Draft Environmental Assessment Land Acquisition Project Nampa Municipal Airport

May 2020 Prepared By:

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Background and Proposed Action ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background and Existing Facilities ...... 1 1.2.1 Incompatible Land Uses in Runway 11 RPZ ...... 3 1.3 Existing Operations ...... 6 1.4 Airport Forecasts ...... 6 1.5 Proposed Action ...... 6 Chapter 2 Purpose and Need ...... 9 2.1 Purpose and Need ...... 9 2.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 9 2.3 Requested Federal Actions ...... 11 Chapter 3 Alternatives ...... 12 3.1 Alternatives Considered ...... 12 3.2 Alternatives Being Evaluated in this EA ...... 12 3.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... 12 3.2.2 Proposed Action ...... 12 Chapter 4 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences ...... 14 4.1 Introduction ...... 14 4.2 Air Quality ...... 14 4.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 15 4.2.2 Analysis ...... 15 4.2.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 15 4.2.4 Mitigation ...... 15 4.3 Biological Resources...... 15 4.3.1 Affected Environment ...... 16 4.3.2 Analysis ...... 17 4.3.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 17 4.3.4 Mitigation ...... 17 4.4. Climate ...... 17 4.4.1 Affected Environment ...... 17

4.3.2 Analysis ...... 17 4.3.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 18 4.3.4 Mitigation ...... 18 4.4 Coastal Resources ...... 18 4.5 Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) Resources ...... 18 4.5.1 Affected Environment ...... 19 4.5.2 Analysis ...... 20 4.5.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 21 4.5.4 Mitigation ...... 22 4.6 Farmlands ...... 22 4.6.1 Affected Environment ...... 23 4.6.2 Analysis ...... 23 4.6.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 23 4.6.4 Mitigation ...... 24 4.7 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste ...... 24 4.7.1 Affected Environment ...... 24 4.7.2 Analysis ...... 24 4.7.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 25 4.7.4 Mitigation ...... 25 4.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources ...... 25 4.8.1 Affected Environment ...... 26 4.8.2 Analysis ...... 26 4.8.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 27 4.8.4 Mitigation ...... 28 4.9 Land Use ...... 28 4.9.1 Affected Environment ...... 28 4.9.2 Analysis ...... 28 4.9.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 29 4.9.4 Mitigation ...... 29 4.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply ...... 29 4.10.1 Affected Environment ...... 30

4.10.2 Analysis ...... 30 4.10.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 30 4.10.4 Mitigation ...... 30 4.11 Noise and Compatible Land Use ...... 30 4.11.1 Affected Environment ...... 31 4.11.2 Analysis ...... 31 4.11.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 31 4.11.4 Mitigation ...... 32 4.12 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks ...... 32 4.12.1 Affected Environment ...... 32 4.12.2 Analysis ...... 33 4.12.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 34 4.12.4 Mitigation ...... 34 4.13 Visual Resources ...... 35 4.13.1 Affected Environment ...... 35 4.13.2 Analysis ...... 35 4.13.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 35 4.13.4 Mitigation ...... 36 4.14. Water Resources (including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) ...... 36 4.14.1 Affected Environment ...... 36 4.14.2 Analysis ...... 37 4.14.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 38 4.14.4 Mitigation ...... 38 4.15 Cumulative Impacts ...... 38 4.15.1 Past, Current, and Future Project Listings ...... 39 4.15.2 Environmental Impact Category Analysis ...... 40 4.16 Public Involvement ...... 43 4.17 Conclusion ...... 44 Chapter 5 Abbreviations & Acronyms ...... 45 Chapter 6 References ...... 47

Chapter 1. Background and Proposed Action 1.1 Introduction The Nampa Municipal Airport (FAA Identifier MAN) is located within the City of Nampa in Canyon County, Idaho. The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Nampa. The City of Nampa (the Airport Sponsor) is proposing to acquire a parcel of land located adjacent to the Airport in order to expand and protect the existing Runway 11 Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) to help to meet FAA design standards. The Proposed Action is described in detail in Section 1.5 of this document.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared to identify the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action, as well as how any identified impacts can be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The EA was prepared pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Title 40 CFR §§ 1500-1508, the implementing regulations for NEPA and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order 5050.4B National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. The implementation of the Proposed Action is contingent on the outcome of this EA, as well as the approval for and availability of FAA grant funding. If approved and funded, the proposed project is anticipated to begin in June 2020. 1.2 Background and Existing Facilities The Nampa Municipal Airport (the Airport) is located within the west ½ of Section 24, Township 3 N, Range 2 W in Canyon County, Idaho (Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map). The Airport currently encompasses 242 acres and is located 1.5 miles northeast of the Nampa City Center. Land uses surrounding the Airport include commercial, residential and agricultural activities. As one of Idaho’s fastest growing communities, the area surrounding the Airport, City and the County as a whole is developing rapidly. The forecasts compiled for the 2019 Master Plan Update (MPU) for the Nampa Airport indicates that the Boise Metropolitan Area (which includes the City of Nampa) population grew from 469,017 residents in 2000 to 713,623 residents in 2018, resulting in a historical compound average growth rate of 2.82% Future forecasts indicate that growth will continue, with the Boise Metropolitan Area potentially reaching 969,426 individuals by 2038. The high population growth rate of the area was further demonstrated by the U.S. Census Bureau information that indicates that the population of Nampa City alone has grown approximately 14.7 % from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (U.S. Census 2018). Providing safe, functional airport facilities for the growing community is a priority for the City of Nampa.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 1

Figure 1.1 Vicinity Map

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 2 Construction on the Nampa Airport began in 1929 as an 80-acre tract of land. Runway 11-29 was constructed in the early 1940’s. Since the 1970’s, the Airport has been funding projects to expand and improve the Airport facilities. The Airport is classified as a General Aviation (GA) airport, an airport that does not serve commercial airlines within the FAA’s National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). As part of the NPIAS, the Airport is eligible to receive federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Existing facilities at the Airport include one runway (Runway 11-29) which is 5,000 feet long and 75 feet wide, a full-length 35-foot wide parallel taxiway (Taxiway A), and Taxiways connectors A1-A6 which provide access to the runway and the Airport apron (Figure 1.2 Existing Airport Facilities). The apron contains tie-downs and hangar space. Other infrastructure at the Airport includes an airport terminal building, a public lounge, a restaurant and associated facilities. The Airport’s infrastructure also includes various navigational aids. The Airport is non-towered and Airport communications are provided by an air-ground communication facility. 1.2.1 Incompatible Land Uses in Runway 11 RPZ The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) is an area off the end of the runway intended to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. The FAA recommends that Airport Owners acquire or obtain control of all land with RPZs through fee simple acquisition or, at a minimum, obtain avigation easements. Securing the land use/development of the RPZ is a primary safety concern for the FAA. The most common location of aircraft accidents is off the ends of a runway within the RPZ. The FAA discourages incompatible uses in these areas including the establishments of churches, schools, hospitals, shopping centers, office buildings, public transportation facilities and other uses with similar concentrations of persons. The most used and equipped Runway for approaches at the Nampa Airport is Runway 11. Therefore, the Runway 11 RPZ is a critical portion of property for the Airport Sponsor to control to provide safe operating conditions at the Airport. The Runway 11 RPZ at Nampa currently has many incompatible land uses including residential and agricultural buildings, offices buildings and associated parking and transportation facilities (Figure 1.3 Incompatible Land Uses in Runway 11 RPZ).

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 3

Figure 1.2 Existing Airport Facilities

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 4

Figure 1.3 Incompatible Land Uses in Runway 11 RPZ

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 5 1.3 Existing Operations A process to update the current Airport Master Plan is underway. As part of the MPU process, baseline and forecasted operations numbers are analyzed to aid in future planning decisions. Aircraft operations and based aircraft numbers approved by the FAA in 2019 as part of the current MPU process for the Airport list that the Airport experienced approximately 89,600 annual operations and supported 276 based aircraft in 2018. 1.4 Airport Forecasts The current MPU projections of aviation activity at the Airport have been developed in order to evaluate the capability of the existing Airport facilities to meet current and future demand, and to estimate the extent to which facilities should be provided in the future. The forecasts have been developed for a 20-year planning period (2018-2038). The forecasts covered the short term (2018-2023), the intermediate term (2023-2028), and the long term (2028-2038). Table 1.1 provides the historical and projected base aircraft forecast from the current MPU process.

Table 1.1 Historical and Forecasted Based Aircraft from 2019 MPU process Total Single- Multi- Year Based Turboprop Jet Helicopter engine engine Aircraft 2018 276 257 10 3 0 6 2023 288 261 12 5 3 6 2028 312 279 12 8 5 8 2038 366 321 13 11 10 11 Source: Nampa Airport Master Plan Update 2019 Forecasts. The FAA has developed an airport coding system referred to as the Airport Reference Code (ARC) that establishes the specific design criteria for facility development. The Airport is currently classified as ARC B-I, however the Airport has been built to FAA’s B-II standards. An ARC of B-II means that the most demanding aircraft that make substantial use (500 annual operations or more) of the Airport have an Approach Speed in the “B” Category with a Wingspan in Group II. Although aircraft larger than those meeting the B-II classification use and are expected to continue to use the Airport, the existing and forecasted annual operations at the Airport indicate that the B-II design standards should be the primary consideration for the Airport’s existing and planned facilities and associated improvement projects. The Proposed Action evaluated in this EA is designed to secure a portion of the Runway 11 RPZ to meet B-II design and safety standards. 1.5 Proposed Action The Proposed Action involves acquisition of a private land parcel adjacent to the existing Runway 11 (Figure 1.4 Proposed Project Action). The proposed parcel is 6.717 acres and is located immediately southwest of the intersection of Garrity Boulevard and N. Kings Road in Nampa, Idaho. The subject parcel is defined as Canyon County Parcel No. R14285549AO. The

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 6 Proposed Action includes acquiring the parcel from a single private owner. Under the Proposed Action, existing structures on the property would be removed to eliminate incompatible land uses within the RPZ and structures outside the RPZ may be proposed for removal. Prior to any structures being removed, their historic integrity and overall condition will be evaluated and coordinated with the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office as appropriate (see Sections 4.5 and 4.8 for further details).

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 7

Figure 1.4 Proposed Project Action

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 1 Land Acquisition EA Page 8 Chapter 2 Purpose and Need 2.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to mitigate incompatible land uses within the Runway 11 RPZ, thereby improving the Airport’s safety in accordance with planning guidelines established by FAA. The Proposed Action would increase protection of people and property on the ground in the event that an aircraft should land short of the Runway 11 threshold. The implementation of the Proposed Action would help to meet FAA design standards, although there will still be areas within the RPZ that are not part of this acquisition, and will remain outside of Airport control. 2.2 Need for the Proposed Action The land acquisition is needed in order to comply with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A Airport Design, Change 1, Section 310. According to the FAA, RPZs are trapezoidal areas “off the end of the runway end that serve to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground” (FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design). Under the FAA design criteria, “the airport must own the landing area...[and] the airport owner must have sufficient interest in the Runway Protection Zones to protect the Runway Protection Zones from both obstructions and incompatible land use” (FAA AC 150/5300-13 Airport Design). According to RPZ guidance found in multiple FAA documents, including FAA AC 150/5300-13A, FAA Order 5100.37B, AC 5100-17, FAA AIP Handbook (Order 5100.38C), and the FAA Airport Compliance Manual (Order 5190.6B), airport control over the land in the RPZ is encouraged by the FAA to achieve the desired protection of people and property on the ground. Although the FAA recognizes that in certain situations the Sponsor may not fully control land within the RPZ, the FAA encourages Airport Sponsors to take all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incompatible land uses.

The Airport currently owns 3.569 acres (approximately 26%) of the Runway 11 RPZ. The remaining 74 % contains incompatible land uses including roadway right-of-way, land zoned within the Nampa City limits as Community Business (BC), and land within Canyon County that is zoned as Light Industrial (LI).

Commercial land uses in the Runway 11 RPZ are primarily located to the north and south of Garrity Boulevard in an area that is zoned as Community Business (BC). These commercial uses include buildings, above ground utilities, and gathering areas such as parking lots that create unsafe conditions and incompatible uses within the Runway 11 RPZ (Figure 2.1 Runway 11 Incompatible Uses Map). The Proposed Action would acquire the entire 6.717 acres of a single parcel of zoned as Light Industrial (LI), privately held land. This acquisition would include 2.74 acres of the central portion of the RPZ designated as the extended Object Free Area (OFA) and 1.07 acres of the

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 2 Land Acquisition EA Page 9 Controlled Activity Area (CAA). The remaining 2.907 acres of the parcel not required for the RPZ would be considered an economic remnant. An economic remnant is defined as the property remaining after a partial land acquisition that would be considered substantially impaired economically or of lower economic value because of the remaining size, shape and/or condition of the parcel after the partial acquisition. The acquisition of the entire parcel would prevent creation of an economic remnant and therefore the Proposed Action would acquire the entire parcel of land.

Figure 2.1 Runway 11 Incompatible Uses Map

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 2 Land Acquisition EA Page 10

Under the Proposed Action, existing structures on the acquired land would be demolished, but no other improvements are planned on any portion of the acquired land. The upcoming MPU may evaluate future uses of the acquired property. Any development presented in the upcoming MPU would be evaluated at a later date and would be considered outside of the scope of this EA.

