DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Blue Lake Rancheria, Humboldt County, California Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 810 Seventh Street, NW Washington, DC 20531 1.0 333333333333333 Cooperating Agency: Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Council 428 Chartin Road Blue Lake, California 95525 August 2020 Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Blue Lake Rancheria Table of Contents DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... viii 2.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Background ................................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................. 2 2.4 General Setting ............................................................................................................ 3 2.5 Overview of the Environmental Review Process ..................................................... 3 2.6 Environmental Issues Addressed .............................................................................. 3 2.6.1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) .................................................................. 3 2.6.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ................................................... 4 2.6.3 Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................... 4 2.6.4 American Indian Religious Freedom Act .................................................................. 5 2.6.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................ 5 2.6.6 State and Local Agencies ........................................................................................... 5 2.7 Document Contact Information .................................................................................. 5 3.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................... 7 3.1 Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) ................................................................... 7 3.2 Alternative Site Considered (But Eliminated from Further Study) ....................... 14 3.3 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................ 14 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................................... 15 4.1 Land Resources ........................................................................................................ 15 4.1.1 Topography ................................................................................................................ 15 4.1.2 Soil Types and Characteristics ................................................................................ 15 4.1.3 Geologic Setting ........................................................................................................ 16 4.1.4 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................ 16 4.1.5 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Water Resources ....................................................................................................... 17 4.2.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 18 4.2.2 Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 18 4.2.3 Floodplains ................................................................................................................ 19 4.2.4 Wetlands .................................................................................................................... 19 4.2.5 Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 20 4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................. 2 0 4.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................ 23 4.4.1 Habitat Types ............................................................................................................. 23 4.4.2 Wildlife........................................................................................................................ 23 4.4.3 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 23 4.4.4 Sensitive Species and Habitats ............................................................................... 24 4.4.5 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................... 27 4.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 28 4.5.1 Ethnography and History ......................................................................................... 29 4.5.2 Historic, Cultural, and Religious Properties ........................................................... 29 4.6 Wilderness ................................................................................................................. 29 August 2020 i Draft Environmental Assessment Transportation / O.E.S. Complex/Justice Center Blue Lake Rancheria Table of Contents 4.7 Sound and Noise ....................................................................................................... 29 4.8 Public Health and Safety .......................................................................................... 29 4.9 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................. 30 4.10 Socioeconomic Conditions ...................................................................................... 30 4.10.1 Employment and Income ...................................................................................... 30 4.11 Attitudes, Expectations, Lifestyle, and Cultural Values ........................................ 31 4.12 Community Infrastructure ........................................................................................ 31 4.12.1 Fire Protection and Emergency Services ........................................................... 31 4.12.2 Law Enforcement .................................................................................................. 32 4.12.3 Schools .................................................................................................................. 