Loading...
Development Agreement - 2023 - Avimor - 7/26/2023ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2023-044295 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=544 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 08/02/2023 12:44 PM AVIMOR AMOUNT:$1,639.00 II I I II II I II II I II I IIIIII I I III I III II IIIII I III I I I III 01274626202300442955445444 Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Instrument # 346534 EMMETT, GEM, IDAHO 7-28-2023 03:14:05 PM No. of Pages: 544 Recorded for : CITY OF EAGLE/ AV SHELLY TILTON Fee: Ex-Officio Recorder Deputy Index to: BONDS AND AGREEMENTS Instrument # 283623 IDAHO CITY, BOISE COUNTY, IDAHO 8-1-2023 10:14:37 AM No. of Pages: 544 Recorded for : CITY OF EAGLE/AVIMOR MARY T. PRISCO Fee: 1639.00 Ex-Offlcio Recorder Deputy ,{, 7 Index to: AGREEMENT For Recording Purposes Do Not Write Above This Line DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (AVIMOR) THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into by and between City of Eagle, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the State of Idaho, by and through its Mayor ("City"); Avimor Development, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company ("Master Developer"); and Spring Valley Livestock Company, Inc., an Idaho corporation; First American Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, formerly shown as a California Corporation, as Trustee of the Dual Beneficiary Trust No. 8562 which Trust was created pursuant to the Subdivision Trust Agreement dated October 8, 2002 and erroneously shown of record as October 8, 2003, as amended, as its interests appear of record; and R. Pfannmuller & Son, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company (collectively, the "Owner") this26t't day of July, 2023 (the "Agreement Date"). RECITALS A. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement are defined in Section 1. B. Master Developer, Owner, and City desire to enter into this Agreement, to be recorded in the real property records of Ada County, Idaho; Gem County, Idaho; and Boise County, Idaho, pursuant to the provisions of: Idaho Code, Sections 50-222; 50-301; 67-6508; 67-6511; and 67-6511A; Eagle City Code, Title 8; and Eagle is Home, in order to facilitate the zoning designation, adoption of Rezoning Ordinance, and development of the Project on the Property. C. Owner owns the Property and Master Developer has the exclusive right to develop the Property. D. The Project is an extension of Master Developer's existing and ongoing development within the Village 1 Area, where Ada County approved a master planned community development. All of the Village 1 Area has received preliminary plat approval pursuant to the Ada County master planned community development approval. Master Developer and City desire to continue the same quality and style evident in the Village 1 Area throughout the Project. E. The Village 1 Area shall be subject to the procedures and standards of Title 11B and City will apply the Village 1 Area Approvals pursuant to this Agreement. F. A portion of the Property is in the Boise County Planned Community, which Boise County has approved as a master planned community. Master Developer and City agree the area within the Boise County Preliminary Plats will proceed to be developed in accordance with the Boise County Preliminary 'DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 1 r�r�sM g 5'`� Plats and Boise County Construction Plans, which comply with the Title 11B development standards, and all other areas within the Boise County Planned Community will be developed in accordance with this Agreement and Title 11B. G. A portion of the Property is currently part of the Avimor CID, which was duly organized and is validly existing pursuant to the CID Act. Following annexation of the Property, the boundaries of the Avimor CID will be located entirely within City, making City, through its City Council, the Avimor CID's governing body and members of City Council the Avimor CID's district board. Pursuant to the CID Act, the Avimor CID has the power and authority to finance, design, and construct community infrastructure (as defined in the CID Act) and to issue bonds and levy taxes and assessments to fund the same. H. Master Developer and City are entering into this Agreement for the purpose of providing assurances to City that the Property will be developed in substantial conformance with this Agreement and Title 11B and for the purpose of providing assurances to Owner and Master Developer that Master Developer may proceed with the Project in substantial conformance with this Agreement and Title 11B. City and Master Developer shall act in good faith when undertaking their respective obligations and covenants contained herein. I. This Agreement shall promote and encourage the development of the Property by providing Owner, Master Developer, and Master Developer's creditors with general assurances of Master Developer's ability to timely and economically complete development of the Project. J. Development of the Property, which is largely vacant land, requires the construction of Public Infrastructure, which Public Infrastructure may provide regional as well as local benefits. K. The Avimor Planned Development (APD) zoning designation of the Property is the appropriate zoning designation and, subject to this Agreement and Title 11B, is designed to further the goals and objectives of the City's comprehensive plan, Eagle is Home, and establish proper and beneficial land use designations, regulations, densities, provisions for Public Infrastructure, design regulations, procedures for administration and implementation, and other matters related to development of the Property. L. All duly noticed and necessary meetings and public hearings have been held and City has received public comment and has otherwise duly considered all such matters in connection with this Agreement and the annexation and zoning of the Property. M. Following all duly noticed and necessary meetings and public hearings, City approved File Numbers A-06-22/RZ-06-22 & ZOA-01-22, thereby adopting Title 11B, annexing the Property, and zoning the Property Avimor Planned Development (APD), subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit L. N. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City and have been found to be fair, just, and reasonable, and City concludes that the public health, safety, and welfare of City's citizens shall be best served by entering into this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged and agreed, and in consideration of the above Recitals, which are incorporated DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 2 INSTPItU. NO34 �53-1 PAGES 2. OF �� herein, and in consideration of the promises and the mutual representations, covenants and agreements herein contained, City, Master Developer, and Owner represent, covenant and agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. 1.1 "ACHD" is the Ada County Highway District. 1.2 "Additional Property" is all or any portion of real property that is added to the Project subject to the requirements of this Agreement; the definition of "Property" shall automatically include all such Additional Property. 1.3 "Administrator" is the administrator of the Eagle Planning & Zoning Department. 1.4 "Agreement" is this Development Agreement (Avimor) inclusive of all Exhibits attached hereto, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.5 "Rezoning Ordinances" includes any and all ordinances adopted to zone the Property and any Additional Property within the Avimor Planned Development (APD) zone. 1.6 "Avimor CID" is the Avimor Community Infrastructure District No. 1 (Ada County, Idaho), a community infrastructure district duly organized and validly existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and a political subdivision of the State of Idaho. 1.7 "Avimor Conservation Director" is the individual responsible for the management of the Habitat Management Plan. 1.8 "Design Guidelines" is that certain Avimor Development Guidelines submitted to City with the annexation application and kept on file with City, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.9 "Avimor Water Reclamation Company (AWRC)" is the entity that owns and operates the sewer treatment facilities, irrigation facilities, and reuse water for the Project. 1.10 "Boise County Planned Community" includes that certain real property shown on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which is a planned community approved by Boise County, Idaho. All of the land within the Boise County Planned Community is within the Property. "Boise County Preliminary Plats" include three approved preliminary plats within the Boise County Planned Community for the Avimor Phase 1 Subdivision, the Avimor Phase 2 Subdivision, and the Howell Vineyards Subdivision, which preliminary plats are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits C-1, C-2, and C-3,. 1 12 "Boise County Construction Plans" any approved construction plans as of the Agreement Date within or related to the Boise County Preliminary Plats, including, but not limited to, the stamped construction plans for Avimor Phase 1 Subdivision (Exhibit C-1), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. 1 13 "Charter" is the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that encumber the Property and govern the Project through one or more Owners' Associations, which establishes quality control of the Property both during development and during maturing of the community. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 3 I!N T111. .� 1.14 "CID Act" is the Community Infrastructure District Act, Title 50, Chapter 31, Idaho Code. 1.15 "City" is City of Eagle, Idaho. 1.16 "Date of Application" is the date Master Developer's applications to City for annexation and rezoning in connection with the Property (collectively, the "Application") were deemed complete by City. The Date of Application is April 26, 2022. 1.17 "Development Plans" collectively means the Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards, the Habitat Management Plan, the Master Wastewater Study, the Avimor Master Drainage Report, the Municipal Water and Pressurized Irrigation System Master Plan—Avimor Development, the Design Guidelines, the Master Land Use Map, and the Open Space Plan, each of which is kept on file with City, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. 1.18 "Development Rights" is development allowed to be undertaken by Master Developer in accordance with this Agreement and pursuant to Title 11 B. 1.19 "Drainage System" is a drainage and flood control system and facilities for collection, diversion, detention, retention, dispersal, use and discharge of surface water. 1.20 "Eagle is Home" is the City of Eagle comprehensive plan adopted pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-6508, which may be amended pursuant to Idaho law. 1.21 "Five -Year Plan" is a conceptual plan prepared by the Master Developer in general conformity with the Future Land Use Map depicting and summarizing Master Developer's anticipated development plans for the ensuing five year period as it relates to: (i) areas to be graded, (ii) major utility and roadway extensions and improvements, (iii) areas to be platted; (iv) Land Use District and Land Use Sub -District designations for areas to be platted; (v) approximate number of residential units constructed; and (vi) commercial development. 1.22 "FEMA" is the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1.23 "Foothill Regional Pathway" is a public pathway that will serve the community connecting neighbors and regional destinations. 1.24 "Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards" are those certain Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards dated November 21, 2022 submitted to City with the annexation application and kept on file with City, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1.25 "Habitat Management Plan" is that certain Habitat Mitigation Plan, dated April 20, 2022 submitted to City with the annexation application and kept on file with City, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, the current version of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, and incorporated herein. 1.26 "Impact Fee Act" is the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Title 67, Chapter 82, Idaho Code. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 4 No_;ti b53d PAGES 1.27 "Land Use District": Areas within the Avimor Planned Development Zoning District, designated on the Master Land Use Plan, including: (1) Village Center; (2) Mixed Use/Commercial; (3) Village Residential; (4) Foothills Residential; (5) Village One and (6) Open Space. 1.28 "IDEQ" is the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 1.29 "ITD" is the Idaho Transportation Department. 1.30 "Master Developer" is Avimor Development, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, and all successors or assigns who have been expressly assigned rights as Master Developer pursuant to this Agreement. 1.31 "Master Land Use Plan" is the overall conceptual development plan for the Project as a whole, as approved by the City, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F, which may be amended from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. 1.32 "Master Wastewater Study" is that certain Avimor Water Reclamation Company Master Wastewater Study, stamped April 12, 2022, as may be amended from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. 1.33 "Non -Residential Use" may include commercial, retail and office related uses. Non - Residential Use does not include public and/or civic uses. 1.34 "Open Space" for use by residents of Avimor or the general public for recreation, agriculture, habitat, vegetation, scenic or similar uses, whether platted or unplatted. Open Space may be developed or natural and may include: (i) public and private parks, sports fields, and trails; (ii) golf courses; (iii) equestrian centers; (iv) vineyards and other agricultural lands; (v) landscape easements or common areas inside or outside of public rights of way; (vi) floodplains and floodways; (vii) the lesser of 50 percent of school sites or the area of playfields, (viii) scenic corridors; (ix) undeveloped hillsides; (x) wetlands, wildlife habitat, drainage areas, and unique or sensitive plant areas; and (xi) conservation easements or permanent open space on private lands or lots subject to deed restriction requiring either public or Open Space, Community access. Open Space may be publicly or privately owned and may be accessible or inaccessible to the public. 1.35 "Open Space, Community" is Open Space, including developed and natural open space, for the use of Avimor residents only. 1.36 "Open Space, Regional" is Open Space, including developed and natural open space, that consists of parks and green spaces for use by the public. 1.37 "Open Space Plan" is the overall conceptual plan for the Project's parks, pathways, and Open Space, as approved by the City, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G, which may be amended from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. 1.38 "Owner" means, collectively, Avimor Development, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company ("Master Developer"); and Spring Valley Livestock Company, Inc., an Idaho corporation; First American Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, formerly shown as a California Corporation, as Trustee of the Dual Beneficiary Trust No. 8562 which Trust was created pursuant to the Subdivision Trust Agreement dated October 8, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 5 2002 and erroneously shown of record as October 8, 2003, as amended, as its interests appear of record; and R. Pfannmuller & Son, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company. 1.39 "Owners' Association" is one or more non-profit entities created or to be created by Master Developer, that shall be responsible for, without limitation, the perpetual management of the Common Area, as such is defined in the Charter encumbering or to encumber the Property, which management is at the expense of the ultimate owners of the Project. 1.40 "Party or Parties" is, individually or collectively, the parties to this Agreement. 1.41 "Project" is the mixed -use master planned community on the Property as generally depicted on the Master Land Use Plan, which will provide a variety of housing, jobs, recreational, educational, wildlife, Open Space and cultural opportunities integrated into City. 1.42 "Project Density" is the total maximum gross residential density for the Project (residential units per gross acre), which is 0.5 dwelling units per gross acre, which was set based on the goal density for the Property, which is designated as under Eagle is Home with a Foothills Residential land use designation and the portions of the Property with a Community Center land use designation. 1.43 "Property" is that certain real property located in Ada, Gem and Boise Counties, legally described on Exhibit A, plus any Additional Property that may later be added. 1.44 "Public Infrastructure" is infrastructure facilities and services improvements, including without limitation on -site roads; sewer, water and irrigation facilities. 1.45 "Re -use Water" is all water captured or discharged from any Wastewater System. 1.46 Sub -Use District: A specific use district designated within each Land Use District where certain land uses are allowed, conditionally allowed, or prohibited and specific development standards are provided. The Sub -Use Districts are: (1) Rural Residential; (2) Estate Residential; (3) Single -Family Detached 1 (SF1); (4) Single -Family Detached 2 (SF2); (5) Single -Family Detached 3 (SF3); (6) Single -Family Zero Lot Line (SFZL); (7) Single -Family Special Lot (SFSL); (8) Single -Family Attached (SFA); (9) Low Density Multi -Family (MF 1); (10) Medium Density Multi -Family (MF2); (11) High Density Multi - Family (MF3) (12) Village Commercial (VCOM); (13) Mixed Use (MU); (14) Highway Mixed Use (HMU); (15) Neighborhood Commercial (NC); (16) Community Commercial (CC); (17) Reserve (RE); (18) Cottage (CO); (19) Phase 1 Mixed Use (P1MU); (20) Community Services (CS); (21) Community Open Space (COS); and (22) Regional Open Space (ROS). 1.47 "System Improvements" are capital improvements to public facilities designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvements described in section 50-1703, Idaho Code. The definition of System Improvements is provided by the Impact Fee Act, as amended. 1.48 "Use Approvals" are collectively the conditional use permit approvals attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits K-1, K-2, and K-3. 1.49 "Veolia" is Veolia Water Idaho, Inc. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 6 F I N;1; Nt{7a k 4 � gpp 1.50 "Veolia Service Area" is the area within the Property not served by the Water Service Agreement, in which Veolia will provide water service to the Project unless Master Developer and City (or an alternate service provider) enter into a subsequent agreement for water services in all or some portion of this area. 1.51 "Title 11B" is the zoning and subdivision ordinance applicable to land within the Avimor Planned Development (A-P-D) zoning district and is codified as part of the Eagle City Code. 1.52 "Transportation Entity" is ACHD, ITD, or a public or private entity, with jurisdiction over roadways and public right-of-way within the Property, whether by statute or by private agreement. 1.53 "Treatment Facility(ies)" is the sewage treatment facility and delivery system that also produces treated effluent to use for irrigation owned by the Avimor Water Reclamation Company. 1.54 "Village 1 Area" includes that certain real property legally described on Exhibit E, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which is a portion of the original master planned community approved by Ada County. 1.55 "Village 1 Area Approvals" includes the following subdivision approvals: (i) that certain Avimor Village 1 Revised Preliminary Plat stamped by KM Engineering on April 20, 2016; (ii) that certain Avimor Village Center Subdivision Preliminary Plat stamped by CK Engineering on August 6, 2020; and (iii) that certain plat for Avimor Subdivision No. 11 stamped by Gregory G. Carter on May 9, 2022. 1.56 "Wastewater System" is a wastewater collection, storage, treatment, and disposal system to treat and dispose of wastewater generated at the Property that includes, without limitation, Treatment Facilities, major sewer lines and wastewater pumping stations, where required. 1.57 "Water System" is a water production, storage, treatment, and delivery system to serve potable municipal uses on the Property, which includes without limitation wells, reservoirs, pumps, diversion structures, water transmission and distribution pipes and related plumbing, pump houses, well houses, water treatment facilities, water storage tanks, and meters, together with water rights authorizing the diversion and use of ground water for municipal purposes. Water System shall not include those portions of the Wastewater System used for the storage, delivery and use of treated sewage effluent on the Property, any water right or entitlements associated with ditch company shares or Re -Use Water, any surface water or groundwater for irrigation held or acquired by Master Developer, or any additional water rights or permits that may be associated with irrigation, storage, aesthetic, or recreational purposes. 1.58 "Water Service Agreement" is that certain Agreement for Service by and between Avimor Development, LLC, Sage Investment Partners, LLC, and City of Eagle dated effective March 22, 2022, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit J. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 7 Fivrmu.Ktc.321_,..53_9_1 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 2.1 Conditions of Development. Master Developer shall develop the Property subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in this Agreement. Master Developer shall submit such development and entitlement applications for development of the Property in accordance with and as required by Title 11B. 2.2 Planned Development. Master Developer shall develop the Property in general conformity with the Master Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide for future development of the Property. Master Developer shall designate Land Use Districts and Sub -Use Districts on the Property and implement the types of uses, densities, and design standards for such Land Use Districts and Sub -Use Districts pursuant to Title 11B and this Agreement. Development of the Property may include, without limitation, the planning, design, engineering, construction, acquisition, installation, and provision of improvements of any sort or nature, including private infrastructure and Public Infrastructure related to development of the Property, whether located within or outside the Property. City, having exercised City's discretion in approving this Agreement, shall cooperate reasonably in processing the approval or issuance of such permits, plans, specifications, plats and other development approvals as may be requested by Master Developer administratively in order to implement the Project. 2.3 Project Density. The overall maximum density for the Project is the Project Density; based on the current acreage of the Property, a maximum of 8,761 residential units may be developed. 2.4 Preliminary Plat Details. The Project is a multi -phase development that will develop in separate phases over time. When Master Developer is prepared to develop a portion of the Property, Master Developer shall prepare and file a preliminary plat application in accordance with Title 11B. 2.5 Allocation of Residential Density. Master Developer shall have the right to allocate residential density to any portion of the Property, including any Additional Property, provided such allocation: (i) does not exceed the overall Project Density for the Project as a whole; (ii) is in conformity with the Master Land Use Plan; (iii) does not allow a use otherwise prohibited; and (iv) does not cause a material change to this Agreement without prior amendment to this Agreement and compliance with the applicable notice and hearing requirements. 2.6 Non -Residential Use. Master Developer shall have the right to designate and develop Non - Residential Uses on the Property in accordance with Title 11B and the Master Land Use Plan. Total Non -Residential Use shall not exceed 860,000 square feet. 2.7 Existing Development Approvals. 2.7.1 Boise County. Final plat applications within the area covered by the Boise County Preliminary Plats shall be approved by City so long as such final plats are in substantial conformance with the applicable Boise County Preliminary Plat and Boise County Construction Plans previously approved by Boise County. Review and approval of final plats for the area covered by the Boise County Preliminary Plats will be conducted pursuant to the Boise County Preliminary Plat approvals and Boise County Construction Plan approvals, which are hereby adopted by City. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 8 Ma -MU. �34 E'ArE9 .4.'.r, OF 6€4 Unless otherwise covered in the Boise County Preliminary Plats and Boise County Construction Plan approvals, procedures and standards for final plat approvals shall be governed by and comply with Title 11 B. 2.7.2 Village One. Final plat applications within the Village 1 Area covered by the Village 1 Area Approvals shall be approved by City so long as such final plats are in substantial conformance with the applicable Village 1 Area Approvals. Unless otherwise covered in the Village 1 Area Approvals, procedures and standards for final plat approvals within the Village 1 Area shall be governed by and comply with Title 11 B. 2.7.3 Conditional Uses. This Agreement authorizes the following conditional uses on the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Use Approvals: (i) that certain communications tower located on Ada County tax parcel number S0107212400 and permitted pursuant to conditional use permit no. #202101322- CU (attached hereto as Exhibit K-1, and incorporated herein) issued by Ada County, Idaho, authorizing a 100-foot tower and equipment shelter with necessary fencing; (ii) that certain communications tower located on Ada County tax parcel number S0107212400, and permitted pursuant to conditional use permit no. #201201173-CU (attached hereto as Exhibit K-2, and incorporated herein), issued by Ada County, Idaho authorizing a 100-foot commercial tower, with 6-foot lightening rod, a 300 square foot equipment shelter, and access road; and (iii) that certain shooting range, commonly known as the Crowfoot Shooting Range, and permitted pursuant to CUP-2021-007 (attached hereto as Exhibit K-3, and incorporated herein), issued by Boise County, Idaho which is approximately 40 acres in size, located on Boise County tax parcel number RP06NO2E303050, and includes four shooting bays. 2.8 Development Plans. Development of the Project and use of the Property shall be in accordance with the Development Plans. 2.9 Additional Property. At Master Developer's request, Additional Property may be added to the Property with the consent of the owner of the Additional Property and made subject to this Agreement. Additional Property does not need to be contiguous to the Property but must be within or contiguous to City limits. If Additional Property requested to be added to the Property is not already within City limits then Master Developer must request that City annex such Additional Property. Upon such annexation request, the Parties will commence annexation proceedings for such Additional Property. Nothing in this Agreement requires the City to annex Additional Property. Master Developer shall apply to City for any necessary land use zoning approvals for the Additional Property consistent with this Agreement, including any necessary amendment to this Agreement, which may include, without limitation alternative plans and land use designations. The inclusion of Additional Property into the Project will increase the number of residential units allowed within the Project up to the Project Density but subject to Eagle is Home. 3. INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES. Master Developer shall provide its proportionate share of the Public Infrastructure required by the Project. The specific Public Infrastructure Master Developer will be required to provide will be determined during the preliminary plat approval process, for the portion of the Property being platted, in coordination with City and other agencies and entities that provide or have jurisdiction over Public Infrastructure. Preliminary plat applications will not be accepted by City for any portion of the Property outside of a service area for fundamental public services (e.g. police, fire, EMS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 9 public road agency). Master Developer may enter into separate agreements with other agencies and entities for the provision of such services and Public Infrastructure. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Parties agree to the Public Infrastructure terms set forth in this Section 3. 3.1 Traffic & Circulation. 3.1.1 Roadway System. Master Developer, in consultation with the applicable Transportation Entity, will design, engineer, construct, acquire, install, and permit the roads and roadway improvements required by the Project, in phases, in general conformance with the applicable preliminary plat design and approval conditions. 3.1.2 Public Roads and Rights of Way. Public roadways within the Project will be approved and governed by the applicable Transportation Entity. All public roads and/or rights -of -way within the Property will be dedicated by Master Developer to the applicable Transportation Entity. ACHD standards for roadway design and construction will be used throughout the Project. Waivers or modifications to the ACHD standards for roadway design and construction may be granted when: (i) approved by the applicable Transportation Entity; and (ii) either (a) City determines, in its sole discretion, a waiver or modification is warranted; or (b) Master Developer establishes the waiver or modification is warranted because an area proposed for development is unusual in size, shape, location, topography, and/or physical condition such that strict enforcement of ACHD standards for roadway design would result in, excessive grading, extraordinary economic and design hardships, and practical difficulties. Unless otherwise agreed to, City shall not have an obligation to own or maintain roadways within the Project. 3.1.3 Private Streets and Rights of Way. Any private streets within the Project will be constructed by Master Developer in accordance with Title 11B. Such private streets will be maintained by Master Developer or an Owners' Association. Private streets may be conveyed to one or more Owners' Associations at Master Developer's election. Master Developer shall grant access licenses over private streets to service providers (e.g. police, fire, EMS, waste collection) and utility easements for installation, maintenance and repair of public utilities (e.g. water and sewer). Subject to this Section 3.1.3, Master Developer may limit access to private streets through access control structures. To the extent allowed by law, Master Developer will have the right to name private streets. 3.1.4 Obligation of Maintenance of Roads by Private Landowners. In the event the applicable Transportation Entity is compensated for operation and maintenance of roads by a private entity (i.e. the Owners' Association or individual landowners) the Master Developer is required to provide notice of the same on all plats and within the Charter. 3.2 Water. 3.2.1 Water Service. Water service to the Project will generally comply with Eagle City Code Title 6, Chapter 5 subject to the terms of this Agreement, Title 11B, and the Water Service Agreement. Within the Veolia Service Area, Veolia will provide water service to the Project unless Master Developer and City (or an alternate service provider) enter into a subsequent agreement for water services in all or some portion of the Veolia Service Area. Within the Veolia Service Area, no DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 10 1NQ. NO3 Lk wA(,__„ Y_nF service provider will be required to convey or dedicate any portion of its water rights or Water System to City. For areas of the Property outside of the Veolia Service Area, City shall provide water service to the Project pursuant to the Water Service Agreement. 3.2.2 Water Infrastructure Construction, Dedication, and Reimbursement. Master Developer shall comply with the terms and conditions of the Water Service Agreement for the construction and dedication of the Project's Water System. Master Developer's obligation to construct Water System improvements shall be carried out in phases as the Project progresses and such Water System improvements are necessary. Following dedication of any Water System facilities pursuant to this Agreement or the Water Service Agreement, City shall own and maintain the dedicated Water System facilities. Master Developer may seek reimbursement for eligible Water System costs pursuant to the Water Service Agreement. 3.2.3 Assured Water Capacity. Master Developer's water rights dedicated or assigned to City pursuant to this Agreement or the Water Service Agreement shall be used by City first to provide water service to the Project in accordance with the Water Service Agreement. 3.2.4 Irrigation and Related Uses. The method of providing water for non -potable uses shall be at the discretion, and under the control, of Master Developer so long as an adequate system and source of supply is provided. Any irrigation system shall meet the requirements of Title 11B, IDWR and IDEQ. 3.2.5 Water Conservation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, to the extent that Master Developer undertakes measures that result in the conservation of water resources on the Property or development of alternative water resources, including, but not limited to, development of and adherence to a water budget for the Property, retention and reuse of effluent from wastewater treatment for the Property, or aquifer recharge, then Master Developer will be entitled to retain the benefits of such conservation measures including any credits, rights or permits arising from such conservation measures. 3.3 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal. 3.3.1 Wastewater Facilities. AWRC has constructed and will continue to construct Wastewater System improvements to serve the Project. Master Developer shall cause AWRC's construction, operation and maintenance of the Project's Wastewater System to be in compliance with Title 11B and the requirements of IDEQ and the Central District Health Department or the Southwest District Health Department to the extent such entities have jurisdiction. AWRC, or its assigns, will own and maintain all Wastewater System improvements constructed as part of the Proj ect. 3.3.2 Master Wastewater Study. Major Wastewater System improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of IDEQ and in general conformity with the Master Wastewater Study. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 11 3.3.3 Assured Wastewater Capacity. Concurrently with the submittal of a preliminary plat application, Master Developer shall submit an engineering report evidencing the adequacy of the Wastewater System to serve the area and uses within such preliminary plat area. A letter of approval shall be provided to City from the AWRC prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy as required by law. 3.3.4 Re -use Water. Master Developer shall retain for irrigation, irrigation and aesthetic storage, recreational or aquifer recharge purposes all rights, title and interest in any Re -use Water. City disclaims any rights, title and interest in the Re -use Water and acknowledges that Master Developer may use Re -use Water for irrigation of Open Space, aquifer recharge, and any other lawful use, which uses will be subject to applicable governmental and agency approval. 3.4 Storm Water Drainage. 3.4.1 Transportation Entity. Post -development storm water management includes drainage collection, diversion, detention, retention, dispersal, use and discharge, associated with the road system and which shall be provided by the applicable Transportation Entity or some other public or private provider allowed to operate in City and having jurisdiction over the Drainage System. 3.4.2 Assured Drainage. In connection with each preliminary plat application, Master Developer shall submit evidence that the Drainage System is or shall be adequate to satisfy all proposed uses in connection with the development of such preliminary plat area. 3.5 Development of Open Space, Parks, and Pathways. 3.5.1 Open Space. Pursuant to Title 11B, with each preliminary plat application in the Project, a minimum 20% Open Space will be designated within the area being platted; this may be Community Open Space or Regional Open Space. Overall, the Project will include a minimum of 50% Open Space, which may include areas not platted. The provision of Open Space within the Project shall be in general conformance with the Master Open Space Plan. Any time Master Developer presents a preliminary plat application to City with a Regional Open Space component exceeding five (5) contiguous acres, City shall have the right, but not the obligation, to require conveyance of such Regional Open Space land and improvements to City for City ownership for the public benefit. 3.5.2 Conservation Land. Pursuant to Title 11B, for every two (2) acres of developed and improved land within a platted area (excluding platted Open Space), Master Developer will reserve, or cause to be reserved, one (1) acre of unfragmented habitat land in permanent conservation through deed restrictions, conservation easements, conveyances or any other mutually acceptable means. Conservation land may be part of the Property, and owned or controlled by Master Developer or a third party. With each preliminary plat application, Master Developer shall provide City with a statement of the number of acres of unfragmented habitat reserved to date and the additional number of acres that will be reserved by the pending preliminary plat. Based on Master Developer's pre-existing reservation of 240 acres of unfragmented habitat land into permanent conservation easement, as shown on the Open Space Plan, and which easement is attached hereto and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 12 FliZmrk$UN05 ���. 1.,.