2.3 Requested Federal Actions The requested federal actions associated with this EA include:

 Unconditional approval of the Proposed Action as shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP).  Determination that the environmental analysis prerequisites associated with the Proposed Action have been fulfilled pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §47101.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 2 Land Acquisition EA Page 11 Chapter 3 Alternatives 3.1 Alternatives Considered Throughout the alternatives selection process for the MPU, the reoccurring concern is the Runway 11 RPZ, due to the existing incompatible land uses, roadways, and commercial businesses found within the RPZ. During the MPU process, it has been determined that the Airport’s main priority should be the protection of the Runway 11 RPZ. In 2017, the Airport Sponsor performed an RPZ analysis (Appendix B. 2017 RPZ Analysis). The analysis evaluated measures to protect against, remove and/or mitigate incompatible land uses within the Runway 11 RPZ. The RPZ analysis detailed five options (RPZ alternatives) to remove as many of the roadways, commercial businesses, and incompatible land uses within the Runway 11 PRZ as possible. As discussed in the RPZ analysis, removal of these conflicts would increase the protection of people and property on the ground in the event that an aircraft lands short of the Runway 11 threshold. The analysis determined that the protection of the Runway 11 RPZ is necessary in order for the Airport to provide for safe Airport operations and meet current FAA standards. During the various alternatives analysis discussions, the Airport and the FAA determined that the acquisition of the private land parcel adjacent to and within the Runway 11 RPZ is the major required component of the current MPU and the 2017 RPZ Analysis. Due to the rapid growth of the area and the location of the parcel in question (located on the corner of a busy intersection), there are likely to be increasing pressures from commercial interests to develop the land. Acquiring the property at this time would allow the Airport Sponsor to secure this portion of the RPZ before the land is further developed to address existing incompatible land uses and prevent future incompatible land uses. 3.2 Alternatives Being Evaluated in this EA Two alternatives are being carried forward for analysis in this EA: the No Action Alternative, and the Proposed Action. 3.2.1 No Action Alternative NEPA implementation regulations require consideration of a No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative is defined by the CEQ as the alternative that “considers the environmental consequences of not undertaking the action or proposed project.” For this EA, the No Action Alternative is defined as the continued operation of the existing Airport facilities, with no improvements, modifications, or upgrades to Airport facilities. The Airport would continue to operate under existing conditions with no improvements to protect the Runway 11 RPZ. 3.2.2 Proposed Action The Proposed Action Alternative carried forward in this EA is the acquisition of the private land parcel adjacent to the Runway 11 RPZ. The parcel is defined as Canyon County Parcel No. R14285549AO, and encompasses 6.717 acres immediately southwest of the intersection of

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 3 Land Acquisition EA Page 12 Garrity Boulevard and North Kings Road in Nampa, Idaho. The Proposed Action includes acquiring the parcel from a single private owner. After the parcel has been acquired, existing structures on the property would be removed to eliminate incompatible land uses within the RPZ and structures outside the RPZ may be proposed for removal. Prior to any structures being removed, their historic integrity and overall condition will be evaluated and coordinated with the Idaho State Historic Preservation office as appropriate (see Sections 4.5 and 4.8 for further details)..

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 3 Land Acquisition EA Page 13 Chapter 4 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 4.1 Introduction This chapter analyzes each environmental category and the associated environmental consequences for each alternative. Each category begins with a description of the regulatory environment and requirements, which is then followed by a review of the affected environment. The affected environment is defined as the ecological, cultural, social, aesthetic and economic conditions of the area that the proposed alternatives could affect. The environmental consequences of the identified alternatives: Alternative 1 – No Action, and Alternative 2 – Proposed Action, are being reviewed herein in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508) and FAA Order 1050.1F – Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. The FAA orders identify the environmental impact categories to be analyzed and summarize the requirements and procedures to be used in the environmental analysis. Thresholds of significance are also established for a number of the categories to aid in the analysis. The alternative impact analysis compares the impacts associated with the Proposed Action to those associated with the No Action Alternative. The study area for the Proposed Action encompasses the parcel proposed for Airport acquisition (Canyon County Parcel No. R14285549AO). 4.2 Air Quality The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to safeguard public health and environmental welfare against the detrimental effects of air pollution. Primary NAAQS are health-based standards geared toward protecting sensitive, or at-risk populations, such as children, the elderly, and those suffering from asthma. Secondary NAAQS are designed to prevent environmental degradation such as decreased visibility, harm to plant and animal health, and damage to physical structures. NAAQS have been established for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Guidance for air quality evaluation in the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3, Update 1, dated January 2015, indicates that areas possessing monitored outdoor air concentrations within the NAAQS are considered “attainment” areas. Areas possessing outdoor air concentrations in excess of the NAAQS are considered “nonattainment.” When a nonattainment area complies with the NAAQS and Clean Air Act (CAA) re-designation requirements, the EPA will classify those areas as a “maintenance area.” EPA 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0669; FRL-9131-7] RIN 2060-AH 93, Revisions to General Conformity Regulations notes that “only actions which cause emissions in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to the regulations.”

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 14 4.2.1 Affected Environment The nearest non-attainment/maintenance area to the Airport is the Northern Ada County Maintenance Area, which begins approximately 2.25 miles east of the Airport. However, Canyon County is considered an attainment area for all NAAQS criteria pollutants established by the CAA. The City of Nampa and the Airport, therefore, also lie within an EPA-designated attainment area. All air quality standards are currently met and upheld, and because the City and surrounding area are designated as attainment, there are no applicable de minimis thresholds for any of the criteria pollutants. 4.2.2 Analysis Under the No Action Alternative, no development and no resulting changes in air quality or air emissions would occur. The Proposed Action would decrease the number of incompatible uses within the existing RPZ. The Airport would maintain its current level of operations and no increase in the overall number of Airport operations is expected above what is already forecast for the Airport. No changes in aircraft fleet mix or taxiing times would occur, and no development is proposed as part of the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action involves demolition of existing structures which may cause a short-term increase in emissions. However, there would be no increases in the overall amount of emissions at the Airport from an increase in overall aviation operations.

4.2.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative There would be no impacts to air quality from the No Action Alternative. Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, there would be no variation in existing traffic patterns or aviation emissions levels. There would be short term increases in emissions during land clearing activities on the subject property. However, because the increase in emissions levels would be short-term and localized to the subject property, the Proposed Action would not result in any significant increases to air emissions or release of air pollutants. Therefore, the Proposed would not result in any significant impacts to air quality. 4.2.4 Mitigation No mitigation is required, as the Proposed Action would not result in any impacts to air quality. 4.3 Biological Resources Federal agencies are required to follow the guidelines set forth in the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MTBA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA), and the Magnuson- Stevens Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801). This section evaluates the impact of the Proposed Action

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 15 on the biological resources in the study area, including those resources protected under the ESA, the MBTA, and the BGEPA. According to FAA Order 1050.1F, a project would significantly affect biological resources when either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that the action would likely jeopardize the continued existence of a Federally-listed threatened or endangered species, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally-listed critical habitat. The major factors considered in the analysis are whether or not the action would cause:

 Long-term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species, i.e., extirpation of species from a large project area;  Adverse impacts to special status species (e.g. state species of concern, species proposed for listing, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles) or their habitats;  Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species’ habitats or their populations; or,  Adverse impacts on a species’ reproductive success rates, natural mortality rates, non- natural mortality (e.g. road kills and hunting), or ability to sustain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance.

FAA Order 1050.1F also describes that a project would have significant impacts on special status species when the USFWS determines that the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a Federally-listed threatened or endangered species potentially resulting in extinction or extirpation, or when the proposed action would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally-designated critical habitat in the affected area. 4.3.1 Affected Environment The study area is in close proximity to major transportation facilities and industrial centers. The parcel houses residential use, commercial uses, and a small highly disturbed open field, creating a less-than-ideal habitat for most, if not all, sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species. In most instances, common wildlife species (small mammals and birds) such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and raccoons (Procyonidae) have been observed within and around Airport property, including the subject parcel. To more accurately determine the potential occurrence of Federally-listed threatened or endangered species in the study area, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database was referenced. According to the IPaC Report, the only Federally- listed species that has the potential to occur within the study area is slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum). A qualified biologist with J-U-B Engineers performed a site survey of the proposed project area to assess existing conditions and potential habitat on the subject parcel.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 16 Generally speaking, slickspot peppergrass is an herbaceous annual or biennial plant that occurs in sagebrush steppe habitats in southwestern Idaho, including the Snake River Plan, Owyhee Plateau, and adjacent foothills in Ada, Canyon, Elmore, Gem, Owyhee, and Payette counties (USFWS 2018). The plant ranges from 4 to 12 inches in height, and has multiple tiny, white flowers that resemble the “sweet alyssum” garden flower (USFWS 2018). Slickspot peppergrass typically grows in “slickspots,” which are small areas (microsites) within larger sagebrush habitat. These microsites are often lower than surrounding areas, so they retain water longer than the surrounding soil, similar to vernal pools (USFWS 2018). Slickspots may be as small as a square foot, or as large as half a basketball court, and are usually surrounded by big sagebrush, native bunchgrasses, wildflowers, mosses, and lichens (USFWS 2018). 4.3.2 Analysis Given the established human disturbance, active industrial sites, and lack of suitable habitat within the study area, the Proposed Action would have no effect on slickspot peppergrass. 4.3.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no effect on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species. Proposed Action There would be no effect on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species (fish, wildlife, or plants) from the Proposed Action due to the lack of occurrence and lack of suitable habitat within the study area. 4.3.4 Mitigation No mitigation is required, as the Proposed Action would have no effect on Federally-listed threatened or endangered species (fish, wildlife, or plants). 4.4. Climate 4.4.1 Affected Environment The study area is located at approximately 2,520 feet above mean sea level and experiences a relatively mild climate year-round. Its high desert location is bordered to the north by the front range of the Rocky Mountains and to the south by the Owyhee Mountains. The average summer high temperature is 88°F, and the average winter low temperature is 21.1 °F. Annual rainfall is 11.6 inches, and the 24-hour maximum snowfall can equal up to 3-4 inches. The study area experiences approximately 210 days of sunshine annually. 4.3.2 Analysis FAA Order 1050.1F Desk Reference states that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that aviation accounted for 4.1 percent of global transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The combustion of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic sources

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 17 contribute to increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere that ultimately affect the global climate. Due to the established effects of GHG emissions on climate, a considerable amount of scientific research is ongoing to improve understanding of global climate change and how airport activities impact the global climate. However, there are no accepted methods of determining significant impacts to climate with regard to aviation given the small percentage of emissions aircraft and airports produce. As provided in the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3, Update 1, GHGs are pollutants for which there are no NAAQS thresholds, but are of concern because of their role in climate change. Generally speaking, GHG emission levels can be impacted by changes in airport traffic capacity or operational volume. Under the proposed project, there would be no change in Airport traffic capacity or volume.

4.3.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative With the No Action Alternative, the proposed property acquisition would not occur, and no changes to the existing conditions at the Airport would take place. Therefore, there would be no impacts to GHG emissions or climate. Proposed Action The Proposed Action would not be anticipated to result in an increase of GHG emissions. While demolition would occur on the subject parcel, the demolition activities would be short-term, and would cease after the existing structures are removed. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to climate as a result of the Proposed Action. 4.3.4 Mitigation No mitigation is required as there are no quantifiable impacts, nor federal standards for aviation-related GHG emissions. The No Action Alternative and Proposed Action would not increase GHG emissions. 4.4 Coastal Resources The Nampa Municipal Airport is located in the heart of the Boise Valley in the State of Idaho, which is located entirely inland and does not contain any marine coastal barriers or coral reefs. Therefore, this resource category is eliminated from further consideration in this evaluation. 4.5 Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) Resources The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, Section 4(f) provisions is the federal statute that regulates impacts in this category. The provisions state that the “Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance; or land from a historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 18 the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.” 4.5.1 Affected Environment A cultural resource survey for the Nampa Airport was performed by Certus Environmental Solutions, Inc. in 2018. The property owner of the subject parcel would not grant access to the property to allow the archaeologist/architectural historian to property assess the structures and historic context of the area. The project area was assessed from the perimeter of the property. Although the property and some of the structures meet the age criteria and may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) a proper evaluation could not be completed at the time of the cultural resource survey. Therefore, an identification of Section 4(f) resources on the subject parcel and an evaluation of potential impacts to those resources cannot be conducted at this time. A database search was conducted to identify known Section (4) properties in the general vicinity of the project area (Table 4.1). Due to the small size of the project, the study area for Section 4(f) resources was constrained to a two-mile radius.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 19 Table 4.1. Section 4(f) Resources in the Vicinity of Nampa Airport Approximate Distance from Impacted by Preferred Resource Title Airport (miles) Alternative? Endeavor Elementary School 0.55 miles No Snake River Elementary 0.66 miles No School Stampede Park 0.71 miles No Lakeview Park 0.77 miles No Columbia High School 0.77 miles No Park Ridge Elementary 0.83 miles No School Idaho State School and 1.05 miles No Hospital Nampa and Meridian 1.25 miles No Irrigation District Office Nampa Historic District 1.25 miles No Nampa Department Store 1.29 miles No Nampa American Legion 1.29 miles No Chateau Nampa Presbyterian Church 1.35 miles Jacob P. Lockman House 1.38 miles No Nampa First Methodist 1.50 miles No Episcopal Church U.S. Post Office – Nampa 1.50 miles No Main Farmers and Merchants Bank 1.55 miles No Central Elementary School 1.62 miles No City Acres Park 1.67 miles No Nampa Valley Grange #131 1.70 miles No Sherman Elementary School 1.73 miles No Mercy Hospital 1.79 miles No St. Paul's Rectory and Sisters' 1.79 miles No House/ Old Nampa Neighborhood 1.81 miles No Historic District *Data was gathered through Google Maps, the City of Nampa Parks and Recreation website, the National Register of Historic Places in Idaho, and a 2018 field survey completed by Certus Environmental Solutions. 1Identified on the 2018 Cultural Resource Report Completed by Certus Environmental Solutions, LLC. This historic series of buildings is located on the subject parcel. 4.5.2 Analysis According to FAA Order 1050.1F, significant impacts to Section 4(f) resources would occur when the Preferred Alternative would require use of Section 4(f) property or would be deemed a

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 20 constructive use that impairs the 4(f) property, and when mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the Preferred Alternative below the threshold of significant impacts. Certus Environmental Solutions, LLC conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment in March 2018, to determine whether any historic properties exist within the area of potential effect (APE), which was defined as the parcel proposed for acquisition. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was also contacted regarding the potential for other historic sites that could be eligible for the National Register, or that are of local significance. There are multiple Section 4(f) resources in the vicinity of the Airport, however since the Proposed Action would be constrained to the new property acquisition and demolition of structure on the subject parcel there would be no impacts to Section 4(f) resources located outside of the project area.