32 4.12.4 Solid Waste Disposal ............................................................................................ 32 4.12.5 Gas and Electric Services .................................................................................... 32 4.12.6 Communications Service ..................................................................................... 32 4.12.7 Water Service ......................................................................................................... 33 4.12.8 Sanitary Sewer Services ....................................................................................... 33 4.13 Resource Use Patterns ............................................................................................. 33 4.13.1 Hunting, Fishing, Gathering ................................................................................. 33 4.13.2 Timber .................................................................................................................... 33 4.13.3 Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 33 4.13.4 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................ 33 4.13.5 Recreation .............................................................................................................. 33 4.13.6 Transportation Network ........................................................................................ 34 4.13.7 Land Use Plans ...................................................................................................... 34 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ......................................................................... 36 5.1 Land Resources ........................................................................................................ 43 5.2 Topography ................................................................................................................ 43 5.2.1 Soil Types and Characteristics ................................................................................ 43 5.2.2 Geologic Setting ........................................................................................................ 43 5.2.3 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................................ 44 5.2.4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families Susie Van Kirk
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Susie Van Kirk Papers Special Collections 1-2013 Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families Susie Van Kirk Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk Part of the Genomics Commons Recommended Citation Van Kirk, Susie, "Brock, Lowry, Leon, Bailey, Woodward, Maple, Brett, Cripe and Cooper Families" (2013). Susie Van Kirk Papers. 8. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/svk/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Special Collections at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Susie Van Kirk Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Susie Van Kirk Historic Resources Consultant P.O Box 568 Bayside, CA 95524 [email protected] 707-822-6066 January 2013 BROCK, LOWRY, LEON, BAILEY, WOODWARD, MAPLE, BRETT, CRIPE AND COOPER FAMILIES Addendum, Feb. 2013 FE (16 Feb. 1894) Erick Thorsen and Yarnell Cooper have been brought from Orleans to Eureka charged with grand larceny in having killed a beef belonging to C.S. Hoffman and used it for food. FE (9 March 1894) Yarnell Cooper has been held to answer to charge of grand larceny [Thorsen released] FE (3 May 1895) Mrs. Thos. Brett, aged 21 years, died at Hoopa a few days since, of consumption. 1880 U.S. Census, Humboldt county, Redwood; Willow Creek precinct [Indian residents] 8. Jim, Capt., 40, Calif. 9. Mary, 30, wife 10. George, 12, son 11. Mary, 30 sister 12.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe
    THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Sociology May, 2008 THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Jennifer Eichstedt, Committee Chair Date Elizabeth Watson, Committee Member Date Judith Little, Committee Member Date Jennifer Eichstedt, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE Karen Elizabeth Nelson In 2004, the Eureka City Council legally returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot tribe. This return occurred one hundred and forty four years after the Indian Island massacre. This research explores the returning of sacred tribal land in the context of collective apologies and reconciliations after generations of Native genocide. The significance of this case study includes a detailed narration of how the land transfer occurred and more importantly why it was labeled “the right thing to do” by Eureka City Council members and staff. This case study was examined with a grounded theory methodology. Using no hypotheses, the research and the research methodology unfolded in a non-linear process, letting the research speak for itself. Detailed interviews and a review of documents were used to qualify and quantify this unique community based social act. The results of this case study include how and why the Eureka City Council returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot people.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6 Cultural Resources, Including Tribal Cultural Resources