�,�.,,2 12 ... �r� incorporated herein as Exhibit H, the Project has a credit of 240 acres of conservation lands that may be used to offset future development within the Project prior to reserving any additional conservation lands. 3.5.3 Pathways. Pursuant to Title 11B, with each preliminary plat application in the Project, Master Developer shall provide pathways to support recreation and connectivity within the area being platted. The provision of pathways within the Project shall be generally in conformance with the Master Open Space Plan. 3.5.4 Parks, Pathways, and Facilities Map. A detailed Parks, Pathways and Facilities Map shall be submitted as part of each preliminary plat application, for the area being platted, that conforms to the requirements of Title 11B and addresses location of parks, pathways, and trails, roadway crossings, habitat, and ownership structure or intent to dedicate such park or pathway facilities if known at the time of submittal. Each Parks, Pathways and Facilities Map submitted with a preliminary plat application shall be generally in conformance with the Open Space Plan. 3.6 Impacts Fees and Impact Fee Credits. 3.6.1 Existing Development. In accordance with the Impact Fee Act, no impact fees shall be paid, nor credit given, for any portion of the Project where a valid building permit has been issued or construction has commenced or been completed on the Property prior to the Agreement Date or prior to adoption and implementation by City of a valid capital improvements plan under the Impact Fee Act. 3.6.2 Parks and Trails Impact Fee Credit. An impact fee credit or a reimbursement shall be given to Master Developer for the present value of Master Developer's construction of System Improvements or contribution or dedication of land or money required by City for System Improvements related to and in the category of parks, pathways, and trails in accordance with the standards and requirements of the Impact Fee Act. City and Master Developer agree to work cooperatively to expand the City's capital improvements plan for parks and pathways to include the City's Foothills Planning Area identified in Eagle is Home and to identify impact fee eligible park and pathways system improvements within the Foothills Planning Area and the Property. 3.7 Master Environmental Design Plan. 3.7.1 Landscape; Signage; Lighting. All development of the Property shall comply with the landscape, signage and lighting standards of Title 11B. 3.7.2 Habitat Management Plan. The Habitat Management Plan has been prepared by Master Developer in cooperation with City and identifies areas where mitigation is required, the type of mitigation actions, if any, required, and the rationale for such actions. Master Developer may coordinate, cooperate, and consult with other agencies in the application and implementation of the Habitat Management Plan, but approval authority for the application and implementation of the Habitat Management Plan shall rest solely with the Avimor Conservation Director. Master Developer shall show compliance with the Habitat Management Plan with each preliminary plat application within the Project through the provision of a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 13 development approval letter from the Conservation Director. Nothing in the Habitat Management Plan may be construed as either incorporating state and/or federal standards and/or regulations that are not applicable to the Property or Project or otherwise conferring any approval authority for the Habitat Management Plan to City or any state or federal agency. 3.8 Public Infrastructure Development Fee Credit; Reimbursement. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, in the event Master Developer is obligated to construct, fund or contribute system improvements in excess of the proportionate share allocable to the development of the Property pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Master Developer will be entitled to credit and/or reimbursement for that portion of such investment in excess of the proportionate share of the demand generated by the development of the Property so as to ensure that Master Developer has not been required to fund more than the development's proportionate share of such infrastructure through the contribution of money, dedication of land or improvements, or payments of any fees. The Public Infrastructure to be provided by Master Developer shall confer a benefit on the Property and, in certain instances, may confer a benefit on land areas outside the Property. In recognition of such benefits to the Property, in connection only with the Public Infrastructure under the jurisdiction of City, City shall take into account and credit and/or reimburse Master Developer against the sum total of all applicable Public Infrastructure development fees and/or impact fees, under City's jurisdiction and control, now existing or adopted by City in the future, owed by Master Developer or anticipated builders/residents on the Property. In recognition of such benefits to land areas outside of the Property, City shall take into account and reimburse Master Developer against the sum total of all of Master Developer's costs and expenses associated with constructing, acquiring, and/or installing such Public Infrastructure benefiting such other land areas. 3.9 Land Donations. 3.9.1 Eagle Fire Protection District. Master Developer will work with the Eagle Fire Protection District to select a mutually agreeable fire station site to be donated to the Eagle Fire Protection District upon request by the Eagle Fire Protection District. Master Developer is only obligated to donate land, no improvements are required. 3.9.2 Public Schools. Master Developer will work with each of the three public school districts serving the Project to select a mutually agreeable school site (approximately 7-10 acres) to be donated to each such public school district upon request by the district. Master Developer is only obligated to donate land, no improvements are required. 3.10 Community Infrastructure District. City and Master Developer will work together to maximize the use and utility of the CID to timely construct Public Infrastructure in accordance with the CID Act; this includes, but is not limited to: (i) expansion of the boundary of the CID or formation of a new community infrastructure district to be co - terminus with the boundary of the Property and (ii) amendment of the CID's governing documents to facilitate the Project. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 14 4. REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT. 4.1 Applicable Rules. The ordinances, rules, and regulations applicable to and governing the development of the Property and the Project shall be those existing and in effect as of the Date of Application, together with Title 11B as adopted and enacted by City contemporaneously herewith and the Development Plans. Titles 8 and 9 of the Eagle City Code are not applicable to the Property or the Project and have been replaced in their entirety by Title 11B. In the event of conflict between this Agreement or Title 11B, this Agreement shall control. 4.2 Reliance on Development in Accordance with Applicable Rules. The development standards set forth in Title 11B, including, but not limited to: (i) the right of Master Developer to designate portions of the Property as specific Land Use Districts and Sub -use Districts; (ii) the design standards, and (iii) the densities and allowed uses permitted on the Property are material, and Master Developer and Owner have expressly relied on such development rights in consenting to annexation of the Property and entering into this Agreement. 4.3 Permissible Additions or Amendments to the Applicable Rules. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, City may only enact the following categories of ordinances, rules, or regulations, which may be applicable to and govern development of the Property: 4.3.1 Ordinances, rules, or regulations consistent with this Agreement and Title 11B, which do not impair Master Developer's ability to develop the Property in the manner provided in this Agreement and Title 11B; 4.3.2 Ordinances, rules, or regulations, Master Developer agrees in writing, in Master Developer's sole discretion, apply to the development of the Property; 4.3.3 Ordinances, rules, or regulations, or other requirements enacted to comply with mandatory requirements imposed on City by state or federal laws and regulations, court decisions, and other similar superior external authorities beyond the control of City; 4.3.4 Ordinances, rules, or regulations, to implement future updates of, and amendments to, building, fire, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, dangerous buildings, and similar construction and safety related codes, such as the International Building Code, to the extent adopted by the State of Idaho and City of Eagle. 4.4 Title 11B Additions or Amendments. Subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth in Section 4.3 above, to the extent Title 11B is modified or amended in any way, such modification or amendment shall be processed in the manner set forth in Title 11B, this Agreement, and any other applicable law. With the exception of modifications or amendments to Title 11B requested by Master Developer, all other modifications or amendments to Title 11B shall not be effective without Master Developer's written consent. 4.5 Development Plan Additions or Amendments. During the course of Master Developer's development of the Project, the Parties acknowledge and agree the Development Plans may need to be updated, amended, or revised. Amendments to the Development Plans that do DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 15 not have a material impact on the Project or the Parties' rights and obligations under this Agreement, shall be deemed minor amendments and may be made by Master Developer and submitted to City for approval by the Administrator in accordance with Title 11B to be kept on file with City. A major modification to a Development Plan that has a material impact on the Project or the Parties' rights and obligations under this Agreement must be adopted and incorporated into this Agreement through the amendment standards and procedures set forth in Section 7.1. 4.6 No Restrictions. No moratorium, future ordinance, resolution or other land use rule or regulation imposing a limitation on the development, or the rate, timing or sequencing of the development, of the Property or any portion thereof shall apply to or govern the development of the Property whether affecting land use permits, subdivision plats, building permits, occupancy permits or other entitlements issued or granted by City, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement. Nothing in this section shall prohibit City from withholding the issuance of certificates of occupancy for a structure to be occupied if the Public Infrastructure improvements set forth in this Agreement and preliminary plat required to serve the applicable portion of the Property on which a structure to be occupied is to be located are not in place prior to occupation of such structure. 4.7 Vested Rights. As set forth in this Agreement, Master Developer shall have a vested right to develop the Property in accordance with this Agreement and the Exhibits hereto. This Section 4.7 shall survive termination of this Agreement. The promises and the mutual representations, covenants and agreements of the Parties memorialized in this Agreement, together with the assurances provided to the Parties in this Agreement, including this Section 4.7, are bargained for and in consideration for the undertakings of the Parties set forth herein and contemplated by this Agreement, and are intended to be and have been relied upon by the Parties to the Parties' detriment in undertaking the obligations of the Parties under this Agreement. 5. COOPERATION AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 5.1 Compliance Reviews. As long as Master Developer maintains the right to develop the Property, or any portion thereof, Master Developer, or its representatives, shall meet with the Administrator, or the Administrator's designee, once per year during the Term, to review development completed in the prior year and the development anticipated to be commenced or completed in the ensuing year. At each annual compliance review, Master Developer shall provide City with a Five -Year Plan for the Project to aid in discussion relative to anticipated future development. 5.2 Agreement to Cooperate. In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by a third -party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding and to taking all steps to promptly address and correct any issues that may form the basis of a challenge to this Agreement, the annexation of the Property, the zoning of the Property, or the adoption of Title 11 B. City and Master Developer may agree to select mutually agreeable legal counsel to defend such action or proceeding with the parties sharing equally in the cost of such joint counsel, or each Party may select its own legal counsel at each Party's expense. All other costs of such defense(s) shall be shared equally by the parties. Each Party shall retain the right to pursue its own independent legal defense. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 16 If 5.3 Default. Failure or unreasonable delay by either Party to perform or otherwise act in accordance with any term or provision of this Agreement for a period of 90 days following written notice thereof from the other Party (the "Cure Period"), shall constitute a default under this Agreement; provided, however, that if the failure or delay is such that more than 90 days would reasonably be required to perform such action or comply with any term or provision hereof, then such Party shall have such additional time as may be reasonably necessary to perform or comply so long as such Party commences performance or compliance within such 90-day period and diligently proceeds to complete such performance or fulfill such obligation (the "Extended Cure Period"). The written notice provided for above shall specify the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may be satisfactorily cured, if possible. In the event a default of Master Developer is not cured within the Cure Period or the Extended Cure Period, if applicable, the zoning of that portion of the Property related to such default may be converted to the A-R (Agricultural -Residential) zoning designation and, in addition, City shall have all remedies available at law or in equity. In the event a default of City is not cured within the Cure Period or the Extended Cure Period, if applicable, upon written notice from Master Developer, Master Developer shall have all remedies available at law or in equity. 5.4 Attorneys Fee. In the event a Party to this Agreement shall file suit or action at law or equity to interpret or enforce this Agreement, the unsuccessful Party to such litigation agrees to pay to the prevailing Party all costs and expenses including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the prevailing Party. Similarly, all fees and costs associated with an appeal to any appellate court thereafter, including, without limitation, the prevailing Party's attorneys' fees, shall be paid by the non -prevailing Party. 6. NOTICES AND FILINGS. 6.1 Manner of Serving. All notices, filings, consents, approvals and other communications provided for herein or delivered in connection herewith shall be validly delivered, filed, made, or served if in writing and delivered personally or delivered by a nationally recognized overnight courier or sent by certified United States Mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, if to: City: City Clerk City of Eagle 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 Master Developer/Owner: Avimor Development, LLC 18454 N. McLeod Way Boise, ID 83714 Attn: Dan Richter With a copy to: Deborah Nelson or Jeff Bower Givens Pursley LLP 601 W. Bannock St Boise, ID 83702 or to such other addresses as either Party hereto may from time to time designate in writing and delivery in a like manner. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 17 11,.. S'gf 6.2 Mailing Effective. Notices, filings, consents, approvals and communication given by mail shall be deemed delivered immediately if personally delivered, 24 hours following deposit with a nationally recognized courier, or 72 hours following deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed as set forth above. 7. MISCELLANEOUS. 7.1 Amendment. City and Master Developer acknowledge that amendments to this Agreement may be necessary or appropriate from time to time in order to carry out the goals expressed in this Agreement and the overall development of the Project. When the Parties agree an amendment to this Agreement is necessary or appropriate, such amendment shall be adopted and implemented subject to the requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6511A. All amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by the Parties and recorded against the Property. The Parties shall cooperate in good faith to agree upon and use reasonable efforts to process any amendments to this Agreement. 7.2 Termination Upon Completion of Development. City shall, upon written request of Master Developer, execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City has determined reasonably that Master Developer has fully performed Master Developer's obligations under this Agreement in connection with all or a portion of the Property. 7.3 Status Statements. Any Party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written request to any other Party requesting that such other Party provide in writing that, to the knowledge of such other Party: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified, and if so amended, identifying the amendments; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults. A Party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such statement within a reasonable time following the receipt thereof. City acknowledges that such statement hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and mortgagees. City shall have no liability for monetary damages to Master Developer, and transferee or mortgagee, or any other person in connection with, resulting from or based upon the issuance of any statement hereunder. 8. GENERAL. 8.1 Waiver. No delay in exercising any right or remedy shall constitute a waiver by either Party thereof, and no waiver by City or Master Developer of the breach of any covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be construed as a waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other covenant or condition of this Agreement. 8.2 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together constitute one and the same instrument. The signature pages from one or more counterparts may be removed from such counterparts and such signature pages all attached to a single document so that the signatures of all Parties may be physically attached to a single document. 8.3 Headings. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning and as if prepared by both Parties hereto. Titles and captions are for convenience only and shall not constitute a portion of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, masculine, feminine or DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 18 neuter gender and the singular or plural number shall each be deemed to include the others wherever and whenever the context so dictates. 8.4 Exhibits and Recitals. Any exhibit attached hereto shall be deemed to have been incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the body hereof. The Recitals set forth above shall be deemed to have been incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the body hereof The Definitions set forth prior to the Recitals shall be deemed to have been incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if fully set forth in the body hereof. 8.5 Further Acts. Each of the Parties shall promptly execute and deliver all such documents and perform all such acts as reasonably necessary, from time to time, to carry out the matters contemplated by this Agreement. 8.6 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in implementing the terms of this Agreement. 8.7 Assignment of Master Developer Rights. The rights and obligations of Master Developer to develop the Project pursuant to this Agreement and the rights and obligations of Master Developer as the Master Developer under Title 11B, shall remain solely with Master Developer unless expressly assigned in a written instrument executed by Master Developer. Master Developer's rights and obligations with respect to Project and the Property may assigned in whole or in part. Any assignment entered into pursuant to this Section 8.7 shall be recorded in the real property records of Ada County, Idaho; Gem County, Idaho; and Boise County, Idaho and a copy of such recorded assignment shall be provided to City within sixty (60) days of recordation. 8.8 Agreement Appurtenant to the Property. This Agreement, together with all terms, conditions, and covenants set forth herein shall run with the Property and shall be binding on the Parties and their successors and assigns. 8.9 No Partnership; Third Parties. It is hereby specifically understood, acknowledged and agreed that neither City nor Master Developer shall be deemed to be an agent of the other for any purpose whatsoever. It is not intended by this Agreement to, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall, create any partnership, joint venture or other arrangement between Master Developer and City. No term or provision of this Agreement is intended to, or shall, be for the benefit of any third -party, person, firm, organization or legal entity not a party hereto, and no such other third -party, person, firm, organization or legal entity shall have any right to cause of action hereunder. 8.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof. All prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the Parties, oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged herein. No modification or amendment to this Agreement of any kind whatsoever shall be made or claimed by Master Developer or City shall have any force or effect whatsoever unless the same shall be endorsed in writing and signed by all parties hereto. Such amendment shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for Ada County, Idaho; Gem County, Idaho; and Boise County, Idaho. Any alteration or change to this Agreement shall be made only after complying with the notice and hearing provisions of Title 11 B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 19 Sy/ 8.11 Construction. All Parties hereto have either been represented by separate legal counsel or have had the opportunity to be so represented. Thus, in all cases, the language herein shall be constructed simply in accord with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against a Party, regardless of whether such Party prepared or caused the preparation of this Agreement. 8.12 Names and Plans. Master Developer shall be the sole owner of all names, titles, plans, drawings, specifications, ideas, programs, designs and work products of every nature at any time developed, formulated or prepared by or at the request of Master Developer in connection with the Property and the Project; provided, however, that in connection with any conveyance of portions of the Property to City, such rights pertaining to the portions of the Property so conveyed shall be assigned to City to the extent that such rights are assignable. 8.13 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared void or unenforceable, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement, which shall otherwise remain in full force and effect. 8.14 Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho in effect on the Date of Application. Any action brought in connection with this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction located in Ada County, Idaho. 8.15 Recordation. After its execution, this Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for Ada County, Idaho; Gem County, Idaho; and Boise County, Idaho at the expense of Master Developer. Each commitment and restriction on the Project shall be a burden on the Property, shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Property and shall run with the land. This Agreement shall be binding on Master Developer and owners, and their respective heirs, administrators, executors, agents, legal representatives, successors, and assigns; provided, however, that if all or any portion of the Project is sold, the sellers shall thereupon be released and discharged from any and all obligations arising under this Agreement in connection with the portion of the Property sold. The new owner of the Property or any portion thereof (including, without limitation, any owner who acquires its interest by foreclosure, trustee's sale or otherwise) shall be liable for all commitments and other obligations arising under this Agreement with respect to the Property or portion thereof. 8.16 No Obligation to Proceed. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to obligate Master Developer or Owner to commence or complete any part or all of the Project. 8.17 Authority. Each Party represents to the other Parties that the individual executing this Agreement on behalf of such Party is authorized and empowered to bind the Party on whose behalf each such individual is signing. Master Developer further represents to City that Master Developer is an Idaho limited liability company duly qualified to do business in Idaho. [end of text; remainder of page intentionally left blank] DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto, having been duly authorized, have executed this Agreement to be effective on the date first written above. CITY: CITY OF EAGLE, an Idaho municipal corporation By:_ '`��,,,flhIIH Ja ATTEST: ,+� ('�1.E •, By: Tracy Os rn, City Cleric Y 44)Q• ei 4 1.7 U� J �i 64. � err •l.....s• rrr ST €'` , • rr.+'.,. °'MASTER DEVELOPER: fierce. Mayor AVIMOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company By: L,V Dan Richter, its Manager OWNER: SPRING VALLEY LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation By: Name: Title: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 21 1 aurTe5n i`[CL or Prri: d2 r ocrt - 3 qv 5.94 I. go and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, formerly shown as a California Corporation, as Trustee of the Dual Beneficiary Trust No. 8562 which Trust was created pursuant to the Subdivision Trust Agreement dated October 8, 2002 and erroneously shown of record as October 8, 2003, as amended, as its interests appear of record By: Name: Title: l 1 r/ria12 R. PFANNMULLER & SON, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company By: l3,c Name: a.-..& IZ. ?left". "14u..v Title: ptre... ,door, STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 2{eday of 5tAln , 2023, before me a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Jason Pierce, known or identified to me to be the Mayor of the CITY OF EAGLE, an Idaho municipal corporation that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that such City of Eagle executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at taiK . TAa10.4.a My Commission Expires $ ! 1 u ( Z : DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 22 541 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada On this el day of 5,-4-k-A , 2023, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Dan Richter, known or identified to me to be the Manager of AVIMOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, the Manager who subscribed said limited liability company name to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in said limited liability company name. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. tOTAk • s•-•- • P OF • •.. •����+n n ...... STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada Notaty jbublic for Idaho Residing at Ad.. i(Lk L. c My Commission expires 5/ to 1 z On this C.b day of ,- K11 , 2023, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ► e,r ec A Pk. 1 e o d, , known or identified to me to be the ?rt. 5 t dam. - of SPRING VALLEY LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., the corporation that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. s'Z.LOTAR A 1. • Notary lsubiic for Idaho • PUBOC = Residing at A-*& i. , l r). c. Lis yy'�� 5511,0 �My Commission expires S l to ( - ••tl+'u'fl.No.b.. STATE OF IDAHO •�,OF .....,....... ) ss. County of Ada ) On this 26* day of ,T„A. t , 2023, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared N[.a,.1 , known or identified to me to be the auk-'kwv i-trek S►okw0v-`1 of FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska corporation, as Trustee of the Dual Beneficiary Trust No 8562, the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 23 corporation that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 110TA R Y'• ►: •• Aft ■e • Mr Of 1 UBLtC• `�a, •• • T ,, • Ovg"--# Notary Public Residing at ►Lt My Commission expires P.►Ls 1— STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this V day of f...tvl , 2023, before me, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Brad Pfannmuller, known or identified to me to be the Manager of R. PFANNMULLER & SON, LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, the Manager who subscribed said limited liability company name to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in said limited liability company name. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. -7 I1.10TARY'; t • • •••• • • fC_f'[IBLt0 •,,•~14' OF t910#• LIST OF EXHIBITS: , Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C-1 Exhibit C-2 Exhibit C-3 Exhibit D Exhibit E Notary Pufflic for Idaho Residing at _ 1 'I A 1^-0 My Commission expires WA4.1 ' o '�- - Legal Description of the Property — Boise County Planned Community Map — Boise County Avimor Phase 1 Subdivision Preliminary Plat — Boise County Avimor Phase 2 Subdivision Preliminary Plat — Boise County Howell Vineyard Subdivision Preliminary Plat — Boise County Avimor Phase 1 Construction Plans — Legal Description of Village 1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 24 •� Y Exhibit F — Master Land Use Plan Exhibit G — Open Space Plan Exhibit H — Conservation Easement Exhibit I — Habitat Management Plan Exhibit J — Water Service Agreement Exhibit K-1 — #202101322-CU Decision Exhibit K-2 — #201201173-CU Decision Exhibit K-3 — CUP-2021-007 Decision Exhibit L — Conditions of Approval DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 25 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Legal Description Legal Description Avimor ADA COUNTY A tract of land located in Township 5 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 1, all portions which lie in Ada County, and; In Section 2, the South One Half of the Northwest One Quarter, the South One Half, Government Lots 3 and 4, and; In Section 3, the East One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, the Southwest One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, Govemment Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and; In Section 4, the South One Half, the South One Half of the Northwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter, Governments Lots 1 and 4, and; In Section 5, the Northeast One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, Govemment Lots 1 and 2, and; In Section 7, the Southwest One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road, and; In Section 8, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, the East One Half of the Northwest One Quarter and the South One Half, and; All of Section 9, and; In Section 10, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter and the Southwest One Quarter, and; In Section 11, the South One Half of the Northwest One Quarter and the North One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, and; All of Section 12, Except from the Southwest One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter of said Section 12, a one acre parcel for a school house lot reserved in Sheriff's Deed recorded under Instrument No. 143440 in Book 183 of Deeds, Page 171. In Section 13, the North One Half, the Southeast One Quarter and the North One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, and; Page 1 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 26 In Section 17, the Northwest One Quarter, the East One Half, the North One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, and the South One Half of the Southwest One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road, and; In Section 18, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road, the Northeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road, Northwest One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road, East One Half of the Southeast One Quarter lying easterly of Willow Creek Road and; In Section 24, the North One Half of the Northeast One Quarter. Subject to all existing easements and rights -of -way, recorded or prescriptive. AND ALSO A tract of land located in Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 6, all portions which lie within Ada County, Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho for public road by deed recorded under Instrument No. 127565 in Book 182 of Deeds, Page 23. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 191535 in Book 235 of Deeds, Page 542. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No 8514764. In Section 7, all portions which lie within Ada County, Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 160917 in Book 208 of Deeds, Page 611. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 191535 Book 235 of Deeds, Page 542. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 8514764. And Except a parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 7, a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 18, and the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (Includes Avimor Subdivisions Nos 1-4) and being more particularly described as follows: Page 2 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 27 ,-51f Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the north 1/4 comer of said Section 7, which bears N89° I5'36" W a distance of 2609.16 feet from a found brass cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 7, thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 7, S89°15'36"E a distance of 177,28 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State I-Iighway 55 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line S89°15'36"E a distance of 626.37 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line S44°03'42"E a distance of 2581.21 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, SOO°19'21"W a distance of 839.80 feet to a found a aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 comer of said Section 7; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8, S88°00'30"E a distance of 846.43 feet to a point being the intersection of the AdaBoise County line and the northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 8; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line, S44°04'52"E a distance of 595.05 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°54' 1 1"E a distance of 2,225.26 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 comer Sections 8 and 17); Thence leaving the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54' 11 "E a distance of 2,661.41 feet to a point being the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of thew Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, SOO°54'12"E a distance of 1,329.23 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, N89°43'21"E a distance of 1,292.35 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (C-S 1/16 corner Section 17; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, SOO°39'09"E a distance of 1,322.57 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the south 1/4 corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, S89°25'41"W a distance of 2,573.04 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the southwest corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 and following the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and the subdivision boundary of Avimor Subdivision no. 1, N87°17'17"W a distance of 2,168.19 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and following said subdivision boundary, S02°42'43"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence following said subdivision boundary, N87°17'17"W a distance of 919.72 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55; Thence following said subdivision boundary and said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: Page 3 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 28 1. 238.92 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,225.92 feet, a delta angle of 11 °09'58" and a chord bearing of NO2°39'30"E and a chord distance of 238.54 feet; 2. S87°04'31 "W a distance of 15.00 feet; 3. 257.09 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the left having a chord bearing of N07°03'46"W a distance of 256.95 feet; 4. N09°10'29"W a distance of 530.28 feet; 5. S80°49'31 "W a distance of 5.00 feet; 6. N09°10'29"W a distance of 534.91 feet; 7. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N07°07'10"W a distance of 243.33 feet; 8. 102.03 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,085.92 feet, a delta angle of 05°23'O 1 ", a chord bearing of N00° 13'59"W and a chord distance of 101.99 feet; 9. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N06°39'13"E and a chord distance of 243.33 feet; 10. N81°17'28"W a distance of 19.93 feet; 11. N08°42'04"E a distance of 1,715.79 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. N08°42'04"E a distance of 3,600.85 feet; 2. 292.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,974.86 feet, a delta angle of 08°29'59", a chord bearing of N04°27'05"E and a chord distance 292.69 feet; 3. NOO° 12'06"E a distance of 2,925.84 feet; 4. 296.83 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2,929.79 feet, a delta angle of 05°47'25", a chord bearing NO2°41'37"W and a chord distance of 295.