According to the Cultural Resources Survey, one site on the subject parcel was identified as potentially meeting the criteria for listing under the NRHP: the farmstead (Storey Poultry Farm) at 2909 South Garrity Boulevard (see Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix C). The Survey states that the farmstead may retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and may be eligible for listing due to its intact construction and its connection to what was once one of the most prominent poultry and egg producers in Idaho. The farmstead is situated on the subject parcel and a thorough assessment of the structure could not be made from the perimeter survey. Therefore, formal evaluation of the potential Section 4(f) resources and required associated consultation regarding eligibility and effect could not be performed at the time of the EA. The Airport Sponsor will be required to complete a cultural resource survey of the property after the acquisition but prior to removal/demolition activities on the property. 4.5.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no land acquisition, development, or demolition would take place, and the Airport would continue to function in its current state. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to Section 4(f) resources as no changes at or in the vicinity of the Airport would occur. Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, the Canyon County Parcel No. R14285549AO (2909 South Garrity Boulevard, Nampa, ID) would be acquired by the Airport to preserve the existing Runway 11 RPZ. Following the parcel acquisition, existing structures on the parcel would be demolished to eliminate incompatible land uses within the RPZ, and structures outside the RPZ may be proposed for removal. The historic integrity and overall condition of the structures would be evaluated and coordination with the Idaho State Historic Preservation office would occur as appropriate prior to demolition activities. In a letter dated April 30, 2018, the FAA originally made a determination of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected for the Proposed Action. SHPO’s original concurrence with this determination was received on May 17, 2018. However, the FAA reinitiated consultation for the

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 21 effects determination for the Storey Poultry Farm on August 29, 2019 due to the fact that some, or many, of the structures on the Farm property may be removed as a result of the proposed action. Because the consultation to determine eligibility and effects cannot be completed until the Sponsor has access to the property, FAA determined that the NEPA finding/decision will be conditional on the sponsor conducting a thorough survey of the property after acquisition and before any removal activities. The FAA would then complete the Section 106 consultation with the SHPO. If any features are identified as eligible to the NRHP and will incur an adverse effect as a result of the Proposed Action, a Department of Transportation 4(f) evaluation will be completed before any structures are removed. 4.5.4 Mitigation Structures associated with the Storey Poultry Farm will be removed from the subject parcel, possibly resulting in an adverse impact to Section 4(f) resources. The eligibility determination and finding of effect for the any Section 4(f) resources is on hold until after the subject property has been acquired, the structures have been properly evaluated for eligibility for listing to the NRHP, and mitigation measures will be established through consultation between FAA and SHPO at that time. As a result, the Sponsor will be required to complete a thorough survey of historic properties after the property is acquired for submission to the FAA in order for consultation with SHPO to take place. A condition will be placed in any grant received for acquisition of the property that this survey and the resulting consultation must be completed prior to the removal of any structures on the property. 4.6 Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) requires federal agencies to minimize the extent to which their programs contribute to the conversion of farmlands to nonagricultural uses, and to assure that federal programs are administered in a manner that would be compatible with state, local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland. According to the FPPA, farmland is classified into three main groups: prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of statewide or local importance. Each of these three main groups can be classified further, but in general, farmland can be forestland, pastureland, cropland or other land, but not water or urban built-up land (USDA/NRCS 2018). Farmland that is subject to the FPPA does not currently have to be in agricultural production. Prime farmland is defined as land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, oilseed and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, and labor (USDA/NRCS 2018). Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland used for production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. It has favorable soil and climatic conditions and adequate moisture supply

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 22 to produce economically sustainable yields of high quality crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods (USDA/NRCS 2018). Farmland of statewide or local importance is land other than prime or unique farmland that is determined and designated as such by state or local governments (USDA/NRCS 2018). 4.6.1 Affected Environment The following table lists the soils within the study area and the associated farmland classification.

Table 4.2. Mapped Soils within the EA Study Area. Map Unit Name Percent of Study Area Farmland Classification Elijah silt loam, 0 to 1 100.0% Prime farmland if irrigated percent slopes

The property within the EA study area meets the criteria for “prime farmland if irrigated,” however this land has already been developed for residential and industrial uses. No agricultural or undeveloped land exists within the study area. 4.6.2 Analysis The FAA is required by FAA Order 1050.1F to prepare and submit Form AD-1006 (Farmland Conversion Impact Rating) and initiate formal coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) / Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) when FPPA farmlands would be converted to non-agricultural uses. The FPPA does not apply to land already committed to “urban development or stormwater storage” (i.e. developed areas on and in the vicinity of the Airport). Therefore, when evaluating farmlands, it is necessary to evaluate only those areas designated as “important” and in active agricultural use, or those lands not yet developed. Currently, no property acquisition of land currently in agricultural use would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. According to the City of Nampa Zoning Map, all land within the study area is contained within Light Industrial (LI). 4.6.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative There is no farmland within the study area, and no development or acquisitions would take place under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to farmlands as a result of the No Action Alternative. Proposed Action There is no farmland within the study area. No land currently in agricultural use would be acquired as part of the Proposed Action. The land that would be acquired as part of the Proposed Action has already been developed as part of its past use. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts on farmland resulting from the Proposed Action.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 23 4.6.4 Mitigation As there is no farmland within the study area, and no farmland would be converted as a result of the Proposed Action, no significant impacts to farmland would occur and no mitigation is required. 4.7 Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste The State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) maintains environmental databases on sites with known contamination and sites that are regulated for hazardous materials according to the requirements of state or federal laws. The following is a list of environmental databases maintained by the DEQ:

 Superfund Sites, Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA);  National Priorities List (NPL), priority CERCLA sites;  Underground Storage Tanks (UST);  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA);  Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST);  Brownfield Projects;  Toxic Release Inventory (TRI); and,  Voluntary Release Cleanup Program (VRCP). 4.7.1 Affected Environment Review of the DEQ databases revealed that there are no Superfund Sites, NPL priority CERCLA sites, LUSTs, Brownfield Projects, TRI sites, or VRCP sites near or on the proposed land acquisition parcel. According to the DEQ, the nearest USTs are located at the National Guard property adjacent to the existing Airport property, however the tanks are listed by the DEQ as permanently out of use. The nearest RCRA site is listed as Environmental Management Solutions LLC, which is located immediately south of the parcel proposed for acquisition. Hazardous materials at the Airport include the following: aviation fuels, motor fuels, and pesticides; substances used to operate or maintain aircraft, ground vehicles, equipment, and buildings; and, various hazardous materials transported to and from the Airport via ground vehicles and aircraft. The storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials at the Airport is controlled by a framework of federal, state, and local regulations, and specific BMPs have been established to ensure that all hazardous materials are properly handled and stored, and that necessary mitigation measures remain in place to address potential spills. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was not completed for the EA, as the current property owners would not allow access to the subject parcel. A roadside survey of the subject parcel determined the presence of numerous old cars and storage buildings on the property. 4.7.2 Analysis FAA Order 1050.1F provides the NEPA requirements for the analysis of hazardous materials, pollution, and solid waste impacts. According to FAA Order 1050.1F, there is no established

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 24 significance threshold for hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention. Factors to consider would be if the Proposed Action would have the potential to:

 Violate applicable federal, state, tribal, or local laws or regulations regarding hazardous materials and/or solid waste management;  Involve a contaminated site listed on the NPL;  Produce an appreciably different quantity or type of hazardous water;  Generate an appreciably different quantity or type of solid waste or use a different method of collection or disposal and/or would exceed local capacity; or,  Adversely affect human health and the environment. Because the existing property owners would not allow access to the subject property, the current level of hazardous materials and solid waste on the property is unknown, however based on the current amount of abandoned vehicles and old storage areas on the property, it is likely that there are some existing oil or fuel spills onsite. These conditions are expected to be de minimis conditions that would cause impacts to hazardous materials and solid waste. Additional site assessments would be necessary after the property acquisition to more accurately gauge the level of onsite contaminants. 4.7.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in the creation or disturbance of any hazardous materials; therefore, there would be no significant impacts from the No Action Alternative with regard to hazardous waste. Proposed Action Currently, there is no known hazardous or solid waste contamination within subject parcel. Additional site assessments would occur after the property acquisition and prior to any demolition activities. If onsite contaminants or hazardous materials are identified during the assessments, appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the materials are disposed of appropriately and as outlined in current local, state, and federal regulations. 4.7.4 Mitigation The Proposed Action consists of property acquisition and structure demolition, however the level of onsite contamination at the subject parcel is unknown due to a lack of property access. After the acquisition, additional hazardous materials site assessments would occur to determine whether or not mitigation measures are necessary. 4.8 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources There are a number of federal statues and Executive Orders that regulate the protection of historic and cultural resources. NEPA requires agencies to consider the effects of a planned federal action upon the cultural environment, including historical, architectural, archaeological,

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 25 and paleontological resources. Planned federal actions must also comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) [16 U.S.C. 470, as amended]. Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations require federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. According to these regulations, a historic property is “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)...” (36 CFR 800.16); compliance with Section 106 requires consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the SHPO, and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) if there is the potential for adverse effects to historic properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP.

4.8.1 Affected Environment Certus Environmental Solutions, LLC conducted a Cultural Resources Assessment in March 2018, to determine whether any historic properties exist within the APE (Appendix C. Cultural Resources). According to the Cultural Resources Survey, one site on the subject parcel was identified as potentially meeting the criteria for listing on the NRHP: the farmstead (Storey Poultry Farm) at 2909 South Garrity Boulevard (Appendix C. Cultural Resources Survey). The survey states that the farmstead may retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and may be eligible for listing due to its intact construction and its connection to what was once one of the most prominent poultry and egg producers in Idaho. The farmstead is situated on the subject parcel and a thorough assessment of the structure could not be made from the perimeter survey. Therefore, formal evaluation of the resource and required associated consultation regarding eligibility and effect could not be performed. The Airport Sponsor will be required to complete a cultural resource survey of the property after the acquisition but prior to removal/demolition activities on the property to verify the eligibility of the Storey Poultry and any other resources that may be located on the property. 4.8.2 Analysis The FAA determines whether the Proposed Action is an “undertaking” as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y) and whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause adverse effects on historic properties eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP. If an undertaking may have an adverse effect, the first step is to identify the APE and the historical or cultural resources within it. If an NRHP-eligible property occurs within the undertaking’s APE and the Preferred Alternative may affect the property’s historic characteristics, the FAA must apply the criteria of effect listed in 36 CFR 800.5(a). The official must examine the potential effects in consultation with the SHPO/THPO and any Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization attaching religious or cultural importance to the identified property. 36 CFR 800.5(a) (3) permits a phased process in applying an assessment of effects when alternatives the agency is considering involve corridors, large

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 26 land areas, or when access to property is restricted. The FAA may propose a “finding of no adverse effect” after determining that the undertaking would not:

 Physically destroy the property;  Alter the property, but, if alterations were to occur, they would meet the requirements of the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties” (36 CFR Part 68);  Remove the property from its historic location;  Introduce an atmospheric, audible, or visual feature to the area that would diminish the integrity of the property’s setting, provided the setting contributes to the property’s historical significance; and,  Through transfer, sale, or lease, diminish the long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance that federal ownership or control would otherwise ensure.

The FAA has classified the Proposed Action as an undertaking, and therefore the Proposed Action’s APE must be analyzed for the presence of NHRP-eligible properties. Certus Environmental Solutions, LLC. conducted a Cultural Resources Survey in March 2018. The survey identified one site within the APE with the potential to meet the criteria for listing on the NRHP: the farmstead (Storey Poultry Farm) at 2909 South Garrity Boulevard (see Cultural Resources Survey, Appendix C). The survey states that the farmstead may retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and may be eligible for listing due to its intact construction and its connection to what was once one of the most prominent poultry and egg producers in Idaho. Under the Proposed Action, to the property acquired by the Airport includes the property on which the potentially eligible farmstead is located. 4.8.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to the existing proposed study area would take place, and therefore, there would be no significant impacts to historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources. Proposed Action As discussed in Section 4.5, in a letter dated April 30, 2018, the FAA originally made a determination of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected for the Proposed Action. SHPO’s original concurrence with this determination was received on May 17, 2018. However, the FAA reinitiated consultation for the effects determination for the Storey Poultry Farm on August 29, 2019 due to the fact that the structures on the property would be removed as a result of the proposed action. FAA determined that the NEPA finding/decision will be conditional requiring the Sponsor to conduct a thorough survey of the property after acquisition and before any removal activities because the consultation to determine eligibility and effects cannot be completed until the Sponsor has access to the property. After acquisition of the property, a

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 27 cultural survey will be completed, and the FAA will then complete the Section 106 consultation with the SHPO and conduct a Department of Transportation 4(f) evaluation before any structures are removed. 4.8.4 Mitigation According to the FAA determination on August 29, 2019, and SHPO’s response on September 11, 2019, the Proposed Action may result in an adverse effect to the Storey Poultry Farm, which is likely eligible for listing on the NRHP. Existing structures on the subject parcel would be removed after the property acquisition occurs, however because a proper historic evaluation could not be performed without access to the property, and therefore, consultation to determine eligibility and effects cannot be completed until after the property acquisition occurs, necessary mitigation measures are unknown at this time. Required mitigation for any adverse effects to cultural resources would be established in consultation with the FAA and SHPO and would be conducted prior to the implementation of any removal/demolition activities on the subject parcel. As a result, the Sponsor will be required to complete a thorough survey of historic properties after the property is acquired for submission to the FAA in order for consultation with SHPO to take place. A condition will be placed in any grant received for acquisition of the property that this survey and the resulting consultation must be completed prior to the removal of any structures on the property. 4.9 Land Use 4.9.1 Affected Environment The Airport is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Nampa and is situated within the Light Industrial zone, which is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas containing a wide range of manufacturing and related establishments, and is typically appropriate to areas providing a wide variety of sites with good rail or highway services. The City of Nampa has enacted an Airport Zoning Ordinance to restrict the height of new developments adjacent to the Airport. The ordinance is meant to provide compatible land use and prevent obstructions within the airspace of the Airport. Additional Airport zoning requirements apply for the Airport property to support Airport activities and to prevent incompatible new development and obstructions within the RPZ and object free zone. The underlying zoning in the vicinity of the Airport does not present any obstacles to Airport functionality or to implementation of the Proposed Action. 4.9.2 Analysis FAA Order 1050.1F states that “the compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of noise impacts related to that airport.” A noise sensitive area is an area where noise interferes with normal activities associated with its use, such as residential, educational, health, or religious sites. There must be