    3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES This section presents an evaluation of the potential impacts of project implementation on cultural resources. “Cultural resources” is a general term that encompasses CEQA’s historical resource and unique archaeological resource (see Section 3.6.2, “Regulatory Setting,” for definitions of historical resources and unique archaeological resources). Cultural resources may include archaeological traces such as early Native American occupation sites and artifacts, historic-age buildings and structures, and places used for traditional Native American observances or places with special cultural significance. These materials can be found at many locations on the landscape, and along with prehistoric and historic human remains and associated grave-goods, are protected under various state and local statutes. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. During the public scoping comment period, comments relevant to tribal lands and artifacts, and previous Scotia EIRs that addressed historical resource planning, protection, and the special Scotia Historic Resource Protection zoning provisions were received. These topics are discussed in this section. 3.6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The information in this section was collected from the following cultural resources technical reports that were prepared for the project applicant. They included the results of a records search, lists
    [Show full text]
  • County Profile
    FY 2020-21 PROPOSED BUDGET SECTION B:PROFILE GOVERNANCE Assessor County Counsel Auditor-Controller Human Resources Board of Supervisors Measure Z Clerk-Recorder Other Funds County Admin. Office Treasurer-Tax Collector Population County Comparison Education Infrastructure Employment DEMOGRAPHICS Geography Located on the far North Coast of California, 200 miles north of San Francisco and about 50 miles south of the southern Oregon border, Humboldt County is situated along the Pacific coast in Northern California’s rugged Coastal (Mountain) Ranges, bordered on the north SCENERY by Del Norte County, on the east by Siskiyou and Trinity counties, on the south by Mendocino County and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The climate is ideal for growth The county encompasses 2.3 million acres, 80 percent of which is of the world’s tallest tree - the forestlands, protected redwoods and recreational areas. A densely coastal redwood. Though these forested, mountainous, rural county with about 110 miles of coastline, trees are found from southern more than any other county in the state, Humboldt contains over forty Oregon to the Big Sur area of percent of all remaining old growth Coast Redwood forests, the vast California, Humboldt County majority of which is protected or strictly conserved within dozens of contains the most impressive national, state, and local forests and parks, totaling approximately collection of Sequoia 680,000 acres (over 1,000 square miles). Humboldt’s highest point is sempervirens. The county is Salmon Mountain at 6,962 feet. Its lowest point is located in Samoa at home to Redwood National 20 feet. Humboldt Bay, California’s second largest natural bay, is the and State Parks, Humboldt only deep water port between San Francisco and Coos Bay, Oregon, Redwoods State Park (The and is located on the coast at the midpoint of the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt County District Attorney & Tribal Governments Roundtable
    H um boldt C ounty D istrict A ttorney & T ribal G overnm ents R oundtable Comprised of Humboldt County District Attorney, Humboldt County D.A. Victim Witness, California Attorney General's Office, California Emergency Management Agency, and Center for Indian Law & Economic Justice, Inc. & Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, Big Lagoon Rancheria, Blue Lake Rancheria, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Karuk Tribe, Trinidad Rancheria, Wiyot Tribe, and the Yurok Tribe. Inappreciationofyourcommitment The Humboldt County District Attorney and Local Tribal Governments respectfully thanks you for your support and presence at the form al adoption and signing of the Memorandum of Understanding. This Memorandum of Understanding evidences the willingness and commitment of the signers to work towards mutual goals and foster stronger communication between the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and Tribal Governments. Hum boldt County D istrict Attorney & Tribal Governments Roundtable M emorandum o f Understanding Form al Adoption Ju ne 17, 2009 Humboldt County District Attorney and Tribal Governments Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) evidences the willingness and commitment of the signers to work toward mutual goals and foster stronger communication between the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office and Tribal Governments. Mission The mission of the Humboldt County District Attorney and Tribal Governments’ Roundtable is to create and increase communications between sovereign Tribal Governments and the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office. The Roundtable fosters education of our mutual constituencies to meet our needs by multi-level training, in-services and presentations. The Roundtable is committed to ensuring a mechanism is emplaced to address concerns or issues between our entities.
    [Show full text]
  • October 2008
    Wiyo t Tribe 1000 W iyot Dr. Loleta, CA 95551 Phone: 707-733-5055 Fax: 707- 733-5601 Email: wiyot@ wiyo t.us Wiyot News Volume 11, 08 NovemberApril 2008 2008 Edited by Linda C . Woodin Wiyot Tribe 1000 Wiyot Drive, Loleta CA 95551 (707) 733-5055 www.wiyot.us served in Afghanistan and Iraq. Inside this issue: Vote We don’t want to honor them as a group, but as individuals. For each Of Interest 2 Vote who put his or her life on the line, it was a very personal experience. For Cultural From the Ground Up 4 Vote those recovering from the effects of Language 6 war, it is very much an individual ex- November 4th, 2008 Environment Around Us 8 perience. News and Notes from Social 11 Our veterans today are the every- Services Once again it’s time for the Ameri- day men and women. We know them Boys & Girls Club Calendar 13 can people to have their voice heard in as friends, neighbors, relatives, and co- the Presidential Election of 2008. En- workers. They have Tribal Calendar courage people you come into contact persevered and 15 with to register to vote, talk about the strengthened our country with their issues and become informed. sacrifices and con- The issues before us are many: the tributions many of which were beyond war in Iraq, Social Security monies, duty’s call. Veterans are our finest citi- health care for the millions of people zens. As we honor them, we also who have none, energy and the think about their successors, those never ending search for oil, the wild who are fighting to defend our free- government spending, and how to deal dom at home and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally Recognized Indian Tribes