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; In Section 8, those portions of the Southwest One Quarter and the Southwest One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter lying in Ada County, Except a parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 7, a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 18, and the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (Includes Avimor Subdivisions Nos 1-4) and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the north 1/4 corner of said Section 7, which bears N89°15'36" W a distance of 2609.16 feet from a found brass cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 7, thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 7, S89°15'36"E a distance of 177.28 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line S89°15'36"E a distance of 626.37 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line S44°03'42"E a distance of 2581.21 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, SOO°19'21"W a distance of 839.80 feet to a found a aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 comer of said Section 7; Page 4 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 29 Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8, S88°00'30"E a distance of 846.43 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 8; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line, S44°04'52"E a distance of 595.05 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°54'11"E a distance of 2,225.26 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 comer Sections 8 and 17); Thence leaving the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54' I 1 "E a distance of 2,661.41 feet to a point being the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of thew Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, SOO°54'12"E a distance of 1,329.23 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, N89°43'21 "E a distance of 1,292.35 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (C-S 1/16 corner Section 17; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°39'09"E a distance of 1,322.57 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the south 1/4 comer of said Section 17; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, S89°25'41"W a distance of 2,573.04 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the southwest comer of said Section 17; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 and following the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and the subdivision boundary of Avimor Subdivision no. 1, N87°17' 17"W a distance of 2,168.19 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and following said subdivision boundary, S02°42'43"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence following said subdivision boundary, N87°17'17"W a distance of 919.72 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55; Thence following said subdivision boundary and said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. 238.92 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,225.92 feet, a delta angle of 11°09'58" and a chord bearing ofNO2°39'30"E and a chord distance of 238.54 feet; 2. S87°04'31 "W a distance of 15.00 feet; 3. 257.09 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the left having a chord bearing of N07°03'46"W a distance of 256.95 feet; 4. N09°10'29"W a distance of 530.28 feet; 5. S80°49'31 "W a distance of 5.00 feet; 6_ N09°10'29"W a distance of 534.91 feet; 7. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N07°07'10"W a distance of 243.33 feet; 8. 102.03 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,085.92 feet, a delta angle of 05°23'01 ", a chord bearing of N00° 13'59"W and a chord distance of 101.99 feet; Page 5 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 30 9. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N06°39'13"E and a chord distance of 243.33 feet; 10. N81°17'28"W a distance of 19.93 feet; 11. N08°42'04"E a distance of 1,715.79 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. N08°42'04"E a distance of 3,600.85 feet; 2. 292.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,974.86 feet, a delta angle of 08°29'59", a chord bearing of N04°27'05"E and a chord distance 292.69 feet; 3. N00°12'06"E a distance of 2,925.84 feet; 4. 296.83 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2,929.79 feet, a delta angle of 05°47'25", a chord bearing NO2°41'37"W and a chord distance of 295.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; In Section 17, the Northeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, those portions of the North One Half of the Northeast One Quarter lying in Ada County, and; All of Section 18, Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho for public road by deed recorded under Instrument No. 127564 in Book 182 of Deeds, Pages 21 and 22. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 160917 in Book 208 of Deeds, Page 611. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 610585. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 8514764. And Except a parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 7, a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 18, and the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (Includes Avimor Subdivisions Nos 1-4) and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the north 1/4 corner of said Section 7, which bears N89°15'36" W a distance of 2609.16 feet from a found brass cap marking the northeast comer of said Section 7, thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 7, S89°15'36"E a distance of 177.28 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line S89°15'36"E a distance of 626.37 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line S44°03'42"E a distance of 2581.21 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Page 6 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 31 Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, SOO°19'21"W a distance of 839.80 feet to a found a aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 comer of said Section 7; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8, S88°00'30"E a distance of 846.43 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 8; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line, S44°04'52"E a distance of 595.05 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°54' 11 "E a distance of 2,225.26 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 corner Sections 8 and 17); Thence leaving the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54' 11 "E a distance of 2,661.41 feet to a point being the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 comer Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of thew Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, SOO°54'12"E a distance of 1,329.23 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, N89°43'21"E a distance of 1,292.35 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (C-S 1/16 corner Section 17; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, SOO°39'09"E a distance of 1,322.57 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the south 1/4 corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, S89°25'41"W a distance of 2,573.04 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the southwest corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 and following the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and the subdivision boundary of Avimor Subdivision no. 1, N87°17'17"W a distance of 2,168.19 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and following said subdivision boundary, S02°42'43"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence following said subdivision boundary, N87°17'17"W a distance of 919.72 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55; Thence following said subdivision boundary and said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. 238.92 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,225.92 feet, a delta angle of 11°09'58" and a chord bearing of NO2°39'30"E and a chord distance of 238.54 feet; 2. S87°04'31"W a distance of 15.00 feet; 3. 257.09 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the left having a chord bearing of N07°03'46"W a distance of 256.95 feet, 4. N09°10'29"W a distance of 530.28 feet; 5. S80°49'31"W a distance of 5.00 feet; 6. N09°10'29"W a distance of 534.91 feet; 7. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N07°07'10"W a distance of 243.33 feet; 8. 102.03 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,085.92 feet, a delta angle of 05°23'01 ", a chord bearing of N00°13'59"W and a chord distance of 101.99 feet; Page 7 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 32 9. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N06°39'13"E and a chord distance of 243.33 feet; 10. N81°17'28"W a distance of 19.93 feet; 11. N08°42'04"E a distance of 1,715.79 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. N08°42'04"E a distance of 3,600.85 feet; 2. 292.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,974.86 feet, a delta angle of 08°29'59", a chord bearing of N04°27'05"E and a chord distance 292.69 feet; 3. N00°12'06"E a distance of 2,925.84 feet; 4. 296.83 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2,929.79 feet, a delta angle of 05°47'25", a chord bearing NO2°41'37"W and a chord distance of 295.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; In Section 19, Government Lot 1, the Northeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, North One Half of the Northeast One Quarter Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho for a right-of-way for a Public Highway by deed recorded under Instrument No. 160903 in Book 208 of Deeds, Page 595. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 160917 in Book 208 of Deeds, Page 611. And Except that portion conveyed to Ada County for Healy Toll Road by deed recorded under Instrument No. 19780 in Book 74 of Deeds, Page 254. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 610585. And Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by deed recorded under Instrument No. 645947. And Except a parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 7, a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 18, and the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (Includes Avimor Subdivisions Nos 1-4) and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the north 1/4 comer of said Section 7, which bears N89°15'36" W a distance of 2609.16 feet from a found brass cap marking the northeast comer of said Section 7, thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 7, S89°15'36"E a distance of 177.28 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line S89°15'36"E a distance of 626.37 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line S44°03'42"E a distance of 2581.21 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Page 8 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 33 Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°19'21"W a distance of 839.80 feet to a found a aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 7; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8, S88°00'30"E a distance of 846.43 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 8; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line, S44°04'52"E a distance of 595.05 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°54' 1 1"E a distance of 2,225.26 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 comer Sections 8 and 17); Thence leaving the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54' 11 "E a distance of 2,661.41 feet to a point being the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of thew Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, SOO°54'12"E a distance of 1,329.23 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/16 corner Section 17), Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, N89°43'21"E a distance of 1,292.35 feet to a found 5/8- inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (C-S 1/16 comer Section 17; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°39'09"E a distance of 1,322.57 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the south 1/4 corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, S89°25'41"W a distance of 2,573.04 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the southwest comer of said Section 17; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 and following the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and the subdivision boundary of Avimor Subdivision no. 1, N87°17'17"W a distance of 2,168.19 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and following said subdivision boundary, S02°42'43"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence following said subdivision boundary, N87°17'17"W a distance of 919.72 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55; Thence following said subdivision boundary and said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. 238.92 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,225.92 feet, a delta angle of 1 1 °09'58" and a chord bearing of NO2°39'30"E and a chord distance of 238.54 feet; 2. S87°04'31"W a distance of 15.00 feet; 3. 257.09 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the left having a chord bearing of N07°03'46"W a distance of 256.95 feet; 4. N09°10'29"W a distance of 530.28 feet; 5. S80°49'31 "W a distance of 5.00 feet; 6. N09°10'29"W a distance of 534.91 feet, 7. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N07°07'10"W a distance of 243.33 feet; 8. 102.03 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,085.92 feet, a delta angle of 05°23'O1", a chord bearing of N00°13'59"W and a chord distance of 101.99 feet; Page 9 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 34 9. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N06°39'13"E and a chord distance of 243.33 feet; 10. N81°17'28"W a distance of 19.93 feet; 11. N08°42'04"E a distance of 1,715.79 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. N08°42'04"E a distance of 3,600.85 feet; 2. 292.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,974.86 feet, a delta angle of 08°29'59", a chord bearing of N04°27'05"E and a chord distance 292.69 feet; 3. NOO°12'06"E a distance of 2,925.84 feet; 4. 296.83 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2,929.79 feet, a delta angle of 05°47'25", a chord bearing NO2°41'37"W and a chord distance of 295.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to all existing easements and rights -of -way, recorded or prescriptive. Containing 6,921 acres, more or Less Page 10 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 35 -)34(9534 BOISE COUNTY Legal Description Avimor A tract of land located in Township 5 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Boise County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 1, the portions of the Northeast One Quarter which lie within Boise County including Government Lots 1 and 2, and; AND ALSO A tract of land located in Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Boise County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 5, Government Lots 2, 3 and 4, the South One Half of the North One Half and the South One Half, and; In Section 6, all portions which lie within Boise County including but not limited to that portion of abandoned highway right of way as evidenced by Instrument No. 134123, Except those portions conveyed for road right-of-way by deeds recorded under Instrument Numbers 46769 and 116461, and; In Section 7, all portions which lie within Boise County, and; hi Section 8, the North One Half of the Northwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, the Northeast One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter, the East One Half of the Southeast One Quarter, those portions of the Southwest One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter and the Southwest One Quarter lying in Boise County, and; In Section 9, the North One Half of the Northwest One Quarter and the West One Half of the Northeast One Quarter, and; In Sections 17, those portions of the Northwest One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter which lie within Boise County, and; AND ALSO A tract of land located in Township 6 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian, Boise County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 7, the East One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, and Government Lots 3, 4, 10 and 11, and; Page 11 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 36 In Section 17, the Southeast One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter lying easterly of Old Highway 55, In Section 18, the East One Half of the Northwest One Quarter, Northeast One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter, Government Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, and; In Section 19, the West One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, and; In Section 20, the Northeast One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter lying easterly of Old Highway 55, the South One Half of the Northeast One Quarter lying easterly of Old Highway 55, the Southeast One Quarter lying easterly of Old Highway 55 and southeasterly of Highway 55, the Southeast One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter lying southeasterly of Highway 55, Except a parcel of land located in the SE 1/4 of Section 20, T.6N., R.2E., B.M., Boise County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the S1/4 corner of said Section 20 from which the of SE corner of said Section 29 bears South 89°20'59" East, 2621.37 feet; thence along the South boundary line of said Section 20 South 89°20'59" East, 878.75 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said South boundary line North 17°40'16" West, 189.97 feet; thence North 72°19'44" East, 1,280.59 feet; thence South 17°40'16" East, 614.02 feet to a point on the South boundary line of said Section 20; thence along said South boundary line North 89°20'59" West, 1348.97 feet the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, and; In Section 21, the West One Half of the Northwest One Quarter lying northwesterly of State Highway 55, and; In Section 28, the North One Half, the North One Half of the South One Half, the Southeast One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter and; All portions of Section 29, Except a parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of Section 29, T.6N., R.2E., B.M., Boise County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the N1/4 corner of said Section 29 from which the of NE corner of said Section 29 bears South 89°20'59" East, 2621.37 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 29 South 89°20'59" East, 878.75 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North boundary line South 89°20'59" East, 1348.97 feet; thence leaving said North boundary line thence South 17°40'16" East, 746.61 feet; thence South 72°19'44" West, 1,280.59 feet; thence North 17°40'16" West, 1,170.66 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. And Except a parcel of land located in the Section19, Section 20 and Section 29, T.6N., R.2E., B.M., Boise County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the section corner of said Sections 19, 20, 29 and Section 30, T.6N., R.2E., B.M., Boise County, Idaho; Page 12 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 37 Si 7 thence along the South boundary line of said Section 19 North 89°19'05" West, 2,660.80 feet to the S 1/4 corner of said Section 19; thence continuing along said South boundary line North 89°59'59" West, 1,210.80 feet to the W1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence along the West boundary line of the E 1/2 of the S W 1 /4 of said Section 19 North 00° 18'58" West, 2,617.95 feet to the C-W I/ 16 corner of said Section 19; thence along the West boundary line of the E1/2 of the NW1/4 of said Section 19 North 00°04'55" West, 2,648.13 feet to the W 1 /16 corner of said Section 19; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 19 South 89°43'54" East, 1,240.53 feet to the N 1/4 comer of said Section 19; thence along the North -South centerline of said Section 19 South 00°07'20" West, 1,322.33 feet to the C-N1/16 comer of said Section 19; thence along the North boundary line of the S1/2 of the NE1/4 of said Section 19 South 89°44'46" East, 2,657.07 feet to the N1/16 corner of said Section 19; thence along the North boundary line of the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of said Section 20 South 89°15'10" East, 2,622.39 feet to the C-N1/16 corner of said Section 20; thence along the North boundary line of the S1/2 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 20 South 89°23'42" East, 1,286.67 feet; thence South 00° 10'34" East, 83.17 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of Summit Ridge Road (Old Highway 55) as described in that Right -of -Way Deed recorded as Instrument No. 52576, records of Boise County, Idaho; thence along said westerly right-of-way line the following 9 courses and distances: thence 183.28 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 723.00 feet, a central angle of 14°31'28" and a long chord which bears South 39°40'14" West, 182.79 feet to a point spiral curve; thence 169.27 feet along a centerline 150.00-foot spiral to the left having a central angle of 7°30' and a long chord which bears South 27°34'24" West, 169.14 feet; thence South 24°50'13" West. 970.70 feet to a point spiral curve; thence 161.31 feet along a centerline 150.00-foot spiral to the left having a central angle of 4°30' and a long chord which bears South 23°23'20" West, 161.27 feet to a point spiral to curve; thence 189.11 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,104.90 feet, a central angle of 09°48'23" and a long chord which bears South 15°31'34" West, 188.88 feet to a point spiral curve; thence 161.33 feet along a centerline 150.00-foot spiral to the left having a central angle of 4°30' and a long chord which South 07°39'49" West, 161.28 feet; thence South 06°00'08" West, 927.79 feet to a point spiral curve; thence 138.23 feet along a centerline 150.00-foot spiral to the left having a central angle of 4°30' and a long chord which South 07°38'31 " West, 138.17 feet to a point spiral to curve; thence 385.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 804.90 feet, a central angle of 27°28'07" and a long chord which bears South 24°39'21" West, 382.20 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line of State Highway 55 as described in that Corporate Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 126533, records of Boise County, Idaho; thence along the westerly right-of-way tine of State Highway 55 as descnbed in that Corporate Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 126533 and that Corporate Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument No. 116461, records of Boise County, Idaho the following 8 courses and distances: Page 13 of 2a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 38 thence South 58°40'59" West, 150.06 feet; thence 1,531.06 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,241.74 feet, a central angle of 70°38'44" and a long chord which bears South 23°21'32" West, 1,435.90 feet; thence South 11°57'50" East, 427.01 feet; thence 1,108.68 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 945.92 feet, a central angle of 67°09'15" and a long chord which bears South 21°34'28" West, 1,046.30 feet; thence South 55°09'06" West, 454.31 feet; thence North 34°41'22" West, 50.03 feet; thence South 55°09'48" West, 594.12 feet; thence 488.40 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,291.74 feet, a central angle of 21°39'48" and a long chord which bears South 44°19'15" West, 485.50 feet; thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line North 79°35'29" West, 640.16 feet to a point on the West boundary line of said Section 29; thence along said West boundary line North 01°17'00" East, 107.36 feet to the W1/4 corner of said Section 29; thence continuing along the West boundary line of said Section 29 North 01°05'10" West, 2,711.17 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, and; All portions of Section 30, Except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Idaho by the Deed recorded under Instrument No. 116461. In Section 31, the East One Half, the Fast One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, the East One Half of the Northwest One Quarter, and Government Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Except that portion conveyed to the State of Idaho by the Deed Recorded under Instrument No. 116461. In Section 32, the North One Half, the Southwest One Quarter, the North One Half of the Southeast One Quarter and the Southwest One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter. Subject to all existing easements and rights -of -way, recorded or prescriptive. Containing 5,338 acres, more or less. Page 14 of20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 39 GEM COUNTY Legal Description Avimor A tract of land located in Township 6 North, Range 1 East, Boise Mendian, Gem County, Idaho described as follows: In Section 12, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and; In Section 13, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, the East One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, the Southwest One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter, Tax parcel RP06N01E149300 lying within Section 13, and; In Section 14, Lots 5 and 6, Tax parcel RP06N01E149300 lying within Section 14, except any portion of the Independence and Santiago Mines, and; In Section 22, the Southeast One Quarter, the North One Half of the Southwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter, and; In Section 23, Lots 2, 3, 5 and 6, except any portion of the Independence and Santiago Mines, the Southeast One Quarter, the Southwest One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, Tax parcel RPO6NO 1 E149300 lying within Section 23, and; All portions of Section 24, 25 and 26, and; In Section 27, the East One Half, the East One Half of the West One Half, the Southwest One Quarter of the Southwest One Quarter, and; In Section 28, the Southeast One Quarter, the Southeast One Quarter of the Northeast One Quarter, and; In Section 33, the East One Half, and; In Section 34, the Northeast One Quarter, the South One Half, the South One Half of the Northwest One Quarter and the Northeast One Quarter of the Northwest One Quarter, and; In Section 35, the North One Half, and the Southwest One Quarter; In Section 36, the South One Half of the Southeast One Quarter and the Northeast One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter, and; EXCEPT the portions lying within the following 2 Legal Descriptions: A tract of land situated in portions of Section 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 6 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Gem County, Idaho, described as follows: Page 15 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 40 534. Re: Amended Record of Survey filed as Instrument No. 170762, records of Gem County, Idaho. The following described portion of Deserter, Independence and Santiago Mining Claims: Beginning at the Southwest comer of the Southeast One Quarter of the Southeast One Quarter of Section 14, Township 6 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Gem County, Idaho; Thence South 0°0'00", a distance of 800.1 feet, Thence South 78°12'00" East, a distance 227.3 feet, Thence South 85°57'00" East, a distance of 213.67 feet, Thence South 8°50'00" West a distance of 28.85 feet, Thence South 78°12'00" East, a distance of 216.88 feet, Thence North 12°22'00" East, a distance of 600 feet, Thence North 79°49'00" West, a distance of 631.1 feet, Thence North 7°30'00" West, a distance of 600 feet, Thence North 21 °52'00" West, a distance of 194.4 feet, Thence South 0°0'00", a distance of 538.4 feet to the real point of beginning. and A parcel of land being in the South 1/2 of Section 13 and the North''/2 of Section 24, Township 6 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Gem County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of said Section 13, thence S 89°'44'25" E 1648.92 feet along the southerly boundary of said SW 1/4 to a point. also, being the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 0°13'03" E 261.91 feet to a non -tangent curve approximately 25-feet southeasterly of an existing road centerline; thence along a course approximately 25-feet from said road centerline the following: along a curve to the left 26.93 feet, said curve baying a radius of 340.00 feet, a central angle of 4°32'20", and a chord which bears S 89"49'44" E 26.93 feet to a point; N 87°54'06" E 23.04 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 147.77 feet, said curve having a radius of 205.00 feet, a central angle of 41°18'00", and a chord which bears N 67°15'06" E 144.59 feet to a point; N 46°36'06" E 13.61 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 93.99 feet, said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet, a central angle of 46°49'45"- and a chord which bears N 23°11'14" E 91.40 feet to a point; N 0° 13'39" W 4.89 feet to a point of curve: Page 16 of20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 41 along a curve to the right 69.33 feet, said curve having a radius of 180.00 feet, a central angle of 21°04'05", and a chord which bears N 10°48'24" E 68.90 feet to a point; N 21°50'26" E 77.31 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 97.31 feet, said curve having a radius of 345.00 feet, a central angle of 16°09'39", and a chord which bears N 13°45'36" E 96.99 feet to a point; N 5°40'48" E 51.13 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 66.42 feet, said curve having a radius of 100.00 feet. a central angle of 38° 03' 13", and a chord which bears N 24°42'24" E 65.20 feet to a point; N 43°44' 01" E 35.48 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 73.88 feet, said curve having a radius of 975.00 feet, a central angle of 4°20'30", and a chord which bears N 45°54'16" E 73.86 feet to a point; N 48°04'31" E 50.76 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 104.17 feet, said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet, a central angle of 5°53'56", and a chord which bears N 22°07'33" E 100.64 feet to a point; N 3°49'25" W 72.08 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 70.30 feet, said curve having a radius of 105.00 feet, a central angle of 38°21'31 ", and a chord which bears N 23°00' 11" W 68.99 feet to a point; N 42°10'56" W 50.33 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 63.35 feet. said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of 80°39'41", and a chord which bears N 1°51'06" W 58.25 feet to a point; N 38°28'45" E 33.97 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 120.38 feet, said curve having a radius of 1975.00 feet, a central angle of 3°29'32", and a chord which bears N 40°13'31" E 120.36 feet to a point; N 41 °58' 17 E 45.29 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 136.10 feet, said curve having a radius of 80.00 feet, a central angle of 97°28'38", and a chord which bears N 6°46'02" W 120.27 feet to a point; N 55°30'21 " W 197.72 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 23.87 feet, said curve having a radius of 45 feet, a central angle of 30°23'51", and a chord which bears N 40°18'25" W 23.60 feet to a point; N 25°06'30" W 123.43 feet to a point of curve; Page 17 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 42 along a curve to the right 43.21 feet, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 33°00'38", and a chord which bears N 8°36' 11" W 42.62 feet to a point; N 7°54'08" E 55.56 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 82.93 feet, said curve having a radius of 185.00 feet, a central angle of 25°41'02" and a chord which bears N 20° 44' 39" E 82.24 feet to a point: N 33°35' 10" E 30.05 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 114.91 feet, said curve having a radius of 205.00 feet, a central angle of 32°07'04", and a chord which bears N 17°31'38" E 113.42 feet to a point; N 1° 28'06" E 37.40 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 140.21 feet, said curve having a radius of 165.00 feet, a central angle of 48°41'11", and a chord which bears N 22°52'30" W 136.03 feet to a point; N 47°13'05" W 49.57 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 94.19 feet, said curve having a radius of 525.00 feet, a central angle of 10°16'44", and a chord which bears N 52°21'27" W 94.06 feet to a point; N 57°29'49" W 28.05 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 40.48 feet, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 30°55'22", and a chord which bears N 42°02'08" W 39:99 feet to a point; N 26°34'28" W 31.83 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 40.56 feet, said curve having a radius of 325.00 feet, a central angle of 7°09"00", and a chord which bears N 30°08'58" W 40.53 feet to a point of compound curve; along a curve to the left 204.91 feet, said curve having a radius of 1205.00 feet, a central angle of 9°44'35", and a chord which bears N 38°35'45" W 204.66 feet to a point of reverse curve; along a curve to the right 18.12 feet, said curve having a radius of 9.00 feet, a central angle of 115°20'29", and a chord which bears N 14° 12'11" E 15.21 feet to a point; N 71°52'26" E 53.69 feet to a point of curve: along a curve to the right 10.44 feet, said curve having a radius of 15.00 feet, a central angle of 39°52'20", and a chord which bears S 88°11'24" E 10.23 feet to a point; S 68°15'15" E 25.85 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 138.05 feet, said curve having a radius of 180.00 feet, a central angle of 43°56'28", and a chord which bears N 89°46'31" E 134.69 feet to a point; Page 18 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 43 !:. L, f�1'o It. N 67°48' 17" E 16.68 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the right 21.10 feet, said curve having a radius of 25.00 feet, a central angle of 48°21'46", and a chord which bears S 88°00'50" E 20.48 feet to a point; S 63°49'56" E 28.26 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 57.52 feet, said curve having a radius of 75.00 feet, a central angle of 43°56'45", and a chord which bears S 85°48'18" E 56.13 feet to a point; N 72°13'19" E 11.56 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 123.13 feet, said curve having a radius of 120.00 feet, a central, angle of 58°47'23", and a chord which bears N 42°49'37" E 117.80 feet to a point of non - tangency on the northerly boundary of the S '/2 of said Section 13; thence leaving the course approximately 25 feet from the said road centerline, S 89°43' 13" E 3135.19 feet along the said northerly boundary to the northeast corner of the SE'/4 of said Section 13, also said point being on the Gem County/Boise County line; thence S 1°10'10" E 2640,28 feet along the easterly boundary of said SE 'A, and county line to the southeast comer of said Section 13; thence S '37'19" E 38.60 feet along the easterly boundary of the NE'/4 NE 1/4 of said Section 24 and county line to the northwest corner of Section 19, T.6N., R.2E., BM, Boise County, Idaho; thence S 0°17'18" E 1289.14 feet along the easterly boundary of said NE1/4 NE1/4 of said Section 24 and county line to the southeast comer of the N%z NE 'A of said Section 24: thence N 89°39'59", W 2641.61 feet along southerly boundary of said N'/z NE%, to the SE corner of the NE1/4 NE'/4 of said Section 24; thence N 89°39'28" W 152.89 feet along southerly boundary of said NE'/4 NW'/, to a point of non -tangent curve set 25-feet northeasterly from the centerline of Pearl Road; thence along a course approximately 25 feet from said centerline of Pearl Road the following; along a curve to the left 43.45 feet, said curve having a radius of 443.35 feet, a central angle of 5°36'53", and a chord which bears N 52°33'54" W 43.43 feet to a point; N 55°22'20" W 23.81 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left.68.73 feet, said curve having a radius of 325.00 feet; a central angle of 12°06'59", and a chord which bears N 61 °25'49" W 68.60 feet to a point; N 67°29' 19" W 24.98 feet to a point of curve; Page 19 o120 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 44 N 7+34.G531 along a curve to the left 151.80 feet, said curve having a radius of 725.00 feet, a central angle of 11°59'48", and a chord which bears N 73°29'13" W 151.52 feet to a point: N 79°29'07" W 202.79 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 174.40 feet, said curve having a radius of 475.00 feet, a central angle of 21 °02' 12", and a chord which bears S 89°59'47" W 173.42 feet to a point; S 79°28'41" W 92.64 feet to a point of curve; along a curve to the left 96.50 feet, said curve having a radius of 1125 00 feet, a central angle of 4°54'53", and a chord which bears S 77°01'15" W 96.47 feet to a point of non -tangency; thence N 0°11'20" E 1203.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Bearings herein used are based on the west boundary of Section 24 bearing N 0°30'57" E. Subject to all existing easements and rights -of -way, recorded or prescriptive. Containing 5,263 acres, more or less. This description was compiled from data provided to Idaho Survey Group. Idaho Survey Group did not research the information provided for completeness or accuracy and Idaho Survey Group did not verify the information with a survey on the ground. Page 20 of 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 45 GEM CO.,N-Y OA 754. PIE f J z 0 0 0 ADA CO-N Y y V I 0 TOTAL AREA a 16,921 ACRES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 46 SZLLI 21 m. 0 ......�..... MAIO SURVEY GROW LLC AVIMOR ADA COLN-Y I OTAL A7EA , +5,921 ACES 16M1O SURVEY 1::14 GROW LLC AVIMOR Imo" r. „ ,r tix: .. �;•, GEV COUNTY OEM COUNT" 17 BOISF COUN_„ 0 20 ADA COUNTY •Y •... 7 ` DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 47 7' ROISE COUNT' BOISE COJNTY TO -AL ARCA a ±5.338 ACRES ALCM pulp SURVEY ....,.� AVIMOR BOISE CO„N-Y TO -AL AREA a ±5,338 ACRES • rkst-T:VrA,ZIE AVIMOR 12� it .4 • GEM COLNTY TOTAL ARCA a ±5263 ACRI-S DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 48 a 21 ••--• 1 IMMO SURVEY AVIMOR SAta " m.., I "M I {' :5149' EXHIBIT B BOISE COUNTY PLANNED COMMUNITY MAP 'r= AVIMOR Boise County Land Use Plan Feel Land Use Legend - CommlMyVglage Comer -VC Wed U.. uU Village PeciemWl VB Vests. Mr'Jflm /B 1 Active Open Spam -OS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 49 BouMary • Avurw - -- Boundary -Ogler rwm Cmnly -- IMY/SNOW/ TlanuMWon llm Bead- Highway 56 Tnll -ATV ink -'har OliWir/ :=s7 E, Fo_:N •i: o i 1a a E i 1 w c • ENa cC a I''�5k:--_''�'F - �3iggz R: 1 Gz a I dsEt ;lh axY�I JI > El LA-MOAB z w CD ZH z w a 0 a w >a ; T.2111 4r ,21aT .11013 t tot iGiMflFfr.W 8 g^ E' Ldd 133HS 33S 8 3NI1 H31VW • P. ��YE y11GN'p 5 VIA I /Si • ^ rip N N r 1 W V a g �Z o W W = Nx 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 51 m U MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 1.4 ^ C4 V, u i N V� 0 g u O a Z< 1� s i aj �o y; W Ldd 133HS 33S 3NI1 HOIVIN i g 8 8 g 9 011 293 26 900 09. 19'4055' I • g 9 8 m 5 8 L' Ldd 133HS 33S 3NIl H3LVW Hite k.Gra MATCH LINE SEE SHEET PP1.3 r L 8 1' Z'ldd 133HS 33S 3NI1 HOLVW U 1 8 p 8 8 G S 8 a 8 5 8 8 a N 8 g N 8 H 8 o B G U R 5 7 5 U 5 MATCH LINE `�� 1 »,HO1 m SEE SHEET PP1.4 aklwifi OMEN 0 w 0 O 1 Z'Zdd 133HS 33S 3NIl H31VW l Stp�N1�� • • a r w O 0 3K1MN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 56 1 1 1 1 w ¢ 3 ; _ m H o i- ^ tl c m kOA b o v`o� O�� a Y o ?