DOCSLIB.ORG

Trabuco Community Defense Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Trabuco Community Defense Project United States Department of Agriculture Trabuco Community Defense Project Preliminary U.S. Forest Environmental Assessment Service April • 2010 Interdisciplinary Team members discuss the Trabuco Community Defense Project. Trabuco Ranger District • Cleveland National Forest 1147 East 6th St. • Corona, CA 92879 Orange and Riverside Counties, California T.6N., R.5W. and T.7S., R.6W., SBM Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 1 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call toll free (866) 632-9992 (voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment Contents Summary………………………………………….…………...…… 5 I Introduction………….………………….…………………………………………… 8 Background…………………………………………………………………. 8 Purpose and Need for Action………………………………………………… 11 Proposed Action…………………………………………………..………… 13 Decision Framework…………………………………………………………. 13 Public Involvement…………………………………………….…………….. 13 Issues……………………………………………………………………….. 14 II Alternatives……..…………………………………………………………………… 16 Alternative 1 – No Action……………………………………………………. 16 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ……………………………..………...…….. 16 Design Features (Resource Protection Measures) for Proposed Action……..……21 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed……………………………...……. 26 Comparison of Alternatives…………………………………….…………….. 27 III Environmental Consequences.………………………………………...…………… 28 1. Effects Relative to the 10 Significant Factors………….……………………. 28 2. Risk of Catastrophic Wildfire………………………….…..…………...….. 34 3. Air Quality…………………………………………………………...…… 42 4. Hydrology and Soils…………………………………………….…...……. 48 5. Fisheries…………………………………………………….…………….. 54 6. Wildlife………….………………………………………………..………. 56 7. Management Indicator Species………………………….….……..……….. 58 8. Sensitive Plants……………………………………………………...……. 60 9. Special Status Plants…………………………………………….…...……. 69 10. Scenery…………………………………………………….…………….. 74 11. Inventory Roadless Areas……………………………..…….…………….. 79 12. Wilderness………………………………………………….…………….. 81 13. Heritage…………………………………………………….…………….. 87 IV Interdisciplinary Team…………………………………………………..…………. 91 V References………………..…………………………………..…………..…………. 92 VI Appendices………..……………………………………….……………………….. 102 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 3 4 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment Summary The Trabuco District Ranger on the Cleveland National Forest has completed an environmental analysis with an Interdisciplinary Team for the Trabuco Community Defense Project. This project involves modifying fuels within the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. The project is located in portions of T.6N., R.5W. and T.7S., R.6W., SBM within Orange and Riverside counties. Portions of the project area are within or adjacent to the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness. The proposed action will include 13 treatment units totaling approximately 465 acres. It is expected that the units outside of the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness can be mechanically treated. Units within this wilderness area will be treated with non-motorized equipment and non- mechanical transport. No new road construction is proposed by this project. Because the majority of the proposed treatment units are already accessible by roads, the use of existing temporary roads would be minimal. The overall need for this project is to treat portions of the Wildland-Urban Interface “Defense and Threat Zones” identified for the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso. The purpose of these treatments would be to: • Reduce the threat of severe wildfires • Provide for firefighter safety by that could pose a risk to the people reducing flame lengths, radiant heat, and these communities by increasing wildfire intensities, and rate of fire defensible space. spread from wildland fires that might occur in the area. Key Objectives A key objective (purpose) of this project is to build on the current proposed Elsinore Peak fuel break project and the existing North Main Divide Fuel Break Project to create a continuous band of managed fuels to meet the Wildland-Urban Interface objectives noted in the Cleveland National Forest’s Forest Plan. Other key objectives include: • Managing the vegetation age-class in • Developing treatment methods the WUI to preserve the natural within the San Mateo Canyon diversity within fire-adapted habitat Wilderness that comply with the communities, and Wilderness Act. This action is needed because this project’s target communities are surrounded by wildland vegetation that is currently at high risk of catastrophic wildfire. Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment 5 Vegetation Condition The vegetation on National Forest System (NFS) lands around the communities of Rancho Carrillo, Rancho Capistrano, Decker Canyon, and El Cariso are predominantly chamise, ceanothus, manzanita, coastal sage scrub, coastal live oak, and scrub oak. This flammable wildland vegetation is highly prone to wildland fires. In addition, the fuel loading within the project area is medium to high—creating hazardous conditions with high potential to sustain large, high-intensity fires. Past and current drought conditions have resulted in the die-off of older brush in many areas and below-average live fuel moistures. This resultant condition has further increased the volume of dead fuel and the potential fire behavior. Unplanned fire ignitions started by the residents of these communities, recreationists, and those that occur along California State Highway 74 present a substantial risk to people and the environment. Much of this land is immediately adjacent to residential development on privately owned land—both outside the Forest boundary and within private in-holdings. This action is consistent with the existing Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service, 2005, pages 116-118). Two Alternatives Two alternatives were analyzed in this environmental assessment, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and a Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, current management would continue to guide activities within the project area. No vegetation reduction treatments, mastication or prescribed burning would be implemented. Little to no community defense space around private property on National Forest System lands would be created. Therefore, the project’s target Wildland-Urban Interface communities would continue to be threatened by a high risk for catastrophic wildfire. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative The Proposed Action Alternative would include units with both mechanical and non-mechanical hand treatments—both of which could be followed by the burning of piles or “crushed” brush areas. The project design features and mitigation measures would assure that treatments meet other needs as defined in the Forest Plan—designed to minimize impact to resources. (A description of these measures is outlined in Chapter Three – Alternatives.) Not a Decision Document This environmental assessment is not a decision document. This document discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the two alternatives analyzed in detail. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the Trabuco District Ranger will decide to: • Implement the proposed action, • Implement another action alternative that meets the purpose and need, or • Take no action at this time. 6 Trabuco Community Defense Project – Preliminary Environmental Assessment Given the purpose and need of the proposed project, the deciding official, the Trabuco District Ranger, reviews the analysis of the 1. No Action and 2. Proposed Action alternatives, as well as all public comment on this proposal, to determine whether to authorize activities to treat vegetation using mechanical treatment (brush crushing, mastication, and/or chipping), handwork, non-mechanical handwork, and/or prescribed fire. If vegetation treatment (under Alternative 2 – Proposed Action) were selected, the deciding official could determine: • Where and how many acres • The time periods for of each treatment would implementing treatments, and occur, • If, when, and how each • Design features that would be treatment project would be included with the treatment, implemented. The Proposed Action Alternative could impose impacts to: • Plants, • Wilderness, and • Wildlife, • Soils. However, with the implementation of the “mitigation measures” described in this document, the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Plan Amendment No. 1208 Lakeland Village Community Plan
    FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION General Plan Amendment No. 1208 Lakeland Village Community Plan State Clearinghouse No. 2020050501 Lead Agency: RIVERSIDE COUNTY Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 Contact: Mr. Robert Flores 951.955.1195 Prepared by: MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 3536 Concours Street Ontario, California 91764 Contact: Mr. Peter Minegar, CEP-IT 951.506.3523 June 2020 JN 155334 This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources. Section I Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration General Plan Amendment No. 1208 Lakeland Village Community Plan COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Environmental Assessment (CEQ / EA) Number: N/A Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): General Plan Amendment No. 1208 (GPA No. 1208) Lead Agency Name: Riverside County Planning Department Address: 4080 Lemon Street, P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502-1409 Contact Person: Robert Flores (Urban and Regional Planner IV) Telephone Number: 951-955-1195 Applicant’s Name: N/A Applicant’s Address: N/A I. PROJECT INFORMATION Project Description: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT The County of Riverside is composed of approximately 7,300 square miles, bounded by Orange County to the west, San Bernardino County to the north, the State of Arizona to the east, and San Diego and Imperial Counties to the south. Development for the unincorporated County is guided by the Riverside County General Plan, which was last comprehensively updated and adopted in December 2015. The Riverside County General Plan is divided into 19 Area Plans covering most of the County (refer to Exhibit 1, Riverside County Area Plans).