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 28 assurances that zoning laws, existing infrastructure, and the adoption of zoning regulations are all compatible with the location of the Airport. The Proposed Action would acquire a private parcel of land (approximately 6.717 acres) to allow the airport to control the Runway 11 RPZ. The entirety of the proposed acquisition lies within the Light Industrial (LI) zone. There would be no anticipated changes in overall noise levels as a result of the Proposed Action; existing structures on the parcel would be removed, however no new development would take place. After the acquisition, the land use category would still be consistent with the Light Industrial standards discussed in the Nampa City Code Title 10, Chapter 19, Light Industrial Zoning. 4.9.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative maintains the existing compatibility with the relevant City of Nampa land use plans and policies. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would cause no significant impacts to land use. Proposed Action The acquisition proposed as the Proposed Action would not create incompatibility between land uses. All of the future Airport property would remain within the Light Industrial zone, and would be compatible with airport use. Additionally, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to increase noise impacts to adjacent sensitive noise receptors and all proposed improvements would comply with existing noise ordinances and regulations. The property owner would be compensated at fair market value for the appraised property, and the acquisition of the identified properties would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) [42 U.S.C. 4601]. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not significantly impact land uses within the study area. 4.9.4 Mitigation There would be no impacts to land use as a result of the Proposed Action, therefore, there would be no mitigation required. As stated in the previous section, the property owner would be compensated at fair market value for the appraised property, and the acquisition of the identified properties would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Act. 4.10 Natural Resources and Energy Supply As an impact category, natural resources and energy supply provides an evaluation of a project’s consumption of natural resources (such as water, asphalt, aggregate, wood, etc.) and use of energy supplies (such as coal for electricity; natural gas for heating; and fuel for aircraft, commercial space launch vehicles, or other ground vehicles). Consumption of natural resources and use of energy supplies may result from the demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 29 4.10.1 Affected Environment Canyon County contains areas of significant natural resources. The County consists of 604 square miles; 587 square miles of land, and 16 square miles of water. Nampa is the largest city in the County, encompassing approximately 31.34 square miles, and is part of the larger Boise- Nampa metropolitan area. Electricity and natural gas for the Airport are provided by Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas, respectively. 4.10.2 Analysis According to FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA has not established a significance threshold for natural resources and energy supply impacts. Factors to consider, however, include the Proposed Action’s potential to cause natural resources or energy demands to exceed available or future supplies of these resources. The Proposed Action consists of land acquisition and structure removal for the protection of the Runway 11 RPZ. No natural resources or utilities would be required for the proposed land acquisition, and the energy requirements for demolition would be short-term. There would be no increase in overall energy demand resulting from the Proposed Action. 4.10.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in an increase in energy or natural resource consumption; therefore, there would be no significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply. Proposed Action The Proposed Action would not result in an increase in energy or natural resource consumption. There would be short-term impacts to energy consumption due to demolition, but these impacts would cease after the project activities have ended. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts to natural resources or energy supply. 4.10.4 Mitigation No mitigation is required, as there would be no significant impacts to natural resources or energy supplies as a result of the Proposed Action. 4.11 Noise and Compatible Land Use Airport noise is measured in Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL), which represents the 24- hour average sound level, in decibels (dB), for the period from midnight to midnight. The DNL is obtained by adding 10 decibels to sound levels measured from midnight to 7 a.m., and between 10 p.m. and midnight. This average represents the total accumulation of all noise derived from all aircraft operations during an airport’s average annual operations per day. For general reference, 40 dB equates to a quiet, suburban nighttime setting, while 20 dB equates to a bedroom at night.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 30 Typical airport actions that could cause noise impacts include: new or extended runways and taxiways; navigational aid installation; land purchases for Airport-related uses; substantial amounts of airport construction or demolition activities; and, substantial changes in aircraft operations involving numbers of aircraft, aircraft types, new or revised approach or departure profiles or tracks; or, new or related airport access roadways. 4.11.1 Affected Environment As the Proposed Action consists of land acquisition and structure removal on a parcel that is already compatible with the Light Industrial uses surrounding the Airport property. No noise assessments have been completed, and no changes in overall noise levels are expected. 4.11.2 Analysis FAA guidelines indicate the 65 DNL is the level of noise “acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport.” This is consistent with other federal (FAA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]) land use compatibility guidelines and federal noise attenuation grant funding eligibility criteria. FAA guidance concerning aircraft noise indicates that noise exposure impacts are considered significant only if there is a 1.5 DNL or greater increase at noise sensitive areas within the 65 DNL noise contour when comparing the Preferred Alternative to the No Action Alternative. If this increase is expected, then additional significance thresholds apply. An increase of 3.0 DNL or greater within the 60-65 DNL noise contour is considered significant when comparing the Preferred Alternative to the No Action Alternative.

Due to the fact that the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action are both non- development Alternatives, and that the Proposed Action entails the acquisition of property and structure removal to protect the Runway 11 RPZ, no noise analysis has been developed, and no changes in noise levels are expected to occur. 4.11.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any activities that would cause an increase to the existing noise conditions within the study area. Therefore, no significant impacts to noise levels would occur.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would not significantly impact noise and compatible land use at the Airport. The proposed land acquisition would occur within an area already zoned as Light Industrial, and the future land use would be consistent with current zoning laws and requirements. Although structures will be demolished and removed, no other development activities are proposed for the land acquisition area, and no changes in the Airport infrastructure would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, there would be no impacts to noise and compatible land use due to the Proposed Action.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 31 4.11.4 Mitigation No mitigation is proposed, as no impacts to noise and compatible land use would occur as a result of the Proposed Action. 4.12 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks Socioeconomic impacts include extensive relocation of residents and community businesses, disruption of local traffic patterns, and the substantial loss in community tax base. Environmental Justice evaluates effects on low-income or minority populations. Children’s Environmental Health and Safety Risks calculates impacts to the environment that have the potential to lead to a disproportionate health or safety risk to children. Factors used to evaluate the social environment include the composition of residential communities, social interaction, neighborhood travel patterns and accessibility, and public facilities and services. This section addresses the federal requirements to consider environmental justice for low- income and minority populations in programs and activities with federal involvement in compliance with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations that was enacted in 1994. The purpose of environmental justice consideration is to determine whether the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action Alternative would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minorities and/or low-income populations within the proposed project area. 4.12.1 Affected Environment The Proposed Action would acquire a parcel from a private property owner. The private property owner maintains a residence along with commercial uses on the property, including an auto repair shop (Idaho Z Car), and leases out space to at least two other commercial businesses. At the time this EA was prepared, the two businesses renting retail space on the property were Big Reds Auto Wholesale and The Yard Sale Place. Detailed information regarding the commercial uses on the property is limited based on the property owner’s unwillingness to share such information with the project team assembling information for the EA. Information on the commercial uses was obtained from online data sources. The property acquisition would include the relocation of a residence and the commercial business space. 4.12.1.1 Socioeconomics For socioeconomics, factors to consider are whether the actions would have the potential to:

 Induce substantial economic growth in an area, either directly or indirectly;  Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community;  Cause extensive relocation when sufficient replacement housing is unavailable;  Cause extensive relocation of community businesses that would cause severe economic hardship for affected communities;  Disrupt local traffic patterns and substantially reduce the levels of service of roads serving an airport and its surrounding communities; or,

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 32  Produce a substantial change in the community tax base. 4.12.1.2 Environmental Justice For environmental justice, factors to consider are whether the action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionately high and adverse impact to an environmental justice population, i.e., a low-income or minority population, due to:

 Significant impacts in other environmental impact categories; or,  Impacts on the physical or natural environment that affect an environmental justice population in a way that the FAA determines are unique to the environmental justice population and significant to that population. 4.12.1.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety For children’s environmental health and safety, the factor to consider is whether the action would have the potential to lead to a disproportionate health or safety risk to children. 4.12.2 Analysis Currently, the FAA has not established a significance threshold for socioeconomics, environmental justice, or children’s environmental health and safety risks. However, there are specific factors that should be considered under each major component. 4.12.2.1 Socioeconomics The Proposed Action would include the relocation of a residence and the existing commercial space on the subject parcel. The relocation activities would not induce economic growth in the area as the property would be preserved for the RPZ. The Proposed Action would acquire a property located directly adjacent to the Airport that is currently zoned for Light Industrial uses. This property acquisition would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community or reduce level of service on adjacent roadways. Nampa City is a rapidly growing community with ample housing and commercial uses. The relocations associated with the Proposed Action are relatively minor and are not anticipated to cause severe economic hardship on the community. All property acquisition and the relocation of the residence and businesses would be required to conform to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act). The relocation of the parcel would remove the property from the Nampa City tax base. The residential and commercial uses may be located within the Nampa City boundaries. Even if the residential and commercial uses do not relocate and are permanently removed from the tax base, this would not create a strain on Nampa City’s economic viability. 4.12.2.2 Environmental Justice Currently available information has indicated the owner of the parcel proposed for acquisition does not meet the requirements necessary to qualify as low-income or a minority. The currently available information has also indicated that the businesses currently leasing portions of the subject parcel are not low-income or minority-owned businesses. Therefore, there are no

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 33 suspected low-income or minority populations within the study area, and there would be no significant impacts anticipated to occur to low-income and minority populations as a result of either alternative. 4.12.2.3 Children’s Environmental Health and Safety The Proposed Action is not anticipated to introduce any new physical hazards into the existing environment. As environmental impacts are not expected to exceed significance thresholds for air quality, noise, and water quality, and there are no other environmental impacts noted that would negatively impact the health and safety of children, no significant impacts to children’s environmental health and safety are anticipated from either alternative. 4.12.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no changes to socioeconomics, environmental justice populations, or children’s environmental health and safety would occur. Therefore, there would be no significant impacts as a result of the No Action Alternative. Proposed Action The Proposed Action requires the acquisition of a private parcel and the current property owners would be displaced after the acquisition. There is adequate housing available within the nearby area and the acquisition process would follow the federal requirements under the Uniform Act. The property owner would no longer be able to lease out space on the property to commercial interests. Therefore, the existing businesses on the parcel including the property owner’s car repair business and the other businesses on the property would no longer be able to operate on the parcel. There is limited information regarding the commercial uses on the property, however, it is understood that there are two, possibly three, commercial uses on the property. One of these commercial uses is run by the property owner and the others operate under lease agreements with the private property owner. The acquisition of the parcel is not anticipated to impact populations outside of those living and working on the parcel. Housing and commercial space is available in the general vicinity of the project area and all relocation activities would follow the Uniform Act. The proposed action would not create a health hazard, would increase the safety in the area by securing a portion of the RPZ, and would not represent a disproportionate impact to any populations in the area.

Additionally, information currently available has not illustrated the presence of a low-income or minority population within the study area, and there would be no new hazards introduced that would impact children’s health and safety within the study area. Therefore, there would be no anticipated impacts to low-income or minority communities, or to children’s environmental health and safety, as a result of the Proposed Action. 4.12.4 Mitigation The property owner would be compensated at fair market value for the subject parcel. The acquisition of the subject parcel would be conducted in conformance with the Uniform Act. No

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 34 mitigation would be required for low-income and minority populations, or for children’s environmental health and safety, as there would be no significant effects on those impact categories as a result of the Proposed Action. 4.13 Visual Resources Light emissions on Airport property may originate from ground-based lighting and aircraft lighting from approach lights. Existing lighting at the Airport includes lighting for runways, taxiways, and other navigational aids (NAVAIDs), and area lighting. Visual resources/visual character may be subjective because it includes personal aesthetic preferences. Visual impacts can include contrasts between a specific area, its existing environment, and the general perception of the community concerning may change. Existing visual impacts are those associated with the operation of the Airport, and include arriving and departing aircraft and Airport facilities. 4.13.1 Affected Environment Nampa City is developed area with a mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The viewshed in the area is primarily comprised of the built environmental associated with these uses. Typical components of the viewshed include residential buildings, commercial building, above ground utilities and roadways. The visual resources within and adjacent to the subject parcel include the Airport facilities (Runway 11-29, taxiways, hangars, office buildings, etc.), a residential building, commercial buildings and old farmhouse structures. Light emissions primarily stem from the lighting associated with the built structures in the area including exterior lighting on buildings and runway/taxiway lighting at the Airport. 4.13.2 Analysis The FAA has not established a significance threshold for visual resource impacts. Analysis of visual resource impacts is related to extent to which the Proposed Action would affect the nature of the visual character of the area and whether new light emissions or visual obstructions would be created by the Proposed Action. 4.13.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no new light emissions or new structures associated with Airport activities would occur on the subject parcel. Under the No Action Alternative, the private property owner may add new construction or light sources but those activities if they were to occur would be outside of the existing Airport property. Therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to visual effects. Proposed Action The Proposed Action requires the acquisition of a private parcel and the removal of existing structures. The Proposed Acton would not result in any new sources of light emissions and the

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 35 removal of the existing structures is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing visual conditions at the Airport or the viewshed of the surrounding area. 4.13.4 Mitigation No impacts to visual resources or visual character of the study area is anticipated under the Proposed Action and therefore no mitigation is required. 4.14. Water Resources (including Wetlands, Floodplains, Surface Waters, Groundwater, and Wild and Scenic Rivers) Water resources are surface waters and groundwater that are vital to society. They are important in providing drinking water and in supporting recreation, transportation and commerce, industry, agriculture, and aquatic ecosystems. Surface water, groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands do not function as separate and isolated components of the watershed, but rather as a single, integrated natural system. Disruption of any one part of this system can have consequences to the functioning of the entire system. 4.14.1 Affected Environment 4.14.1.1 Wetlands Wetlands are complex ecosystems that contain a number of important functions, including flood control, ground water recharge, water filtration and purification, erosion control, wildlife habitat, recreation, research and education, and promotion of regional economic vitality. Per review of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, and a site visit completed by qualified wetland specialist from J-U-B Engineers, Inc., there are no wetlands or other jurisdictional waterway resources within the land that would be acquired as part of the Proposed Action. 4.14.1.2 Floodplains Executive Order 11988 defines a floodplain as “lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. Encroachment onto floodplains can reduce the flood-carrying capacity of the floodplain and extend the flooding hazard beyond the encroachment area.” According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMette) for the study area, the proposed land acquisition is located within an area of minimal flood hazard, and is outside of any mapped floodplains. 4.14.1.3 Surface Waters There is broad legislation that addresses the development of water quality standards and management thereof to protect surface water supplies. No surface waters exist on the subject parcel.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 36 4.14.1.4 Groundwater There is broad legislation that addresses the development of water quality standards and the management thereof to protect groundwater supplies. According to the Idaho DEQ, the City of Nampa is located within a Nitrate Priority Area, meaning that groundwater in the area is degraded due to high nitrate concentrations. Currently, the presence of groundwater at the subject parcel is unknown, however the existing parcel is highly disturbed by existing structures, machinery, and a variety of industrial and residential land uses. 4.14.1.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition so that they might be enjoyed by present and future. It encourages river management and promotes public participation in developing goals for river protection. Rivers may be designated by Congress or, if certain requirements are met, the Secretary of the Interior. Each river is administered by either a federal or state agency. Designated segments do not need to include an entire river, and may include tributaries. For federally administered rivers, the designated boundaries generally average one-quarter mile on either bank in the lower 48 states. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Nampa area. The nearest designated section of Wild and Scenic River is the Owyhee Wild and Scenic River in eastern Oregon, which is located approximately 50 miles to the west.