=O O W W a0 O W= m cj � SS S� 4' ldd 133HS 399 N. .mi — 3NI1 HO1VW II z i 1 O'Zdd 133HS 33S 3NIl H31VW 1 SEC SHEET PP2.2 • L'Zdd 133HS 33S 3NI1 H�1VW cd nr 0 Stss 1 1 1 1 1 1 L Zdd 133HS 33SL 3NIl I-1OI 1 a - s sOss z w 1 1 1 1 1 b 4 0 0 1 • . |' r -• ]/`i�E \ /\/ q |§ qA1 0 ;§ !■§ §§,A-F.0 :4g!§ Pagq, 4g(! m| e:aeS� 3 cc 0' §8121 Uln 68 2 22p Zr2 ¢gb gigOrj 2 rc' NI% It GUARDRAIL (BY OTHERS) 0 tr « TYPICAL CROSS SECTION .-2�.2,341.531 ,. 4)1 ,! \� k k 0 -1 0. 1- 4 ■ z \ m DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 64 k 0 0 (3 0 4 0 k k 0 LIJ 0\ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 66 0 u W N re 0 W J J 0 4 0 re J I a l7 LA 06 4 ww1.' 04 o' 15 o ao 2 4 ,,. �w 0 16 1.04.ra. -- icy i �alblr �°,�o W co a1 In N 4,1 0 C V 4 --o�� a� C 0 u7q Wire ■_§ ] % Vra k w re � u � � \E 2| .-.2 ( 1 \§1 F § / §| a 1 0 \ 0 ` _ - 30531 7§ : „5-0 aowInv V • .74 tarp a.e ra �W ,' �•-1 I ,' M ll ',8,8- 1 1,111F M \�' I •� 13 .c 1 YN1 ^ I w vn 1 lJ N;:Wll.d c 111 Ciamr JS .0 M118.180J JJN, Id > t7 iif F.h { •t� • C. 43 1111 133NSY2M3 L 35V1-14 • U Nr1O] 3STO9 • aO KW) And Also [WPi311d 1 4 esaw%Ng W.u:;an.uua. aaa1.1..1, w.r.uma.wrr�n.a+nw>yam..ti�ay�.acaaauenxws.+n...x++.uJ•�«nn mun..m s.:za�wr><�-.,mr� oarr= aalPIWa/RI A swoons ssot0 AVMOVUN -I O1-WO 'AL iiOO 351013 `4'I'B " 3?'i "NS'_ 'O �F S NOLLO3c a, JO 'OLLLOc V NI O71V1US ALIN"NY•OO 03\htl'1d V Z SYHd3- A1NElO73SIOS -1101AIAV LVld Ayquiwnaad I._J U .II :1j � f i' I 1 1.}p i =e l I 1 '11 L. 11 11 °� • ��, llill °° °", 4 1 ;I: Al Is Ai 1 N 4. 11 j fit a LI3 1--1 ,\ _"e 111 pi sly� is CS. Mr a nrOrllG CiOYIC13W-C ]]11:11. h}lIMCIADJIMAIWAIMSINW.W.187 Par Yen In4a092.1121,. wwMRTa #4:)1 .VNh F]sroW]"nN Nf.1.'l wup)a D]31111M.: TJJeOYw veme n 0 w 5y dOW IAV W enx1 I a8P1219NZJ !� t' 0T AFIS- mowxniol k OHdO 'A1Ni100 31100 "11 0 "3? 1 -NS•_ '9 0 S 0OLL035 seu,,....1•..N. e1 10 wuz0x 0 NI 03101110 urv^rn00 m5nvld r I- Z 3SlNd - AWf10335I09 - �IOWIAY ..nusurx a,//!�'„ ! � f 1117d AUVNIH l3Ld 111. I r, L 4�4I�IS�i s I111111s1I;ls 111i1 3S�F I a;. . Isis 11 r 11As Ilgr•r1•1213 q�.�1�,.�i..1.�,. x..,...,L. 01 Y 5 y i-- , , . .....d 1 .- .p..,;...,.., .:- .., v. CLAW:.IY.y,sn 0]141ZIE1G•OYJn I.1Ian AIY11L111K4Lf'0.SPOIh12T.1woovr*141 iW fll re]i]01 WG n0M1]OF-51ur or:s nc:N erred .0 YeLl..b.0Q% Y.TTilA 31 en•DvW3, .:YiF0+i:aop.!(1s:q_ 0 tlOW IAV v o�rrcleoil aZPIWARl SALES .M PM'S nusuKec �\ Y 00,0 'AUNi(100 3SIO8 "W'9 "3Z"i NS'_ '0 '1 S VOIIO3S JO \OLLL Oc V NI 071V"WS ALIN^11W O0 0]+AV'ld V u1q 111ICS • If0Ifli0I Z 3SVHd - ALNf1O3 35102 - 71OWIAV 1V1d AHVNIWJ1311d t` bq cd C4 O rr Ww C7 OIWO].11:40Y 409MYW16]lCW7ral 44441 AWN tgwm.P.XL spv6au munrmaYwnln le2M w11.31 O L.10) kt:1 Mx 0 DoCOisr.Eemiti .lfleAki is Pavan. sul covAscnrn; nRrim mcl✓_ry�C a O a .dOW1AV V 1 u..,w„ee.u,tw t allnliaAni ij 00 0- le f St • yy 0 AO E13315- 1O0A01101 f Ji OHiO 'AlNI103 35100 "v a "3Z'S "NS'_ '9 Tr S NOLL03S 1 JO \OLLLOc tl NI 1JJ tJIS ALIV'H.NO3 03\At'1d N f Z 35VHd- Al.NflO335IOB- 71OWIAY -71 ` LVIa ALVNIWnRHd l I!tI! tllt I 1111 U,11,Illrlll 11°1..1 r. I 1�t a ylr t E i 1 ' '1 1 f1 sly 11 Sall 1 D1, If O. ee F1 141/11134 13p S. O3.0 41.30:40 11070000,3032 itl7:Yli LOS,1W1V1114inOILEAt114N301.,*00004'111 SW Awl :r+1AtOii.00lp.VAR:iNe{3 JISQ 000:10ifY0 iJ.1.01W0 NIS 110'00 11t vONu7ii8.: P00301 Eg:103w,03:11 ..31i4 53/ 51Y DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 75 .tIOW InV OM .c CO! 0111'110.1481 VIl immommMVOswx • • a- OFNO 'AUNI100 35101 `W 1 "3Z t "NS _ '9 1 S 6101103S JO \OU10c 1 NI 071V1ll5 AIIN"I• NOO 00\Nnd 1 ..:c ,y...1 y 1 t L. e i0013315- 1l0An 101 Z 3SVHd - ALNI1O5 35109 - 001,11AV 1Vld Ai1VNIW113Nd 0 -� 5z 61i1.c!!•rl0.V 07O1 0*g03P1.tl A'mor n113V}um.1.9.1,74 raemp SNLAb 1YJSA M110 :Amp: I. 4R 1iLK ]NW zO 11410116Y.711:1113 uvr. gm TNI 00' en: Y3strremter mM]WA:fs 0 x-31 r 4 .9OW IAV V e pm. 40.1 s no WMIW Z 3S7Nd - A1Nf1O7 35109 • 1IOWIAV LVld A aWNIWll3 ad a= aa 8piaaAi ` wM MIAs L1,11 ti OHdO '1JNil03 35108 ' W"B "3Z'>_ "IJS'_ 'S Ti S VOLLO35 JO \0I110c tl NI ]Jltll115 AIIN"1400 OJNAYld V I 4 ,r , i r i • :... CI:t�QeO�Y:Yls .0.*INAVY472.]IrMI F7311434 .ttu•War•W-Sorkr.%34fOr WMAW) -OalM]IRLWI=Zh.'u,n CIVIC] 'IS.1C:tees.10.201A.TJIAvctIele 1w2L4'C .now IAV W n3TTw 1 1 a2RWARI > NO T 133115 - 390NWNO ONa 9NIOf119 0IfV0 'A 11110 35108 '-I'1 "3rb `NS'_ '9 Ti 9 V011039 JO \OLLLOc Y NI 071Y7115 ALIV^Y‘Y.00 77\10VTd N i 35VNE - AIN1103 45100 • ZIO3'JIAV Lind AtIVN wfl3tld 00 0 E— f z tLC1CaUIli:y[f1I arl'rIFN1,L1]'-vCls erh:aSnafvlan..NlwlkfanDirO JV9Y1H'BIPI 1.101 0-45flW$$I1.31 W. CS4k O3Wa/011:02ifYN 0a.IfmdXd.1141$ "1R41s Nl "Wi+ +w.+J!t=.gonQ 0 ...31I.53`- .aowlnv M0•17;1rt (KR, aBPltwMii 014d0 'AOdi9O..: 3SIO9 ' 19 B " 3i� "Ng- '9 § S VOLL03S f JO \OILLOc V NI 09191NS ALIV^PhOO 0]\Ard tl r t a {d - AJ,NfQ J 3510E • L0w/Ay 14 j. 1d At VN!I1naad �N- > SO L J33N5 - 3NVNIVN0 ONV ONI OVNO Ol11OTd III:NlTR O OINTIVTO7:]rii/s]4?T3 Pall ../UNMN:XIW.SINkN59... W1V>3111% PG 1o11f 4"'Ar► fOWGt a0JYO0it .at c t.77ao:M a A 41110b1:W 1 yb1ICb1n, TNl Wit ly,T 11.393, IL:1W1NL '.1 .a01.:;inv 0 « , a;P!iHma vwr.+u�scroi , e • OW O 'AJNi903 3S OB " 9 e "3Zi '•NS'- '9 9 VON035 w11 JO \Ot,Oc V NI 0]IdS AIIV"HOO 03 \At'ld d t IsomAAHammnpa 3sI09 - fO I ,I,Vld A71Vl IWi73ad • b S r i s — 00 x 0 L------------'----------. r ..__ \\ r ¢ m:hgl.lnals4 C]4pI0:1W1:1357a:ral.rs nyavu+s< u.:wm+sWuara nLRSNIMIX i Mygrv:WAR mM VOS'w1TAIk3unN c.eW KV:td OM awmar:1us Y,WW-iool 1Ml OO$vm,a.: nlrracs; WR1r 0 .i1bW 1 iAtl I..csaerl a5 y SUM 4.7.41 lt_• 4 Irv. ,.1IH5 • rulran o,ex uwran OHtlO 'MTh1O3 3SIO9 "IY9 "37L. -NS'_ '9 S NOI1035 JO \0O1.Oc Y NI OlUrINIS AI -Y+M00 0]\AV1d N Z 3mw - ALNE103 35x0e - aowlAY ixnd eatlurwn3ad • —\ , QLYWse+MALIn m'JWPQJ,MIXSEib 45.Y1 PUPA 41444s01:44.4sWn:] pYrin•aiS4 s14lnNa:YJas.FeP]!ml w:]1 ro 044434-4444 4444ra.4414 .yisrccm>am.s..; w.....:._.__,,.mYd w: um,-Ack: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 81 a o V M ;K fsucsowN•wi aBP QS® r 4191 13;4[5 eerie •Mr1II9 OHVO '.UNf1G3 35109 " N'B " 3Z-h 'NV- '9 r5 9 VOLLO35 1 JO 'OU)0c Y NI 071Y1115 AIIV-Y900 03 IsVld V I Z -AJ.NflO 3$iO9 - 110W1AY II IV1dAdVNIW113ad 214 a. 1 ---------- — -- — — — --- // rts:a.v 40.u:anno0orcunOr9ntI.. snmarluuvmaw+suaunsJnomruv SDunnsnrXr.w0Gw w.anwr:1 R 9 0 efarawl 4S0us um:nU.sxf LOCHAECiZe4naMIvaZWOM..0:iS aowinv urgrr=a1 a r!Nar4b am w•wn N.,XpEc u s am t•1 0.0 do c 13311S- NVId A.1lnln 3S714d - ALNA03 35108 • aOWIAV 1Vld ALMNIWT1321d f OHCO 'ALNI103 3SIO8 ']YB ' 3Z'i 'Ng._ '9 & S ' OLLO3S JO \OU).Oc Y NI 031YLJS ALIN'NNOO 0]\NVId N r r Y • r`.r• r- r • f rr ` / .E ii 7 P4 I i I ! w ! I W ! 1 (7 ¢ H W5 C1.FO.011 .01i 0]RVtlri1QV34031143 flN % 4n1 YJWII{LK14YSIIAILLMt)m1RIM1'm9, fkl1:1Via s711 LC Ma 1•3aT.Vi1:.71m sa:AI1NSl]Y]:COtlYkaNdMisJal:4,11nwC14.1tl10 0.,41.04.3):ROALCCIt.N464p' 0.1 4 # Q .7:10INIAV Wen Vrs, 0.1== m6P 11 5 Ili!' ;ii • lt ,•oti313.15 - mds.us 0I-NO 'AIN00,0 3SIOG "N'G "3?-,z 90:N,01.e3S I .r...4.........11.1009icuirJ4 JO \ OLL?_0c V NI OarrillS .UIN^N 0 ,,, I Z 35'374d - AMMO 3570B - /10141AV :UM I .0/1d ABVNIKTIRld 4 R111 9 11- • ; * 1 g 1 x'''...:,..... I... ..... \ 1‘..... - \ I , . • \ N....,,„. I \\\ • \ • ••-'-' - - • . .., ..,...g. .. '_ -- :... '''''`•\... \ , \ 1 ! i i .. ii 4 1 i i 000 .. II.J...• \\ / s‘%•N / mewl. rtama............6.4.v....:.6.4.i.. COM nXkl Ca....-INAI.U.31.Z.T., GLIVONNIlt. S. A PO ..r+JZ. kerrOtb In...:1,......L1 billYr-,1:CO KY. a. I4KION.:1.11 1.11.940,1.1 Irt"MAKM:74•J1.12tIg INX.I4C(5 41014 11.n1v.imi wan •••• unr I CI-Va 1111,10O 33108 VI Iv c L.L1 11,911 19 V 9 INOLID23 - unun JO 401110c V NI CO_VV1S ..Lnunroloo 03 41141J 1V I Z aSVHd - AIN110) 35108 -110bitAll AZIVNIWrInd V 11;1 -111 1 t 4 111014.4110.0 MI I er,m1,111,.411311.1.1.4:147 NALIEN1Y-4124.11•LicIANT.4110.3141.11-111.1111 01.2.014.” WU. ,c suass. v: eV ....Abs....Yvan 011 1.1- • •Irr-J11 5-11.41,1114 -3112e-34 etip EXHIBIT C-3 BOISE COUNTY HOWELL VINEYARD SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT .+PIV�•�1 'Y 4v�1 .+rv.n��•rmn�m 0 IN I A V a Mtl■rftwu Oi) a2PlaaAIM v '..Y V9/. S [hi z In 1- z 0 a a aa■HS Y[■l10J ▪ t'1 I I j • I 1 i J.Yld AdYNlwn3aa -.j No1s MaEinnS SRyYAMNIA 1l3MOH Ieli 1It@I� g�EEtE iI ■t�ttll ill�Q'(Ii I@ 3@1 g °I�;gfi`i5 I'p11111111i�@II'.Ilt@tt■I;��tl�`I@Ilil II �.i@�: li Itl.;@i @ Iltl, . i, II i1 @1I I t'I�@ �� �s �ii III I .ILvi 111 { id , 1 11 E II, p 0 ;412 Eti ! �t��i'li� �gtl�il5 �111;; ij� ' 1CChil!i! !i ppjj .....flu it@ltihhdi.@1,t. l•i�l�;ii�i@I�ilpP I 1r 6 1 °- ..•w.s_s • • .•••••.••r•.r. • 1.1•1w•• .••1 .,Nr-ar.a••• r.r.• •., r.y..•yr••..•.•.••• .. •••............ . . ...r _.-r..nM...Yw..r. i.�.w• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 86 •seapi sgsaJj ,rygsay _ if O IN I AV 1, v 1:11*m Oa Opl1 ME (BR) a2pRlaAia 5011/ ...Pi a"r 4.U•5 rnz I 4 j I !r� g BB sa 111 • Weld thD001161 .LV1d AbIVNI11I1321d NOISIAIaaf1S Sa1iVA3NIA 113MOH 1— ISM `.21 le Pi 1 ne. ..a,P 11�'�V.1.11rie�>IHNiw}iN.�l4.w1AS A1:ib yYlw�9• n4,04MAKr'f A.-XMAr ✓ RKR rlel* rn'flt naa•wwr:OY..Fft DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 87 ceapi ywii yoj .tIOWIAV v 0I11-►r[ (go ) SOLES WWI'MOI NMa •S L►K a2p121aAI21 { Ntl1d 39VNIVtlO ONV DNIOVN9 ? Ind AaVNIwn311d NOISIAIO9f1S SOIIVA3NIA 113MOI1 ..a=.fa..V.,.,Iraq. ..,.r...0Av..� .I.n.=z.�:.,.,.,.,...��,M. „,�, ��,�.m.aF..,� _...�,r..�>..m 6 00 00 a) ccs rs: O w C7 F- z O _=_ Yks34 V4.1 LIM1 Onl .2l0VIIAY V r Ammo, womx.m, warlIpwro..1 aBPlaaAla sun wnx 5 znee r r nxA sc Nina Amin • 1Vld AUVNIWI1311d �. _ 1 __ •j NOISIAI09fISSOUVA3NIA113MOH E oaf; Ili; rt woo i. /a..4' 1P./rnxWrwn...rwm u•iw., !up n,o[ratioro•-•• tw .wmTroM•mnw ni ivwS. •I^'.aa marn,.lfl l :ui +tY 41,,Z ONINHVM 2,1002T2OH a I 0. 0 § s zu z e ct o z uj • 11.1 w g > 0 O 0 o. 02 > • I 0 CL 0 4 6 ••••••••• inar Uuailaidp133 131V :1 11,1 11,11 d a 2. ksy%1—. 1 133HS Z3A00 01.110 •11., A 1 311101d - ALNI100 38108 -1101111AV ak A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 91 SMON n NW SSW,. 11.3,121.1=1,1 1. RSVIld - AJ.NI100 3S1011- UOINIAV • 8 Jo 314(p53`t ,q ,41e DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 92 +NI Ell•rIlLI cr. dtoot000t o z ore' 4 tea 1".1.1zT- S If If El NI I D NI El 9N/MIVIVI S'310011110H woo Aor ..-----, - I JIN NO113081S 03 CIN3031 SY.BMYL.<11143,171.1.C,14 1. 3SIFFid - .A.LN1100 361011 - HOIVIAV = g.• !!I i • t ; , • FI '41 ! I ; ..1„..11.. 1.1 it.•111 • ii-• II • • • • :000 MW, 1104- EiWw 113 13041 8 erwvo c a 7 n a o t+ a ONINbVM SNDO2RIOH I3ii 9 0 lig, F 1V1d2dd 0�# a=HL. .v..Ctiv 4 3SVHd - A1Hf1O3 3SIO8-21O114IAV _oli2s - T� I F� Ree�ieE�e�€eF�f�ea DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 94 -511 16, MN 41.(1 z.r.rs •3115-30e1J0,...4. SHREINTrINg ONINLIVAA S'ADOIDIOH N .,013,15111.321 1.Y1d3itld SONVA.0 1. 3SVIid AINf103 38108 - IJOINIAll 51 1JL6-3 if WI Ch b0 ao P4 0 <4 0 Lu odd 11 ervni _.z wza��vu _,i " g ONINdVM S�IOO2RIOH 33.3.31,1 1V1d321d 50,1.2011.13,01.1.1 1 3SVHd - A.Nf1O3 3SIOff 1IOINIAV 1.31 It00111:10 1 1LL_1. L: ldd 133HS 33S\ L 3NIl I I2LWl 314534.:' '9G 5vy one vA(rtl snalloaa ONINNVM S3IDO112IOH 1V 1d3Nd 4 3SVHd - £LNAOO 3SIO3 - aaOWIAV 0.0 ileaVarloar1 (MI mvory, sar4,-4 Luz I • ONINJVM S310011-210H moJunts oa J.V1d3dd 0-K11 &MOO E.09 RSVIld - A.I.N1103 3S1011 - MOINIAlf 00 c;\ r=4 0 c_7 0 ..;1=aar7 M.11:1 ..V.11 nnS A J.KY, 4112 SHSUINII°41 NINILIVAA 53100111101-lo 2 Idel MHS 43SL IN I ICILIPT HOLI.311..91 )0 — — _ = 4 •••11 Ims .I.V1c13Nd 50,..0114.3,01.1n 1. 3SVHd - AlN1103 3SIOS - 210V1IAV Ir. • • . • . • . - =.r.Mal ••a..+ 'uR w e `JNIN2iVM sxDOa IO H r _. .11 pr..24�� t marmot* 3DVNIVdIO ONV DNIOVNO tXdanel L 3SV1.1d - A1Nf1O3 3SIO8 - 1IOINIAV / MO jd w5 . 11:If1i r.', ,3L/653if _Lot ?y DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 100 sir ..zZ;.oMw�"+it" yam' saanv10N1 JNINiIVM S}I3OIRIOH — OFai 7[ - ,,• .j:fiii. �'. wit•, rrr 4 3i a 4 4 3ii•� {(1 '�-R ! , Jill = JC1.• J ! , 3 iP ail 39VNIV010 ONV ONIOVLIO 4 3StlHd - AJLNf100 3S108 - LOW IAtl 0. ; Noona1sNO c67 6) ® t i1 p W OD . '2 0 w in.. _ ![.4T 41*1 Nyw w L 0. r o- Iq- i 4 - i 3y1,6'3q DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 101 SSW! Vsowa ONINNVM S?IJO212IOH �\ • •J" ti 1 r �� • tvie uiunN71YM r r; ;1 ".inrriXMIT IIIIIIy ; ti ■ PROFILE 2• ROAD A - DALCRO 3OVNIVUO ONV DNIOVLIS 4 3SVHd - kLNf1OO 3S1O8 - IOINIAV -.V4 nua Nom f' ski C .,.w '•ti , St+OZ =✓ !Marig PE A t DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 102 bS3�F sift' verleal r r— tcNINI:IVAA sxpoirdox OW, LI 1.,^1111, 0.‘ FS 0 Nnerv,, ate. <1 .0E1... nm. 1 I A NolionEISIO c 1 I P IF1 1 I 5 E PROFILE 3 - ROAD • - DALCROSE DRIVE STA: 27.75 • 34+23 -Inn WEUv.i • TOD. 3OVNIV210 ONV ONIOVHO 0,0 AVVIC3 501.,,b011,13/1311.0.1/1 1. 3SVHd - AINHOO 38103 - 110INIAV Pi gli.t li!! i q>s-v I r,ge:6 pet. i R iVrl 1L3131E 33S SL.MI MIS Ann .12.1,0,1 Eb 0 0 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 103 Atrerame rm. 55-0• ..re •.6 • 5 1 3OVNIVVIO ONV ONIOVLIO ency ol..p...8, " r_..5 , , , , o-rccu ...inc.° 5.9 717,, ' ,,..e 60•21.8011435.C.51 gil" " ONINVIIA I. 3SVHd - A.I.H1103 RSIOS - UOINUM S313011210H * a :HolionearaD • .! IP i i . 1 !iiil i i 1 le i I I 1 1 i i is li ! i ![, i e 0 i 1 ; 1 1 1 i 1 t i i q ii ei il 1 i 11 ii il 1: i 11 et 8 i ai gn fl ig v ig ii i I i 1 i ;i 5 '7 T" d..cfra.; t y."12 LIMN an .10 951.01,:V/0 WU, 0.01.111 • ; , • . . , • C 13 ._15.6•5411 20.1•C 1,5%1 811.1.0 1400515 rra LINKS ce) 3g4.53L, Sit,/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 104 .,wa, -0M I.L. — _. S I1 el fl N f D N .1 � " • smoolraoH DNIN2idM a'i' .• �- r �� ixoua11alsnoa 3DVNIVHO ONV DNIOVND L 3SVHd - £LNf1O3 SHIM! HOINIAV G9'/l vii Why M fw Lri LW!HI 111I Vi.Ve MIX Wens NI.A'HG • r DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 105 10.1141050 saavi oNe NIN2IVM S7IDOZnIOH pew l• d _— 1 1 I. 1 y:• -t rvr�= ~joy g 3DVNIV8O ONV ONIOVi=D L 3SVHd - £LNfl00 3S109 - VOINIAV 4 t i r•� i\ env c o.VS r:G 0 0 111 ..,,..,., mm_ SDO OH 3DVNIVHO m_e �a_a Imo _ ■o _ s 7 $1 HOILIQUAIRXI PROFILE 7 • ROAD C |cti | , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 107 siumime morlO,Ltrl 1"1 S 11 I tr I 0 1.1 ONINHVAA SND011110H0, 51 r • r - r - 1111 /4111 12 r: rEti, • .1 ;. . di. ri II-, • ilip.gr sp . . . 1 (--- : I I '—L—Hic° • / .i Eili . i" i i ... -1. --:" i ——--( •; ft.. ir :: J.'. !Ili:. ' i ... ....A ' 1%--. ..- I.• —"'"-: ' — • .1 . L, ..11/'—'N. li.1-1 .1 '. . • . . . :i. ... - ,• •q• .* • i . \•41. 1 "1.,..i.:. • 1,1i1;! il •'. I -) . 1 ..li .k 0 • ova Laili a • : ., lijli 5 ."11:7'!:1:1171 If' - - ---'''''. - / (..-.. - - - -- - , :". 2- -1!' - ---... '.--,..) jji — 1p1 91W g PROFILE B • ROAD C - STA: 13.50 • 19.00 M41 Qr.,. 'II aft,. 30VNIV80 ONV ONIOVII9 4,01 rabbrIC3 1. 50.114,,01)1313,C. 3SVHd AINI103 RSIOEI - MOINIAV g g 4 .1) n • 0 2.22.fa C ONIN2IVArt S'A3OIT2101-1 i 1/4. .1., , , r ii 1; - • '9, g ' = 1 1,1, 1 . •-:' r. 1 i. , •...1.. t.4 t...,.:. iii .,, „..,,,„•...! k . .;P•!'. . , • , t • • =II., k.- :• . , ! - N • • 1 t L 1 l. ‘ ' \ i ! i i g 2 i 1 ) ! 1 i 1 T. . t !, •Ci I, \ 5 i A 11 1 I q . r 1 1! 1 thiciii ,,, . , i 1 tiLi i N 011.SOI NS OS L Pi ' Pi _... loillii 'iii:l ; . . .....„..... PROFILE 8 - ROAD D - STA: 0+00 - 8+75 axis-emeons-aatad 3DVNIV80 ONV ONIOVII0 2.2 42.4f 2,1 ESV A,V2 11.12232C2V1 1. 3SVHd - ALW103 38103 - IOINIAV Sri YE 01 CL+11,0111 31141W31.1�w I 442111011U. 1\11.3g153_1' imasio44D,t1ty1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 109 SH9 1NTor+� ONIN2IVM SX3O2121OH 1 t et ei b jj 1 li Y•i WM.ii•COqm 3DVNIVHO ONV DNIOV2iS 1 3SVHd - AJ.NflO0 3SIO8 - 21O1111AV DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 110 un[xb b.0 ...Z.-5 .a,u v;[.4 sli a a 4 T o N a ONIN2IVM S3IDOORIOH` 1?' Noonan e CL ig 4 00 di Ea i i x� _! 4 ■ 30VNIV?JO ONV ONIOVifO 0-rell AIN.] PO OP 4 3SVHd A1Nf1O3 3SIOS - SOINIAV PROFILE 10• ROAD E. STA: 9100 .16♦75 :0 013 MEMO 1l1 31.31 1111N11 M3111W I ■ JC3 r. P 'tam. 14Q.,4tD5;/i 4Q..+Q_. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 111 ;7=31m 333331 [)N3 cONINtJVM S}I3OaRIOH 4 IFir. 2,17. •1lVI 3OVNIV8O ONV ONIOV I o-na 4 33VNd ALNfl03 3S108 - aOINIAV 13; NO110Ra1SNO0 i i s€ 5 S g 15ai ° 1 Ee s SQ i r t ! R g k f q =6 3i gi t iS r a j 3 i%p g5 s2 n i tr 6i i i 1 s ? a i 1 Ai it 45 l's i!; ie E R € x o a ® ® ® 8 1 ! G9 PROFILE 11 - ROAD E - STA: 18t7S • 23.00 1 S 7-71 • p t. 333 �01t� 33.41ry,S3N �N3l1q h f� 6 h r1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 112 ._._2 .,NIN _' SX0oox a 3OVNIVNO O\m_O AIN Oil �a�a-max 3��.-a■IA • j #47PIti. iiiA§M- a oy DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 113 thescs.lif.6 2n.ito= o.n.rs ..f•d• "_2_2 ONINLIVM SIDCM1111011 -10 t HCOnalS1(03 t 1 - - - r •••.' 3 A PROFILE 12 - ROAD 13 - STA:10+00 -15+25 ••Cd DM. 30VNI'v110 ONV ONIOVNO 0-ttal SONI.rnaikeV21...lod 1. 3SVHd - AJ.NI103 3S108 -11011111AV El a ; 1. 01,3 133114 333 F I g4arThu. NOc1 (PAGT11.41.44pe DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 114 p I c 511a2r+10r+T ONIN2IVM S1I3O212IOH NO1i fl iSiOD 3OVNIVUO ONV ONIOV210 L 3SVNd - A.LNfl03 3S108 -110INIAV s i i K 1!! a 4 9 �i i �D 1 1 a � r 5 y g �� z e 1 A I i i ! a - K P 5 't - 1 1R1 ,o rs e: pp 4 C ; i2C li _1 i I a d 11i A h 5 is ig a t M. • PROFILE 13 - ROAD 0 - STA: 15+25 - 19i00.01 Eld • t Cr'G !rill■ 339 SISI]n91wZSf xv DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 115 saaN IoN1 JNIN2IVM S?IOO2 UGH • S' F � / ;II :0 d 41 NOu.1n114110a - 11 )'11 sit L 3 f i :? f; iP`s rx ••.�1. r ;.1 1 x 1 • .1Zs, V,_ Ha,OH 39VNIV210 ONV DNIOVNO 4 3SVHd - A.LNfl00 3S108 - IOWIAV 0 ti 3B z 4 0 = r } DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 116 (PA (1e5, { 1r7 61..1-••••••,1 ONINZ:IVM S}13021110H 1! 0044. 5v1C 10.01!Of j 0 0 LT. 0 re Sodi-K.I. 30VNI180 ONV 9N100 0-Nal •11.11. Ea CA S.D..V20.1113,3NCII 1. 3SVHd - AJ.N1103 3S1013 - 1101AllAV 8.. d o X' — F . . t 031:0 TIM.5' molaw•M -413— 1 00$.0 WAS km Hun/ B 1 $4471111J. NO. 3,16511' gy DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 117 en. o e..s a,o.w�asuc s aaaNtona ONINLIVM S3IDO212IOH y I ik 7 •rrns-nva+ 3DVNIV210 ONV 9NIOVNO sw NW 'sae L 3SVHd - AiNf1O3 33108 - SOINIAV 5 ig 1,1V. N IpAGE5 ue.<vb a-n sa11 !I vi DN"r ONINHVM SXDOd OH r 13' HOH.Ofltl1S! 03 PROF{LE 17 - ROAD I • EY.ETA1740. 1.6160 30VNIV210 ONV ONIOViJO 3SV14a - A1Nf1OO 3S108 - i]OINIAV a 9 3 3 NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 119 W WJ.r) 1-44112.21., I s r , 2 , ONINLIVM S DO)THOH 12 g 11 `�•II LI H.lii y` Gi !0 i .� 4 , 1 j ��I l .� .i . 0 I I,. i�iI i ` ia-.w-�^�.i I i 1 t . j1X gy .Tint— —.. --IRi2, i. j'; -- ±Ii}r S. i i. C a x Nauantist OD 3OVNIVLIO ONV ONIOVLIO L 3SVHd - A.LNflO3 3SIOS - IOINIAV g 1. I.lr':u. — I I '14.1-mu. No31 1,5-3`1A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 120 �wHrX++, vt12 ..I srn7 74 1 oNw SNIN2IVM S ID0212IOH _ � 3 e fr a rt.( r rr 1 f. i;Noa !SLD 0 0 m 5 1 3OVNIV80 ONV ONIOVMO 507111,,1111737131.1.1,1 L 3SVHd - A.LNf1O0 3S1O8 -1IOINIAV e• • 2 4 ' IIU. NO 4 7)1/ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 121 11:12,.., saav N� DN9 ONINHVM SMOOIDH PROFILE 20 - ROAD L - STA, 7.00 - 14.00 S sq. LO-kvit ,CM* 30VNIV80 ONV ONIOVNO 1. 3SVHd - A1Nf103 39108 - IIOW IAV �vai1v. NO3if '5' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 122 1 i a 5 ]13 F1 YI nN 1 ONINLIVM sxDOaIOH a 53 71("1°',7 4.1 r Yrc 3� Es \ f Yet me 01 �# :INouanaisID a 1 s` 1 f ..s i* - - Js ,!F i • , r :L'! � i s5 3yyk!fir `IIi �ry L �J L� 8 i c i s .�yVr' JJ� ► �� @ k. "'"-- w-,l.-. • e - ....� ' �� a �� � � i si 5 k Eq 4 '� a �E i y_ tg g ; 3 s1 1 1 _ � :! ea-y-do,6) e.l•OTSCY/ 30VNIVNO ONV ONIOVU ow °KU'Y 6 3SVHd - ALNf1OO 36103 - IOINIAV #1. - = `L•=13319 ■SS ■ Iml m m m . i OS/5 V1■3N11101VW • f 1 1 .agn•pum.,••. uniegsu.u.:6 5 3 3 •,/ ONINYM SXDOIrtIOH .=• • •-..a 35VNIV1:10 ONV 9NIOVd0 04,3 ..u•nco E5C1 E5,11•,R0.313,13,51.101 1. 3SVHd AINC103 3S108 - 110INIAV 2 1 ..•-•••-..- ...-•••••••roo-... ) 1.••• . 7 1 Lk.. mimm••=mmmm —1,....--Acrsi—• I ' 0.9V3 5331411335 00. MI5 3N111113.1.315 I F , • 1 . ...i : umim 1.111 11.)1 .0.• .... • L. • - -4,..i.:::;:• J1.1.1 1.1.61111. - •••-, *lit •• 41 ' • : i E'likie Ile F.Y. , 1 !pit c " i 1 5.01.3 53355 335 raelZ7Z-.7, 7.: . , . 0 • 591%3 A3355 335 • 15 • c•5453YL 20II016V14 *13-TRU. NON3LI 6-33—k DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 124 • s\\o OH ®� H OUMISN PROFILE 23 - MCLEOD ROAD - STA: 15+50 - 20.00 O CINV m_e �a_a-�xo �I.-awe . ! ( �7hE Mg/ �� DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 125 ?A L." maw,irda • .DrITVII. Milo vo•In S ET I N ONINNYM SMD021210H <1 I!! ! ! Ng .1 ILO 2.1:1 g R.A11.[ 39.• 3711, NOLL0fItlISNDD !e.Va 5 PROFILE 24 - HIGHWAY ACCES5 ROAD- 57A.: 0400 - 7.00 55330V AVIA-011-1 30VNIV80 ONV ONIOVNO o-mal ..amiacalaa SONIM.0 .31.C.A1 3SliNd AJ.W103 RSIOS HOINIAV ii s 0 0 ID '$43711U. 3L-1(`'63.1, ,1TAGES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 126 fI�MM .rr.=w:..y. i P sr ■ n V I nun `JNINHVM z 0 N O re 0 V J 3 4 W 0 O W 0 0 e i 0 i 'F 401103S SSOi10133b1S dAl MGM, I! �' s v, 4 3SV114d - ALNf1O3 3SIO8 - UOW IAV ► N 0 0 a 0 ■ w m a 3ThU. NO. 3 tac3Es�a� DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 127 SNINUV/V\ S31301:1210H 110 0 0 V ad V. 0 31 4 •_ 31 0 2 O 0 0 . .1; du Noinnttist, 31 0 Ch a 0 ▪ • — • NO11038 SSOHO 1338.1.8 clAl =i174 VC 3SVHd - A.I.N1103 3S10111 NOINIAV 31 0 V. Q &:) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 128 .m1 rosNerrNP 4447424W .2421.42,t2=.4 -1013.0.1• sisstuf weft 2 14-2-44....2r24 ge=22=2 S sr Ts 4 I 0 SNINLIVM S313011-HOH 2 IlJ 11 0 0 0 1.151NIW NOLLOES SSOU3 133NIS dAl 022. AP.= ..tat SOWNWL0 ItaNIAC.,1 1. 3SVHd - AJ.N1103 3S103 110INIAV 111 0 0 a0 0 0 • 4 '.. INKficin. NO. MIPCV DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 129 Saran ONIN21VM SNDO1RIOH k • a NOILIIIHISROD x u NOLL03S SSO J3133a1S dAl L 3SVHd - A1NflO0 3SIO8 - 1IOINIAV ROAD TYPICAL CAOSS 9EC11Q4 5 147FRIJ. NO. 6-3 .. . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 130 Fn[rrths� - •r6n� 1LIW4 •�M• �^>.. urc : J.,Y' l.oMH LIU x n w ^ `JNINMVM S}IOOZRIOH j r �r„rrr'ti-. • :. 1 .x 1 T z ; �` —,._-_= i i •1 ; 1 j j ..... ! i l 3 tl ; �I i 1$'r •� 3 ='.law - 1 i I - il f ! I �1� is 9 lii R • SlIV130 dWVU 03d Q - 1.3SVHd-A1Nf1O03SIOS-SOWIAV a r g r , =N3T9U. NO. A0531.1 V e r n r og u.b4 4 . 3 - 11 0 ni z a w l, O s • r 3 S II T I . 2 . . -C T ONINVA g>130110H rrl Jr" g.T."•-•• -Fm.Yr HOU - •II -.‘.\ . • iijt I ; i -"—,:7 - ,v O ll' I'iI• I.i1 E -eEl i l E 1. f A%I1 :i:A• .33 k(4t'2ii2.€22 a.... ja --- H.• 1 ................-n-,,........A-0............0...,...-....,,,,-..-•-•,.....•,,...",..o....N.o..."....ow-n-rw.-,,-,.......-•..",-......-• . 3 1a l 3 a rh SlIV10 c1W4 0c I I K U 1. 3SVHd - AJH000 3S108 - HONIAV • - •. • . zN3TRU. Q.8ip 6c-±wAL,c-• F 511'1 I I , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 132 OWS .X,.. ,.�. ' r S N a ,I N 1 O N 1 N `JNINHVM .L..i: :xr ..,,r .. S?IDO2RIOH la , IOR.�nESH Y3 i 1 • IOYOM [ ri F;f pJ i avou. I e i Ch • 7f •en.ir. SlIV130 dWVi! 03d 4 3SVHd - A.LNf1O0 3S1OS ?JOWIAV 0 Wit 0 wa'lu. No. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 133 0010.1.1160 saaa NIONVONIN2IVM s-ApolraoHr a L. L 3SVNd 11.30 SlIVl30 dWV2f O3d 04:11 ,i rrsx9� AJNfl0 3� SIOB LOWIIAV ,�pV7pEDiu. N ^ C,N41.0.4,6 J.,_01 -CC fl,r110 .mnaa ATOM 41•••*...1 r s " ° " ONINLIVM smoo-traox .o• •-•.i1/4, • ••• - • • • 7 . • ;1 • ;• • S11,1130 ONOd INUOIS Pino3 4.14 Wrta.,,K1,11 1. 3SVHd - AJ.N1103 33103 - VOIIIHAV .• I #4,* -431. • • I • •• • agryice.r.f 11.1. tea 10.1i/4 era, (I 2. S''881/NIDNI ONINLIVAA SXDOID1011 17; 2 r.E • F. S1IV130 ONOd INNOIS CHKII APNICO .1CF 501,0.1. 1. ESVIld - AJ.N1103 3S10f1 110INIAV .1 r 0 0 0 0 0 4T1li Natl.-14616' [7_69„MJALQF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 136 .M11 VOIWal rOird ft5.14 mini II ...PAT 0 2 qrs • 4 74...7 0117 • •7111717110N• ONINbV/VE S310011110H • NO110118151103 LZ Slit/130 ONOcl VVLIOIS 1 CI 4141 /JAM- 47) 347113 1•4711.1111101.07111• 3SVHd AINI103 3S1011 - HOINIAV t I a 4 0 a 0 O. 0 ••• 1.4 0 !mrzfvpiu. No. qt4if 5-6q AS Al on< seVir.z) ti ou vonwc.ra SWEIFINIDNI ONINRAVM smoolraoH 133 SlIV130 ONOd IThOiS .A1,100 qSICF 5:71'47.1'":11111.1Fetak0.A1 1.3S1/14c1 - AINI103 MOS - HOINIAV 0 x 6, 0 3 0 'AISTRU. -6141Pgq. iPAr.4ES .174/ L' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 138 *th rxwBre 2t+5 .aysuz t a span rttoNa DNINHVM S}IDOIRIOH i .- 10.7.41.1 igNO11TPASU moi-r F 'tr �''r. a SlIV120 ONOd MOTS Alwyn 3sxesix nn srenanoveni L 3SVHJ -.U.NflO0 3SIOS - HOINIAV NAGE PONDS d - PLAN AND PROFILE ➢ETA1L AO! PONOG C R ]• 1'LA11 r • 31ii 7 rpAf?E53 PF 5-• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 139 opprowtrwo ungstafine) '"'"12 :5%17=1. .300 1. OWL LI 1.9.1/. ...^5 O.'-3 51191FINIONS NINUVAA S,100-"ira0}1 6 13 ti0113rINISF103 11 ;I , I •••• (;) i. p, ' = I; f—T,1 if .Al. l• 't 4(...!...) Ir k :i .., . ‘ • i ; .1 • is I • i 1 P,I lif 1:. c:i 91IV130 ONOd MO.'S 3SVHd - Aitinoo 33103 HOIAHAV •s• 13TF.J. 111‘953 ?PA DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 140 salsa miomq ONINVM S310011110H p ..P..11 .11171.. 311d0Nd NYld 83M3S I onzsmitrA 4'7 ro, - ; 0 2., -a 0 MN ...ICJ ..011 SONOWILOINVIIVICWA a 1. RSVHd - AINI103 361011 - 0! 1,411 Ar I 0 t a sxvII vi 2N1 JNIN2IVM Sx3O HO f s 44.41 .y .C114. 31IdOad 9 NVId N3M3S 1 Hcone151IO fi vuN.Y[OOu'oa.v L RSVHd -A.Nf1O3 3SIO8 - VOWIAV 1C2 A. 3 (pelt rrAll . of 54 may. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 142 •Waf 'MEW S a a !I N r o N ONIN2IVM� SNIDO211IOH 311dO:Jd 8 Ntlld N3M3S 4 3SVHd - AJ.N1100 3S108 - IOINIAV / / , / 1 r r ` i . iB �--- lh 4! •�H. ( ,1 4.1f #�i wr r it 2.16 22 a•rsa li]Nc c OS+L 'VLS 1Nn xearw r r N V DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 143 t z=. 4 100.EN wz cxa�H� nH, JNINLIVM S3IDOff 1OH • g r @ 1 Wool wnvv vpm 31IdOldd 9 NVld H3M3S L 3SVHd - AUNf103 3SIO8 -110WIAV ' :„ C.0 a zaaHr 739 oCT,z 4'0, am fls.0 O O H 0 O u u 0 4 ) 0 < 0 1'lt'0133Ht 33t as. I 'Vit Tin Han V 1 t I'N2 RU. NO 1; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 144 Ir r� Ira WON, tvoff z+_ av.a � r v "na Henu" ONIN♦VM sx0Onrkical 1 tNouan = t 31IJObd 8 NMd b3M3S �vi L RSVHd - £LNflOO 3S109 - iIOWIAV N I • V v LZ'O YIM% 4l4 09•LZ s11/ aN7141A,10. SEWER - ROAD A - DALCROSS DRIVE STAi 21*00 - 27.50 00.12.V141N= tI51 m. r1Z-3133114 Ell • k • ••0 451+-i,, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 145 w.lwaiiaxtd y r'eww _.C•F-_ r � s a1 !I „ o N 7 ONIN2IVM � • SXDoxxo a ai Noa riais mw. OD 311dO1d 8 NVId 13M3S SONIWria 4 3SVHd -.U.Nf1O0 3SIO8 - MOWIAV i N V f 1 p^^rrp ._ f. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 146 .11.1,11,11.1e iNtNivergal CI. u•PAN, Z WS • -13 1112 S El 1.1 NIDND ONINNVM SX.002THOH :Ivan Oa 3 • - - - _ trl .r —••Tov, • I ; 3 11 1.441„--- .11 !r WORM 0 0 D'a zni vkt •r/IM 311d0Nd NVld 83M3S I CR sgrAOUTTranZa = 1 3SVHd - AMMO 3S103 - 30INIAV a (I I I A • -.1r.“ ,r 3 141.5-3 7'.)AGE3 1 oF " " 4 " ONINI2IVM N.--- S,10011-1101-1 11 31 Noitonisra3 N AL —I ttbS RPM 311d0Nd NVld N3M38 SONSIVI-O IMPENC2.1/1 1. 3SVFld - AJ.N1100 36108 ' 7 F, I .a.C2 = VOINIAV a N r 4; g41WL2-5m.' QV •S mrs pril r ".t**2"TKIJ. N O. 1fr” DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 148 :PAC3g1-14_, OF • T Zrkilf r I save HI owe JNIN2IVM S?IOO112IO H r J.J HID110fH1s O Xi 144 V,r acres 31IdO2Jd 8 NVId 213M3S 4 ESVHd - £LNflO0 3SIO8 -11OWIAV I N d A aal$rRU. NIO :J41P DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 149 +nee c-0r.wtisut 1=1...1= r sane nNn `JNINaVM S}IOOZRIOH •1 ry Y #6 15 111 N, • .\ PROFILE 8 • ROAD D • STA: 0.00 • 7.75 4 31IdO d 8 NVId b3M3S L 3SVNd AJ.NflO3 3SIO8 -11OINIAV pi rrro Lama Os I. 4' 11.! NUS 3NI1 N3/311 } —scr , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 150 can�w� N, ONIN2iVM S}I302THOH . y 0.i. .tom HOUna1S N E.H. ..*Val elMON 31IdO8d 8 NVId M3M3S L 3SVHd - AJ.NflO3 33108 iIOW IAV DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 151 intrIrb6r1 I rovs.-4 S II 71 I I/ I4 ONINR:IVAA g>10011210H 14r 1,11M.ill111.11,11 b." 411 1 1 ii I.) 1.3 ;Hou.onaroa 10 . -- : ----- • . -al L.: I ! II -' =iL 111-----. • 1" SEWER • ROAD E - STA: 0+00 - 6+34 1.4 eida .9 nen.- 211dO8d Ntrld 3M3S 1,11 AINOLIJ SOVAV201/13,12,C.3.1 1. 3Sifild - A.LNflO3 3S108 - MOIAIIAV 1.11 221 sky rnA.Aso; mum 1 L 'N3TFILL NO.3 1.7-)Arls DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 152 e.ewan oI .I,s caaxxi0t.a ONINNVM s IDoa oI1 NOIi34I61SII03 a a 311dO21d 8 NVId ?J3M3S L 3SVHJ - AlNf1O3 36108 - 2IO11'41IAV rccz'aa»xc rile , N.H 1lli non IC4LVx T 3 n ; 0 STRU. NO11110 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 153 Praire1E8 ur...1, 0.2.1,, SISITUNIONS ONINI:IV/V1 S310021210H lab giinfiv2AuKtd - ; r !, 11 1 1 I ---- - :- 1---- -- --:-_:_, •:_.44,- -- --'- L--.m._-.... ..__ --i---__ — ,.....-•_,.___,,._. ,.. t. 0.1 0.61.1i 211d0Nd NVld d3M3S I q MI ^OW. V011 = CIO SVIPAVH3INNENG,Stl 3SVHd Aminoo 3SIOS - 110INIAV ci I u 2 V.131%.1. NO.314bG PAGt3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 154 r e sxxx H� onn `JNINNVM SOZi1IOH r IA HO15n5llSh liE J_ q�u Ii x 05 m, bvtr 3lIdO8d 8 NVId613M3S 1 3SVNd - £LNf1O3 36108 - UOINIAV INJ3TRU. No. 34 19613 if DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 155 _ z.r .ow vsza c k s a II fl„1 D N II [JNIN2IVM S]IDO'WUOI + • �ka,_M�ytN.-tee.-.'. _.• • .r Si 1 1 -1-141:1L I P r IS7133Ni 33• SEWER - ROAD G - STA: 93 e0.[4 311dO?!d 8 NVId 213M3S SOWAYL 1. 3SVNd - A1Nf1O0 36108 -11OV 1AV N V 4NS `I U. NV31y6" 'PAGES AGES ..tdrimohr.r. Woriedivr1 01Z StlaS N10141 ..... 9NINI:IV/V1 531.30111101-1 : p• I g 1.112.3 13311133S Sae.« natvi f g z X 4 0 311dOeld NVld Ll3M3S I C? RID AIM. ,011 = 50.,011-011.0,11241N 1. 3SVHd - Ammo° 3SIO8 - SOINIAV a X R 3 X V M rsz•3 /MIMS Mt m 6L.A. MILS ipirr C-73----TVIL11-73-NO. IW. C3 -t :70AGES (5,112Ea 1 - .._. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 157 hewtritlei s a n 1 D N 3 S3I3011-21OH 13 ttDaT aiSh F ` 00 Q.L1 1%-0.11 Id 31IdONd 8 NY1d H3M3S ■ u.1 NNx.: •.rcv C 5 L 3SVHd - ALNf103 3S108 - IOWIAV i N roi•7133NS 33S L Y.t4 YLS7.7 N].Y. L'SS" 13311S 3i1< • NO BCIP .1115 3NIl maxim A I. ••••wi�• PAGES La9,2,_,RF - ems. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 158 oraifflaace! •VE S1falMIDMq ONIN):IVAA S313011-210H Nouonaisploo cram cr.- vas PC,. 311d08d NY1d 83M3S SIDVON,0 1113KBAGGA.1 RSVIld - A11411103 3SIO VOINIAV 3 L.10.2 133118113i mimmmm••=1•1 C*€I .019 win *MIMI k I CI = CO 3 a NI :1\!3TFRJ. -so ma c <MI 0 i=g1=E=1 , " " " oNiNtivm s-ADoa-aoH NOLITIES nre. .. • - 0 j§ t; .., • • itt g I L. 03 31108d NY1d 13/1.43S I . a • vou- : • I 14 i • . — I • — ^ ' I A.1,1110] _VW 513,11.,131.1.^.0.1/1 3SVHd - Ai.rinoo 3S1011 -1101111AV 11_ I 0 0 I 0 I '43:TRU. NO.__ . . DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 160 _za_.aw i.uz sr " u, °" `JNIN2IVM' SNI3O1THOH SEWER • ROAD J - STA: -2+25 - 7+25 1 3SVHd ....wt. 31ldO8d 8 Ntlld 83M3S A.NflO3 3SIO8 - IOINIAV per "HELM • 1 rc14 ian ut i.ia DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 161 Wass.EN. ZrYCY 1.1 .rE 61.12 SNUB NI Dblq ONINUVM S310011110H dyrit rib • - - f —77 ir g 4- 24. _ . t 1NCI11SO3 U-r. c. • .10 311d08d NY1dU3M3S 1 3M/11d - AINI100 3S108 - OWIflV SEE SINEW C.30.0 Norm. LINOSTAY 25 • N. • _ 'NFTRU. P r.:.T5.42AigEStri DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 162 ax+a:. c�a en sane He DN9 ONIN2IVM sxocrtiiIOH 13 . H011af tusi 3a PROFILE 79 • ROAD K • STL O.0O - 4*137 I .. V.1.16 .44. 311dOHd 8 NVld N3M3S 1. 3SVHd - £LNf1O3 3S108 - UUOINIAV 1 a - i M V :-N3Tf U. NO. 3 (P • SaII11 N IONS cONIN2iVM S3I3Of UO j Lto rkoJekaii PROFILE 20 - ROAD L• STA: 0f00• 2+00 Kt pps.,.a ,1741. 21IdO8d 8 NVId d3M3S ivr+»n�ar u_. 4 RSVHd - AINf1O0 3SIO8 -1IOINIAV = N M 11 CS setvamel (111. c.E•re ONININM SNDOI1110H NO11.01M1563 wn etre. Ntrld 83M3S RSVIld - AINI100 391013 - VOINIAV oAP 2 - a ..... Vera .1.22.16 I os.e vas wan ,217—.17_117: v 7,7c7 kr0 t:4 E- 0 warri9u. PAneE4IK---. r SNafl N 1 °NU ONIN2IVM I S?I00212IO H ' LV HOL[ l2E1S Ey °s 1 03.51312 3Nn NOUN 11 311dOad 8 NVId 83M3S L 3SVNd - A.LNf1O3 3SIO9 - UIOW IAV OD 21C37 iW115 5 OR. N1ll 111 1 X]i1N „7 a � v 131112 �PelihroW■allll N01211 22/21 MIR Minn IMAM 8 g C N3Th1U. 31'q.,ePAGESAL 1.0"100 a0..0 ruz s x v n H r o w e S3I30 M82I0H or. co.. •nsrcR 311dOild 4 NVId 213M3S L 2611111e1 - AINfl03 3S108 SUOW IAV ROAD 0 (RAYS). WAYI ROAD E (R ROAD J (RICRTER DR.( anPOMILrja1Vln 3ThU. 91'J �"[r. i 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 168 A3ThU. NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 169 EXHIBIT E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF VILLAGE AVINIOR VILLAGE 1 ANNEXATION Legal Description A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 7, a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, a portion of the East 1/2 of Section 18, and the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 and the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, Boise Meridian. Ada County, Idaho (Includes Avimor Subdivisions Nos 1-4) and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the north 1/4 comer of said Section 7, which bears N89°15'36" W a distance of 2609.16 feet from a found brass cap marking the northeast corner of said Section 7, thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 7, S89°15'36"E a distance of 177.28 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55 and being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly line S89°15'36"E a distance of 626.37 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line S44°03'42"E a distance of 2581.21 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 7; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, SOO°19'21"w a distance of 839.80 feet to a found a aluminum cap marking the east 1/4 corner of said Section 7; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8, S88°00'30"E a distance of 846.43 feet to a point being the intersection of the Ada/Boise County line and the northerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 8; Thence leaving said northerly line and following said Ada/Boise County line, S44°04'52"E a distance of 595.05 feet to a point being the intersection of said Ada/Boise County line and the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 8; Thence leaving said County line and following said easterly line, S00°54' 11"E a distance of 2,225.26 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (West 1/16 corner Sections 8 and 17); Thence leaving the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54.11"E a distance of 2,661.41 feet to a point being the southeast corner of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 (C-W 1/16 corner Section 17); Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of thew Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, S00°54' 12"E a distance of 1,329.23 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the southeast corner of said Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (SW 1/16 comer Section 17); Page 1 of 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 170 Op- 3 Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 17, N89°43'21"E a distance of 1,292.35 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the northeast corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 ( C-S 1/16 corner Section 17; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°39'09"E a distance of 1,322.57 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the south 1/4 corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, S89°25'41"W a distance of 2,573.04 feet to a found aluminum cap marking the southwest corner of said Section 17; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 and following the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and the subdivision boundary of Avimor Subdivision no. 1, N87° 17' 17"W a distance of 2,168.19 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 and following said subdivision boundary, S02°42'43"W a distance of 330.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence following said subdivision boundary, N87° 17' 17"W a distance of 919.72 feel to a point on the easterly right-of-way line of State Highway 55; Thence following said subdivision boundary and said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. 238.92 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,225.92 feet, a delta angle of 11°09'58" and a chord bearing of NO2°39'30"E and a chord distance of 238.54 feet; 2. S87°04'31"W a distance of 15.00 feet; 3. 257.09 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the left having a chord bearing of N07°03'46"W a distance of 256.95 feet; 4. N09°10'29"W a distance of 530.28 feet; 5. S80°49'31"W a distance of 5.00 feet; 6. N09° 10'29"W a distance of 534.91 feet; 7. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N07°07'10"W a distance of 243.33 feet; 8. 102.03 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 1,085.92 feet, a delta angle of 05°23'01", a chord bearing of N00° 13'59"W and a chord distance of 101.99 feet; 9. 243.46 feet along the arc of a spiral curve to the right having a chord bearing of N06°39' 13"E and a chord distance of 243.33 feet; 10. N81°17'28"W a distance of 19.93 feet; 11. N08°42'04"E a distance of 1,715.79 feet; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly right-of-way line the following courses: 1. N08°42'04"E a distance of 3,600.85 feet; 2. 292.97 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 1,974.86 feet, a delta angle of 08°29'59", a chord bearing of N04°27'05"E and a chord distance 292.69 feet; 3. N00° 12'06"E a distance of 2,925.84 feet; Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 171 .'O'TN1J_ No. {o !�E?esij�_ r- 4. 296.83 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 2,929.79 feet, a delta angle of 05°47'25", a chord bearing NO2°41'37"W and a chord distance of 295.96 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPTING THEREFROM All of McAfee Subdivision, recorded in Book 98, Pages 12,527 through 12,529, records of Ada County, Idaho. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM All of Avimor Subdivision No. 1, recorded in Book 100, Pages 13,049 through 13,069, records of Ada County, Idaho. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM All of Avimor Subdivision No. 2, recorded in Book 103, Pages 13,830 through 13,832, records of Ada County, Idaho. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM All of Avimor Subdivision No. 3, recorded in Book 105, Pages 14,456 through 14,461, records of Ada County, Idaho. TOGETHER WITH Lot 1, Block 1, Lots 1 through 5, Block 11, Lot 20, Block 12, and Lot 1, Block 16 of Avimor Subdivision No. 1, recorded in Book 100, Pages 13,049 through 13,069, records of Ada County, Idaho. Said description contains 654.585 acres, more or less. This description was compiled from data provided to Idaho Survey Group. Idaho Survey Group did not research the information provided for completeness or accuracy and Idaho Survey Group did not verify the information with a survey on the ground. Page 3 of 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 172 N3TFi0. NO. Areg �7� . SCALE• 1"=1200' 0 300 600 1200 2400 21 7 LEGEND SECTION NUMBER CID BOUNDARY LINE SECTION/COUNTY LINE I IDAHO SURVEY GROUP, LLC AVIMOR SUB. NO. 1 1450E WATERTOWER ST SITE 130 MERC AN. IOAFD 83542 (208)84845M EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR AVIMOR ANNEXATION BOUNDARY LOCATED IN 1HE SECTIONS 7. B, 17 AND 1E, T.54.. R.2E, BM., ADA COUNTY. IDAHO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 173 8 JON NO. 17-410 9.1E11 NO. 1 DWG. DAZE 4/12/2022 `N3TRU. NO. [7ecr•mber 20, 2022 L, 17:;‘/ -;� 5l.Ie of Idem I.anda 1 1 L El Land Use Districts Winpo SeeidenlIal • VP Open Space - OS Ze f � � .