    [Show full text]
  • Unit Strategic Fire Plan
    Unit Strategic Fire Plan CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire May 2020 CAL FIRE/Riverside Unit Strategic Fire Plan Page 1 Table of Contents SIGNATURE PAGE .........................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................4 SECTION I: UNIT OVERVIEW UNIT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................6 UNIT PREPAREDNESSAND FIREFIGHTING CAPABILITIES ............................... 12 SECTION II: COLLABORATION DEVELOPMENT TEAM .................................................................................................................... 14 SECTION III: VALUES AT RISK IDENTIFICATION OF VALUES AT RISK ............................................................ 17 COMMUNITIES AT RISK ................................................................................. 22 SECTION IV: PRE‐FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FIRE PREVENTION ........................................................................................ 24 ENGINEERING & STRUCTURE IGNITABILITY................................................... 27 INFORMATIONANDEDUCATION ................................................................... 28 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ..................................................................... 29 SECTION V: PRE‐FIRE MANAGEMENT TACTICS DIVISION / BATTALION / PROGRAM PLANS .................................................. 41 APPENDIX A: HIGH PRIORITY PRE‐FIRE PROJECTS .......................................
    [Show full text]
  • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Biological Monitoring Program Rare Plant Survey Report 2011 08 June 2012 Rare Plant Survey Report 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................1 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................2 SURVEY SITE SELECTION...................................................................................................................2 SURVEY METHODS ............................................................................................................................4 PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ...............................................................................................................5 DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................6 RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................................7 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Public Facilities
    Section 4.17 Public Facilities 4.17.1 Introduction This section assesses the potential impacts associated with public facilities that could occur as a result of future development accommodated by the proposed project, General Plan Amendment No. 960 (GPA No. 960). The emphasis of this section is on the various public services and facilities provided within unincorporated Riverside County, including fire protection, law enforcement protection by the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, solid waste management, schools, libraries and medical facilities. Wastewater (sanitary sewer) is discussed in Section 4.19 (Water Resources) along with other water supply issues; parks are addressed in Section 4.16 (Parks and Recreation). This EIR section examines the effects of build out of the General Plan on public services and assesses whether any adverse environmental effects would result from the need to provide additional public services or facilities as a result of the project’s revisions to the General Plan. This chapter also includes analysis of changes to baseline conditions that would result from future development accommodated by the project. The Riverside County General Plan does not include a section on public services, as it is not one of the seven general plan elements (land use, circulation, housing, conservation, noise, open space and safety) required pursuant to California Government Code (CGC) Section 65302. However, public services are addressed directly or indirectly in a variety of locations in the General Plan. A. Background on Data Sources and Methods The three most prominent characteristics of Riverside County affecting the delivery of services are its size, diverse topography and land use patterns.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Annual Report to the Wildlife Agencies
    Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Biological Monitoring Program 2017 Rare Plant Survey Report Mojave Tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis) 3 December 2018 2017 Rare Plant Survey Report TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..........................................................................................................................2 PROTOCOL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................... 2 SURVEY METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 2 TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 3 DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 4 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................5 MONITORING AND INVENTORY SURVEYS ............................................................................ 5 OBJECTIVES WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS .............................................................. 5 SENTINEL SITE VISITS AND INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL
    Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Elsinore Valley Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Chapter 3 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL DRAFT | January 2021 CHAPTER 3 | ELSINORE VALLEY SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN | EVMWD Contents Chapter 3 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model 3-1 3.1 Physical Setting and Topography 3-1 3.2 Surface Water Features 3-2 3.3 Soils 3-2 3.4 Geologic Setting 3-3 3.4.1 Pull-Apart Basin 3-3 3.4.2 Geologic Units 3-4 3.5 Faults 3-6 3.6 Aquifers 3-6 3.6.1 Description of Principal Aquifer Units 3-6 3.6.2 Physical Properties of Aquifers 3-7 3.6.3 Description of Lateral Boundaries 3-7 3.7 Structures Affecting Groundwater 3-8 3.8 Definable Basin Bottom 3-8 3.9 Cross Sections 3-8 3.9.1 Available Data and Information 3-9 3.9.2 Cross Section Construction 3-10 3.9.3 Hydrostratigraphic Evaluation 3-10 3.10 Recharge and Discharge Areas 3-11 3.11 Primary Groundwater Uses 3-11 3.11.1 Elsinore Hydrologic Area 3-11 3.11.2 Lee Lake Hydrologic Area 3-12 3.11.3 Warm Springs Hydrologic Area 3-12 3.12 Data Gaps in the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model 3-12 3.13 References 3-12 DRAFT | JANUARY 2021 | i pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/EVMWD/11585A00/Deliverables/RPT01/Ch03 EVMWD | ELSINORE VALLEY SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN | CHAPTER 3 Figures Figure 3-1 Subbasin Topography 3-17 Figure 3-2 Surface Water Bodies Tributary to Elsinore Valley Subbasin 3-19 Figure 3-3 Tributary Watershed 3-21 Figure 3-4 Subbasin Soil Hydrologic Properties 3-23 Figure 3-5 Surficial Geology 3-25 Figure 3-6 Cross Section Orientations 3-27
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species from FLA and FEIS
    Attachment 21 - Threatened and Endangered Species from FLA and FEIS EXHIBIT E – FISH, WILDLIFE AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES FERC Project No. 14227 Measure Description At least 180 days before the start of any land-disturbing or land-clearing activities, the Applicant shall file with FERC, for approval, a plan for clearing the reservoir area. The plan, at a minimum, shall include: (1) topographic maps identifying the location and acreage of lands to be cleared; (2) descriptions of the vegetation to be cleared; (3) descriptions of any resource management goals related to fish and wildlife enhancement through vegetative clearing or retention; (4) descriptions of the disposal methodologies and disposal location of unused timber, brush and refuse, and maps identifying the location of disposal sites; and (5) an implementation schedule. The Applicant shall prepare the plan after consultation with BR-27 the USDA Forest Service. The Applicant shall include with the plan documentation of consultation, (PME-E) copies of comments and recommendations on the completed plan after it has been prepared and provided to the agencies, and specific descriptions of how the agencies’ comments are accommodated by the plan. The Applicant shall allow a minimum of 30 days for the agencies to comment and to make recommendations before filing the plan with FERC. If the Applicant does not adopt a recommendation, the filing shall include the Applicant’s reasons, based on project-specific information. The FERC reserves the right to require changes to the plan. No land-disturbing or land-clearing activities shall begin until the Applicant is notified, by FERC, that the plan is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Economic Development Corporation of Southwest California Resource Guide www.edcswca.com E D C O F S O U T H W E S T C A L I F O R N I A R E S O U R C E G U I D E Including the cities of Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and parts of unincorporated Riverside County TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction……………………....… 3 City of Murrieta Business Development……………..... 3 Introduction……………………… 30 Chambers of Commerce……….…...... 7 Demographics……………………. 31 Lending Programs…………….......…. 9 City Contact Information...……… 31 Venture Capital……………………… 12 Workforce Development…………….. 13 City of Temecula Workforce Training…………………. 15 Introduction………………………. 31 Permits & Regulatory Compliance….. 20 Demographics…………………….. 31 Local Agencies………………………. 20 Tourism & Recreational Amenities. 32 State Agencies……………………….. 22 City Contact Information………… 32 Federal Agencies…………………….. 22 Legal Issues………………………….. 23 City of Wildomar Help in Permit Process………………. 23 Introduction………………………. 32 Transportation……………………….. 24 Demographics…………………….. 32 Utility Resources…………………….. 26 City Contact Information…………. 33 City of Lake Elsinore County of Riverside Introduction …………………………. 28 Introduction………………………. 33 Demographic Information…………… 29 Transportation….…………………. 33 City Contact Information……………. 30 Business Services…………………. 33 City of Menifee Elected Representatives…..……... 33 Introduction…………………………. 30 Demographics……………………..… 31 Miscellaneous ……………..…….. 35 City Contact Information...…………. 31 Publications………………..…….. 36 P.O. Box 1388, Temecula, CA 92593-1388, Phone: (951) 694-9800 2 Fax: (951) 694-9801, Web: http://www.edcswca.com Revised March 2012 E D C O F S O U T H W E S T C A L I F O R N I A R E S O U R C E G U I D E Including the cities of Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Murrieta, Temecula, Wildomar, and parts of unincorporated Riverside County INTRODUCTION is actively involved in facilitating the transfer of its technological developments Southwest California is an exciting for commercial development by private region in which to do business, covering industry.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological and Soil Resources
