Not necessarily. The computer overlays the State with a grid of one-mile squares. It then looks to see if any marked heritage record is in a grid square near your project. Many of those records will present no concern for most projects, but it takes a person to make judgments that the computer is not able to make. For example, a tower on a bluff overlooking a river is not likely to affect fish in the river, nor is a bridge likely to imperil an upland songbird. On the other hand, in-stream construction work could affect fish spawning or mussel beds many miles away.
Well over half of the heritage reviews we process on paper would get a Level 1 response at the website, allowing the planner to print off a document and move forward. Response to written requests is dependent on volume received and other staff projects. It can take anywhere from one to six weeks to get an answer. If more people use the website, fewer letters will come to our offices. That will mean a shorter stack to work our way through, quicker responses generally, and more time for staff to focus on providing the best answer to those projects where their review makes a difference.
Various laws, including the federal Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act, require or forbid certain actions by all people and agencies. These laws authorize some agencies to provide permits, approve activities, clear funds for release or make requirements. The Missouri Department of Conservation does not have authority to “clear” anything. MDC does maintain records, and a heritage review tells people what is known or suspected to be present. Generally, a Heritage Review showing no records of concern is enough information for regulatory agencies to approve permits or grants, or to state conditions under which they will "clear" your project. A Heritage Review does not relieve anyone of responsibility to comply with the laws. Securing a heritage review is a good faith effort to identify reasonable concerns, but it does not mean that conditions won't change or that there may not be surprises as a project progresses.
Biologists from many agencies feed information to Heritage records. When they find something -- a rare plant, animal or habitat -- they provide a record telling what it is, where it is, when they saw it and other things about it. When your project site includes or is near a heritage record, we refer to it as a "hit" and say something like, "we have a record of an eagle nest in the area you want to develop."
On the other hand, much is not recorded, and conditions change. For example, eagle nests may move around, but
almost all are in areas adjacent to large lakes or rivers. If a project
involves clearing timber in the
In both cases, the project manager has to evaluate the situation and decide what to do. If it's an eagle "hit," coordination with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required. If not, the manager still has a decision -- ignore it, go look, hire a consultant, etc. The decision hangs on the nature of the project, and the costs involved if the contingency is not well enough considered. The role of MDC is to provide information enabling project managers to plan and avoid surprises. Most species and sites of concern are much easier and cheaper to protect in the planning phase than after heavy machinery starts to move.
There are many reasons, some of which include:
The online review is immediate for Level 1 sites. Level 2 or 3 sites or other requests by mail normally take a week and may take longer if there is a backlog or if staff is in transition. Some days there are no reviews requested, but there are also days when 100 sites arrive to be checked. Reviews begin processing in the order received, but responses may be delayed while checking conditions with specialists or staff in the field. Once the technical issues are clear, a draft response goes to clerical staff for completion. This step involves assembling the response letter, logging into our record system, distributing and filing copies.