// 1 'r 1 F' I s/ I f�r 0 z E— z ua a 0 w "DAGE311 •1 QF • J m Ada County Soil end Conservation F L`1 N3, v -1,l. NO.3 PAC3E3 US - a 0 w E— z w 0 w EXHIBIT H CONSERVATION EASEMENT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Ada Soil & Water Conservation District 132 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 Attn: Scott Koberg, District Manager Tel: 208-888-1890, ext. 109 skObercf ra aari.idxho.00v MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO: same as above Instrument # 224525 IDAHO CITY. BOISE COUNTY, IDAHO 8-20-2009 01:59.43 No. of Pages. 26 Recorded Tor • KOBERG,SCOTT C CONSTANCE SWEARINGEN Fee: ?SA Ex-O ficlo Recorder Deputy_ f... (44 ,*,,y am• Ind.z la: DEEDS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT Boise County, Idaho THIS DEED OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the "Deed') is made by SunCor Idaho. Inc., a private Idaho corporation, and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation. as TRUSTEE of the Dual Beneficiary Trust. Trust No. 8562. and not personally. which Trust was created pursuant to the Subdivision Trust Agreement, dated October 8. 2002 ("Grantor") to Ada Soil and Water Conservation District. a subdivision of Idaho State government ("Grantee"). WITNESS THAT: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Boise County, Idaho and described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Properly"}. WHEREAS, The Property contains significant natural, wildlife, recreational, scenic and open space values (collectively, the Conservation Values") of great importance to the Grantor, the people of Ada and Boise counties and the people of the State of Idaho. The property also includes !ands that have been identified as containing significant wildlife habitat values by the Idaho Fish and Game Department. WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the value of the Property in its present rangeland and wildlife habitat state and have the common desire to preserve the character of the Property and prevent its use or development for any other purpose Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 176 ^cE5_ �'jj 017. or in any other manner which would conflict with its rangeland, wetland and wildlife habitat state. WHEREAS, Grantor intends that the Property be maintained in rangeland, wetland and wildlife habitat state by the maintenance of the open rangeland and wildlife habitat values thereof and that these values as well as the recreational, open space, and scenic values of the Property be preserved and protected by the continuation of recreational uses that have proven historically compatible with such values. WHEREAS, the specific Conservation Values are documented in an inventory of the relevant features of the Property and incorporated by this reference ("Present Conditions Report"), which consists of reports, maps, photographs. and other documentation that the parties agree, collectively, provide an accurate representation of the characteristics, current use, status of improvements and development on the Property at the time of this grant, and which is intended to serve as an objective information baseline for monitoring compliance with the terms of this grant. WHEREAS. the Grantee is a publicly supported agency of the State of Idaho whose primary purpose is the preservation, protection and wise stewardship of land in its natural, scenic, historical, agricultural. rangeland, wildlife habitat, recreational and open space condition. WHEREAS, Grantor intends. as owner of the Property, to convey to Grantee the right to ensure that the rural, rangeland, recreational, open space, wildlife habitat and scenic values of the Property are protected and preserved in perpetuity, and to keep the Property as a single tract of land. WHEREAS, the Property consists of one parcel equals approximately 400 acres of land and is contiguous to public land containing similar Conservation Values. WHEREAS, Grantee intends, by acceptance of the grant made hereby, forever to honor the intentions of Grantor to preserve and protect in perpetuity the rangeland, wetland, wildlife habitat, recreational, open space and scenic values of the Property. WHEREAS, both Grantor and Grantee intend for the restrictions imposed by this Deed to be binding on Grantor and all Grantor's heirs, assigns, and successors in interest. WHEREAS, the State of Idaho recognizes in Chapter 65, "Local Land Use Planning," Idaho Code 67-6502(d) 'To ensure that the important environmental features of the State and localities are protected," and (j) "to protect fish and wildlife resources." WHEREAS, it is intended that this Deed is irrevocable and shall constitute enforceable restrictions within the meaning of Idaho Statute 55-2101 through 2109. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement A VIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 177 2 "N3TRU. r=3. 31-11,S WHEREAS, the Boards of Commissioners for both Ada County and Boise County have determined that the adoption of this Deed is in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, and in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions contained herein, and pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and in particular Idaho Statute 55-2101 through 2109, Grantor does hereby voluntarily grant to Grantee a Conservation Easement in gross in perpetuity over the Properly of the nature and character and to the extent hereinafter set forth (the "Easement"). 1. Purpose. It is the dominant purpose of this Easement to preserve and protect in perpetuity the rangeland, wetland and wildlife habitat condition of the Property as identified in the Present Conditions Report and to Poster the continuation of responsible conservation practices in the operation of the Property for high quality rangeland and wildlife habitat. In addition, it is also the intent of this Easement to permit recreational use, and to protect the open space and scenic values of the Property consistent with the rangeland, wetland and wildlife habitat condition of the Property, and to prevent any use of the Property that will materially impair or interfere with the Conservation Values of the Property. 2. Affirmative Rights and Interests Conveyed. To accomplish the purpose of this Easement, the following rights and interests are conveyed to Grantee by this Easement: (a) To identify, to preserve and to protect in perpetuity the Conservation Values, including the soil and water quality, of the Property. (b) To enter upon, inspect, observe. and study the Property for the purposes of (1) identifying the current uses and practices thereon and the baseline condition thereof. and (2) monitoring the uses and practices regarding the Property to determine whether they are consistent with this Easement. Such entry shall be permitted upon reasonable prior notice to Grantor. and shall be made in a manner that will not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's use and quiet enjoyment of the Property. (c) To prevent any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement and to require, at Grantor's expense, the reasonable restoration of such areas or features of the Property that may be materially damaged by any inconsistent activity or use. (d) To erect and maintain a sign or other appropriate marker on the Property, visible from a public road, bearing information indicating that the Property is protected by a Conservation Easement owned by Grantee. The sign shall also name the funding sources for the acquisition of the Conservation Easement to the extent required by the funding sources. The location and design of the sign shall be determined by mutual consent of Grantor and Grantee. The wording of the information shall be determined by Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVLIWOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 178 3 ')! TRU. t•rO 5CRO S Grantee, but shall clearly indicate that the Property is privately owned and not open to the public except for any portion of the property containing a recreational use that is open to the public subject to reasonable terms and conditions of entry. Grantee shall be responsible for the costs of erecting and maintaining such sign or marker. (e) Any and all development rights of the Property, including without limitation, any right to subdivide the Property and any right to sell portions of the Property separately from other portions of the Property. 3. Uses and Practices. The uses of the Property are confined to livestock grazing/ranching, hunting and fishing, passive recreation, water and wetlands development for wildlife habitat enhancement, limited residential use associated with these uses of the Property, and any other uses that are described in this Easement. Examples of permitted uses and practices are provided in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Examples of prohibited uses and practices are provided in Exhibit C, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibits B and C are not necessarily exhaustive recitals of consistent and inconsistent activities, respectively. Instead, they are intended to establish specific permitted and prohibited activities and to provide guidance in determining the consistency of other activities with the conservation purpose of this Easement, 4. Current Practices and Conditions. Grantee acknowledges by acceptance of this Deed that Grantor's present uses of the Property are compatible with the conservation purpose of this Easement. In order to establish the present condition of the Property's Conservation values, Grantor and Grantee have prepared the Present Conditions Report, on file with Grantee. Any change in use of the Property shalt be consistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. 5. Conservation Plan. Grantor recognizes the importance of goad resource management and stewardship to preserve and protect the Conservation Values. To this end, the Property shall be operated and managed in accordance with a Conservation Plan that is developed utilizing the standards and specifications of the NRCS field office technical guide and approved by the Grantee. This plan, which will be prepared at Grantor's expense and accepted with the mutual consent of Grantor and Grantee, along with Adu County Development Services and Idaho Fish and Game Department. shall be completed within one year of the date of this Deed and shall be updated at least every five years. 6. Reserved Rights. Grantor reserves to itself, and to its personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, ail rights accruing from their ownership of the Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others, including members of the general public, to engage in all uses of the Property that are not expressly prohibited herein and are not inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following rights are expressly reserved: (a) all right, title, and Interest in and to all water, water rights, and related interests in, on. under, or appurtenant to the Property, provided that such water Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 179 1313Tcriti. rr t410vA_ rights are used on the Property in a manner consistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. 7. Grantee's Remedies. If Grantee determines that Grantor is in material violation of the terms of this Easement or that a material violation is threatened, Grantee shall give written notice to Grantor of such violation and require corrective action sufficient to cure the violation. Where said violation involves injury to the Property resulting from any use or activity inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. Grantee may require reasonable restoration of the portion of the Properly so injured. If Grantor fails to cure said violation within thirty (30) days after receipt of written notice thereof from Grantee. or, if the violation cannot reasonably be cured within a thirty (30) day period, fails to begin curing such violation within the thirty (30) day period, or fail to continue diligently to cure such violation until finally cured, Grantee may bring an action at law or in equity in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Easement, to enjoin the violation, by temporary or permanent injunction, to recover any damages for any loss of the protected values, and/or may require the reasonable restoration of the Property to the condition that existed prior to any such injury. If Grantee, in its sole discretion, determines that circumstances require immediate action to prevent or mitigate significant and material damage to the protected values of the Property, Grantee may pursue its remedies under this paragraph without waiting for the period provided for cure to expire, provided that prior written notice is given to Grantor. Grantee's rights under this paragraph apply equally in the event of either actual or threatened material violations of the terms of this Easement. Grantor agrees that Grantee's remedies at law for any violation of the terms of this Easement may be inadequate and that Grantee shall be entitled to the injunctive relief described in this paragraph, both prohibitive and mandatory, in addition to such other relief to which Grantee may be entitled, including performance of the terms of this Easement. Grantee's remedies described in this paragraph shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to all remedies now or hereafter existing at law or in equity. 7.1 Costs of Enforcement. In any action respecting enforcement of the terms of this Easement, the prevailing party shalt receive from the other party costs of suit, including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, and, in such actions in which Grantee is the prevailing party, any costs or restoration necessitated by Grantor's material violation of the terms of this Easement, shall be borne by Grantor. 7.2 Grantee's Discretion. Enforcement of the terms of this Easement shall be at the discretion of Grantee. and any forbearance by Grantee to exercise its rights under this Easement in the event of any breach of any terms of this Easement by Grantor shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver by Grantee of such term or of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term of this Easement or of any Grantee's rights under this Easement. Reasonable delay or omission by Grantee in the exercise of any right or remedy upon any breach by Grantor shall not impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Communnty DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 180 5 8. Costs. Taxes and Liabilities. Grantor retains all responsibilities and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind related to the ownership, operation, upkeep and maintenance of the Property. Grantor shall pay, prior to delinquency, any and all taxes, assessments, fees and charges levied by competent authority on the Property or an this Easement and shalt furnish Grantee with satisfactory evidence of payment upon request. If for any reason Grantor fails to pay any taxes, assessments or similar requisite charges, Grantee may pay such taxes, assessments or similar requisite charges, and may bring an action against Grantor to recover all such taxes, assessments and similar charges plus interest thereon at the rate charged delinquent property taxes by the county assessor's office in which the Property is located. 9. Hold Harmless. A. Grantor shall hold harmless, indemnify, and defend Grantee (with counsel of Grantee's choice), the Soil Conservation Commission, and their members, directors, officers, employees, agents, and contractors and the heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns of each of them (collectively the "indemnified Parties") from and against all liabilities, penalties, costs, losses, damages, expenses, causes of actions, claims, demands, or judgments, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any way connected with: (a) injury to or the death of any person, or physical damage to any property, resulting from any act, omission, condition, or other matter related to or occurring on or about the Property, regardless of cause, unless arising out of or related to the negligence, gross negligence or intentional misconduct of any of the Indemnified Parties; and (b) the obligations specified in Section 8. 10. Reoresentations and Warranties. Grantor represents and warrants that, after reasonable investigation and to the best of their knowledge: A. No substance defined, listed, or otherwise classified pursuant to any federal, state, or local law, regulation, or requirement as hazardous, toxic, polluting, otherwise contaminating tc the air, water, or soil, or in any way harmful or threatening to human health or the environment exists or has been released, generated, treated, stored, used, disposed of, deposited, abandoned, or transported in, on, from or across the Property; B. There are not any underground storage tanks located on the Property, whether presently in service or closed, abandoned, or decommissioned, and no underground storage tanks have been removed from the Property in a mariner not in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and requirements; C. Grantor and the Property are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, regulations and requirements applicable to the Property and its use; Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 181 D. There is no pending or threatened litigation in any way affecting, involving, or relating to the Property; and E. No civil or criminal proceedings or investigations have been instigated at any time or are now pending, and no notices, claims, demands, or orders have been received, arising out of any violation or alleged violation of, or failure to comply with. any federal, state or local law, regulation or requirement applicable to the Property or its use, nor do there exist any facts or circumstances that Grantor might reasonably expect to form the basis for any such proceedings, investigations, notices, claims, demands or orders. 11. Access. Nothing in this Easement shall be construed to preclude Grantor's right to grant access across the Property to third parties or the general public provided that access is allowed in a reasonable manner and is not inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. Grantee acknowledges that Grantor currently grants the general public a limited right of access to engage in passive recreational uses on the Property. 12. Extinguishment. If circumstances arise in the future such as render the purpose of this Easement impossible to accomplish, this Easement can only be terminated or extinguished. whether in whole or in part. by judicial proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, and the amount of the compensation to which Grantee shall be entitled from any sale, exchange, or involuntary conversion of all or any portion of the Properly subsequent to such termination or extinguishment, shall be determined, unless otherwise provided by Idaho law at the time, in accordance with Section 14 below. Grantee shall use all such proceeds in a manner consistent with the conservation purpose of this grant. 13. Condemnation. If the Property is taken, in whole or in part, by exercise of the power of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with applicable law, and in accordance with Section 14 below, far the value of the Easement taken; and Grantor shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with applicable law for the value of the underlying fee title taken. 14. Assignment of Grantee's interest. Grantee may assign its interest in this Easement to an appropriate agency upon giving written notice to, but without any further approval of, Grantor; or, with the prior approval of Grantor, which shall not unreasonably be withheld, to any other "qualified organization", within the meaning of Section 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or any successor provision, and which is authorized to acquire and hold conservation easements under Idaho law. 15. Non-Meraer. No merger shall be deemed to have occurred hereunder or under any documents executed in the future affecting this Deed of Conservation Easement, unless the parties expressly state that they intend a merger of estates or Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVItMIOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 182 7 interest to occur and the parties have also obtained the prior written consent of the Grantee and Grantor's Board of Trustees approving such merger of estates or interests, 16. General Provisions. (a) Contrallino Law. The interpretation and performance of this Deed shall be governed by the laws of the State of Idaho. (b) Construction. Any general rule of construction to the contrary not withstanding. this Deed shall be construed in favor of the grant to effect the purpose of this Easement. If any provision in this instrument is found to be ambiguous, an interpretation consistent with the purpose of this Easement that would render the provision valid shall be favored over any interpretation that would render it invalid. (c) Severability. If any provision of this Deed, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of this Easement, or the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, as the case may be, shall not be affected thereby. (d) Entire Agreement. This instrument and the Present Conditions Report on file with the Grantee, sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Deed and supercedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings, or agreements relating to the Deed, all of which are merged herein. (e) No Forfeiture. Nothing contained herein will result in a forfeiture or reversion of Grantor's title in any respect. (f) Successors. The covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions of this Deed shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity with the Property. (g) Termination of Riohts and Obligations. A party's rights and obligations under this Deed terminate upon transfer of the party's interest in the Easement or Property, except that liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer shall survive transfer. (h) Future Conveyance. Grantor agree that reference to this teed will be made in any subsequent deed or other legal instrument by means of which they convey any interest in the Property (including but not limited to a leasehold interest). Grantor further agrees to give written notice to Grantee of the transfer of any interest at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of such transfer. The failure of Grantor to perform any act required by this paragraph shall not impair the validity of this Easement or limit its enforceability in any way. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement ,4VIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 183 8 Ig _. n.�- (i) Counterparts. The parties may execute this Deed in two or more counterparts, which shall, in the aggregate, be signed by both parties; each counterpart shall be deemed an original instrument as against any party who has signed it. In the event of any disparity between the counterparts produced, the recorded counterpart shall be controlling. (j) Amendment. This Deed may be amended only with the written consent of Grantor and Grantee. Any such amendment shall be consistent with the purpose of this Conservation Easement and shall comply with Section 170(h) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, or any regulations promulgatedin accordance therewith. Any such amendment shall also be consistent with any other Idaho law governing conservation easements. (k) Notices. As specified herein, any notices required by this Deed shall be sent as appropriate to Grantor and Grantee, at the following addresses/phone numbers, unless a party has been notified by the other of a change of address/phone number: Grantors: SunCor Idaho, Inc. 18454 No. McLeod Way Boise, ID 83714 and, Phone: 208-939-0343 First American Title Insurance Company, A California corporation, as Trustee of Trust 8562, and not personally Subdivision Trust Department P.O. Box 52023 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2023 Phone: 602-685-7036; or, 208-375-0700 Grantee Ada Soil and Water Conservation District 132 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-1890 ext. 109 Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVItYIOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 184 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Deed of Conservation Easement as of A„�„ s-i— a o , 2009. GRANTORS: SunCor Idaho, Inc, an Idaho corporation By: Dan Richter Title: President and General Manager Date: 7/. 3I n AND: GRANTEE: Ada Soil and Water Conservation District, an public benefit corporation ' J By: Paul Ca Title: Chairman Date: Si/7 D$ First American Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, as Trustee of Trust 8562, and not personally, acting pursuant to the directions of its Trust Beneficiary By: Charlotte A. Kno I S�y� i Dyl us-I09cle Title: Gertifired-kssistewiee Date: 1 ! io - 2009 & Water Conservation District •'ation Easement Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 185 10 r3 !E-110E5C-s State of Idaho County of Ada } )ss. ACKNOWLEDGMENT On this / day of August, Mg, before me, ! L 4 t1- Y. tt a n5tary public in and far said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me an the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(iies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. r`yf .f•(7ai Notary Public.: My commission expires • Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 186 • N3TF8J. 1110, ML53 State of Idaho )ss. County of Ada On this t3 day of ul , 2009, before me, 'obeA- Mor sr�rt , a notary public in and for said State, personally appeared -DA n 'LLln {-e f personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, execuierl.the instrument. iRdiracr 1 Notary Public My commission expires 17 Play 201 • 1Y • • tY M f State of Arizona ) )ss. County of Maricopa ) On this Ire day of June, 2009, before ma, LR pr 11Vt M I , a notary public in and far said State, personally appeared C� o v [ u H c /r . Sr• f rl.•3fi OHL: r personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. , VIA &t Notary Public My commission expires /—?-2--0 12_ Ada Sod & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement A VIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 187 OFFICNL SEA. ELAINE M. GILL R,Wrc . slop. 0i duscna ICOPA COIJNIY My C_nnm. Emhai Jun. 9, 21112 i 12 .N3i mu. '.,. 1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Parcel I: T5N, R2E, Section 4 SE'/NW'/ , S'/2 NE% and Govemment Lots 1, 2 and 3. Parcel II: T6N, R2E, Section 32 NE%SE'/n. Parcel III: T6N, R2E, Section 33 NW'/<SW'/d , SY2SW'h . All parcels are Boise Meridian, Boise County, Idaho. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 188 13 t NI3 i t3U,! p.' EXHIBIT B PERMITTED USES AND PRACTICES The following uses and practices are not necessarily an exhaustive recital of uses and practices consistent with the Easement. However, these uses and practices are permitted under this Easement, provided that they are undertaken in accordance with the Easement and that all applicable governmental approvals and permits are properly obtained. 1. Residential Use and Improvements. A. Grantor may reside on the Property in the existing residential structure(s) on the Property in a manner consistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. B. Grantor may maintain or repair existing structures, house(s), barns, water -pollution -control facilities, water impoundments. fences. corrals, roads, ditches, sloughs, pumps, levees, and other improvements on the Property. Grantor may replace any such structures, whether existing at the date of this writing or constructed later, pursuant to this paragraph, with facilities of similar size, function, capacity, and location, in the event of destruction, deterioration, or obsolescence. C. With the prior written approval of Grantee, Grantor may construct additional structures, facilities, water impoundments, fencing and roads reasonably necessary to permitted recreational activities, nature interpretation or wildlife habitat preservation provided they are sited and designed in a manner so as to not impair the Conservation Values and so as to be consistent with good rangeland and wildlife habitat management practices. D. Except for materials for planting and propagation of native plants and compatible plants for the restoration or enhancement of rangeland and wildlife habitat (including the use of waste water and waste water systems for development of irrigation for plantings), Grantor may not deposit any soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, toxics (except in accordance with sound agricultural or range practices) or any ether materials on the Property. 2. Agricultural and Rangeland Use. A. Grantor or Grantee may engage in agricultural and rangeland stewardship of the Property in accordance with sound, generally accepted agricultural and rangeland practices as long as they are for specific goals of habitat improvement and consistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. Such practices may include limited grazing for weed control or forage management and overall rangeland restoration efforts. Ada Soil & Water Conservation Dislrict Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 189 14 N3Thrtl. i1'. � ���7 B. Grantor may use agri-chemicals in accordance with all applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations. C. Grantor may control predatory and problem animals by the use of selective control techniques consistent with policies promulgated by the State of Idaho Department of Fish and Game, USDI Wildlife Services or the U.S. Department of Agriculture. D. Grantor may remove, burn (including controlled burns in accordance with accepted agricultural and rangeland management practices), chip and cut shrubs and brush, and reasonably control other vegetation, for habitat enhancement, fire breaks, maintenance of existing improvements and prevention of disease or weed infestations. 3. Water Rights and Resources A. Grantor may maintain water rights and develop water resources on the Property necessary or convenient for permitted wildlife habitat enhancement and recreational uses on the Property or Grantor's adjacent property in a manner consistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. 4. RecreationaI Uses A. Grantor may utilize the Property for public recreational or educational uses (including, with seasonal or other limitations, hunting and fishing, hiking, horseback riding, non -motorized mountain bike riding on existing roads and jeep trails, and nature study) that require neither surface alteration subject to the local grading ordinance nor other development of the land and do not otherwise adversely affect the conservation purpose of this Easement. The maintenance of existing hiking and/or equestrian trails is permitted. Installation of new hiking or equestrian trails shall require the consent of Grantee which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, provided the new trails do not adversely affect the conservation purpose of this Easement. B. Grantor may use the Property for hunting in compliance with regulations promulgated by Idaho Department of Fish and Game. In the event hunting is no longer allowed by law, the areas used for hunting and/or fishing shall revert to being open space in its natural condition. 5. Wildlife Habitat Enhancement A. Grantor may utilize the Property for protecting or enhancing wildlife habitat or the natural, scenic or open space values of the Property provided the proposed activity is not inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. Notwithstanding the foregoing. any wildlife enhancement projects will require the advance written permission of Grantee. which will be granted subject to approval of an acceptable plan prepared at the Grantor's cost. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 190 l5 EXHIBIT C PROHIBITED USES AND PRACTICES The following uses and practices, though not necessarily an exhaustive list, are Inconsistent with the purpose of this Easement and are prohibited on the Property, except as permitted by existing third party rights in the Property or except with Grantee's written consent. 1. No Impairment of Conservation Values. The impairment of the Conservation Values is prohibited, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Easement. 2. No Commercial or Industrial Use. The establishment of any commercial or industrial uses, is prohibited, except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Easement. The establishment of any commercial operation, golf course, or other use that is inconsistent with the Conservation Values is prohibited. 3. No Advertisinct. No advertising shall be allowed on the Property. The construction, placement, or erection of any sign or billboards is prohibited, excepting the following: A. Signs reasonably necessary for the identification of the Property. B. Signs necessary to control unauthorized or dangerous activities. C. Signs identifying that the Property is encumbered by this Conservation Easement. D. Signs that provide appropriate educational and interpretive function. E. Other signs approved by Grantee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 4. No Improvements. The construction, reconstruction, or replacement of any structure, except as provided in Exhibit B, are prohibited 5. No Subdivision. The parcel that comprises the Property may not be divided or sold separately. In addition, no division, subdivision, partition, or de facto subdivision of the Property is permitted. However, this paragraph does not prohibit the Grantor's or Grantee's ability to lease all or any portion of the Property for permitted rangeland or recreational uses, or Grantor's or Grantee's voluntary conveyance to a governmental or nonprofit entity for conservation or public access purposes provided that such lease or conveyance does not interfere with or burden this Easement and the Conservation Values protected hereby. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 191 16 MSTFiu1..1':7. ;iqi 6. No Motorized Vehicles. A. The use of motorized vehicles off existing roadways, except by the Grantor or Grantee or others under the Grantor's control for permitted restoration, stewardship, wetlands or range development, recreational needs, or for access to Grantor's adjacent property, or for any emergency use of the Property, is prohibited. B. Motorized motorcross, all terrain vehicle and jeep racing on the Property are prohibited. 7. No New Roads. Grantor may not relocate or install any new roadway or levee, without the prior written approval of the Grantee. 6. No Hazardous Materials. The treatment, permanent storage. disposal or release of hazardous materials on, from or under the Property is prohibited. For the purpose of this Deed, hazardous materials shall mean any hazardous or toxic material or waste, which is subject to any federal, state, or local law or regulation. Notwithstanding anything in the Deed to the contrary, this prohibition does not impose any liability on Grantee for hazardous materials nor does it make Grantee an owner of the Property, nor does It permit or require Grantee to control any use of the Property that may result in the treatment, storage. disposal or release of hazardous materials. 9. No Dumoina or Storing of Trash. Grantor may not dump, accumulate or store trash, ashes, garbage, or other waste on the Property, except for range products and by-products as allowed by law, public health and sound agricultural and conservation practices. 10. No Research Facilities. Grantor may not operate any facilities or operations that would require registration as a "research facility" under the Federal Animal Welfare Act or qualify as a "registered animal research facility" with the United States Department of Agriculture. 11. No Alteration of Land. Major alteration of land forms by grading or excavation of topsoil, earth, or rock, is prohibited without the prior written approval of the Grantee consents, except as permitted for wetlands development and wildlife habitat enhancement in Section 6.A. of Exhibit B. 12, No Removal. Chanae in Historic Use or Abandonment of Water Riahts. Grantor shall not transfer, encumber, sell. lease or otherwise separate the water rights from the Property. Grantor shall not change the historic use of the water rights with the prior written approval of, and determination by, Grantee that such change is not inconsistent with the conservation purpose of this Easement. [f Grantor shall fail to maintain the historic use of the water rights upon the Property, or those rights necessary to protect the Conservation Values of the Property, Grantee shall have the right, but not the obligation to enter upon the Property and undertake any and all actions reasonably necessary to continue the historic use of the water rights in order to protect the Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement A VIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 192 17 Conservation Values of the Property. Grantor shall not abandon or allow the abandonment of, by action or inaction, any of the water rights. If the water rights are under threat of abandonment, Grantor shall convey ownership of said water rights to Grantee and Grantee shall have the right to use said water rights for beneficial conservation purposes on the Property or elsewhere in Boise County or otherwise consistent with the Grantee's mission. In addition, Grantor shall otherwise cooperate with Grantee to help assure the continued use of the water rights for beneficial conservation purposes. Ada Soil & Water Conservation District Conservation Easement AVIMOR Planned Community DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 193 18 EXHIBIT I HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Environmental Conservation SERVICES INC. Avimor Development Habitat Management Plan Ada, Boise, and Gem Counties, Idaho Revised Final Report: 09-15-2022 Original Report Prepared by: Environmental Conservation Services Inc. 1072 N. Beachwood Ct. Eagle, Idaho 83616 12-18-2018 Revisions Provided by: Duran Environmental Consulting, LLC 1973 N. Patricia Ave Boise, Idaho 83704 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 194 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS - i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 1.0 Introduction 7 1.1 History of the Spring Valley Ranch 7 1.1.1 Background 7 1.1.2 McLeod Family 9 2.0 Management Goals and Objectives 11 2.1 Village Specific Mitigation Goals and Timelines 11 2.1.1 Initial Management Actions (Prior to Soil Disturbance Activities) 11 2.1.2 Short and Long-term Management Actions 12 2.2 City of Eagle Regulatory Framework and Requirements... 