a not likely to adversely affect call for threatened and endangered species found on the Missouri National Recreational River for the actions defined in your May 21, 1992, biological assessment. These conditions should be included in any permit issued by the Corps of Engineers (Corps).
Comments
Published by the U.S. Department of the Interior (1992) 1-59