    FINAL APPLICATION FOR LICENSE OF MAJOR UNCONSTRUCTED PROJECT EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT Section 6 – Report on Geological and Soil Resources LAKE ELSINORE ADVANCED PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT NUMBER 14227 Applicant: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY, INC. 2416 Cades Way Vista, California 92081 (760) 599-1813 (760) 599-1815 FAX September 2017 EXHIBIT E– REPORT ON GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES FERC PROJECT NO. 14227 Table of Contents Section Page 6.0. Report on Geological and Soil Resources .................................................................... 1 6.1. Geology and Soils Environmental Setting. .............................................................. 1 6.1.1. City of Lake Elsinore. ................................................................................... 2 6.1.2. United States Geological Survey Geologic Maps. ....................................... 3 6.2. Regional Geology. ................................................................................................. 10 6.3. Geologic Hazards. ................................................................................................. 12 6.4. Geotechnical Feasibility Report. ........................................................................... 16 6.5. Geology and Soils Regulatory Setting ................................................................... 18 6.5.1. California Public Resources Code. ............................................................. 18 6.5.2. California Government Code. ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Western Half of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, Riverside County, California
    Geology of the Western Half of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, Riverside County, California By: Daniel M. Loera, Jr. A thesis submitted to the faculty of California State University, Fullerton In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science In Geology Department of Geological Sciences California State University, Fullerton September 2003 1 2 Geology of the Western Half of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, Riverside County, California By: Daniel M. Loera, Jr. Department of Geological Sciences California State University, Fullerton September 2003 3 ABSTRACT The Santa Rosa Plateau is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Range, just east of the Santa Ana Mountains and 2.4 km southwest of Murrieta, California. The erosionally dissected plateau is bound to the east by the Elsinore fault and is characterized by several basalt-capped mesas. There are no published comprehensive geologic investigations of the Santa Rosa Plateau and currently available geologic maps (most at a scale of 1:250,000) are insufficient for detailed work. This study provides (1) detailed geologic data in the form of mapped contacts, faults, folds, dikes, and other field relations; (2) interpretations of the data in terms of the intrusive, structural, depositional, and erosional history; and (3) a detailed geologic map (at a scale of 1:12,000) and report for the western half of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. The information gained from this field study will compliment Steve Turner’s field study of the eastern half of the reserve. The oldest rocks in the study area are metasedimentary rocks of the Bedford Canyon Formation (Jurassic) and metavolcanic rocks of the Santiago Peak Volcanics (Jurassic).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 – Potentially Vulnerable Species: Plants
    Chapter 5 Chapter 5 – Potentially Vulnerable Species: Plants The earth never tires: The earth is rude, silent, incomprehensible at first—Nature is rude and incomprehensible at first; Be not discouraged—keep on—there are divine things, well enveloped; I swear to you there are divine things more beautiful than words can tell. — Walt Whitman (1856) Key Questions • Which plant species are rare or at risk junct occurrences, or information is lacking in the coastal mountains and about their distribution and abundance. Some foothills of southern California? forests have developed a “watch list” to track • What is known about the status and these plants. distribution of each? With few exceptions, the plants addressed in this assessment are higher vascular plants • What factors threaten their continued and nomenclature follows the Jepson Manual persistence? (Hickman 1993). Virtually no evaluation was Using the fine-filter screening criteria (see done of the ferns, fern allies, bryophytes, li- description in the first section of chapter 4), chens, basidiomycetes, and ascomycetes in the we identified 256 plants occurring within or study area; however, their importance in for- near the assessment area which warrant indi- est ecosystems is well recognized. vidual consideration. Thirty of these species Our primary objective was to use the avail- are listed as threatened or endangered (table able information on the 256 identified plants 5.1) and thus legally protected under the fed- to assess their current status and vulnerability eral Endangered Species Act. Two additional within the assessment area, and, where pos- species are proposed for federal listing (table sible, identify their conservation needs.
    [Show full text]