12 3.0 Site Description 13 3.1 General Setting 13 3.2 Geographical Setting 13 3.3 Historic Land Use 14 3.3.1 Livestock 14 3.3.2 Mechanical Damage 15 3.3.3 Wildfire 15 4.0 Site Resources 19 4.1 Vegetation, Community Types, and Soils 19 4.1.1 Avimor Development Vegetative Communities 20 4.1.2 Baseline Data Acquisition for Quantitative Analysis 21 4.1.3 Vegetative Community Types 22 4.1.4 Wetlands within the Proposed Avimor Development 25 4.1.5 Soils 25 4.1.6 Noxious and Invasive Weeds within the AD 27 4.2 Wildlife 28 4.2.1 Big Game 28 4.2.2 Big Game Surveys 31 4.2.3 Raptors 38 4.2.4 Migratory Birds 38 4.2.5 Upland Game Birds 39 4.2.6 Other Terrestrial Wildlife 39 4.2.7 Aquatic Wildlife 39 4.3 Species of Conservation Concern 40 4.3.1 Survey Mcthods 40 4.3.2 AD Species of Conservation Concern 44 4.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species 50 4.4.1 Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) 50 4.4.2 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) 51 5.0 Direct and Indirect Impacts 52 5.1 Summary of Effects by Resource 54 5.1.1 Conversion of Open Space 54 5.1.2 Disturbance to Riparian Areas 55 Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (I -IMP) 2022 Page 1 i DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 195 5.1.3 Noise 56 5.1.4 Artificial Light 57 5.1.5 Recreation 57 5.1.6 Pets 59 5.1.7 Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Species 60 5.1.8 Wildland Fire 61 5.1.9 Traffic 61 5.1.10 Nuisance Wildlife in the Community 62 5.1.11 Mosquitoes and Other Pests 63 5.2 Cumulative Effects 64 6.0 Management Actions to Avoid, Minimize, or Mitigate Adverse Impacts 65 6.1 AD Management Actions . 65 6.1.1 Actions to Avoid Impacts 66 6.1.2 Actions to Reduce and Mitigate Impacts 67 6.2 Conservation Funding (Avimor Stewardship Organization) 86 6.3 Adaptive Management and Alternative Actions 86 6.3.1 Adaptive Management Strategies 86 6.3.2 Alternative Management Actions 87 6.4 Connectivity Opportunities with Abutting Property 87 6.5 Federal Permitting 87 7.0 References 89 Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page ii DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 196 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Avimor Conservation Director: Potential Conservation and Education Activities Appendix B. Soils Table Appendix C. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary & Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment Appendix D. Avimor InvasiveNoxious Weed Management Plan Appendix E. Avimor Recreational Plan Appendix F. Avimor Fire Plan Appendix G. Avimor Development IPaC Report (2022) LIST OF TABLES Table 1. General Vegetation Types by Community Type 21 Table 2. Raptor Species Within the Avimor Development 38 Table 3. Idaho Species of Conservation Concern State Ranking System 41 Table 4. Idaho Species of Conservation Concern Occurring Within the Proposed Avimor Development. _ 42 Table 5. Impacts to Habitat and Wildlife . 53 Table 6. Summary of Management Actions and Addressed Impacts. 66 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Historic Photo of "Howell'. (CA. 1935). 8 Figure 2. Iistoric View of Spring Valley Ranch (CA. 1935). 9 Figure 3. Wildland Fire Occurrence and Frequency 1957-2020 - Avimor Development 16 Figure 4. Vicinity and Ownership Map — Avimor Development (AD) 17 Figure 5. Existing Trails Map — Avimor Development. 18 Figure 6. General Vegetation and Land Cover Within the AD (2019 NLCD Database). 24 Figure 7. General Soils Map - Avimor Development 25 Figure 8. Ecological Site Descriptions — Avimor Development 26 Figure 9. Map of IDFG Gamc Management Units (GMU)- Avimor Development 28 Figure 10. Diagram of barbed wire fence types found within and adjacent to the Avimor Development arca - 31 Figure 11. Aerial Big Game Survey Routes (2008-2009) 33 Figure 12. Big Game Aerial Survey Results- East Side of Hwy 55 (2008-2009). 34 Figure 13. Big Game Aerial Survey Results- West Side of Fiwy 55 (2008-2009) 35 Figure 14. Resident Big Game Survey Results Summary (2007-2010) 36 Figure 15. Big Game Auto -Related Mortality Ilot Spot Map. 37 Figure 16. Idaho SCC Point Observations (1FWIS July 2021)- Avimor Dcvclopmcnt 43 Figure 17. Slickspot Pcppergrass and Aase's Onion Element Occurrences (1FWIS 2021) - Avimor Development 51 Figure 18. Relationship Between Aquatic, Riparian, and Upland Vegetation.... 73 Avimor Developnient - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page j iii DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 197 ',3TRJ.NiO. Cooser\ abon Program Summary Table: A4imor Development , 4.1.aP1Asa." r laaA Aanwa y�l•e 5(01..lalu rl.r... mM.l n.arNmme 4tinor(omen.Eon Dhnl.r (AP('-(-D) CDA. St 4Y(.(Il1• ell manrF lAe rtnllvv and akemlm mme urur Iho A(n-m Slutwardsho Orpnnaonon Asn/ n, aeYad nAm @anm 1. _ nod Algm,11 (0.1 lm pletnenls umnnpa wrl ma 1919..os o;.aorm 99 Irurn e1m.11-99 in the E 0.1, Mawr- .r" s W w.. vlr -AI Oak:, � nod to u•n mnnNor End nmAc 42[1.1 ewlemem plosra, (IFI. I1.91.1 . rinhelel:enn plum 5.n11 mnon.he9919.- ie991ire19.19 alon �d1rre.. Ae CA( 99.2 .1(9r h.(loos on mold pmpr..s noun rn CH, or m2 CD-5 Sen es non r9A9.912mr of w �rlwlnaw Wrk CDd Yeens oaM... hallos 9999i r, m.Cmane rrrrncrds In um•rmnimn and .W (ninon 995.9-9 t12..T.W91t••951s.We.r (AW1.fe rn.1r aiA51.915.91 rod rail v99 I IISO r r..Aer rswce w 11d1.9 MRsn= hm H., r r..t RnpdWe Mulrtl.iso Anton Sab. (Or Inpl.s.vYMn for MOMWIf 1 ADO* Monk . D.u1311pa.er P.rlt RernM. for l Enl.rcesrnl Ir.9v.An lwrOMYm R..r.ts..t 1.1/91.lmbl A50 C!MgHOA µt we ?eenw�xi llie irnA„,ConplerN 1ASO4enCAC Al CAC Armuel I9099 rmal � SDI. re ut p1 ( w▪ mn,alna m rn•rrt. Art, -CO SA SA I NA Fund On, to Kbmgom0 f C.m+• ler.amm Ca.�rA. I.IVq?w. .1PC CD S1 At NA A et, rmMnr999, ASO 0.n.mtlntr fwp�ra• MYru19-9. APf.'n ea SA NA Imsongonll•i A90 :IW in., ,�. In Ne,S•.z. .n'•I 11 SA SA "Ap`17( AND AND L041 Cuml(Nllen LWeroas onI. M.O.APL-LU SA SA NA 1 aKoo-oma AO Cto.enrurvl ( 1 PrpErcta Ar( co SA SA YA `-u 9.1(HDA ..tn n 'Isamu. lk reLx nnnr-/Iu1Nur 0ur'A• rAt l'leel(111191 21/22 ASAva.aeM A/ s-ay.lrv�1�t.. CDA 49^rowvna tlolv:wm Alrmuul (0-9 SephnpaJ 01 Pm,nm 0,H Co-lalrveeprelnesiyn nnerm+l.un 1.H A50 A50 4aller¢9951 .ti▪ JTO CD -II. Aaynanal w9.9( nto.l nlal wonlnc A50 r`oWu program the me-retxnt rnd.Jhulnn1m0/Fund 1110A -ISO In On AP(nn-al.b.�e!l nreHurpnmul ( nnurr.lran nano, re Com.rxle. (r AO irini. tll\I.nJ .LSO2 ncr. c:nmAN Cnt ora,gle b▪ nrrwL31111.7(a +4w.w.s ▪ /, 01,mr NA All lU Aeon. AdAHrsm:IW rnml Awk,er..uw, Loral. SI..r. and redend, u, well Arc CD rntelr 0,991.9 1.9u(C121r, ur.1 9I9.9 as well 4M.21, u Pm.n 3r.rlts.s apr.mr.-.9 �11w+n.x.991.a(.9» A19'4I1 SA AI'(.LO SA ecrl Sulc.nl rolenl.m well A, cu o.gtm..tnnm 9951959orni ADmovni 1 Sen. Arllmvelmn Pug I or95 rrn16na.slon 1191.9.11= ran, RnpmM, roa!Ra..wDY. Mnnlbrr 11•9119.19 A9.4 P1.15 Ra.un*bkv t...wsr.l IS.n.N>bMI Aerial. None ror Impl.sm!M0 YMmlNraq 4010r5 Iamle.er C.aNWI.n ...rants 11akRIRR1N CWeY lo n1 prrorb d'n tacum of ( ono+kl:a C.99991119 Pnnollunr and Ret bebl W n (CON n. NA 6.5(15199951 andIm2/,/ DOnloper a 1191.19n ,umtr..hrm n' I'rerrn„ APC-1O AW -(la A15, 000 rn,.maul,. Y Hngrs- and i'C-( Il l.1 Iwawla D.a'Wevloo -W. hA OTnrbm.n lad. NA Local, Slate, ool Federal. a5 well us Pmalr Orpaolacnan. 1'Nen&lat.. ell (*. nmarenn. A P(-(la wrl ASO Jneknlnenl AgrAmr•1. 5r9rn9.1 . rluul-\ullwv-Amu ArtA'Y SA API -CO SA Ik.clerpm 4PI. k.DUTkn, C0. aa1 (ns of te�eYrrµ .la nrnA•a end AWOC '('U E0Ak u-nnoecnwh HbDs era d rudeY.WIwI anekpm0l Y194rb1 EV KRg4 1Jr'iau lArnalN um •00 M crm 1A 1 0511/S Cm or Dors.11olL rnpl .Il leri Oxner DeselupnaJ i:91nromA A tlLNAK-CD Ip..4ers.! 4'ra4w Ar ermn lA r r Lninr.nr- Ilulnu/ llu•w,l'wne.,l r'ler„ ll.'411') ]ll22 P.Fr 2 of95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 198 • N V.mgolM Agar LIY41•Y1eNed rrAp4 Colon! \.lohborllwd Delp. CdJ,IW, (ADD) NIR:-1 inns - Muting meows xWu m: pigeaera pa V ID ❑D, ry h-(mnl F+PIr NaaW.., and a Wailed m Me IMP Saolxm 6.1 :. VDD 1 Woofed Miran .ase.e on nm. ardor. arnnp. vale Intestate, m.IM1e Lalernsi aJ.slao milen1,1,S IOMi 3130 ober pam ncsha,. do dal in Mr AM' HAM bcnm h 2. WN neap+l.lm:. on Ape fon and,sl Wes, re promo, n wildlife pasWo old ear passage Jailed :i\I\pn A.1 %oral AD De., a. l.kM1na Reen,Hon A1nn.femem rino 11RP1 eir NA, •1•114 `111a11uu l.n(A. • ". faH,aOa 1i Alle-1_1111' ad IIAII` 11unan G I_, Appeal.. hI AW4,.rewnvmiMkr•ww 1::.1 NHJIao41lre 1Du.l:emeul Plan I+I T) nD q9 F.S. Irybnmeunn 11111pllue nape.,.. -a. Wt. Rlsp...11.I SnreNil Pb.dnrAlminl i Am. Snap fee Imeler•.••l-. 4r11.Emd.g De.emx!- anningnt Met mPum� <r+TMT lY ,nl Prime sues,. Am emenNam Nal lu nrl n fart. :4.TVerm N r,.l ,LY.ib rued binge,/ 'WNW, Muss Mraugh Con mIoneJ mI plop In .n nWan Lode.eleped aOw. J,.e1up. liskletlxL w,fnd p,Yr1� • WOW.. >urtnbn tl friborr LI/r LIED, flrl. nr ln, R�MdLl, nr TA Llnnr h,9l: 4Vr,Ad+rRlern ,1M-CD ▪ .....Wolomf e4:n AM CD 71n.k+F Cs, N A Is,X NA framwoed 1. Ampea ,p N\ if.pla 0.1 Arrr,m .h mu, 1, Iron nr -nummr V,nmer.nare l'Gne (HUM 2r'p N umpirree AJinle.l n, Atam Wal(il A,d..5J Foggily; IP.g.A) 1a.rt.D1 olormin dMn NA V.nllueti Wald. Aurae Frtrlaw• LORIWIW Idcunllrlml of patrols, x iIJ(R ndmlul l A,4,1*4 cm-rearsa ,eaorkle.tote ewOmuta. 41 retard fen.wen,ndod/ Rep RmprndM* for nnrum.m L.for<mM A1.rWuhmlm 110 LID Car LI ID,r12tirw" rnn Husl: nrd k, of Ra IDiil,w uN. rnnna.aXmmonnxn y4 P. Sryaw Cl/ and leenpm.nt Inkwl W N Ls/ ban g. .Agreement. RmihYN Pen. A•artr...na! NOA -In. pe•SISWP. A50, De. claps, APC- "et r,prnent We..,pl Ri ll Cl/. bird Lin el Feel: Apes., Ilsganned . emnlnl.dll, wIln! AN CD red rd 'firlibrgrar ION/ RI D.,J• nn✓h "� ION/ .1...I, mr�w1 \A e Meow �1rn r •.1,ne.ornM1 Momnrlog Drum DoNopv L erma 7r•et,+, Min llndmw nal and 11NN0 ASDrnk1 V APC CD, INS -band All�1 AI, CO o:prAuurrng (h, el FLple wl x m.....fr r', UV, rMrYIL te..m Wa.r. Arc-c0 RIF+Y1 APC-CD APC-CD Admrmee in hJ nod role ta\. Ter n ?maw or nrrdeuhal S.Teetkd NA ]n,i.nnw '✓edlrAyMnei ihArdkn Agrembern.w I nil C.a.-man. fannc •) oemps ICIA'e=.. Al t.11 XDA 'whims IDTC.DL\J APC-CD -rnc�Penelb, Parr 3 of95 fwermiraffir. 14111.11. RrK N,..-ar-+', 1M, Ru,wMe MrnrS. Ve,Ilor4, Deui1, Age, P.M Rop,fl - H.foronwrd I5. lull•• AMeo Senn W lmr.l.+n-.•re- fm11orroMeir Aaha, Frtgnr.e1 Woe.a.1W Wifsrember hdnh.nhma) .AIP-1! "Me A xill mnmaale ILe urn! AI A min ell fn.= Jnelbpr,tu! (luogoto ASD Jre Misr m9 Fe rod. nnl, D.G Lumereal n Wrploseoled 6Pr1,-A engo.ravui barn fir Fable Fund (lxpp; rirelh n.land the CIL: or I..k N nlanih 11HIg.Iloo Play IN 11P) NAI14-1 \\l,11M, nJ1 be !doing. and awl., d-mleool p-! Air . I el,. aW.Wn6, rm, p1u e-bo- phne bra- Wn tuyunppl DleKNY bin rI ar 11 W llWiwh,e npla.d Mirrolln. AOh. nfl-.D. Cmeen.l Wn F,•emenl.nd irynn Spam NW Wr1, 1101.:-aix. nN.1014NA a.. natural opense !n pe 1pnunl w `onanmou Nisei hs aprcn A,D DerrliaseASfp plw pm omit, n111W P na Iw•wm 111,11hm i1 mdnl M wiNoed we 1Nr 4silup A 12 CD ne Me A, em1Lmun, a0nu I.e.-Iry C aria ( swag.. on Ad, ruin( ownon • HAIp rs ninnn,r Alnpl neer1 elan 4 1O14 InIl Me Lt. Depanmem ofl-ab cod Moue NIA. la nk M rep nfl.n, M•nagnemr • IRl urie m,hs Dfslnmem oflmmNnelen ACC.. Arraynxy ul f:N'nlnn f NM, Her. Infls,,nrroi,nn: La IED Lard !Wm,, Wranmrnl p Ylm tARrndn FI I AfP a.l.nmfwar. lANmJa. ASD, APC-CD and thy 01 Ens, D.Rf pant. gel 4Id Anr1 1.17..111- kgah 5114ALXI Sevier ad Innrbuyc pb,In Ira., PP.' mu al/Avg, ARD lad AM -CD Du hkLaes lameI N.rYl. wdu. Fella -alms as ao ear AF1' n 1eAj e1,ery$suna Al •-•1•10 .•4rAr..+ i3r m2Lin • wm.I WNW., ells ..1ry5., De selresr AYD. WL Me, Wm.. 9aresw 1v, APL-CIJ, .1d Cu/nf Ii F.lPY 1n4e men, anr,nimn AC0 Plan irracige w huge:. APC,D 4na.1 tiorioN Ark MI, J� mine, rIi I NA AILD hn11•,.a11•..m A' 4 nnnesl. tlgh- urForanton Aea.wleJ Pem. • The ax.m, for' Magoon Aewm 54111.1' bin (I), anal, ID In 2luJ•rcs, labia Jute, Or Cr,mnkpe la mple.N dre) 1r(1I fnnl!n!!.., Nne1 the A, ruler Dmrluamra'regam S.mmn:nik nl„ be,pdernln, N)mwmmeud5J41,, II,-Lnmu,Tnnna.!um(mm.mrct, At lc,rtnarM nnl,Apm,-dh; IL- L my n• Foga All,nnllgerenni rands Nellb:nddfnl,-Jln,he H,boa1\Irn.E'mvn PisunaI ,ellalal ,n Maw plc mallJm. an.rJul. ea.me! n.!!b 1 and Jae In Ilia goner el Ms ca Ile INN,.• NI eonng eon, id1aeicnm gre Neils Ova: gra sn4 bilmaci reehnngem4y nr n NomD rus. slnwnelil; kdef1n-,l as,..as 1 troll Ssensor-Nor ein1nl(Wake Don,.feW. mtatask0). (Spm.. Nag,-\1ay). srd,S.u,ner. Julio Sumo, A! MN, Men( llu/nrat Me np(ulmine MIA ((J\(('J VI:) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 199 raged pf95 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This area associatcd with the Avimor Development (AD) consists of roughly 19,000-acres acres in the North Eagle and West Boise Foothills (hereafter, foothills'). The landscape is dominated by rolling hills of perennial and annual grasslands with dispersed native shrub stands, riparian areas, and flat agricultural fields. Much of the arca has been affected by historic wildfires, with some areas burning multiple limes over the last 50 years. Invasive and noxious weed species are present in all community types within the area, and in most cases their distribution has expanded. Wildlife species in the area are generally those species found in the surrounding foothills including: big game (elk, mule deer, and antelope), raptors and migratory birds, medium and small mammals, rodents, and several reptile and amphibian species. Human uses in the arca include cultivated agriculture, livestock grazing, mining (historic and existing), residential and commercial development, transportation, recreation (active and passive), research, and conservation easements. The AD Habitat Management Plan (HMP) was developed to provide the background information on the natural resources (plant communities, wildlife and their habitat, wetlands, etc.) of the area, as well as and the potential impacts associated with development and other linked human uses or impacts (recreation, wildland fire, livestock grazing, invasive species, etc.). The HMP also describes the organizational approach and conservation -based management tools and guidelines to be used to avoid, reduce, or mitigate those impacts. The background information and conservation tools/guidelines are based on 15 years (2003- 2018) of area -wide resource surveys; continued coordination with local, state, and federal agencies, user groups, and conservation organizations; and the successful development, implementation, and continuous adaptation of the Avimor Planned Community's Wildlife Mitigation Plan (WMP), Fire Plan (AFP), and Recreation Plan (ARP). The intent of this HMP is to outline a standardized framework that all existing and future developments within the AD area would be designed, constructed, managed, and monitored as it relates to the conservation of natural resources at both the project -specific and landscape level. Historic wildlife and land cover data will be combined with area -specific data associated with each proposed project within the development area in order to quantitatively determine the overall impacts of the proposed action and the level of mitigation required to offset the impacts in order to meet the management goals identified for the AD (see below). The identified conservation measures are fully defined prior to any disturbance activity, are accompanied by a standardized monitoring/management plan with third party oversight and arc connected to a perpetual funding source. This interconnected, landscape -based management concept uses a predefined calculation to quantify the development impacts and associated mitigation requirements for a defined development area. The HMP also outlines the general management guidelines to be implemented during the construction phase and occupation. In addition, the process takes into consideration the resources of the entire AD area rather than isolating the impact analysis to each project. This allows the plan to address the cumulative impacts of development over time that would otherwise not be addressed using most exiting planning guidelines. By using a standardized approach that can adapt to changes in the environment as well as changes in the type, density, and distribution of the development products, it gives the development greater predictability in mitigation requirements, and flexibility in management tools. Avinnor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 5 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 200 Overall AD Manalentent Goals A. Avoid. Miniruize, or adequately mitigate for direct and indirect impacts to wetlands, plant communities, wildlife, and wildlife habitat associated within the development within the AD. B. Permanently mitigate impacts to existing native plant communities and critical wildlife habitat,corridors within the AD using perpetual conservation easements as the primary tool. C. Actively manage native plant communities within the region by restoring or enhancing historically altered structural and functional components within the communities. with the intent of providing and enhancing wildlife and pollinator habitat. D. Actively manage plant communities within and adjacent to developments, with the intent of reducing theamount and connectivity of fuels in the area, as well as the potential for wildland fire ignition. E. Create and perpetuate, indefinitely a funded conservation program to protect, manage, and maintain enhance the surrounding wildlife habitat, F. Work collaboratively with city, state, and federal agencies in restoring native habitat and managing invasive and noxious weed species within the AD and adjacent federal or state lands. G. Foster community stewardship and increase awareness of the foothills ecology through residential and public conservation and education activities. H. Work collaboratively with city, state, and federal agencies and adjacent private landowners to develop a regional, interconnected trail system that incorporates sustainable design principles and conservation -oriented management guidelines. f. Evaluate the success of meeting the HMP goals and objectives on an annual basis at the discretion of the Avimor Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC). Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 201 Page 6 of 95 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Avimor Development (AD) has developed a proactive standardized approach to address potential short and long-term development impacts, both direct and indirect, to existing plant communities and resident/migrating wildlife species within and adjacent to the area. As a basis for this approach, the developer has been conducting flora and fauna surveys/inventories within the AD arca for over 15 years. In addition, the existing Avimor Planned Community (APC) has implemented one of the most successful conservation -based development programs (Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Fire Plan, and Recreation Plan) for nearly 15 years. As it is the intent of the owner to further develop within the AD, it is assumed that future development and linked uses/impacts will have certain unavoidable impacts to the existing flora and fauna. Based on the amount and extent of the existing data for the site, coupled with the experiences gained with the long-term implementation of the APC, we have developed a set of conservation -based management guidelines and a standardized delineation and mitigation process that will be used for all future development within the AD pmpeny. The purpose of this document is to: define the baseline conditions of the AD; identify a standardized impact assessment process for proposed development actions at both the site -specific and landscape level; and outline on and ol7 site management actions that, if implemented, would help compensate for the identified adverse impacts in areas where it is ecologically advantageous, financially possible, and socially responsible. The most important aspect regarding this planning process is the historic and ongoing coordination with representatives from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Ada County Soil and water Conservation District (ASWCD), National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and other interested agencies, groups, and individuals. At various stages throughout the development of this and the original APC's Wildlife Mitigation Plan (WMP), meetings were conducted with these various entities to determine opinions, concerns, suggestions, and recommendations regarding ecological, economical, and social aspects of the Habitat Mitigation Plan (HMP). The direction of this HMP was navigated by this cooperative approach in an effort to identify and create recommendations that would have the highest probability of success in the conservation of wildlife species and plant communities within and adjacent to the AD arca. 1.1 HISTORY OF THE SPRING VALLEY RANCH l.l.1 Background The Spring Valley Ranch dominates the northern horizon of the City of Eagle and Boise Valley. In 2005, its 38,000 acres spread nearly 20 miles east to west and more than ten miles north to south across three counties (Ada, Boise, and Gem). The ranch's beginning, however, was much more humble. Early land rccords show multiple ownerships, many as small as 40- acres, across the landscape. Those records identify Eliza R. Howell as the first owner of the "heart" of the ranch, with eighty -acres straddling the Ada -Boise County line. An 1897 USGS Map identifies the current ranch headquarters as "Howell." The August 1989 Ada County Historic Resources: A Reconnaissance Survey, conducted by Belinda Davis and Barbara Perry Bauer, states: "The Spring Valley Ranch arca located on the northern edge of the county apparently was a thriving community (once known as Howell) boasting a general Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 7 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 202 •,:� � Flu. r,��.�3 ?/T!;ES X CvF9ii store, blacksmith shop and post office. Remnants of the old road, the extension of Brokcn Hom Road from the Dry Creek Valley, which extended to Pearl are still visible to the east of the main house. The ranch currently exists (consists) of a massive gabled barn constructed with hewn joints and wooden pegs and a well preserved folk Victorian house" (Figure 1). Figure 1. Historic Photo of "Howell" (CA. 1935). "Howell" changed hands in Fcbruary of 1910, whcn Eliza R. and William H. Howell sold the site --at least 80 acres, according to the deed. That transaction provides the first reference to William Howell and corroborates accounts, which refer to an "Uncle Billy" Howell and his extensive sheep operation in Spring Valley. The purchasers — W.C. Cleveland and John Archabal — apparently added surrounding parcels to the ranch. When they sold Spring Valley Ranch to Colin McLeod I (and W.J. Hodgson) on October 4, 1916, there were 1,400 acres, including the two and one-half mile long Spring Valley itself. In the absence of historical narratives, mapping was used to piece together the story of Spring Valley Ranch. The 1897 USGS map identifies two over land routes from the Boise Valley to the Payette River and the site of today's community of Horseshoe Bend. As noted above, the first followed the route of Broken Horn Road from Seaman's Gulch. The road split at Willow Creek — the west fork going to the mining town of Pearl; the east fork to Horseshoe Bend. The other roadway, identified as the Healey Toll Road, is today's Cartwright Road. One may assume that this road was the most direct and better -maintained facility of the two, making the collection of a fee for its use acceptable. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 203 Page 8 of 95 Historic mapping also suggests that other elements of "community" were important to the widely scattered residents of northern Ada County. Three area schools are shown on the pages of the November 1938 edition of Metsker's Atlas of Ada County. Stack Rock School on Cartwright Road (formerly Healey Toll Road) and Upper Dry Creek School apparently served thc residents cast and south of Spring Valley Ranch. Residents of Spring Valley, Rocky Canyon and Willow Creek were served by the Spring Hill School located at the Southwest corner of Section 12, a Hole west of the ranch headquarters. Orin Givens, son of Guy Givens who operated the ranch during thc 1930's told storics to his family of riding his horse to the school and having to remain there with the teacher and other students during snowstorms. Figure 2. Historic View of Spring Valley Ranch (CA. 1935). 1.1.2 McLeod Family Colin McLeod was born in Ardgay, Rosshire, Scotland, on February 27, 1880. It was in 1899, when a young man of nineteen years, Colin came to Idaho from Scotland and entered the shcep industry at Rockville with Finley McKenzie, his employer for six years. McLeod began business on his own in partnership with John Bruce, having ten thousand head of sheep at their camp, Jump Creek, eighteen miles south of Caldwell. McLeod disposed of his interest in the business and, in 1916, purchased Spring Valley Ranch. McLeod was recognized as one of the most progressive and enterprising young sheepinen of Idaho and did much to improve the conditions of the business in the state. After his death, his son Colin "Smokcy" McLeod 11 continued the sheep business until about 1982, when thc ranch transilioned to cattle. Smokcy's son, Sandy (Colin 1I1), took over the ranch in 1995 upon his father's death, and the family continues to operate it today. For over 100 years, the four generations of Colin McLeod have not only operated the ranch, but they also have "grown" it from the original 1,400 acre purchase (Figure 2) to more than 22,000 acres. They have shared it with other arca shcepmen who moved their flocks through Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 204 Page 9 of 95 :\!3TRU. t! ;' _'AGr - the ranch to private and public grazing land. Over time, ranching operations have evolved from sheep, to sheep and horses, then since the early 1980's, cattle. Even as the McLeod name has become synonymous with Spring Valley, the land has also been home to numerous Basque sheepherders who worked at Spring Valley Ranch, caring for both the (locks and for the land. The Basque culture is still prevalent in the arca and continues to flourish throughout the state and region. Spring Valley Ranch's history includes strong ties to the Basque people, who enriched the land with their successful sheep operations and created a self-sustaining way of life. It is the heritage of over one hundred (100) years of McLeod family ownership and concern for the land that form the basis for the future — and for development of a "place" upon that land for succeeding generations. It is the Scottish heritage of the McLeod family that led to the selection of Avimor, which is named after Scotland's Aviemore (note spelling difference) a thriving, active -lifestyle resort town in the Highlands, and the gateway to a major national park. In July 2003, the McLeod family contributed 26,800-acres of their 38,000-acres ranch into a trust in a forward -looking development agreement. The "contributed" acreage has since been modified, with trusts lands now reduced to approximately 22,000-acres. The goal shared by the McLeod family and Avimor LLC is to craft a conservation -based community that holds the McLeod family vision and values. It is an exemplary example of sustainable development principles, conservation -based planning, and a commitment to that active management and preservation of the natural resources the McLeod family have lived and worked on for over 100 years. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 205 Page 10 of 95 2.0 MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The primary goal of this management plan is to build a long-term comprehensive plan that delineates current conditions: identifies direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with the development; and implements adaptive mitigation actions within and adjacent to the proposed preliminary plats° as they are built. The primary management guidelines are based on the correlation between the proposed development plans and the existing ecological conditions of the region and may require adjustments throughout various phases of the 'Preliminary plat: The first formal overall development to align with the overall AD presentation by drawings of a management goals stated above. proposed subdivision 2.1 VILLAGE SPECIFIC AIITIGATION GOALS AND TIMELINES The section below describes the standard preliminary plat mitigation goals and the associated implementation timelines that would be implemented for each. These arc actions that will bc taken after the AD has been annexed, but prior to the first final plat for each preliminary plat. All site clearances, regulatory requirements, agency coordination, and site mitigation process will be initiated prior to each preliminary plat application to the City of Eagle (see Section 6.0). Based on the dynamic characteristics of the ecosystems within the AD, the influence from human impacts onsite and off, as well as the adaptive nature of the mitigation plan itself, these management timelines should be considered guidelines rather than fixed schedules. However, all implemented management actions for each final plat within the AD will be monitored and annually reviewed by an independent conservation advisory committee (CAC) for effectiveness. Project -specific timelines, when appropriate, would bc discussed by the AD and CAC and reviewed for progress by the CAC on an annual basis. 2.1.1 Initial Management Actions (Prior to Soil Disturbance Activities) Initial management actions will focus on: setting up the management framework for the implementation and monitoring of the management activities; establishing conservation casements within predefined areas to offset development impacts; inventory and management plan for invasive and noxious weed species; development of a fuels control program and update to AFP; defining potential restoration and enhancement of riparian and upland communities within or adjacent to the development arca; and developing a concept recreation plan and incorporating it into the regional ARP. Specific management actions required prior to any soil disturbing activities include, but are not limited to: • Conservation Director and Conservation Advisory Committee will be in place; • The location of off -site conservation easements will be established and recorded with third party manager; • • Noxious weed inventory and control plan will be developed; • incorporation of specified units into the AFP and the development of a fuels control plan; and • A concept recreation plan will be initiated and implemented in to the Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 206 Page 11 of 95 regional Avimor Recreation Plan; As of the revision date for this Plan (April 2022), all aforementioned initial management actions have been completed. 2.1.2 Short and Long-term Management Actions Short-term and long-term management actions will focus on: initiating and managing the invasive and noxious weed control program; initiating and managing restoration and enhancement of riparian and upland communities; conducting landscape reviews and audits per the AFP: updating the community recreation plan as ncedcd; implementing community education programs: and altering the HMP to compensate for identified opponunities and constraints. Specific management actions include, but not limited to: • Implementation and monitoring of the noxious weed and fuels program; • Conservation education programs will be initiated and materials distributed to residents; • Review of landscape plans and home audits will be conducted on units identified in the AFP; • The community recreation plan will be updated, as ncedcd; • Community partnerships with county, state, federal, and other developments will be supported; and • A grant application program will be developed, as needed 2.2 CITY OF EAGLE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND REQUIREMENTS This HMP was done in accordance with requirements set forth by the City of Eagle Code 12-1. In addition, the plan identifies and addresses federal requirements associated with migratory bird species (Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 [MBTA]) and endangered species (Endangered Species Act [ESA]). Any jurisdictional wetlands identified within a defined project area would be delineated and would meet all Section 404 permit requirements associated with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since there are currently no federal lands affected by the development, or federal dollars used for the development, regulatory actions associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are not required but may be necessary on a project -by -project basis. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 207 Page 12 of 95 • NSTRU. NO.- 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 GENERAL SETTING The proposed AD is located in parts of eastern Ada County, western Boise County, and southern Gem County Idaho in Townships 05 and 06 North, and Range 01 and 02 East (Figure 4). The AD is approximately 19,000-acres in size and is surrounded by private, state, and public lands. The property is bisected by Highway 55, north of Dry Creek Road and South of Horseshoe Bend. Portions of the South Fork of Willow Creek, Alkali Creek, Big Gulch and Gulch Creeks, Woods Gulch Creek, Spring Valley Creek, Custer Creek run through the property, as does roughly 4.5 miles of Pearl Road. Elevation ranges between approximately 3,200 and 4,500 feet above mean sea level. The AD property is primarily used for agricultural purposes, including an alfalfa field and pastures/open range for domestic livestock grazing. The development and associated management plans for the APC were approved by Ada County in 2006. Of the 830 acres roughly 65% (580-acres) of the APC is pemianently protected as natural open space, with an additional 400-acre conservation easement outside the APC boundary on the east side of SH-55. The conservation easement is managed by the Ada County Soil and Water Conservation District (ASWCD) and permanently funded by the Avimor Stewardship Organization (ASO) through Homeowner Association (HOA) fees. While the APC represents only four percent of the total AD area, it provides over 40-miles of publicly accessible trails and two tracks, with an additional 55 miles outside the APC but on the east side of the SH-55 (Figure 5). Currently, there are over 200 miles of existing two tracks and trails that would be incorporated and managed under the current Avimor Recreation Plan as each phase is developed. Public lands administered by the BLM, State of Idaho, and private land with residential and agricultural properties border the arca. 3.2 GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING For the purposes of this document, the AD is found within the Eagle Foothills and western- most portions of the Boise Foothills (Figure 4). This region covers approximately 60,000- acres immediately north and east of Eagle, Idaho. The AD is located in Ada, Boise, and Gem Countics. The AD is approximately 19,000-acres in size and is bisected by Highway 55, north of Dry Creek Road, south of Horseshoe Bend, cast of Willow Creek Road, and west of the Boise Foothills. Elevation ranges between approximately 3,200 and 4,500 feet above mean sea level. The general climate of the arca surrounding the proposed AD is characterized by sharp contrasts between summer and winter seasons. The average annual temperature recorded in the area is 52 degree Fahrenheit (F), with the yearly average high (88.9 F) in July and the average low (33°F) in January (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC] 2017). The winters, though cold, are generally not too severe. The average precipitation recorded at the Boise WFO RAW station from 2014 — 2017 is 14.62 inches, annually (WRCC 2017). Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 208 Page 13 of 95 3.3 HISTORIC LAND USE Prior to European settlement, two principal vegetation communities dominated the area associated with the AD: Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis) and bitterbrush (Punshia tridentata), each with an understory of native perennial grasses and forbs. Riparian and grassland communities were also present but made up only a small percentage of the total arca. In addition to vascular plant communities, biological soil crusts, consisting of lichens, algae, and mosses, are another important component of the ecological community (Belnap 2001). Over time, the overall condition of the AD area has degraded considerably in areas and generally ranges from marginal to poor condition, with scattered pockets in good and near - pristine condition based on long-term habitat condition surveys. The current condition of the area is directly and indirectly associated with human resource uses (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation, transportation, agriculture, etc.), which have resulted in: the introduction and sprcad of invasive and noxious weed spccics; incrcascd frequency and severity of wildfires; and an overall loss or significant alteration of native vegetation communities. This reduction and alteration of native plant communities, in addition to increased fragmentation affects from fencing, roads, and development (i.e., residential, agricultural, and commercial), have also adversely affected wildlife spccics by reducing overall availability and connectivity of quality habitat. 