4.14.2 Analysis 4.14.2.1 Wetlands The study area was reviewed on the USFWS NWI Maps and by a qualified wetland specialist from J-U-B Engineers, Inc. Per this review, no wetlands or other jurisdictional waterway resources were determined to be present within the land that would be acquired under the Proposed Action. No impacts to wetlands are anticipated to result from either alternative. 4.14.2.2 Floodplains According to the FEMA FIRMette for the study area, the parcel proposed for acquisition is located in an area of minimal flooding and is located outside of any mapped floodplains. No impacts to floodplains are anticipated to result from either alternative. 4.14.2.3 Surface Waters The Proposed Action would adversely impact surface waters if it caused an exceedance of water quality standards established by Federal, state, local or tribal regulatory agencies or if would contaminate a public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. No surface waters exist within the study area. Therefore, no impacts to surface waters are anticipated to result from either alternative.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 37 4.14.2.4 Groundwater The City of Nampa is located within a Nitrate Priority Area, meaning that groundwater in the area is degraded due to high nitrate concentrations. While the existing levels and quality of groundwater on the subject parcel is unknown, the parcel is currently disturbed by the present of structures, machinery, and a variety of industrial and residential land uses, which may have the potential to impact groundwater resources. The Proposed Action would acquire the subject parcel, and, pending cultural resource evaluation, would demolish the existing structures on the property. Demolition activities could have the potential to cause short-term impacts to groundwater resources, however any impacts resulting from the demolition activities would cease after completion of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant impacts to groundwater are anticipated to result from the Proposed Action. 4.14.2.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers There are no wild or scenic rivers within or in the vicinity of the study area. Therefore, no impacts to wild and scenic rivers are anticipated from either alternative. 4.14.3 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to water resources are anticipated as there are no wetlands, floodplains, jurisdictional waterways or other surface waters in project area.

Proposed Action The Proposed Action requires the acquisition of a private parcel and the removal of existing structures. A site survey by a qualified wetland specialist, review of the NWI maps, the EPA database, the NPS database and other resources indicate that there are no water resources on the subject parcel. The Proposed Action would not increase stormwater runoff, change or create a new discharge into a waterway, impact a floodplain, jurisdictional waterway or wetland, contaminate surface or ground water, or impact a Wild and Scenic River. And therefore, no impacts to water resources are expected to occur under the Proposed Action. 4.14.4 Mitigation There would be no impacts to water resources from the Proposed Action and therefore no mitigation is proposed. 4.15 Cumulative Impacts A cumulative impact analysis provides information on impacts resulting from other actions that have occurred or that will occur within a defined time and geographic area. A cumulative impact is an effect on the environment that results from incremental action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes other such actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. In

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 38 determining whether the Proposed Action would have a significant impact, the environmental evaluation shall include considerations of whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. This analysis shall include identification and consideration of the cumulative impacts of ongoing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and may include information garnered from FAA, the Airport Sponsor, and the NEPA process. For the purpose of this EA, the cumulative impacts analysis considers the possible impacts of developments both on and off the Airport combined with the potential impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. This information is used to decide if a proposed airport project’s impact to a specific resource would cause a significant impact on that resource when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within a specific geographic area or designated time frame. The analysis identified whether any of the following actions are planned to occur within the vicinity of the Proposed Action. 4.15.1 Past, Current, and Future Project Listings The following section addresses past, current, and future projects at, and in the vicinity of, the Airport. Past Projects Over the past five years (2014 – 2018) the Airport has completed a project to seal coat and crack repair Runway 11-29, the parallel taxiway and connecting taxiways. There have been no other projects completed at the Airport over the last five years. Technical documents including a wildlife hazard assessment and an RPZ analysis have also been completed but to date have not resulted in any construction activities at the Airport. Current Projects The Nampa Airport is currently working on expanding the existing hangar area located in the northeast portion of the Airport property. Improvements will include 1) The extension of six existing hangar rows/taxiways to the north to allow access to new public and private hangars that will be built to the north of the existing hangar. The Airport is also anticipating 2) The construction of additional private hangars to the east of the existing hangars. The expansion of the hangar development at the Airport will include tie-ins to the existing stormwater collection system and existing utilities lines. Reasonably Foreseeable Projects The following are projects that are in the preliminary stages of development, and would potentially occur within the next five years. These projects are considered in the cumulative impact analysis.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 39 1) Roundabout at the intersection of Happy Valley Road and Victory Road – The City of Nampa is currently evaluating the construction of a roundabout intersection at the intersection of Happy Valley Road and Victory Road. The proposed project would be located directly southeast of the existing Airport property. The City is evaluating a potential land swap with the Airport for the construction of the proposed project improvements. At the time of the EA, preliminary planning and environmental evaluation of the proposed project was just getting underway. If approved, the project is anticipated to be built within the next five years.

2) Hangar Development and Associated Taxiways – The Airport Sponsor is planning to pursue taxilane and hangar development for the area located just west of the existing Fire Station currently located at the intersection of Happy Valley Road and Cessna Way. The proposed project would occur entirely within the existing Airport property and is anticipated to be approximately 24 acres in total. An environmental evaluation for the proposed project is anticipated to occur in early 2020.

4.15.2 Environmental Impact Category Analysis This cumulative impact analysis focuses on those resources either directly or indirectly impacted by the Proposed Action. In other words, if the Proposed Action would not cause a direct or indirect impact on a resource, then it would not contribute to a cumulative impact on that resource.

Coastal Resources and Wild and Scenic Rivers do not exist within the EA study area, and therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts. Cumulative Impacts to Air Quality The Proposed Action would not cause significant impacts to air quality from increases in Airport operations or new construction. There is the potential for short-term air quality impacts as a result of demolition during the Proposed Action, however the increases in fugitive dust would be localized to the subject property and would be properly mitigated through the use of dust controls. Therefore, there would be no significant cumulative impacts to air quality anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources No significant impacts to biological resources would result from the Proposed Action. There are no known occurrences of sensitive species on or near the study area and there is no critical habitat for such species in the area. The Proposed Action would not cause a direct or indirect impact to biological resources, it would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on biological resources.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 40 Cumulative Impacts to Climate The Proposed Action would not increase Airport capacity or increase the number of overall airport operations. The land clearing associated with the Proposed Action would have the potential to result in extremely slight increases in construction emissions in the area, however the increase would be short-term and would cease after the completion of demolition activities. The Proposed Action would not significantly impact air quality, operations, or climate conditions in the vicinity of the Airport, and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative significant impact. Cumulative Impacts to Section 4(f) and Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources The Proposed Action would acquire Canyon County Parcel No. R14285549AO (totaling approximately 6.717 acres). According to the Cultural Resource Report completed in March 2018, the property contains the Storey farmstead property, which may be eligible for listing on the NRHP. As a result of the Proposed Action, the farmstead property located at 2909 South Garrity Boulevard would be acquired for airport use, and some of the existing structures would be removed. Because the current property owner will not allow access to the subject property, additional consultation will occur after the property acquisition has been finalized. The full extent of the impacts to cultural resources and any necessary measures to mitigate for those impacts will be established after the property acquisition occurs. However, impacts to Storey farmstead property and any potentially eligible historic structures on the site are not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts with regard to Section 4(f) and historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural resources. Mitigation measures would be in place to account for any potential impacts. Cumulative Impacts to Farmlands No prime or significant farmlands would be impacted by the Proposed Action. No current or future developments have been identified that would convert agricultural land to non- agricultural use. Because the Proposed Action would not cause a direct or indirect impact to farmlands, it would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact to farmlands. Cumulative Impacts to Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention Current levels of hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution at the subject parcel are unknown as the current owners have not allowed access to the property. However, based on the current condition of the parcel, and the amount of aging machinery and buildings, it is likely that there are items such as oil drums and fuel spills. After the property is purchased, the airport would complete a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment to determine the overall levels of hazardous materials on the subject parcel. As the current levels of hazardous materials are unknown, potential cumulative impacts relating to hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention cannot be quantified at this time.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 41 Cumulative Impacts to Land Use While the Proposed Action would result in minor changes to land use, it would not represent an overall significant impact. Currently, the subject parcel is used for a residence and a couple of commercial activities. While the property acquisition would remove the residence and businesses, the future use as part of the RPZ would be consistent with the surrounding industrial uses. The land acquisition and relocation would occur consistent with the Uniform Act, and the property owner would be fairly compensated. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to cause a significant cumulative impact to land use. Cumulative Impacts to Natural Resources and Energy Supply The Proposed Action would not cause significant impacts to natural resources or energy supplies. As the Proposed Action would not cause a direct or indirect impact to natural resources or energy supplies, it would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on natural resources or energy supplies. Cumulative Impacts to Noise No noise impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Action. No new development would occur, and airport traffic, including aircraft and vehicle traffic, would not increase as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to noise are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Cumulative Impacts to Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risks The Proposed Action would result in the acquisition of one parcel of land which contains one residence and three small businesses. The residence and businesses would be relocated according to the regulations and guidelines set forth by the Uniform Act, and would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community or reduce the level of service on nearby roadways. The relocations associated with the Proposed Action are relatively minor and are not anticipated to cause severe economic hardship on the community. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact to socioeconomics. Currently available information has determined that there are no low-income or minority groups within the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts to environmental justice. The Proposed Action would also not introduce any new physical hazards into the existing environment. Environmental impacts are not expected to exceed significance thresholds for air quality, noise, and water quality, and there are no other environment impacts noted that would negatively impact the health and safety of children, meaning that no significant impacts to children’s environmental health and safety are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Action. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts to children’s environmental health and safety.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 42 Cumulative Impacts to Visual Resources The Proposed Action would not result in any new sources of light emissions and the removal of the existing structures is not anticipated to negatively impact the existing visual conditions at the Airport or in the surrounding area. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in significant cumulative impacts to visual resources. Cumulative Impacts to Water Resources Wetlands No wetlands or jurisdictional waterways were found to exist within the study area. The acquisition and demolition activities occurring as part of the Proposed Action are not anticipated to cause impacts to wetlands or other jurisdictional waters. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to cause significant cumulative impacts to wetlands. Floodplains The study area is located outside of FEMA mapped floodplains and is within an area of minimal flooding. The acquisition and demolition associated with the Proposed Action are not anticipated to impact any floodplains or floodways. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to contribute to significant cumulative impacts to floodplains. Surface Waters No surface waters exist within the study area. Therefore, the Proposed Action is not anticipated to contribute to significant cumulative impacts to surface waters. Groundwater The current quality and level of groundwater in the study area is unknown, however the level of disturbance within the study area is relatively high due to existing structures, aging machinery, and a variety of residential and industrial uses. Demolition activities associated with the Proposed Action could have the potential to result in short-term impacts to groundwater, however any impacts resulting from demolition activities would cease after completion of the demolition activities. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to groundwater are anticipated to result from the Proposed Action. 4.16 Public Involvement Public involvement is a vital component of the NEPA process. Public and agency coordination was conducted during the NEPA process. A public open house was held during the EA scoping period on August 16, 2018. The open house was noticed on August 2, 2018. One person attended the house open. No comments were collected during the open house or during the 30-day comment period. To date no public comments have been collected on the EA. The Draft EA will be published on May 11, 2020 and will be followed by a 30-day comment period ending on June 9, 2020. Notice of Availability of the Draft EA will be advertised in the local newspapers and the Nampa City website. Hard copies will also be provided to anyone not