    Appendix C: Federally Recognized Indian Tribes The following tribal entities within the contiguous 48 states are recognized and eligible to receive services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. For further information contact Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division of Tribal Government Services, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone number (202) 208-7445.1 Figure C.1 shows the location of the Federally Recognized Tribes. 1. Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma 2. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, California 3. Ak Chin Indian Community of Papago Indians of the Maricopa, Ak Chin Reservation, Arizona 4. Alabama and Coushatta Tribes of Texas 5. Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town of the Creek Nation of Oklahoma 6. Alturas Rancheria of Pit River Indians of California 7. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 8. Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming 9. Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of Maine 10. Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 11. Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of the Augustine Reservation, California 12. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin 13. Bay Mills Indian Community of the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Bay Mills. Reservation, Michigan 14. Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California 15. Big Lagoon Rancheria of Smith River Indians of California 1Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 220, November 13, 1996. C–1 Figure C.1.—Locations of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. C–2 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Replicating/Reintroducing Historical Tribal Ignition Patterns: Riving The
    Replicating/ReintroducingReplicating/Reintroducing historicalhistorical tribaltribal ignitionignition patterns:patterns: RivingRiving thethe culturalcultural firefire regime.regime.  FrankFrank KanawhaKanawha LakeLake  USDAUSDA ForestForest ServiceService-- PSW,PSW, RWURWU--4155,4155, Orleans/Redding,Orleans/Redding, Ca.Ca.  TraditionalTraditional EcologicalEcological KnowledgeKnowledge andand EthnobiologyEthnobiology Photo: Somes Fire, Orleans Complex August 2006. Working with tribal heritage resource advisors. Klamath Fire Symposium April 26, 2008. Objectives:Objectives:  1. Describe Indian burning practices.  2. Define Tishunick-Various ways to burn willows Camp Creek Indigenous/Cultural fire regimes  3. Review documented reasons for Indian burning practices. ObjectivesObjectives con’t.:con’t.:  4. Describe some effects of Indian burning practices on the composition, structure, function and productivity of plant communities and fuels associated with different habitats.  5. Identify potential ways in which valued tribal ignition patterns can be incorporated with fuels reduction projects, prescribed burning, wildland fire use, appropriate management response, or fire suppression. EcosystemEcosystem Change:Change: What’sWhat’s NaturalNatural ??  WhatWhat wouldwould havehave biodiversitybiodiversity inin KlamathKlamath-- SiskiyouSiskiyou forests,forests, shrubshrub andand grasslandsgrasslands beenbeen likelike inin thethe absenceabsence ofof tribaltribal ignitions?ignitions? – Anderson and Lewis 2002 Climate affected vegetation
    [Show full text]
  • YUROK TRIBE 190 Klamath Boulevard • Post Office Box 1027 • Klamath, CA 95548
    YUROK TRIBE 190 Klamath Boulevard • Post Office Box 1027 • Klamath, CA 95548 Yurok Tribe Written Testimony Regarding H.R. 5548, Fishery Failures: Urgently Needed Disaster Declarations Act January 14th, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Yurok Tribe is a federally recognized Indian tribe whose reservation is located on the Lower Klamath River in Northern California, spanning from the river’s mouth at the Pacific Ocean upriver to the Yurok village of Weitchpec. With more than 6,300 tribal members, the Yurok Tribe is the largest Indian tribe in California. The fishery resources of the Klamath and Pacific Ocean are the mainstay of the life, economy, and culture of the Yurok Tribe. See Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 486-87 (1973). The Klamath River Indian fishery is “not much less necessary to the existence of the [Yurok] Indians than the atmosphere they breathed.” Blake v. Arnett, 663 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir. 1981). A pillar of the Tribe’s legal rights is its federally reserved fishing right which was reserved in the creation of the Yurok Reservation. The Tribe enjoys commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial fishing rights on the lower 45 miles of the Klamath River which it exercises each year under strict regulation by the Yurok Tribal Government. See, Baley v United States, No. 18- 1323 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2019) (confirming Yurok fishing rights for commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial purposes). In this way, the Tribe maintains its fishing way of life. Tribal members are able to fish commercially to provide financial stability to their families, 1 ceremonially to support ancient practices necessary to maintain Yurok world balance, and for subsistence purposes to continue a fishing way of life.