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 43 able to review an electronic version. Responses to all verbal and written comments will be provided in Appendix D of the Final EA. 4.17 Conclusion This EA has been developed consistent with the existing national environmental policies and objects of Section 101(a) of NEPA and meets the CEQ requirements. The Proposed Action meets the purpose and need as described in Chapter 1, and would address existing operational deficiencies at the Airport. After careful review, it has been determined that the Proposed Action would not yield any significant impacts to either the natural or human environment. Mitigation measures have been outlined as environmental commitments to offset the project related impacts described herein.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 4 Land Acquisition EA Page 44 Chapter 5 Abbreviations & Acronyms AC Advisory Circular ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AIP Airport Improvement Program APE Area of Potential Effect ARC Airport Reference Code BC Community Business Zone BGEPA Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Superfund Sites, Comprehensive Response, Compensation, and Liability Act DEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FPPA Farmlands Protection Policy Act GA General Aviation GHG Greenhouse Gas HUD United Stated Department of Housing and Urban Development IPaC USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Database IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MAN Nampa Municipal Airport MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MPU Master Plan Update NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAVAIDS Navigational Aids NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OFA Object Free Area RPZ Runway Protection Zone SHPO State Historic Preservation Office THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer TRI Toxic Release Inventory USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 5 Land Acquisition EA Page 45 USC United States Code UST Underground Storage Tank VRCP Voluntary Release Cleanup Program

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 5 Land Acquisition EA Page 46 Chapter 6 References Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). EPA, 31 December 2018. https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook. Version 3, Update 1, FAA Office of Environment and Energy, January 2015. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/envir_policy/airquality_han dbook/media/Air_Quality_Handbook_Appendices.pdf. FAA. Order 1050.1F – Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. Department of Transportation, 16 July 2015. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/FAA_Order_1050_1F.pdf. FAA. AC 150/5300-13A – Airport Design. Department of Transportation, Office of Airport Safety and Standards – Airport Engineering Division, 28 September 2012. https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.cur rent/documentNumber/150_5300-13. FAA. AC 150/5070-6B – Airport Master Plans. Change 2. Department of Transportation, Office of Airport Planning & Programming, Planning & Environmental Division. 27 January 2015. https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5070- 6B_with_chg_1&2.pdf. FAA. Order 5050.4B – National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. Department of Transportation, 28 April 2006. https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/publications/orders/environmental_5050_4/m edia/5050-4B_complete.pdf. Idaho State Historical Society. National Register of Historic Places in Idaho. Idaho State Historic Society. 2018. Online at https://history.idaho.gov/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/NRHP_Idaho.pdf Nampa City Comprehensive Plan Update. 2012. U.S. Census Bureau. “Quickfacts: Nampa City, Idaho; Canyon County, Idaho”. 9 January 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). “Farmland Protection Policy Act Annual Report for FY-2015.” USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. December 2016. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/PA_NRCSConsumption/download?cid=nrcseprd130813 2&ext=pdf.

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 6 Land Acquisition EA Page 47 United States, Executive Office of the President. Executive order 11988: Floodplain Management. 24 May 1977. Federal Register, vol. 42 no. 26951. 1977. Pp 117. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11988.html. United States, Executive Office of the President. Executive order 11990: Protection of Wetlands. 24 May 1977. Federal Register, vol. 42 no. 26961. 1977. Pp 121. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11990.html. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information for Planning and Consultation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Slickspot Peppergrass. Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office. 16 October 2018. https://www.fws.gov/idaho/promo.cfm?id=177175828

Nampa Municipal Airport Chapter 6 Land Acquisition EA Page 48 Appendix A

Preferred Alternative

Garrity Blvd KingsRd

Port St Nampa Airport

Legend Airport Boundaries Parcel Acquisition Nampa Parcels

Nampa Airport µ Land Acquisition Project Feet ^ 0 375 750 1,500 Appendix B

2017 RPZ Analysis

RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS Runway 11 Runway Protection Zone (City of Nampa, Idaho)

Instructions: Prior to completing this form, the RO/ADO staff must work with the Airport Sponsor to identify and document the full range of alternatives that could:

1) Avoid introducing the land use issue within the RPZ 2) Minimize the impact of the land use in the RPZ (i.e. routing a new roadway through the controlled activity area, move farther away from the runway end, etc.) 3) Mitigate risk to people and property on the ground (i.e. tunneling, depressing and/or protecting a roadway through the RPZ, implement operational measure to mitigate any risks, etc.)

BACKGROUND 1. AIRPORT: 2. LOCATION (CITY, STATE): 3. LOC ID: Nampa Municipal Airport Nampa, ID MAN

4. EFFECTED RUNWAY: 5. APPROACH RPZ DIMENSION: 6. DEPARTURE RPZ DIMENSION: 11 LENGTH: 1,000 feet LENGTH 1,000 feet INNER WIDTH: 500 feet INNER WIDTH: 500 feet OUTER WIDTH: 700 feet OUTER WITH: 700 feet ACRES: 14 ACRES: 14

7. DESIGN AIRCRAFT OF RUNWAY:

Beech King Air

8. DATE OF LATEST FAA SIGNED ALP:

June 18, 2010

9. TRIGGERING EVENT (i.e. what event caused the new or modified land use in the RPZ)

An airfield project (e.g. runway extension, runway shift)

A change in the critical design aircraft which increases the RPZ dimensions

A new or revised instrument approach procedure that increases the RPZ dimensions

X A local development proposal in the Runway 11 RPZ (either new or reconfigured)- The City of Nampa wants to relocate Garrity/Kings Road/Airport Road intersection. These improvements reduce activities within the RPZ area which is in the interest of public safety. Other (please describe):

10. SELECT TYPE OF INCOMPATABLE LAND USE IN RPZ:

Buildings and structures (Examples include, but are not limited to: residences, schools, churches, hospitals or other medical care facilities, commercial/industrial buildings, etc.) Recreational land use (Examples include, but are not limited to: golf courses, sports fields, amusement parks, other places of public assembly, etc.) X Transportation Facilities. (Examples include, but are not limited to: rail facilities (light or heavy, passenger or freight), public roads/highways, vehicular parking facilities) Fuel storage facilities (above and below ground)

Hazardous material storage (above and below ground)

Wastewater treatment facilities

Above-ground utility infrastructure (i.e. electrical substations), including any type of solar panel installations.

Does the Airport Sponsor own or control the area where the above incompatible land uses is located? Yes_____ No__X___

1 10/04/2012

Project Description. An analysis has been performed by the City of Nampa in an effort to provide all possible measures to protect against and remove or mitigate incompatible land uses within the Runway 11 RPZ. One incompatible land use includes transportation facilities such as public roads that create a situation that places motorists within the RPZ creating a public safety issue. Accordingly the City is attempting to most cost effectively remove and improve a complex and crowded intersection within the Runway 11 RPZ and in doing so removing as many of the roadways and commercial businesses within the area as possible. Removal of these conflicts will increase the protection of people and property on the ground in the event that an aircraft lands short of the Runway 11 threshold.

ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 11. PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF EACH ALTERNATIVE INCLUDE A NARRATIVE DISCUSSION AND EXHIBITS OR FIGURES DEPICTING THE ALTERNATIVE:

Option 1. Leave existing Garrity /Kings /Airport Road intersection (Do nothing alternative) - The existing intersection is a five-legged intersection with a minimal distance separating the Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road and Airport Road/Kings Road intersections (See Figure 1). The entire confluence is located in the Runway 11 RPZ and allows a gathering of vehicles in the RPZ when traffic is stopped due to traffic control. A median prohibits southbound Kings Road traffic from turning east onto Airport Road, restricts westbound traffic on Airport Road from turning south on Kings Road, and makes the turn from Airport Road west onto Garrity difficult. Removing the existing median is not a realistic option as it would reduce traffic safety dramatically at the Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road/ Airport Road intersection to unacceptable levels. Because of the proximity to Runway 11, many of the light poles and signals at/near the intersection need to be customized to keep them under the Runway Approach Slope surfaces. This intersection is fronted by commercial properties that produce economic value to the City of Nampa. The existing Average Daily Traffic for Garrity Boulevard is 25,700 vehicles per day; for Kings Road it is 11,950 vehicles per day; and for Airport Road it is 2,100 vehicles per day. The future (2040) Average Daily Traffic for Garrity Boulevard in the area of the intersection is 38,300 vehicles per day; for Kings Road it is 18,400 vehicles per day; and for Aiport Road it is 6,100 vehicles per day. The level of service for Garrity Boulevard is C and for Airport Road is A. Kings Road does not have a level of service designation. The majority of the property in the RPZ both north and south of Garrity Road is zoned as Community Business (BC) within the City of Nampa Limits. The exception to this is the property immediately Southwest of the Garrity Road/Kings Road intersection which is outside the Ctiy Limits and is zoned Light Industrial (M-1) by Canyon County.

Option 2. Relocate Garrity/Kings and Garrity/Airport Road Intersections. - This option aligns Airport Road outside and to the east of the current RPZ and Kings Road outside and to the west of the current RPZ (See Figure 2). Segments of Airport Road and Kings Road within the RPZ will be vacated and the two roadways will be terminated in cul-de-sacs outside the RPZ. The existing traffic signal at Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road would be removed, and signals would be relocated to the new, separated Garrity Boulevard/Airport Road and Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road intersections. This option impacts 20 commercial parcels, 12 of which would require complete buy-outs. This option requires approximately 15.5 acres of Right of Way (ROW) only 1.4 acres of which would be acquired through partial land acquisition, totaling just over $177,500. In addition to those costs, 12 parcels would need to be fully acquired, with an estimated cost of $6,000,000. Annual property tax revenue loss for this option totals just over $76,500. According to the 2010 document traffic performance indicates both realigned intersections will be over capacity by 2035.

Option 3. Relocate Garrity/Kings and 39th/Garrity Boulevard Intersections- This option reroutes and signalizes Kings Road to the west, outside the Runway 11 RPZ. The existing Airport Road would cul-de-sac just after the last westbound driveway access and east of the Runway 11 RPZ (See Figure 3). Segments of Kings Road and Airport Road within the RPZ would be vacated. 39th Street (Municipal Way) would be widened and connected to Garrity Boulevard at a new traffic signal. The existing traffic signal at Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road would be removed and the remaining intersection of Kings Road/Garrity Boulevard would be restricted to right-in/right-out. To accommodate traffic from the industrial areas north of Garrity Boulevard, Comstock Road would be improved and connected to 39th Street and the new traffic signal at 39th Street and Garrity Boulevard. A roundabout would be located at the Airport Road/39th Street intersection, and an entry gateway to the Nampa Municipal Airport would be provided for greater visibility and access to the airport. This option impacts 15 residential properties, 24 commercial properties, and four agricultural properties and requires approximately 19.9 acres of ROW, only 10.8 acres of which would be acquired by land acquisitions only, totaling over $1,270,000 in land-only acquisition costs. 20 parcels will require complete acquisitions due to either being located within the RPZ, or having a structural impact based on the roadway improvements. The costs for those displacements will likely cost approximately $8,780,000. Almost $2,000,000 of that displacement cost assumes a complete buy-out of an impacted mobile home park on 39th. However, if this option is preferred, a more detailed analysis could determine this parcel has only a partial impact and a full buy-out is unnecessary. Annual property tax revenue loss for this option totals just over $121,000. The existing Average Daily Traffic for 39th Street is less than 500 vehicles per day and the future (2040) Average Daily Traffic for 39th is approximately 10,000 vehicles per day. Property east and west of 39th Street between Airport Road and the future connection of Comstock to 39th is zoned as Light Industrial (IL), Suburban Residential (RA), Heavy Industrial (IH), and and Community Business (BC).

Option 4. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley/Victory Road Network Reconfiguration- In order to get the existing Runway 11 RPZ located entirely on currently owned airport property the runway needs to shift a minimum of 800 feet to the southeast. To do this the Happy Valley Road/Victory intersection will need to be reconfigured (See Figure 4). This option utilizes the existing Pit Lane and Joe Lane northeast of the existing Happy Valley Road / Victory Road intersection, and new roadways south of the intersection. This option locates the roadways outside the RPZ and requires a cul-de-sac at both Happy Valley Road (north of RPZ) and Victory Road (east of RPZ). Existing access to properties along Happy Valley Road and Victory Road would not be impacted. The existing Happy Valley Road and Victory Road segments within the RPZ would be vacated. This option impacts 93 parcels, 21 of which are complete takes (3 of which are currently owned by the Nampa Municipal Airport). All parcels are either residential or agricultural. This option requires approximately 98 total acres of new ROW, with just over 63 acres being acquired through land acquisitions only, totaling just over $6,800,000. 18 parcels will require complete acquisitions due to either being located within the RPZ, or having a structural impact based on the roadway improvements. Those displacements will likely cost approximately $2,100,000 million. In addition, the cost of shifting the runway itself would be quite significant. Annual property tax revenue loss for this option totals just over $33,300. The existing Average Daily Traffic for Happy Valley is 7,600 vehicles per day and for Victory Road is 3,400 vehicles per day. The future (2040) Average Daily Traffic for Happy Valley in the area of the intersection is 10,050 vehicles per day and for Victory Road it is 5,750 vehicles per day. The level of service for Happy Valley is A and for Victory Road it is B. The majority of the area impacted by this alternative does not have a zoning classification.

Option 5. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley Underpass – This option reconstructs Happy Valley Road as an underpass below the future Runway 29. This option includes the establishment of two cul-de-sacs on Victory Road, both east and west of the RPZ. Victory Road between these segments would be vacated (See Figure 5). A diversion route along Joe Lane, Pit Lane, and new roadways will reroute eastbound and westbound traffic. All north-south travel will remain the same, as Happy Valley Road will not be restricted. This option impacts 117 parcels, 20 of which are compete takes.

2 10/04/2012

All parcels are either residential or agricultural. No commercial property would be lost. This option requires approximately 98.5 acres of ROW, 62 of which would be acquired through land-only acquisitions, totaling just over $6,500,000 million. 26 parcels will require complete acquisitions due to either being located within the RPZ, or having a structural impact based on the roadway improvements. Costs for those displacements will likely cost just under $2,900,000 million. In addition, the cost of shifting the runway and constructing the structural underpass would be significant. Annual property tax revenue loss for this option totals just over $33,300.

12. PROVIDE FULL COST ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH ALTERNATIVE REGARDLESS OF POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES:

Option 1. Leave existing Garrity/Kings and Airport Road intersection (Do nothing alternative) - No costs for this alternative. There will be an eventual cost for displacement of commercial businesses and relocation costs to clear the RPZ of existing non compatible facilities.

Option 2. Relocate Garrity/Kings and Garrity/Airport Road Intersections - Land costs would equal $6,177,500 and roadway improvement construction costs would equal from $2,350,000 to $2,839,000 (as shown on Table 1) for a total of $9,016,500 for this option.

Option 3. Relocate Garrity/Kings and 39th/Garrity Boulevard Intersections- Land costs would equal $10,050,000 and roadway improvement construction costs (as shown on Table 2) would equal from $4,697,000 to $5,675,000 for a total of $15,725,000 for this option.

Option 4. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley/Victory Network Reconfiguration. - Land costs would equal $8,900,000 and roadway improvement construction costs (as shown on Table 3) would equal from $4,358,000 to $5,269,000. The cost for shifting the runway is anticipated to be an additional $6,000,000. Total cost is approximately $20,169,000 for this option.

Option 5. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley Underpass. - Land costs would equal $9,400,000 and roadway improvement construction costs (as shown on Table 4) would equal from $33,837,000 to 40,914,000 . The cost for shifting the runway is anticipated to be an additional $6,000,000. Total cost is approximately $56,314,000 for this option.

13. PROVIDE A PRACTICABILITY ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THE ALTERNATIVE IN TERMS OF COST, CONSTRUCTABILITY AND OTHER FACTORS:

Option 1. Leave existing Garrity/Kings Road and Airport Road intersection (Do nothing alternative) – The intersection will continue to be located within the Runway 11 RPZ allowing the gathering of people in the RPZ when traffic is stopped due to traffic control. The existing intersection is not conducive to proper traffic flow. Southbound King’s Road traffic cannot turn east onto Airport Road, westbound traffic on Airport Road cannot turn south on Kings Road, and the turn from Airport Road west onto Garrity Boulevard is difficult and unsafe. Removing the existing median is not a realistic option as it would reduce traffic safety at the Garrity Boulevard/Kings Road/ Airport Road intersection to unacceptable levels. Since these movements are restricted an additional backup of traffic exists. Because of the proximity to Runway 11, many of the light poles and signals at/near the intersection need to be customized to keep them under the runway approach slope surfaces. Portions of Garrity Road, Kings Road and Airport Road are located within the Runway 11 RPZ. This alternative would likely have a negative impact on air quality due to queuing of traffic at the intersection associated with the poor level of service of the intersection.

Airport Road has been selected as a preferred alignment as a critical east-west arterial and connection to Overland Road in the west terminus. Airport Road will need to handle the projected future traffic volumes for this alignment (See Section 11 of this report). This alternative does nothing to solve this situation especially regarding the Airport Road/Kings Road intersection limitations.

Option 2. Relocate Garrity/Kings and Garrity/Airport Road Intersections. - This option removes all of Airport Road and Kings Road from the RPZ. It allows quick and direct access from/to Airport Road which is designated as a future main through street from Ada County as an extension of Overland Road (per the Airport/Overland Road Corridor Study). It removes the cumbersome Garrity Blvd/Kings Road/Airport Road five legged intersection providing separate intersections for Airport Road/ Garrity Blvd. and Kings Road /Garrity Blvd which are both located outside the RPZ. The removal reduces the backup of automobiles within the RPZ that is caused by traffic control at the Garrity Blvd./Kings Road/Airport Road intersection. Purchase of the property southwest of the existing intersection necessary for relocation of Kings Road eliminates a large portion of the commercial property and activities within the RPZ. The cost of this alternative makes it attractive over other options as it is the alternative with the lowest cost. The fact that the new Kings Road/Garrity Blvd. and Garrity Blvd/Airport intersections would be relatively close together has created concern with the Canyon County Highway District. As stated in the description studies have indicated that these intersections will be over capacity by 2035. Socioeconomic impacts and potential hazardous materials from the acquisition of the 12 commercial properties represent the primary environmental resource concerns. An environmental justice population and historic resources may also be located within the impact area.

Option 3. Preferred Alternative - Relocate Garrity/Kings and 39th/Garrity Intersections. This option removes all of Airport Road and a significant portion of Kings Road from the RPZ. It removes the cumbersome Garrity Blvd/Kings Road/Airport Road five legged intersection providing separate intersections for 39th Street/ Garrity Blvd. and Kings Road/ Garrity Blvd which are both located outside the RPZ. The removal reduces the backup of automobiles within the RPZ that was previously caused by traffic control at the Garrity Blvd./Kings Road/Airport Road intersection. It prevents backup more than the Option 2 alternative since the 39th/Garrity intersection is far from the RPZ environment. Purchase of the property southwest of the existing intersection necessary for relocation of Kings Road eliminates a large portion of the commercial property and activities within the RPZ. Improvements/widening of 39th assists with access to the proposed residential development of 600 acres that will be located north of I-84 near 39th. The improvements to 39th and Comstock Road are well worth the added costs that this alternative requires over the Option 2 alternative. As part of this alternative the City plans an intersection improvement of the Happy Valley/Victory Road intersection by relocating the intersection out of the Runway 29 RPZ (See Figure 3A). The construction of the roundabout is slated to occur in approximatey two years. The roundabout installation and resultant improvement to both RPZ’s are an added benefit to the City. Socioeconomic, environmental justice and cultural resource impacts may occur based on the proposed property acquisitions. Hazardous materials may also be present in the project area.

Option 4. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley/Victory Network Reconfiguration- Shifting the runway places Runway 11 RPZ entirely onto existing property currently owned by the Airport and eliminates the presence of people or commercial properties and buildings within the RPZ. In order to shift the Runway, a cul-de-sac at both Happy Valley Road (north of RPZ) and Victory Road (east of RPZ) will be needed. The existing

3 10/04/2012

Happy Valley Road and Victory Road segments within the RPZ would be vacated. The existing Pit Lane and Joe Lane northeast of the existing Happy Valley Road/Victory Road intersection and new roadways south of the intersection will be used to detour traffic formally utilizing Happy Valley and Victory. Existing access to properties along Happy Valley Road and Victory Road would not be impacted. The City of Nampa and the Nampa Highway District’s reaction to this alternative was not favorable on the issue of using such a lengthy detour for a busy Happy Valley Road and Victory Road. The $20,000,000 cost plus the unfavorable impact of the detouring required made the option untenable at this time. Socioeconomic, environmental justice, historic resource and hazardous material impacts may be a concern due to the full acquisition of the 21 properties

Option 5. Shift Runway a Minimum of 800 Feet with Happy Valley Underpass - Shifting the runway places Runway 11 RPZ entirely onto existing property currently owned by the Airport and eliminates the presence of people or commercial properties and buildings within the RPZ. This option includes the establishment of two cul-de-sacs on Victory Road, both east and west of the RPZ. Victory Road between these segments would be vacated. (See Figure 5). A diversion route along Joe Lane, Pit Lane, and new roadways will reroute eastbound and westbound traffic. In addition to the needed but not popular traffic diversions of Victory Road, another drawback of this alternative is the high cost of the underpass structure. The excavation, retaining walls, and bridge deck for the runway crossing over the underpass and the associated drainage improvements would cost an estimated 20 million dollars of the total cost of 56 million required to complete the project. This cost plus the detour needed for Victory Road made this option unfavorable. Socioeconomic, environmental justice and cultural resource impacts may occur based on the proposed property acquisitions.

14. DESCRIBE THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE THAT WOULD MEET THE PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED WHILE MINIMIZING RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THE LOCATION WITHIN THE RPZ:

Option 3. Relocate Garrity/Kings and 39th/Garrity Intersections. This option removes all of Airport Road and a significant portion of Kings Road from the Runway 11 RPZ which minimizes the risk of auto traffic traversing through the RPZ. The cumbersome Garrity Blvd/Kings Road/Airport Road five legged intersection is eliminated providing separate intersections for 39th Street/ Garrity Blvd. and Kings Road/ Garrity Blvd which will both be located outside the RPZ. The relocation of these intersections reduces the backup of automobiles within the RPZ previously caused by traffic control at the Garrity Blvd./Kings Road/Airport Road intersection. It prevents backup more than the Option 2 alternative since the 39th/Garrity intersection is farther east from the RPZ environment. The purchase of the property southwest of the existing intersection (necessary for relocation of Kings Road) eliminates a large portion of the commercial property and related activities within the RPZ. Improvements including widening of 39th street assists the City by providing access to the proposed future residential development of 600 acres that will be located north of I-84 near 39th. The improvements to 39th and Comstock Road are well worth the added costs that this alternative requires over the Option 2 alternative. The combination of the RPZ Runway 11 improvement (Figure 3A) plus the intersection improvement to the Runway 29 RPZ is the primary reason for the selection of this alternative.

Improvements within the RPZ that are slated within the next 5 years include the acquisition of the property southwest of the existing Garrity/Kings intersection (approximately 2 years) and the clearing of structures within that property (in about 3 years). Other improvements including relocating Kings Road and purchasing other commercial propertys within the Runway 11 RPZ are thought to be scheduled well outside of the 5 year period.

15. IDENTIFY ALL FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES INVOLVED OR INTERESTED IN THE ISSUE:

Agencies that may have an interest in this issue include the City of Nampa, the Nampa Highway District, the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) Planning Department and Idaho Department-Aeronautics Division. We have coordinated with Michael Fuss (Nampa City Public Works Director), Tom Points (Namap City Engineer), Clair Bowman (Nampa City Planner), Mark Wasdahl (ITD District 3 Planner), and Nick Lehman (Assistant Engineer Nampa Highway District) and Eric Shannon (District Engineer Nampa Highway District) from the Nampa Highway District. We have asked all participants for review comments. All comment have been integrated into this RPZ analysis (See Section 13 of this report).

16. PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC PORTION(S) AND PERCENTAGES OF THE RPZ AFFECTED, DRAWING A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE RPZ VERSUS THE CONTROLLED ACTIVITY AREA, AND CLEARLY DELINEATING THE DISTANCE FROM THE RUNWAY END AND RUNWAY LANDING THRESHOLD.

The proposed preferred alternative - Relocate Garrity/King, 29th/Garrity Intersections will affect 3.81 acres of the existing RPZ. This represents less than 28% of the total RPZ area. This will include 2.74 acres of the Central Portion of the RPZ (Extended Object Free Area) and 1.07 Acres of the Controlled Activity Area (CAA). The shortest distance from the preferred alternative to Runway 11 and the Runway Threshold is 500 feet.

17. PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF (AND ISSUES AFFECTING) SPONSOR CONTROL OF THE LAND WITHIN THE RPZ.

Currently about 26 percent (3.569 acres) of the Runway 11 RPZ is owned by the Nampa Municipal Airport, Nampa ID. The remaining 74 percent (10.2 Acres) is either commercial property located within the City of Nampa limits zoned Community Business (BC) or outside of the City and County zoned Light Industrial (M-1) or City of Nampa roadway right-of-way.

18. ANY OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS FOR HEADQUARTERS CONSIDERATION:

None

4 10/04/2012

OPTION 1 - EXISTING RUNWAY II FIGURE 1 0 800’

NORTH PROTECTION ZONE SCALE IN FEET

OPTION 2 - RELOCATE FIGURE 2 0 400’

NORTH GARRITY/KINGS/AIRPORT SCALE IN FEET INTERSECTION

OPTION 3 – RELOCATE FIGURE 3 0 800’

TH NORTH GARRITY/KINGS AND 39 /GARRITY SCALE IN FEET INTERSECTIONS - PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

OPTION 4 - HAPPY VALLEY/VICTORY FIGURE 4 0 800’

NORTH NETWORK RECONFIGURATION SCALE IN FEET

OPTION 5 - HAPPY VALLEY FIGURE 5 N.T.S UNDERPASS . NORTH

HAPPY VALLEY/VICTORY FIGURE 3A INTERSECTION ROUNDABOUT NORTH

Table 1. Option 2 - Relocate Garrity/Kings & Garrity/Airport Intersections

ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL RANGE REMOVALS LS 1 $69,000.00 $66,000 - $76,000 EXCAVATION CY 7800 $7.00 $52,000 - $61,000 STANDARD 6" VERTICAL LF 6200 $10.00 $59,000 - $69,000 CURB AND GUTTER 6" MINUS UNCRUSHED TON 12000 $10.00 $114,000 - $132,000 AGGREGATE BASE CRUSHED AGGREGATE TON 6800 $15.00 $97,000 - $113,000 FOR BASE TYPE I PLANT MIX PAVEMENT TON 4000 $65.00 $247,000 - $286,000 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 3500 $25.00 $84,000 - $97,000 SIGNAL - KINGS / EA 1 $250,000.00 $238,000 - $275,000 GARRITY MODIFICATION SIGNAL - AIRPORT / EA 1 $250,000.00 $238,000 - $275,000 GARRITY SWPPP LS 1 $50,000.00 $48,000 - $55,000 DRAINAGE EST 20% LUMP SUM $237,000 - $317,000 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC CONTROL EST 5% LUMP SUM $60,000 - $80,000 ROADWAY TRAFFIC EST 2% LUMP SUM $24,000 - $32,000 ITEMS MISCELLANEOUS EST 5% LUMP SUM $60,000 - $80,000 MOBILIZATION EST 5% LUMP SUM $78,000 - $108,000 SUBTOTAL $1,702,000 - $2,056,000 CONTINGENCY EST 20% LUMP SUM $341,000 - $412,000 ENGINEERING EST 15% LUMP SUM $307,000 - $371,000 PROJECT TOTAL $2,350,000 - $2,839,000