    [Show full text]
  • California's North Coast Fishing Communities Historical
    California’s North Coast Fishing Communities Historical Perspective and Recent Trends Caroline Pomeroy, Cynthia J. Thomson, Melissa M. Stevens Published by California Sea Grant College Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive #0231 La Jolla CA 92093-0231 (858) 534-4446 www.csgc.ucsd.edu Publication No. T-072 This document was supported in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and produced under NOAA grant number NA10OAR4170060, project number C/P-1 through the California Sea Grant College Program. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of those organizations. Sea Grant is a unique partnership of public and private sectors, combining research, education, and outreach for public service. It is a national network of universities meeting changing environmental and economic needs of people in our coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes regions. California’s North Coast Fishing Communities Historical Perspective and Recent Trends Final Report to the California State Coastal Conservancy Award 06–128 August 2010 Caroline Pomeroy1, Cynthia J. Thomson2, Melissa M. Stevens1,2 1 California Sea Grant, University of California, Santa Cruz, Center for Ocean Health, 100 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Fisheries Ecology Division, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 CONTENTS Project Summary Regional Profile Crescent City Profile Trinidad Profile Eureka Profile Fort Bragg/Noyo Harbor Profile Appendix A: Acronyms Appendix B: Glossary Appendix C: Methodological Detail Appendix D: Project Team Biographies Project Summary ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge the support and input provided by North Coast fishing community members, including local fishermen, fish buyers, fishery-support business owners and staff, harbor managers and staff and many others.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovering the South Spit of Humboldt Bay Mark E
    ,,; STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION '- 45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105- 2219 ICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200 X ( 415) 904- 5400 • !"'~~ ;·•••mt ':·.•' ,''" nr'. ~ ~'t r,._ l' r '''-· COPY W12a STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION Consistency Determination No. CD-052-02 Staff: LJS-SF File Date: 7/12/02 60th Day: 9/10/02 75th Day: extended through 12/13/02 Commission Meeting: 12/11102 FEDERAL AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management • PROJECT LOCATION: Humboldt Bay South Spit, Humboldt County (Exhibits 1-2). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Implementation of the South Spit Interim Management Plan, a three-year plan to provide a baseline level of visitor services, public uses, resource protection, monitoring, and habitat restoration until the long-term management plan for the South Spit is developed. SUBSTANTIVE FILE DOCUMENTS: 1. South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 10, 2002 (BLM). 2. Environmental Assessment for the South Spit Interim Management Plan, July 2002 (BLM). 3. Biological Assessment for Arcata Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Interim Management Plan for Lands on the South Spit of Humboldt Bay, Managed under Conservation • Easement by the Bureau of Land Management, July 2002 (BLM) . CD-052-02 (BLM) Page2 4. Formal Consultation on the Interim Management Plan for Lands Managed by the Bureau of Land Management on the South Spit ofHumboldt Bay, California, September 11,2002 (U.S. • Fish and Wildlife Service). 5. South Spit Access Improvements (State Coastal Conservancy), August 8, 2002. 6. Adopted Findings for Humboldt County LCP Amendment No. 1-93 (Beach and Dunes Management Plan), December 13, 1993.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.10 Eel Planning Unit Action Plan, Humboldt County CWPP Final
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 EEL PLANNING UNIT ACTION PLAN Eel River. Photo: A River’s Last Chance (documentary, 2017). Chapter 4.10: Eel Planning Unit Action Plan HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 Table of Contents – Eel Planning Unit Action Plan 4.10 Eel Planning Unit Action Plan 4.10.1 Eel Planning Unit Description ............................................................................................ 4.10-1 4.10.2 Eel Assets and Values at Risk ............................................................................................. 4.10-1 4.10.3 Eel Wildfire Environment .................................................................................................. 4.10-3 4.10.4 Eel Fire Protection Capabilities.......................................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10.5 Eel Evacuation ................................................................................................................... 4.10-8 4.10.6 Eel Community Preparedness ........................................................................................... 4.10-9 4.10.7 Eel Local Wildfire Prevention Plans ................................................................................. 4.10-10 4.10.8 Eel Community Identified Potential Projects .................................................................. 4.10-13 4.10.9 Eel Action Plan ................................................................................................................. 4.10-15
    [Show full text]