Table 2. Option 3 - Relocate Garrity/Kings & 39th/Garrity Intersections

ESTIMATE D UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL RANGE REMOVALS $137,000.0 - LS 1 0 $131,000 $151,000 EXCAVATION** CY 25,500 $7.00 $170,000 - $197,000 STANDARD 6" VERTICAL - CURB AND GUTTER LF 23,300 $10.00 $222,000 $257,000 6" MINUS UNCRUSHED - AGGREGATE BASE TON 44,800 $10.00 $426,000 $493,000 CRUSHED AGGREGATE - FOR BASE TYPE I TON 23,000 $15.00 $328,000 $380,000 PLANT MIX PAVEMENT TON 10,700 $65.00 $661,000 - $766,000 4" TOPSOIL SY 3,470 $3.00 $10,000 - $12,000 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 10,250 $25.00 $244,000 - $282,000 CONCRETE TRUCK APRON SY 430 $25.00 $11,000 - $12,000 SIGNAL - GARRITY/39TH $250,000.0 - EA 1 0 $238,000 $275,000 SWPPP LS 1 $50,000.00 $48,000 - $55,000 DRAINAGE - IMPROVEMENTS EST 20% LUMP SUM $473,000 $634,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL EST 5% LUMP SUM $119,000 - $159,000 ROADWAY TRAFFIC ITEMS EST 2% LUMP SUM $48,000 - $64,000 MISCELLANEOUS EST 5% LUMP SUM $119,000 - $159,000 MOBILIZATION EST 5% LUMP SUM $155,000 - $215,000

SUBTOTAL $3,403,000 - $4,111,000

CONTINGENCY EST 20% LUMP SUM $681,000 - $823,000 ENGINEERING EST 15% LUMP SUM $613,000 - $741,000 PROJECT TOTAL $4,697,000 - $5,675,000

Table 3. Option 4 - Happy Valley/Victory Network Reconfiguration

ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL RANGE REMOVALS LS 1 $127,000.00 $121,000 - $140,000 EXCAVATION CY 26000 $7.00 $173,000 - $201,000 STANDARD 6" VERTICAL LF 23000 $10.00 $219,000 - $253,000 CURB AND GUTTER 6" MINUS UNCRUSHED TON 38000 $10.00 $361,000 - $418,000 AGGREGATE BASE CRUSHED AGGREGATE FOR TON 21500 $15.00 $307,000 - $355,000 BASE TYPE I PLANT MIX PAVEMENT TON 12500 $65.00 $772,000 - $894,000 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 13000 $25.00 $309,000 - $358,000 SWPPP LS 1 $50,000.00 $48,000 - $55,000 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS EST 20% LUMP SUM $439,000 - $589,000 TRAFFIC CONTROL EST 5% LUMP SUM $110,000 - $148,000 ROADWAY TRAFFIC ITEMS EST 2% LUMP SUM $44,000 - $59,000 MISCELLANEOUS EST 5% LUMP SUM $110,000 - $148,000 MOBILIZATION EST 5% LUMP SUM $144,000 - $199,000 SUBTOTAL $3,157,000 - $3,817,000 CONTINGENCY EST 20% LUMP SUM $632,000 - $764,000 ENGINEERING EST 15% LUMP SUM $569,000 - $688,000 PROJECT TOTAL $4,358,000 - $5,269,000

Table 4. Option 5 - Happy Valley Underpass

ESTIMATED UNIT ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL RANGE REMOVALS LS 1 $403,000.00 $383,000 - $444,000 EXCAVATION - CY 126000 $7.00 $838,000 - $971,000 UNDERPASS** EXCAVATION - CY 24800 $9.00 $213,000 - $246,000 ROADWAY** RETAINING WALLS SF 85000 $40.00 $3,230,000 - $3,740,000 STANDARD 6" VERTICAL LF 28400 $10.00 $270,000 - $313,000 CURB AND GUTTER 6" MINUS UNCRUSHED TON 48100 $10.00 $457,000 - $530,000 AGGREGATE BASE CRUSHED AGGREGATE TON 27600 $15.00 $394,000 - $456,000 FOR BASE TYPE I PLANT MIX PAVEMENT TON 16200 $65.00 $1,001,000 - $1,159,000 CONCRETE SIDEWALK SY 15800 $25.00 $376,000 - $435,000 BRIDGE DECK - AIRPORT SF 74500 $150.00 $10,617,000 - $12,293,000 CROSSING PLANTER SY 19300 $4.00 $74,000 - $85,000 SWPPP EST 1 $100,000.00 $95,000 - $110,000 DRAINAGE EST 20% LUMP SUM $3,411,000 - $4,573,000 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC CONTROL EST 5% LUMP SUM $853,000 - $1,144,000 ROADWAY TRAFFIC ITEMS EST 2% LUMP SUM $342,000 - $458,000 MISCELLANEOUS EST 5% LUMP SUM $853,000 - $1,144,000 MOBILIZATION EST 5% LUMP SUM $1,112,000 - $1,546,000 SUBTOTAL $24,519,000 - $29,647,000 CONTINGENCY EST 20% LUMP SUM $4,904,000 - $5,930,000 ENGINEERING EST 15% LUMP SUM $4,414,000 - $5,337,000 PROJECT TOTAL $33,837,000 - $40,914,000

Appendix C Cultural Resource Survey

11 September 2019

Diane Stilson, P.E. FAA Helena Airport District Office 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2 Helena, Montana 59602-1213

Re: Nampa Municipal Airport Cultural Resources Assessment/ SHPO Brad Little Review No.: 2018-727 Governor of Idaho Dear Ms. Stilson, Janet Gallimore Executive Director Thank you for continuing consultation with our office on the above referenced State Historic project. We understand the new scope of the work will eventually include the Preservation Officer removal of several structures at the Storey Poultry Farm (27-20687), an Administration: historic property eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 2205 Old Penitentiary Rd. Places. Our office understands that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Boise, Idaho 83712 208.334.2682 is wrapping up the NEPA process and will produce a ROD before they are Fax: 208.334.2774 able to properly consult on the new project actions due to accessibility issues Idaho State Museum: to the property. 610 Julia Davis Dr. Boise, Idaho 83702 208.334.2120 Once the FAA has acquired the property, the agency will need to complete the Section 106 Consultation per 36 CRF 800 for new project actions. Idaho State Archives Regardless of the access issue, our office forsees that the removal of and State Records Center: buildings at the Storey Poultry Farm, an eligible historic property, would 2205 Old Penitentiary Rd. produce a finding of adverse effect. We encourage the FAA to take into Boise, Idaho 83712 208.334.2620 consideration this possible determination in future planning and budgeting. Thank you for this letter, and we look forward to further consultation State Historic Preservation Office: after the property is acquired from the current owner. If you have any 210 Main St. questions, don’t hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or Boise, Idaho 83702 or (208) 488-7463. 208.334.3861

Old Idaho Penitentiary and Historic Sites: Sincerely, 2445 Old Penitentiary Rd. Boise, Idaho 83712 208.334.2844

Ashley L. Brown HISTORY.IDAHO.GOV Historical Review Officer Idaho State Historic Preservation Office

Preserving the past, enriching the future.

Appendix D

Public Involvement Summary

MEMORANDUM

DATE: May 1, 2020

SUBJECT: Nampa Municipal Airport Environmental Assessment - Public Involvement Summary

Public involvement for the Nampa Municipal Airport Land Acquisition Environmental Assessment (EA) was completed throughout the environmental process. Pubic involvement efforts for this project included coordination with the property owner of the subject parcel, coordination and consultation with local, state, and federal agencies in the area, and a public open house to discuss the project and solicit feedback on the proposed action. A general summary of those efforts are described below.

Scoping letters were distributed to 59 government agency representatives and businesses, representing entities with a potential interest in the Proposed Action in September 2017. An example Scoping Letter and the Scoping Letter Mailing List are enclosed with this memorandum. No comments were received during the formal scoping period and no comments have been received from those entities since the completion of the scoping period.

A public meeting was held on August 18, 2018 at the Civil Air Patrol Building, 121 Municipal Drive, Nampa, ID, from 4:00 – 6:00 pm to discuss the Proposed Action. Project staff were available to answer questions and receive comments. No agency or public comments were received during the public open house. To date no public comments have been received on the project.

The Draft EA will be available for public review for a 30-day comment period from May 11, 2020 to June 9, 2020. The project team will respond to all comments received during the comment period, and will update the EA to reflect comments, if necessary. This Public Involvement Summary will be revised after completion of the public comment period to document any received comments or concerns.

466 North 900 West, Kaysville UT 84037 801 547 0393 801 547 0397 www.jub.com

September 14, 2017

Bob Kibler, Biologist U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Ecological Services Field Office 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368 Boise, ID 83709

RE: Nampa Municipal Airport Environmental Assessment Agency Coordination and Scoping Notice

J-U-B Engineers, Inc. is preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed airport improvements at the Nampa Municipal Airport, which is located within Nampa, Canyon County, Idaho. Enclosed is a project location map as well as a description of the proposed improvements. The EA is being prepared in accordance with the FAA Order 1050.1F and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The purpose of the EA is to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives for the proposed action, and to make decisions with consideration for the public interest. This analysis would be based upon a balanced evaluation of the need for safe and efficient aviation travel; the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed improvements; and the national, state, and local environmental protection rules and regulations.

At this time, the proposed project includes:

 Ensure the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for Runway 11 meets FAA Standards by removing transportation facilities and commercial businesses within the proposed RPZ expansion area.  Reroute the existing Garrity-Kings-Airport Road intersection outside the proposed RPZ.  Acquire adjacent property in order to reroute transportation facilities and remove public commercial businesses outside of the proposed RPZ.  Protect public safety by expanding the RPZ.

The purpose of this correspondence is to identify issues and concerns that should be addressed in the EA, and integrated into the development of the project. If you have any specific areas of concern that we should be aware of during the environmental documentation process, or if you are aware of any resources that are of concern or interest for your agency, which may be impacted by the proposed project, please let us know.

Written comments or questions concerning the proposed action should be addressed to Marti Hoge and should be received by October 15, 2017 at the following address:

Marti Hoge Environmental Lead J-U-B Engineers, Inc. 2875 South Decker Lake Drive, Suite 575 Salt Lake City, UT, 84119 [email protected]

Thank you for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions or need additional information please feel free to contact us at 801-886-9052 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Marti Hoge Environmental Lead J-U-B Engineers, Inc.

Enclosures: Project Site Map Proposed Project Improvements

Project Location Exhibit Proposed Project Improvements Exhibit

Nampa Environmental Assessment Agency List Federal:

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—Ecological Services Field Office Bob Kibler, Biologist 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368 Boise, ID 83709 208-378-5255 [email protected]

Bureau of Land Management Boise District Office Lara Douglas, District Manager 3948 Development Ave. Boise, ID 83705 208-384-3300 [email protected]

Federal Aviation Administration Helena Airport District Office Diane Stilson, Environmental Specialist-Airport Engineer 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2 Helena, MT 59602 406-449-5422

Natural Resource Conservation Service Division III Canyon Soil Conservation District Amie Miller 2208 East Chicago, Suite A Caldwell, ID 83605 208-454-8684 ext. 130 [email protected]

Tribal Consultation:

Bureau of Indian Affairs Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Northwestern Band of Shoshoni Nation of Utah (Washakie) Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada P.O. Box 220 Fort Hall, Idaho 83203 208-238-2301 Sate:

Idaho Department of Fish & Game Southwest Region 3101 S. Powerline Rd. Nampa, ID 83686 208-465-8465

Idaho Transportation Department District 3 Amy Revis, District Engineer 8150 Chinden Boulevard Boise, ID 83714 208-334-8300 [email protected]

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Boise Regional Office Aaron Scheff, Regional Administrator 1445 N. Orchard St. Boise, ID 83706 208-373-0550 [email protected]

Idaho Department of Water Resources Western Region 2735 Airport Way Boise, ID 83705 208-334-2190

Local Highway Technical Assistance Council Karissa Hardy, PE 3330 Grace St. Boise, ID 83703 208-344-0565 [email protected]

State Historic Preservation Office—Idaho State Historical Society Liz Witkowski, Compliance Archaeologist—Section 106 Review 210 Main St. Boise, ID 83702 208-488-7467 [email protected]

Local:

Canyon County Development Services Department Patricia Nilsson, AICP, Director 111 N. 11th Ave Room 140 Caldwell, ID 83605 208-454-6634 [email protected] Nampa EA Public Involvement Surrounding Businesses:

Krung Thai Restaurant 3008 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Mc Lellan Sign Co. Inc. 3016 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Affordable Car Co. 3020 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

The Vapor Emporium 410 N Kings Rd #5 Nampa, ID 83687

The Vapor Emporium 2813 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Tacos El Rey 2707 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Enterprise Rent-A-Car 1731 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Magic Auto Sales 1715 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Howard’s Tackle Shop 1707 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Mr. Clean Car Wash 2721 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Cycle Addiction 1732 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687 European Motorsport of Idaho, Inc. 1736 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Treasure Valley Taekwondo 201 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

RK Gunsmithing 201 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Warhawk Air Museum 201 Municipal Way Nampa, ID 83687

Idaho Army National Guard 212 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

J. Alexander Fine Woodworking 3122 Port St. Nampa, ID 83687

Kingsgate Storage 117 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Atlas Pallet Co. 131 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

A Touch of Class Auto Detail 2920 Port St. Nampa, ID 83687

Rebecca’s Bakery 366 N. Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Ridgeline Financial Inc. 3116 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Ming Hao Restaurant 3107 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687 Airport Lounge 3111 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Dan’s Auto Alignment Shop 3216 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

T-Craft Aero Club Inc. 3419 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Rainbow Glass Works 3524 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Shilo Plumbing & Mechanical 3508 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

PortaPros, LLC. 3716 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Interstate Group, LLC. 3800 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Mail Express & Maps 3116 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Idaho Drive Train 2719 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Harris Moran Seeds 1832 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Ace’s Place 1652 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Family Auto and More 1647 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687 Appliance Recyclers of Idaho 1637 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

First Choice Collision Repair 1704 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Miller’s Appliance & Refrigeration 1603 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Central Rent 2 Own—Nampa 1616 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

El Centro, Inc. 1604 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Amador’s Fashion 1604 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Salazar Auto Shop 3372-3306 Airport Rd Nampa, ID 83687

Pawn Broker 3207 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

Garrity Boulevard Auto Body 3301 Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687

JP’s Small Engine Repair 420 N Kings Rd #110 Nampa, ID 83687

Bogie’s Auto Sales 424 N Kings Rd Nampa, ID 83687

The Hookup Ink 3116 N Garrity Blvd Nampa, ID 83687