3.3.1 Livestock Domestic livestock use of this area has had significant impact on native plant communities and wildlife species, including special status plants, and ground dwelling and nesting wildlife (LEPA 2003; Hanley and Page 1981). The potential for domestic livestock to adversely affect plant communities and wildlife habitat is normally greatest when consistent heavy spring use occurs during the critical growth period of forage species and when soils are still saturated. Trampling, over -utilization, and defoliation of palatable species reduces vigor, abundance, and reproductive ability; thereby, limiting the capacity of residual perennial communities to reestablish (Blaisdell and Pechancc 1949; Jones 2000). Hoof sheer and trampling can also negatively affect ground dwelling wildlife and ground nesting birds by destroying burrow systems and crushing nests and eggs (Hanley and Page 1981). Livestock can also indirectly affect plant communities and wildlife habitat by acting as vectors for many invasive and noxious weed species, and they create microhabitats for these species through soil disturbance (hoof sheer, bedding, etc.). These actions benefit exotic species that are better adapted to livestock grazing at the expense of native species (Holecheck et al. 2001; Laycock and Conrad 1981). Native species, such as Thurbcr's needle grass (Achnathertnn thurberianum) and blucbunch whcatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicatum), generally exhibit reduced growth and reproduction when over -grazed, resulting in a transition from native perennial species to exotic annual species (Kimball and Schiffman 2003). The reduction of perennial reproduction and incrcascd competition from invasive Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 209 Page 14 of 95 species can also result in augmented fuel loads that reduce the intervals between disturbance events (e.g., wildfire) and potentially enhance the size and severity of those events, which can further accelerate the expansion of exotic annual -dominated communities, reducing natural habitat for wildlife spccics (Whiscnant 1990). 3.3.2 Mechanical Damage Vegetation and soils are damaged by a number of activities, including off -road recreation, livestock trampling, firebreaks, habitat restoration projects, and utility and road right-of-way (ROW) developments. These activities destroy biological soil crusts, reduce soil fertility, increase susceptibility to erosion and establishment of invasive/noxious plants, and fragment wildlife habitat. 3.3.3 Wildfire Prior to European settlement, wildfire frequency in the Snake River Plain was between 35 and 100 years for sagebrush communities and greater than 200 years for salt desert shrub communities (USDI 2000). With the increase of exotic annuals, lightning -caused wildfires began to burn with greater frequency and intensity and affected larger and larger areas. Seeds of exotic annuals arc well -suited to survive wildfire, while bittcrbrush and sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) are generally eliminated by wildfire. In years of average to above average precipitation, fuel loads (primarily cheatgrass [Bromus tector un] and other invasive annuals) increase considerably, resulting in a grcatcr probability for ignition. As a result of these changes to vcgctation communities, wildfire return intervals have been reduced from 20 to 50 years to an average of 10 to 12 years (Peters and Bunting 1992). Because of the change in the wildfire regime in much of the Snake River Plain, the rate of shrub loss has far exceeded shrub regeneration (Whiscnant 1990). Consequently, the vcgctation in much of the area has transitioncd from shrub -dominated communities to annual grasslands. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 15 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 210 Figure 3. wildland Fire Occurrence and Frequency 1957-2020 - Avimor Development Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 211 Page 16 of 95 TUi. N 53 'AGES _!T 2 l' 11 J I7 _JI._ r- : r. i -7 N; Yi T Jf- u Figure 4. Vicinity and Ownership Map - Avimor Development (AD) Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 212 Il ■ ti Page 17 of 95 Avimor Recreational Trails - Existing and Potential Future (2022) Figure 5. Existing Trails Map —Avimor Development. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 213 Page 18 of 95 T RU. NO. 4.0 SITE RESOURCES 4.1 VEGETATION, COMMUNITY TYPES, AND SOILS According to the Public Lands Open Space Management Plan (BP&R 2000), there are six primary vegetation communities generally identified in the Eagle and Boise Foothills including: grasslands, upland shrubs, forested, mountain shrub, riparian, and planted woodland groves. Upland native plant communities in the AD foothills are predominantly composed of grassland and upland shrub communities found on the lower and mid -elevation slopes. Riparian communities arc found at all elevations and generally have the greatest biodiversity of any community, but make up the smallest percentage of vegetation cover, overall. The planted woodland groves are generally non-native species restricted to the lower elevations adjacent to the Cities of Boise and Eagle. While there are no forested or mountain shrub communities within the AD, they arc adjacent to the property at the high elevations in the east. The Public Lands Open Space Management Plan (BP&R 2000) defines these foothills communities as: Grasslands Grasslands are a dominant plant community on the lower elevation slopes composed of lacustrine, or lakebed, soils. Grazing and fire on the lower slopes has eliminated much of the former native shrub and grass vegetation and left dense stands of annual grasses. These annual grasses include cheatgrass on sandy soils and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput- medusae) on soils with higher clay content. Other exotics and state -listed noxious weeds have also impacted thc grasslands, thc most significant of which bcing rush skelctonweed (Chondnlla juncea). Remnants of native vegetation remain in some lower foothills areas such as Hulls Gulch/Camel's Back Reserve and Military Reserve where upland shrub and grass communities include bitterbrush, sagebrush, and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.) as the primary shrub species. Perennial grasses include three -awn (Aristida purpurea), Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa secunda), and bluebunch wheatgrass (EDAW, CH2M Hill, Jensen -Belts Associates, 1996). Upland Shrub Communities The sagebrush and bitterbrush upland shrub communities are prevalent on mid -elevation granitic soils. Historic grazing and fires have altered the native composition of these communities. Thus, the existing shrub communities are represented in a patchwork of remnant native shrub communities. Herbaceous compositions of these shrub communities include both native to exotic species. Upland shrub populations on the northeast aspects appear to be more resilient to wildland fire and weed invasions (Mancuso, 1999). The Interagency Fire Rehabilitation Report (1996) identified shrub communities in good to excellent condition that included big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass—Thurber's needlegrass on many south aspects and bitterbrush/bluebunch wheatgrass on shallow, rocky areas with south aspects. North aspects supported a big sagebrush%Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) community type. Vegetation determined to be in poor to fair condition was characterized by increased coverage of three -awn grass, Sandberg's bluegrass, and rabbitbrush. Forested Forested areas arc present in the upper elevations of the foothills on granitic soils. The Interagency Fire Rehabilitation Report (1996) found that plant community compositions in Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 19 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 214 the forested areas included Douglas fir/nincbark communities on the north aspects, while ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with understories of bitterbrush, bluebunch wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue were found on dry or rocky sites. There are no forested communities within the AD. Mountain Shrub Mountain shrub areas are frequently adjacent to forested areas in the upper elevations of the foothills. These shrub communities are dominated by chokecherry, bitter cherry, bitterbrush, and bluebunch wheatgrass. Mountain shrub communities also include ccanothus, aspen, serviccberty, mountain maple, ninebark, and snowbrush. There are no mountain shrub communities within the AD. Riparian Riparian plant communities are associated with perennial and intermittent streams throughout the foothills. Lower elevation riparian zones generally have tree canopies dominated by black cottonwood with box elder, elm, water birch, and peach leaf willows. The shrub layer is dominated by willows (coyote and arroyo), golden currant, thin -leaf alder, black hawthorn, red -osier dogwood, poison ivy, honeysuckle and Wood's rose. Riparian zones in the mid- to upper elevations generally do not have a tree canopy but are -dominated by the willows and shrubs listed above. Detailed compositions of several riparian plant communities arc documented in Moseley et al., 1992. Emergent wetlands arc also found within the riparian zones in the foothills. Willows, cattails, and sedges generally dominate the vegetation in these areas. Standing water can be found in some areas. Grazing and drought have reduced the extent of the wetlands throughout the AD (EDAW 1996). Many wildlife species rely on the cover of trees and shrubs for nesting, forage, and escape habitat found in riparian areas. Riparian areas and drainages are also used as movement and migration corridors for some wildlife species. Over 200 wildlife species in the area are associated with riparian communities. Planted Woodland Groves Planted woodland groves, consisting of exotic tree plantings, are located in the lower foothills adjacent to the city. Tree species that occur in this mix include black locust, silver maple, tree of heaven, Scotch pine, linden, Norway maple, and oak. Introduced trees in the groves show little evidence of regeneration. The undcrstory is primarily a mixture of annual and perennial grasses (EDAW et al. 1996). Planted woodland groves are limited to the APC within the AD. 4.1.1 Avimor Development Vegetative Communities The plant communities and associated species composition found within the AD are those commonly found throughout the western portion of the Snake River Plains. Based on the amount of area with similar habitat found throughout the Snake River Plains (millions of acres), the AD (19,000-acres) is only a very small fraction of that area. The AD area generally supports five general vegetation communities: riparian, grassland, shrub, agriculture, and disturbed; and one non -vegetative community, rock (Table 1 and Figure 7). These communities were determined by the dominant vegetation or characteristic present (Section 4.0). In addition, past and current use and disturbance, as well as defining boundaries including roads, slope, and aspect were also considered. Table 1 quantifies the amount and percent of each community type found within the proposed AD boundary. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 20 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 215 -� l Table 1. General Veeetatioa Types by Community Type Community, Type Total Acres Percent Agriculture 290 1.52% Disturbed 160 0.84% Grasslands 16,183 84.92% Riparian 380 1.99% Rock 7 0.04% Shrubs 2,000 10.50% Total Acres 19,056 4.1.2 Baseline Data Acquisition far Quantitative Analysis During initial baseline surveys and reports (2006), ECS staff used the most current aerial imagery provided by the USGS's National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) to delineate the general vegetative community types at a rough linear scale (Figure 6 and Table 1). As future project areas are delineated, updated NAPP or comparable imagery would be used in conjunction with vegetative community data to further separate each community type based on its overall potential ecological condition. Land cover types shown in Figure 7 were pulled from the most recent (2019) National Land Cover Database geospatial library (Dewitz and USGS 2021). Reference condition for each location would identified using Ada, Gem, and Boise County soil maps and their associated ecological site descriptions (Figure 7, Figure 8, and Appendix B). Using the ecological site description, reference condition can be identified and followed with site- specific surveys to confirm and adjust the delineated classifications, including: agricultural; grassland; shrub; riparian; rock outcrop; and disturbed. After the classifications are ground-truthed during field surveys, Arc-GIS with Spatial Analyst software would be used to delineate and quantify each of the communities. Riparian and wetland areas on the property will be classified using the standard for proper Iunctioning condition (PFC) as outlined by the BLM's proper functioning condition workgroup. BLM depicts natural riparian -wetland areas as resources whose capability and potential is defined by the interaction of three components: 1) vegetation, 2) landform/soiIs, and 3) hydrology (BLM 1998). For the purpose of maintaining consistency throughout this report, riparian conditions will be categorized as poor, marginal, or satisfactory condition as a baseline for mitigation purposes. Poor condition relates to non-functioning condition, marginal related to functioning at risk, and satisfactory relates to proper functioning condition. During all field surveys detailed notes and UTM coordinates or GPS polygons will be recorded regarding plant associations, noxious weed populations, and land use patterns. The surveyors will keep lists of all plants encountered and identified during the site survey. Unknown species will be collected and identified with the following reference matcnal: Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest (Hitchcock et al. 1964) and Flora of The Pacific Northwest: An Illustrated Manual (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973), or other plant systematic key. Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 21 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 216 • •Y u. • .tt 4.1.3 Vegetative Community Types Grasslands (Native and Invasive) Grasslands comprise approximately 85 percent (16,183-acres) of the project area and are readily found throughout the property (Figure 6). These sites have been significantly altered by increased frequency of fires, agriculture, and livestock grazing. The majority of the grassland is in poor condition and is dominated by medusahead wild rye, cheatgrass, and bulbous bluegrass (Poa bulbosa). A number of annual forbs are present as well, including annual sunflower (Helianthus animus) clasping pepperweed (Lepidium perfoliatum), storksbill (Erodium cicutarium) and various mustards (Sispnhri:im altissimunt and Descu ainiasophia). However, there are large patches of residual native species including: grasses, such as bluebunch wheatgrass. Sandberg's bluegrass, squirrel tail (Elymus el moides), and purple thrceawn; perennial (orbs, such as Hooker's baisamroot (Salswnatlriza hookerii), long- leaved phlox (Max longifolia), mountain -desert parsley (Lontatiwi:groyi). barestem biscuitroot (Lornatiurn nudicaule), prairie star (Lithofragma parviflora), and Nevada onion (Allium nevadense). These patches are primarily limited only to the upper elevations or steeply sloped hillsides of the proposed AD where is seems that livestock grazing has been limited. This observation is based on the limited amount of new manure and trampling observed during site visits. Shrub Communities Shrub communities are generally found in the north and northwestern portion of the property. They cover approximately 10.50 percent (2,000-acres) of the proposed project arca. These areas generally occur at higher elevations and varying slopes. They are dominated by a mix of big basin, Wyoming big sagebrush and bitterbrush, with an understory dominated by cheatgrass and some medusa head wild rye in poor condition areas and by native bunchgrasses and forbs in satisfactory condition areas. The species of sagebrush present within an area is generally associated with the presence of water. Basin big sagebrush is found in areas where water is present or would accumulate, such as gullies and at the edge of riparian zones. Wyoming sagebrush is found in drier areas away from water. Bitterbrush generally grows in higher elevations and is a prime ingredient for mule deer wintering habitat. In addition to these dominant species, there are some residual native grass species including Sandberg's bluegrass, squirrel tail, and Great Basin wild rye (Leymus cinereus), as well as various annual and perennial forbs species that are also found in the surrounding grasslands. Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 22 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 217 Auricu Itu re Agricultural lands are primarily associated with Spring Valley Ranch and other agricultural areas spaced along Highway 55. These areas have been converted primarily to agricultural (alfalfa) use and covers a little over one percent (290-acres) of the property. Currently, these areas arc represented by a monoculture of alfalfa during the growing season and bare soil after harvest and tilling. Typically, plowed agricultural fields result in the potential establishment and spread of noxious weeds and non-native invasive plant species related to ongoing soil disturbance, transported livestock, and machinery from other locations with weed infestations. Disturbed Disturbed areas consist of roads, quarries, wells, and the Spring Valley Ranch property, representing less than one percent (160-acres) of the project arca. Rivarwn Communities Big Gulch Creek, Spring Valley Creek, and the south fork of Willow Creek are primarily intermittent streams that support marginal riparian communities and cover approximately two percent (380-acres) of the project arca. The riparian communities associated with these creeks make up the smallest amount of arca but have the greatest biological diversity and abundance of plant species. Historic and present disturbance factors, such as grazing, agriculture, and fire, have resulted in primarily poor and marginal riparian vegetative communities along Big Gulch, Spring Valley and Willow creeks. There are some satisfactory riparian areas along Willow creek that support a healthier vegetative community and have more natural structural components. The south fork of Willow creek is the main stream channel dissecting the northern portion of the property. Flowing from east to west, Willow creek carries the largest quantity of water for the longest duration during the spring and early summer months, subsequently supporting the majority of riparian and hydric vegetation found on the property. Concentrations of woody riparian species, such as willow (Salix spp.), Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii), and golden currant (Ribes aureunt) are found in the northern region of the property along portions of Willow and Spring Valley creeks. There are scattered amounts of woody species found in other locations of the property near springs and in patchy areas along Big Gulch Crcck. Riparian sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and grasses are very limited in both species diversity and quantity along the streams of the property, likely due to the intermittent and ephemeral nature of the streams in cotnbinalion with land use practices. Upland vegetation species, such as sagebrush and annual grasses and forbs, have heavily encroached into the stream channels and dominate or co -dominate the majority of observed stream banks. Root masses associated with the majority of vegetation found in the riparian zone are comprised of species capable of withstanding high stream flow or flood events. L ikee Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 23 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 218 Avimor Development- Land Cover Classification (2019) Figure 6. General Vegetation and Land Cover Within the AD (2019 NLCD Database). Co Mi Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 24 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 219 4.1.4 Wetlands within the Proposed Avimor Development Currently there are seven primary drainages within the AD: South Fork of Willow Creek, Alkali Creek, Big Gulch and Gulch Creeks, Woods Gulch Creek, Spring Valley Creek, and Custer Creek; as well as several unnamed drainages. With the exception of the Spring Valley Creek, no official wetland delineations have been conductcd to -date. It is assumed at that at least portions of all seven could have jurisdictional wetlands, as defined by the Army Corp of Engineers. A full wetland delineation report and site -specific mitigation plan will be developed for each proposed project, as needed. 4.1.5 Soils Soils have been identified for the AD property using Ada, Gem, and Boise County soil maps using the USDA Web Soil Survey tool. Currently, there are 90 different soil types within the AD area (Figure 7 and Appendix B). There are numerous ways to classify soil types that take into account the structural components, erosion potential, and engineering aspects of soils. Perhaps the most useful descriptor of soils, particularly for the purposes of habitat management and land use/conservation planning, are soil groupings called ecological site descriptions (ESD). Each ESD is used to identify what the potential vegetation community could be based disturbance factors and stale and transition models. The use of ESD is critical for restoration efforts; specifically, in determining what species to use in order to restore structural and functional conditions to the sites. Avimor Development- Soils Types Legend Avimor Annexation Boundary Avimor Conservation Easement — County Boundary — Highway 55 Created by Oran Environmental Consulting, LLC Crealwn Date 02 April 2022 a ? t • 3t• 1 i 1 Figure 7. General Soils Map - Avimor Development Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 25 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 220 VSTI U. NO The ADRcomposed w22 uniquc ESDs but can be broadly categorizcd aim or granitic soils with varying depths and slope aspects (Figure 8). Most common plant associations witth dominant cos are sagebrush species (primy ArteA tridentata ekat)bluebnch whcatg G antclopc bittcrbrush, and Idaho Fescue. Avimor Development- Ecological Site Groupings (Web Soil Survey 2022) ! 1 § | ( § ;, (r� {k , 1 � })§{(� 1.62 " \!■!!� .� ( {\§!|l.2. /\\\,� a!!!!! {h ill ■ - ! ure 8. Ecological Site Descriptions — Avi_rDevelopment AvimorDevelo_x-I ±Management Plangi7)222 Page 26 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AV MOR—Pg 221 "..2TRU. NO. -,AsDM.. 4.1.6 Noxious and Invasive Weeds within the AD Invasive Species Many species of exotic invasive species were introduced into the arca through contaminated crop seed, domestic livestock feces, and recreation activities. These species included cheatgrass, medusahead wild rye, several exotic mustards, and others (Yensen 1981 and Piemeisel 1951). Precipitation concentrated in late winter and early to mid -spring generally provides moisture for heavy cheatgrass production, even though the total annual precipitation remains at or below average. These annuals then cure out and arc much more flammable than the native species they replace. Exotic annual communities vary greatly with soil type, former vegetation community composition, and history of disturbance. Invasive species identified during initial and ongoing property surveys include, but are not limited to: cheatgrass; medusahead wild rye; kochia (Kochia scoparia); bur -buttercup (Ceratocephala testiculata); Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), clasping pepperweed (Lepidium perfoliatum); prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola); sticky gumwced (Grindelia squarrosa); tumble mustard (Sisvrnbrium alissimum); and other non- native invasive species have also invaded thc area. Noxious Weeds Noxious weeds are non-native plants that have been designated "noxious" by state law because of their potential harm to the Idaho economy. The cost of controlling a noxious weed must be Icss than thc harm the weed's presence dots to the state economy (Callihan and Miller 1994). While there have been no comprehensive noxious weed inventories conducted for the entire area, a general list of Idaho - designated noxious weed species can be found at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture's website: (http: //www.agri.idaho.gov/Categories/Plantslnsects/NoxiousWeeds/watchlist.php). Generally, on the lower elevations of the foothills, annual exotic grasses and other noxious weed species have replaced much of the native vegetation. The Ada County Weed and Pest Control (ACWPC) reports that infestations of noxious weeds in the foothills include: rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea), whitctop (Cardaria draba), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthiwn), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), puncturevinc (Tribulus terrestris), purple loosestrife (Lvthrum salicaria) and poison hemlock(Coniwn rnaculatum). Of these, rush skeletonweed is contributing the most considerable damage to the foothills ecosystem (BP&R 2000). Various disturbance factors have likely contributed to the explosion of invasive and noxious weed species currently dominating the Tower elevation portion of the foothills. Increased soil disturbance in the foothills is generally attributed to road construction, farming, domestic livestock grazing, logging, urban development, recreation, and wildfire. These disturbances remove existing native vegetation and provide an opportunity for invasive species to establish and spread (Sheley et al. 1999). In addition, exotic grasses, medusahead and cheatgrass, have had a profound effect on the foothills ecosystem by augmenting fuel loads. Augmented fuel loads increase the potential for accidental ignition, thereby reducing the amount of time between fires. Increased frequencies of wildfire generally favor annual species that require less time to establish and reproduce in comparison to native perennial bunchgrasses or shrub communities (Anderson and Inouye 2001; Entwistle et al. 2001). Site surveys have identified several infestations of noxious weeds in thc area, including: rush skeletonweed, whitctop, field bindweed, houndstonguc (Cvnoglossum officinale), poison hemlock, Canada thistle, Scotch thistle, and punctervine within the AD. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 27 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 222 4.2 WILDLIFE The community dynamics of the foothills ecosystems supports more than 290 species of wildlife, including wintering populations of mule deer and elk, migrating raptors and Ncotropical birds, and several Idaho -listed special status species (BP&R 2000). Based on the variability of habitat requirements for each species, this report will discuss several key groups of species, including; big game species, upland game birds, and non -game species. While this chapter discusses the current conditions of wildlife in the foothills, thc next chapter will identify potential impacts to wildlife and vegetation, followed by general recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to overall habitat. A description of wildlife resources (big game, upland game birds, and non -game species) within and adjacent to the proposed AD is found below. 4.2.1 Big Game The lower elevation portion of thc foothills north of Boisc, east and west of SH-55, and west of SH- 21 are designated as big game winter range (BP&R 2000). The foothills north of Eagle and west of SH-55 also provide some winter range for big game species, but populations are considerably smaller. Both areas fall within the Weiser River and Boise River EIk Management Zones (EMZ) and Game Management Units (GMU) 32, 39, and one subunit in 33 (Figure 9). Avimor Development- IDFG EIk Management Units Bair., Myer Legend Avimor Annexation Boundary Ll Avimor Conservation Easement Highway 55 Created by Duran Environmental Consulting, LLC Creation Daze: 02 Apnl 2022 2 1 6 6 101m ] . 6 10 mr Figure 9. Map of IDFG Game Management Units (GMU)- Avimor Development. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 28 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 223 6?AGSS Currently, there are three primary big game species identified within the units: mule deer (Odocoileu.s hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). Hunting seasons within the units arc restricted to deer and elk, and do not include pronghorn antelope. In addition to these species, while tailed deer, moose, mountain lion, and black bear have been observed in the Boise Foothills. Small changes to critical winter habitat can have large repercussions for big game winter range across a broad area, especially during hard winters. Big game species are pushed down to lower elevation arcas, identified by the IDFG as winter range, in order to over -winter. These sites require shallow snow levels, adequate food, sight and thermal cover, and limited disturbances in order to maintain energy balance and minimize over winter weight loss (IDFG 2007; Thomas et al. 1988). If these conditions arc not present, energy losses could exceed gains over an extended time, potentially resulting in winter mortality or failure to reproduce the following year. In addition to a final destination for big game during their winter migrations, the foothills also act as movement corridors that big game utilize to access different aspects of their habitat throughout the season. These areas arc identified as big game migration corridors and arc crucial for winter survival. Mule Deer Mule deer are one of Idaho's most abundant and widely distributed big game animals and provide more recreational opportunity than any other big game species (IDFG 2005a; 1DFG 2007). Based on population trend estimates by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in 2005, the approximate mule deer population within GMU- 39 was 26,520, down from 27,800 in 2003 (IDFG 2007). Mule deer are best adapted to seral transitional habitat types. Thcy generally browse on a wide variety of woody plants, primarily during the winter when snow covers most grasses and forbs. Common browse plants include bitterbrush, sagebrush, aspen, dogwood, juniper and Douglas -fir. They graze on various grasses and (orbs heavily during spring, summer and fall. They do occasionally feed on agricultural crops as well. Streubel (2000) found that deer in Idaho showed a high fidelity to their summer range, but less so to their winter range; deer from one summer range migrated to different winter ranges. Mule deer migrate from high mountainous country to lower valleys and foothills during late fall to avoid heavy snow (Brown 1992). Mule deer winter habitat in western North America is generally defined as S, SW, SE, or W aspects of mild to medium slopes (10-45%) below 4500 feet in elevation, and arc generally associated with some type of thermal cover, such as mature trees with a closed canopy or rock overhangs, with shrub species present for forage (Thomas et al. 1988, Thomas 1979; and Hoover and Willis 1987). The mule deer migration from summer range in the Boise Mountains to the historic winter range along the Boise Foothills is generally triggered by cold temperatures and snow depth. Lower elevation habitat in the foothills is very important during hard winters as mule deer groups try to avoid deep snow, which can hamper their abilities to find forage and quickly deplete their necessary fat storage (IDFG 2005b). Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 29 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 224 Elk Elk seem to prefer mountainous country with mixed open, grassy mcadows, marshy meadows, river flats, and aspen parkland, as well as coniferous forests, brushy clear cuts, forest edges, and shrub steppe. Some populations live year-round in sagebrush desert, using grass -shrub for feeding and tall shrub or pole timbcr for resting in spring; they feed in clear cuts and shrub fields and rest in pole timber in summer; and stay in mesic (moderate moisture) pole timber in the autumn (Streubel 2000). Elk habitat varies greatly according to location. They arc primarily a grazing species, relying on grasses for most of the year, but they also consume forbs in summer, and may browse on willow and aspen where • grasses arc unavailable, especially during winter months. Based on population trend estimates by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game in 2005, the approximate elk population within GMU-39 was 5,385, down from 7,236 in 2002. The number of elk, including cows, bulls, and adult bulls, in the unit over the 2005 winter was 4,554 (IDFG 2007a). Elk migration to winter range is very similar to mule deer from the Boise Mountains. However, there is a resident population that uses the Boise Front all year long. In Idaho, and throughout the northern Rockies, herds move to lower elevations in winter to feed. Individuals exhibit a high fidelity to their home range but may abandon it if they are excessively disturbed (Streubel 2000). American Prnn.horn Pronghorn arc normally found grazing on the surrounding grasslands and hillsides with remnant native vegetation or using the limited riparian areas for shade and water. Pronghom are generally found on grasslands, shrub steppe, and lower elevation foothills. They seem to prefer rangeland with vegetation less than 2 feet in height and wide-open, expansive range. They arc often found in low shrubs such as sagebrush, and grassy vegetation in arid regions with less than 10 to 12 inches of snow on the ground in the winter. This may lead them to upper, wind-swept slopes in the winter, or fairly long migrations between summer and winter range. In the winter, southern Idaho pronghorn depend heavily on browse, especially sagebrush. Pronghorn home rangc varies, but an Idaho study (Autcnreith et al. 1975) found summer home ranges averaged about eight square miles. Home range of yearlings was two to five times greater than adults. Large herds form in the winter but disperse in spring and form separate bachelor and female -fawn groups in spring and summer. In Idaho, pronghorn typically migrate to lower elevations in winter and move back to the heads of mountain valleys in the spring. Pronghom have some unique adaptations for their existence in open country. These adaptations allow them to be the fastest mammals in North America. They have been clocked at nearly 70-mph and they can obtain and maintain speeds of 30 to 45-mph for fairly long distances. Historically, pronghorn Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 30 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 225 were numerous throughout the west, but agricultural development, cattle grazing, and constriction of fences have drastically reduced their populations. Many pronghorn populations have not adapted to fences and their movements, and even seasonal migrations, have been blocked by fences. Some pronghorns do crawl under fences. The majority of the proposed AD area has been fenced off to manage domestic livestock. The older fencing throughout the property uses four -strand barbed wire, rather than non- restrictive wildlife friendly fencing, and has an adverse overall impact on pronghorn populations (Figure 10). Restrictive fences act as barriers by limiting migration corridors, reducing access to forage, and fragmenting habitat. In addition, these types of fences generally result in greater injury and mortality ratcs for pronghorn than non-restrictive fences (USDI-BLM 1980 and Autenrieth 1975; and Oakley 1973). Ji t1....tock Fern. CNo,.-n..tnier1.,.> cn. ro..r narn.a Wt n (n...«s. c.v., Figure 10. Diagram of barbed wire fence types found within and adjacent to the Avimor Development area. 4.2.2 Big Game Surveys Winter Bile Came Sumvs 12007-2010) The goal of the winter big game surveys was to determine which areas within the AD and adjacent lands arc the most important travel corridors and foraging areas for big game, primarily mule deer and elk through the winter months. This information will be used during the planning of AD future development phases in order to protect key areas and limit overall potential impacts. These surveys are mainly focused on the presence or absence of mule deer and elk throughout the area. Survey techniques included a questionnaire for local residents, ground surveys, and aerial surveys. Big game surveys were conducted area -wide from 2007-2010, then limited to the eastern APC and surrounding area since. Local Resident Surveys (2007 2008) In early November, mailing addresses were collected for residents living in the north Eagle Foothills near the AD driving along Willow Creek, Sandhollow, and Pearl Road recording mailbox numbers. Nineteen letters were mailed out that included a short survey and map for residents to record where, when, and how many mule deer, white -tail deer. elk and pronghorn antelope they had historically Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 31 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 226 AGE1 a n �z seen in the area. Later we received contact information for an additional ten local residents who recreate regularly in the foothills and also mailed those surveys. Ground Surve►•s (2007-2010) Starting in mid -December, fourteen higher elevation vantage points were created and GPS's throughout the AD ownership to monitor big game through the end of February. The points were located directly off roads or within a short hike from a road and gave the surveyor views of a substantial amount of the AD ownership. As the snow levels increased throughout the winter months, driving the access roads became limited to impossible, at which time snowshoeing or cross-country skiing was used to access many of the points, a couple points were terminated for the season due to access limitations. Two additional monitoring points were removed from the initial survey route because their vantages were repetitive with other points. In mid to late January, after the snow depths increased, three cross-country survey routes were created to access more terrain (Figure 11). These additional survey routes wcrc only used 1-2 times. The regular monitoring points wcrc initially surveyed once a week for the presence of big game. After a few surveying attempts and seeing no sign of big game at sonic points west of Highway 55, it was decided to survey these points less often. Generally, areas where big game sign had been identified by ECS staff or local residents were surveyed weekly. When big game species were observed, their location was recorded on a neap and correlated to an existing survey point or a new GPS point was taken. Identified tracks and pellets were also recorded on data forms. Winter field work was always conducted in pairs for safety purposes. Aerial Surveys (2008-2009) On January ] 4th and February 1 ] th of 2008 and January 19th and February 15th of 2009 Si lverhawk Aviation was subcontracted to fly the entire AD ownership in a Robinson 44/Raven II helicopter. With assistance during the first survey from Mike Schlegel, a retired Idaho Fish and Game biologist from McCall, all mule deer and elk seen during the flight were counted and a GPS waypoint taken at each group/individual. A data sheet containing information on weather, animal activity, vegetation class, snow cover, aspect, slope, and GPS location was completed. The 27,000-acre AD ownership was broken into two maps, west and cast of Highway 55. The survey arca was generally flown in %2 mile wide swaths from north to south and worked from the cast side to the west side. General property boundaries were identified using a GPS unit, but animals found outside the boundaries were also recorded (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13). The pilot flew from 35-60 Knots depending on snow coverage and topography. There were two observers, one on each side of the helicopter. One person recorded information on elk while the other recorded on mule deer. If any white-tailed deer, pronghom, or moose were identified the same information would be recorded on one of the data sheets. Total flight time needed for the survey was 3 1/2 to 4 1 /2 hours. The weather needed to be fairly good because the helicopter must have visibility of 3 miles and be able to fly 1000 feet below cloud level. The helicopter refueled every other hour. Bie Game Surveys Summary Based on the overall observations from 2007-2010, ECS staff was able to determine general wintering areas and migration corridors of big game within the AD. In addition, the information allowed us to develop a summary for residential populations that use the area year-round (Figure 14). All of the data and associated information from 1DFG, ITD, and othcr sources was used develop the Northwest Ada County Big Gamc Survey Summary &Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment (Appendix C). Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 32 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 227 w Game Wow, N..IMWe w..», o...b,..s. Figure 11. Aerial Big Game Survey Routes (2008-2009) Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 33 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 228 IMF .... W rM1.1mry.i Figure 12. Big Came Aerial Survey Results- East Side of Hwy 55 (2008-2009). =IV 5.002 I60113 Rs Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 34 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 229 Figure 13. Big Came Aerial Survey Results- West Side of Hwy 55 (2008-2009). Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 35 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 230 A Figure 14. Resident Big Game Survey Results Summary (2007-2010) itis Game Auto -Related Mortality Study (2009-2015} In 2008 and 2009, ECS and Wildlife Consulting Resources developed the Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary & Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment (Appendix C). Based on recommendations from the report, ESC staff initiated auto -related big game mortality monitoring for SH-55. The survey covered SH-55 between SH-44 and the southern base of Horseshoe Bend Hill, adjacent to the APC, at mile marker 54. Monitoring was conducted daily from October 2009 through October of 2015. All observed mortally events were recorded for date, species, sex (if identifiable), which roadside, and general comments. The location was also GPSed and input into a geo-database. A big game map was developed using the six years of observation data to determine mortality hotspots (Figure 15). The data was submitted to IDFG and Ada County annually. Aviator Development - habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 36 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 231 ;;,1pl<4I NO. Legend Big Game Mart aty Season Spm9 Summer Fed Spmg Proniran 9' 11 • Big Oame Mortality By Season October 2016 Emit, 161 14� �36 2� -22 42 41 —44 131 ' s 28". 143 18 05 1 /31 Garden City Figure 15. Big Game Auto -Related Mortality Hot Spot Map. 2 Miles 45� 48-• 64 49, �8 4 N47 ,19 123 Boise Cily `• Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 37 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 232 an 4.2.3 Raptors Based on the presence of a variety of habitat characteristics, raptors species could nest or forage within and adjacent to the AD, including individual species that only use the site while migrating. Raptor species that have been identified during surveys in the arca include but are not limited to: Tnhle 2. Raptor Species Within the Avimor Development Nesting Raptor Species American Kestrel Golden Eagle Osprey Prairie Falcon Turkey Vulture 'Barn Owl Great Horned Owl Long-eared Owl Short -eared Owl Western Screech Owl Swainson's Hawk 'Burrowing Owl Northern Harrier Red-tailed Hawk Western Burrowing Owl Northern Saw -whet Owl Ferruginous Hawk Migrating Raptors Bald Eagle 'Cooper's Hawk Gyrfalcon Merlin 'Northern Goshawk Peregrine Falcon Rough -legged Hawk ISharp-shinned Hawk Broad -winged Hawk 4.2.4 Migratory Birds Most bird species within the state of Idaho arc covered under the Migratory Bird Trcaty Act (MBTA), with the exception of several introduced species, such as the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and European starling (Slurnu.c vulgm is). The MBTA (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S. and Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the Act, taking, killing or possessing migratory birds is unlawful. Thc Act specifically states: Unless permitted by regulations, the Act provides that it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture or kill; attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver or cause to be shipped, exported, imported, transported, carried or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or not. Subject to limitations in the Act, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may adopt regulations determining the extent to which, if at all, hunting, taking, capturing, killing possessing, .selling, purchasing, shipping, transporting or exporting of any migratory bird, part, nest or egg will be allowed, having regard for temperature zones,distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits and migratorvflightpatterns. Regulations are effective upon Presidential approval. ,§,§ 703and 704. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Law Enforcement division currently enforces the MBTA. According to USFWS law enforcement officers, since there is a possibility that migratory birds, their eggs, or inhabited nests could be inadvertently killed, crushed, or abandoned during construction activities of residential or commercial developments, these activities would be considered under the MBTA as it pertains to "take" or "kill", and could result in violation of the 4vunor Development - Habitat Management Plan ('IMP) 2022 Page 38 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 233 MBTA. However, while the MBTA protects migratory birds, it is specific to those birds, their eggs, and occupied nests. It does not protect the habitat associated with these birds or unoccupied nest sites. Therefore, potential construction activities done in areas without migratory birds, or during time periods when these birds arc not present, would not violate the MBTA. Based on current enforcement by the USFWS, the MBTA cannot be used to restrict development of an area in order to preserve habitat or maintain the presence of migratory birds. 4.2.5 Upland Game Birds There arc a number of upland game birds found throughout the foothills including pheasant, quail, chukar, doves, gray partridge, and grouse. Pheasant species are generally found on agricultural lands but can also be found in some open drainages and valleys. Quail can be found in almost any community in the foothills and arc often associated with roadways, agricultural communities and riparian zones. Chukar species generally inhabit rocky outcrops and steep hillsides with grass and shrubs components. There arc several grouse species that arc observed in forested systems and grass shrub steppe but arc normally found in or near riparian communities. 4.2.6 Other Terrestrial Wildlife In addition to bird species, wolves, black bears, cougars, coyotes, fox, jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits, badgers, skunks, raccoons, weasels, mice, voles and other small mammals are also found throughout the foothill habitat types, as are reptile and amphibian species. The amphibian species most likely will be associated with the riparian areas, while the reptiles will be found in drier sites, such as rock outcrops, or low elevation shrub communities. These species, along with smaller mammals, such as ground squirrels and other rodents are an important food source for the raptors and other predators throughout the foothills. 4.2.7 Aquatic Wildlife Aquatic species likely to be present within or adjacent to the proposed AD are the same as those identified in the regional habitat descriptions above (Section 4.0). There are no aquatic species of conservation concern identified by the Idaho Fish and Game within the area associated with the proposcd AD, so an aquatic species survey was not necessary. Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 39 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 234 : ;'Fibro 4.3 SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN 4.3.1 Survey Methods ECS staff originally requested a list of known and identified Idaho Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), also known as Spccics of Greatest Conservation Need, both plants and animals, from the Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System (IFWIS), formerly referred to as both the Idaho Heritage Program (IHP) and Conservation Data Center (CDC). During the revision of the HMP in 2022, Duran Environmental Consulting obtained an updated list to provide most to -date species data and listing statuses (State of Idaho and BLM). The Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan provides a framework for conserving Species of Greatest Conservation Need and the habitats upon which they depend. It is the state's guiding document for identifying, ranking, managing, and conserving at -risk species. A list of potential ESA threatened or endangered spccics wi II be requested for each project application using the US Fish and Wildlife Service's Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) wcbsitc, and a list was generated for the entire AD during the 2022 revision of this HMP (Appendix G) (see Section 4.4). The IFWIS and IPaC provides a list of all T&E and SCC that have been historically recorded within or adjacent to the proposed project area, as well as associated map points, GIS attribute data, and GIS metadata. This data will be used to construct a map of species of concern that have historically been identified within or near thc proposed project arca and adjacent habitat. Results from the IFWIS and IPaC database inquiries for the entire AD, dated July 2021 and April 2022, respectively, are shown in Figure 16. While the IFWIS and IPaC data cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence, absence, or condition of biological elements, it is the best information available. This, coupled with historic and future site -specific surveys, will be sufficient to dclermine presence or absence of the spccics as well as potential habitat. Based on this information, appropriate mitigation recommendations will be made for avoidance, reduction, or mitigation. Idaho Listed Species of Conservation Concern Ranking There are a number of species of conservation concern (SCC) found throughout the foothills. Most of these species have specific habitat types and are limited geographically. Rather than identifying all of those species, we are only going to address those identified in or around the proposed project area. Ranks represent a prioritization scheme used by the IDFG and the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan to determine the conservation status of a spccics (Table 3). The rank is primarily bascd upon the number of known occurrences, but other factors, such as habitat quality, estimated population size and trend, range of distribution, and threats to species or habitat, are also considered. See the IDFG wcbsitc (https:/%idfg.idaho.govspecies/taxa/ranks) for a detailed review and evaluation of this ranking system. The state rank refers to the spccics status within thc borders of Idaho. State ranks arc subject to periodic revision as new information is obtained on a species either in Idaho or elsewhere in its range. The rankings and infomiation presented in this plan are current to April 2022. A table of known special status plant and animal species of State Rank S1-S3 known to inhabit the AD or the area immediately adjacent to it is found below, as is an expanded description of the species and associated habitat (Table 4). Avimor Developnzent - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 40 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 235 Tnhle 3. Idaho Species of Conservation Concern Slate Rankine 5v:stem Rank Description Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because of some factor of its SI biology making it especially vulnerable to cxtinction (typically 5 or fewer •accurrences). Imperiled because of rarity or because of other factors demonstrably making it vulnerable to extinction (typically 6 — 20 occurrences). S2 154 Rare or uncommon but not imperiled (typically 21 — 100 occurrences). Not rare, and apparently secure, but with cause for long-term conccm (usually more than 100 occurrences). 35 Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. iE Exotic or introduced species. State Ranks Specific to Long Distance Migrants (Bats and Birds) 3 Breeding population. On private property, Idaho -listed SCC arc not protected under federal or state regulations, nor do they require actions to mitigate impacts to these species. While these species are not protected on private property, they are being considered in early planning preparations by the developer to identify and mitigate potential impacts to the species, when feasible. Currently, there arc no federally listed species identified within the proposed project area based on the FWS data, but there is one candidate species that may occur in the AD (monarch butterfly; see Section 4.4.2). However, based on the historic information provided by the IFWIS, 16 SCC State Rank S l-S3 have been observed in the vicinity of the AD (Table 4). These species were identified as principal species for observations by ECS staff based on the proximity to known and historic populations and their current status as SCC for Idaho, the US Forest Service, or the BLM. Species surveys were conducted for all of these species over the entire AD in 2003- 2005, 2006-2008, and 2010. During these surveys, as well as incidental observations and IFWIS database observations from the last twenty years (2001-2021), ECS staff has identified 11 of the 16 Idaho -listed SCC within the proposed project area: Western toad, grasshopper sparrow, golden eagle, Western burrowing owl. ferruginous hawk, olive -sided flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, Lewis's woodpecker, long -billed curlew, sage thrasher, and Aase's onion. Of the SCC birds observed during ECS surveys, no observations were made of nesting birds (e.g., migratory, foraging, etc.). A summary description of each species is included below and IFWIS observations arc displayed in Figure 16. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 41 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 236 [Common Name II [Western Toad Woodhousc's Toad Northern Leopard Frog Table 4. Idaho Species of Conservation Concern [)ccurrnie H iihin the l'rnposM Avimor Development. AD Property Occurrence? Scientific Name Anaxvrus horeas Anaxnr•us woodhousir Lithobates piprens Status Amphibians S2. BLM Typc 2 Special Status Species S2, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S2, BLM Typc 2 Spccial Status Species Yes (IFWIS 2021) No No +,Grasshopper Sparrow '4rnmodramus savanna,vnt Golden Eagle Western Burrowing Owl Ferruginous llawk Aquila cho,saetos Athene cunicularra Buteo regalrs Olive -sided Flycatcher Contopus cooper Loggerhead Shrike Lantus ludovicianus Lewis's Woodpecker Melaner/,es lewis Long -billed Curlew Mountain Quail Sage Thrasher Trout, Bull Pygmy Rabbit Aase's Onion Nunienius americunus Oreortt _x pietas Oreosc•optes montunus Birds S33, BLM Type 2 Spccial Status Spccics S3; BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S2B, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S3B, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S3B, BLM Type 2 Spccial Status Spccics S3, BLM Type 2 Special Status Spccics S3B, BLM Type 2 Special Status Spccics S2B, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S2, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species S3B. BLM Type 2 Spccial Status Spccics Fish S4, BLM Type 1 Special Salvelinus c w tluentus Status Species, Federally Listed as Threatened (ESA) Mammals Yes (IFWIS 2010, 2013) Ycs (IFW'IS 2010, 2013) No Ycs (IFWIS 2010, 2013) Yes (IFWIS 2010, 2012) Yes (IFWIS 2010) Ycs (IFWIS 2009, 2013) Yes (ECS surveys) No Yes (IFWIS 2012) No S3. BLM Type 2 Special Brachvlagus rdahoensis Status Spccics, Forest Service No Sensitive Album aaseae Plants 52, BLM Type 2 Special Status Species, Idaho Native Yes (IFWIS 2008-2019, Plant Society- ECS surveys) Global Priority 3 Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan ((IMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 237 Page 42 of 95 T RU. NO. lb5 Figure 16. Idaho SCC Point Observations (IFWIS July 2021)- Avimor Development Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 43 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 238 4.3.2 AD Species of Conservation Concern Western Toad 1.Irraverrrs boreasl Western toads occur in a wide variety of habitats ranging from desert springs to mountain wetlands. They range into various upland habitats around ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and slow -moving rivers and streams; sometimes they move up to a few kilometers through uplands. For shelter, they dig their own burrow in loose soil or use those of small mammals or seclude themselves under logs or rocks. Egg laying sites include shallow areas of ponds, lakes, or reservoirs, or pools of slow -moving streams. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there has been one observation of Western toad within the AD west of highway 55 in a small ephemeral pond in 2021 and no observations within Spring Valley Creek or Willow Creek through multiple years of riparian surveys (Figure 16). Woodhouse's Toad (Anaavrus avudhousii) Woodhouse's Toads are typically found in habitats such as prairies, agricultural arcas and brushy flats often associated with a water source. The water source may vary from irrigation ditches, ponds, and small lakes to backwaters of the Snake River. Even though there is generally water in the area, they may forage quite a distance from the water source that they mate and lay eggs in. These toads arc active in wet or dry weather. They are inactive during the cold months of fall, winter, and early spring. When inactive, they burrow underground, or hide under rocks, plants, or other cover. Potential habitat for woodhousc toads on the AD proposed project area occurs along Spring Valley Creek and Willow Creek. Woodhouse toads prefer lowland sandy areas, such as river bottoms, mountain canyons, desert streams, and are even known to use suburban backyards. Because of the diversity of habitat types used by the woodhousc toad, this species could be present on the AD project area. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there has not been a recorded observation of this species within Spring Valley Creek or Willow Creek. Northern Leonard Frosr !Rana niniens) Northern Leopard Frogs in Idaho arc generally associated with heavily vegetated marshes, ponds, streams, and wet areas. Otherwise, they seem to breed in areas that are also heavily vegetated. In Idaho, Northern Leopard Frogs are found throughout much of the southem part of the state, following the Snake River Plains. Populations also exist in the northern portion of the panhandle. These frogs hibernate in streams, ponds or other aquatic locations during the winter. They disperse to moist uplands or permanent water during dry -up in summer and require moderately high ground cover for concealment. They are generally preyed upon by garter snakes. When disturbed, these frogs leap rapidly and erratically. Very little information exists to explain their decline in Idaho. However, based on the habitat types that occur on the AD proposed project area along the valley bottom adjacent to Spring Valley Creek and Willow Creek, this species could be present. According to the IFWIS database (2021) and AD site surveys, there has not been a recorded observation of this species within Spring Valley Creek or Willow Creek. Avinror Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 44 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 239 9.1 Grasshnnner SnarroNs IAmmndraruus savawirruruml Grasshopper sparrows arc conspicuous ground -nesting birds and are relatively uncommon throughout much of southern ldaho's grasslands. They occur within grassland, hayfields, and prairie and breed in rather dry fields and prairies, especially those with fairly tall grass and weeds and a few scattered shrubs using just small cups in the grass for nesting. Grasshopper sparrows arc particularly susceptible to impacts from improper grazing where removal of herbaceous vegetation reduces nest concealment, thereby increasing exposure to predation, weather, or nest parasitism. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there have been several observations of the species within the APC and up Burnt Car Trail in 2010 and 2013 (Figure 16). Grasshopper sparrows readily use a wide range of grassland and agricultural arcas, making it highly unlikely that development under the AD specifications would have a significant impact on the species' range. Golden Eagle [.-luuiia rhr rsaetosl Golden eagles arc found throughout Idaho, wherever there is open habitat, but nests primarily in the southern hal fof the state. There are an estimated 130,000 individuals in North America and approximately 1,600 of these are present in Idaho during the breeding season. While common, golden eagles in Idaho are experiencing some population decline leading to a state sensitive status. Nesting population declines have been associated with loss of shrubs and jackrabbit habitat, their primary prey species, due to widespread fires. Mortality of individual birds from illegal shooting has been documented via power pole surveys in the Snake River Birds of Prey Area (Idaho Power Company, pers. comm., 2015, as cited in the Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan and Katzner et al. 2020). As a wide-ranging predator, this species may be negatively affected by wind energy development. Increases in OHV use have been implicated in the decline of Golden Eagle occupancy and nest success in southwest Idaho. Because of their tendency to feed upon carrion, this species is attracted to roadkill and consequently can bccomc subject to vehicle collisions. Golden eagles likely forage within the AD year-round but arc unlikely to find suitable nesting substrate within the property. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there has been just one observation of golden eagles within the AD west of highway 55 along Alkali creek (Figure 16). Western Burrowing Owl fAthene rurrirrrlurial, The western burrowing owl is considered a species of special concern and ranked SB2 in the state of Idaho. They are often found in open grasslands and disturbed areas and nest in burrows dug by mammals. In Idaho, badger burrows arc typical nesting sites and burrowing owl may bccomc prey to badgers and coyotes (Rich 1986). Burrowing owls typically return to the same nest sites each year, and multiple pairs often nest in close proximity. They have strong nest fidelity; the absence of nest burrows or individual birds is not an indicator that breeding activity will not take place within or adjacent to the project area in the future. No individuals were recorded during any ECS site visits, and there are no known nests or nest colonies currently or historically recorded within the AD. There are also no observations from the IFWIS database of the species within the AD. _s _ Avimor Development - Ilabitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2012 Page 45 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 240 'wrw•i�n-ti. Ferruginous Hawk iluieo reralisl In Idaho, ferruginous hawks nest in the southern half of the stale and winter in small numbers in the south and southwestern counties (Stephens and Sturts 1998). They winter from southern Idaho south into Mexico (Sibley 2000), though are mostly present in Idaho during the breeding season. They nest in open habitat in trees and shrubs, on cliffs, pinnacles, rock outcrops, buttes, banks, slopes, the ground, and utility structures. They also ncst readily on communication towers and artificial nest platforms. They primarily feed on small mammals, but also eat birds, reptiles and insects. Ferruginous hawks are unique among other local raptors in that they forage and nest selectively in grassland habitats (Lehman et al. 1996). Ferruginous hawk populations have not decreased after wildfires and in fact, may have increased slightly. There were no individuals recorded during any site visits, however the IFWIS database shows three observations of the species in 2010 and 2013 (Figure 16) not associated with nests or breeding activity. Olive -sided Flycatcher (Contanus cooper) Olive -sided flycatchers breed throughout Canada south through western US along the Cascades and Rocky Mountains from sea level to 3,350 m (11,000 fl) and undergoes one of the longest migrations of all northern - breeding migrants, wintering primarily in Panama and the Andes Mountains of South America. In Idaho, Olive -sided flycatchers breed throughout the northern half of the state. Olive -sided flycatchers typically breed in mid- to high -elevation mixed conifer forests along forest edges and openings, including burns and clear -cuts. They require tall, prominent trees and snags, which serve as singing and foraging perches, and unobstructed air space for hunting. This species preys almost exclusively on flying insects, especially bees. Olive -sided flycatcher abundance is often higher in forest recently burned by stand -replacing wildfire and is considered by some to be a burn specialist. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there have been two observations of olive -sided flycatchers within the AD in 2010 and 2012 near Foothills Heritage Park and Spring Valley Crcck, respectively (Figurc 16). Given the species affinity for nesting in forest edge habitats, it is unlikely olive -sided flycatchers would ncst within the AD property, though may pass through during non -breeding seasons. Loggerhead Shrike tLaniuxludnricionusl Loggerhead shrikes arc predatory songbirds present during the breeding season and in limited numbers during the winter throughout southwestem Idaho (Stephens and Sturts 1998). Sometimes referred to as "butcher birds," loggerheads typically hunt from high perches and pursue prey, often large insects and sometimes small birds, rodents or lizards, impaling them on barbcd wire or other spikes. The species is gradually disappearing from much of its range, particularly in the northeastern United States, for rcasons that arc poorly understood, though population decline in Idaho has largely been attributed to loss of shrub. Shrikes prefer semi -open country with lookout posts (e.g., wires, trees, scrub) and breed in any kind of semi -open terrain, from large clearings' in wooded regions to open grassland or desert with a few scattered trees or large shrubs. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there has been one observation of the species in 2010 off the Spring Valley Creek greenbelt (Figure 16). Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 46 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 241 Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerves (ewis) Lewis's woodpcckcrs primarily occur in the western US and closely follow thc distribution of ponderosa pine. Lewis's woodpeckers breed throughout Idaho except in thc southeastern portion of the stale. The species is a somewhat atypical woodpecker in that it flycatches during the breeding season and stores mast (e.g., acorns and corn) during the winter. Brccding sites generally occur in burned ponderosa pine forests, cottonwood riparian forests, and aspcn groves. This species appears to prefer nesting in large diameter, well -decayed snags in relatively open forests with a well - developed understory. Nests are sited in natural cavities or abandoned nest holds of primary excavators. This species exploits superabundant food sources and is generally considered w be nomadic. Given the lack of ponderosa pinc habitat within the AD, it is unlikely that Lcwis's use the AD for breeding but may move through the area during early or late -season migration. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there have been several observations along the Spring Valley Creek greenbelt from 2009-2013 (Figure 16). Long -billed Curlew (Numeuius arericanrrs) The long -billed curlew is a grassland species on the BLM watch list and an Idaho State Imperiled species due to the declining population trends and loss of habitat. Long -billed curlews are known to feed and nest in open grassy areas and agricultural fields. A pair of curlews was recorded by ECS staff during a site survey on May 28th, 2008, with additional incidental observations made annually in the foothills east of the existing Avimor PC, near Cartwright Road. Due to the species' adaptability to human development, especially agricultural and grazing lands, the project is not expected to have a strong negative impact on this species. However, pre -construction surveys are recommended before any disturbance of grassland or old agricultural communities. In the case that an individual or population is present and identified to have a nest, that area should be restricted from development until thc nest is vacated, per the 1918 MBTA. Mountain 0u211 (Orearttcr pirtus) The mountain quail builds a concealed nest in a depression on ground, frequently near shrubs, bases of trees, or fallen logs. 1t forages on thc ground, usually in early morning and late afternoon, and rests at mid- day. The spccics normally forms coveys (small groups) of 3 — 20 birds in late summer and early fall, which disperse in late winter. Populations in Idaho have been declining for the last 30 years, due primarily to riparian habitat degradation. Recent Idaho study points to predation by feral cats as a problem as well (Hcckin et al. 1994). Habitat associated with this spccics is generally restricted to higher elevation riparian communities, above 3,000 feet, in or near upland shrub and forested communities. While there is potential habitat present within the AD, based on the current condition and small percentage of riparian habitat within the proposed AD it is unlikely that this species is present. There were no individuals recorded during any site survey, nor docs the IFWIS database (2021) have any historic sightings within the AD project area. �., Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 242 Page 47 of 95 Sane Thrasher (Orenscontes mantanusl The sage thrasher is often found in sagebrush as well as scrub, brush, and thickets, rarely around towns. In Idaho, they arc found primarily in big sagebrush and prefer to nest in taller -than -normal shrubs with greater cover (Streubel 2000). This species is of concern in Idaho because of the continued loss of suitable habitat due to development, increase fire cycles, invasion of exotic species, and over -utilization in sagebrush habitats. According to the 1FWIS database, there has been one observation of the species in 2012 off Pearl Road near Poplar Pond (Figure 16). Bull 'f rout (Salvelinus confluentusl There is over 6 % miles of intermittent stream throughout the AD project area where bull trout could potentially exist. However, habitat for trout is generally of poor quality due to the degraded streambanks from extensive cattle grazing and agricultural runoff from adjacent fields that has likely contributed sediment and nutrient loads to Spring Valley Creek and Willow Creek resulting in decreased water quality and negative impacts to overall trout and aquatic habitat in general. In addition, portions of Spring Valley Creek and Willow Creek go dry during the late summer further reducing the potential for the presence of bull trout. According to the IFWIS database (2021), there has not been a recorded observation of the species within Spring Valley Creek or Willow Creek, and the closest recorded observation of bull trout was in Arrowrock Reservoir. In addition, neither Spring Valley Creek nor Willow Creek arc designated as Critical Habitat for bull trout, as per IDFG (IFWIS 2021). RD:my Rabbit (Brachi'lavus idalioensisl The pygmy rabbit is a sagcbrush•obligale species that has been found from 2900 ft. to over 6000 ft. in elevation in southwestern Idaho. Thc pygmy rabbit is currently listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) duc to destruction and fragmentation of sagebrush habitat in the westem U.S. This rabbit relies on sagebrush year-round for shelter and food. Between 1984 and 1994, pygmy rabbits were found during spotlight transccts in old (100 years +), dcnsc big sagebrush stands around Initial Point on the Snake River (Doremus and Bolin 1987; Doremus and Blew 1988; Doremus et al. 1989; Knick 1990; Knick 1991; Knick 1992; Knick 1993; Watts and Knick 1994). A sighting of a pygmy rabbit was also made during spotlight transccts in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Arca just south of the proposed AD, however no documented sightings have been made north of I-84. A number of surveys by federal and state agencies in the region have been done on large patches of big sagebrush in recent years, either on foot or by spotlight, with no sign of pygmy rabbits (Pers. Comm. Dana Quinney 2003; Pers. Comm. Helen Ulmschneider 2003). If is likely that pygmy rabbits no longer inhabit the region. There were no individuals recorded during any site visits nor does the IFWIS database (2021) have any historic sightings within or near the AD project area. Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 48 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 243 Aase's Onion (Allium aaxeael Aase's onion is endemic to Idaho in the lower foothills from Lhc Boise to Weiser areas. It typically grows in coarse sandy soil on steep southerly exposures on or near ridge tops in sagebrush -grass communities, often with three -awn grass and bitterbrush, from 800- 1500 m elevation. Because Aase's onion typically grows on steep slopes near ridge tops its habitat has experienced Tess soil surface disturbance from livestock or agriculture (Mancuso 2000; Moscicy 1994; Fisher et al. 1996). Aase's onion populations in the foothills comprise approximately half of the global distribution of the species in terms of both area and numbers. Aasc's onion is restricted to steep, well -drained sandy slopes in the lower foothills. Populations of Aasc's onion arc found on many of the undeveloped, sandy south -facing slopes. These populations can be quite dense, but the total area occupied by the onion is relatively small. Habitat loss and degradation caused by development and other activities are the main threats to this species (Moseley ct al., 1992). During site surveys conducted by ECS staff from 2003 to 2010, 13 separate populations have hccn recorded within the AD. These locations were all reported to the IDFG's IHP office and incorporated into the IFWIS database. It is recommended that a map of the known Aase's onion locations be reviewed, and site specific surveys conducted before future phase planning and any grading begins (Figure 16 and Figure 17). Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 49 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 244 4.4 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES Based on a review of the 2022 IPaC and 2021 IFWIS data, there are no Endangered Species Act (ESA) -listed animals or plans spccics, or critical habitat within or adjacent to the proposed project arca (Appendix G). The only listed species within the region is slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) (see below). It is currently listed as a threatened species under ESA, with proposed critical habitat to the southwest of the project area. No observations have ever been recorded to date within the AD. There is one historical slickspot peppergrass Element Occurrence (EO) within the AD (EO#33, Figure 17), however, this EO has been identified as extirpated and, according to the IFWIS database (2021), has been surveyed multiple times with no observations of the species. In addition, there is one species currently under consideration for official listing under the ESA- the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) (sec below). 4.4.1 Slickspot Peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum) Slickspot peppergrass is restricted to microhabitats known as slick spots and also referred to as mini -playas or nitric sites. Slick spots appear sporadically in low spots of the landscape, collecting water as shallow basins throughout the wet season. These sites are physically and biologically distinct from the surrounding sagebrush -steppe community. Ranging in size from about 1 to 12 square meters, slick spots display soils that are high in both clay and salts (Fisher, et al. 1996), with properties more hydric than the surrounding arid soils. In terms of biologic production, these sites have low output compared to the surrounding habitats. Due to their accumulate relatively little organic matter and nutrients. The rangelands within the AD have traditionally been used for livestock grazing and recreational use. In addition, much of the area also exhibit signs of disturbance from fire. This combination of disturbances likely caused sire -specific mechanical damage to soils, overall reductions in sagebrush cover, and ushered in a host of invasive plant species. As a result, historic slick spots in surrounding plant communities that may have once supported slickspot peppergrass have likely been degraded to such an extent that it is unlikely any individuals or dormant seeds rcmain viable for future populations (Moseley 1994). Area -wide surveys have been conducted for this species in 2003-2005, 2006-2008, and 2010. There was no slick spot habitat identified or slickspot peppergrass found during these site surveys. Due to thc lack of suitable habitat in thc project arca and results from the long-term surveys it is unlikely that development of the arca would have any adverse impacts on the species. Thcrc have been no observations of the species within the AD recorded in the IFWIS database (2021) (Figure 17). low productivity, slick spot soils Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 50 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 245 • Avimor Development- Special Status Plant Species Occurrences Figure 17. Slickspot Peppergrnss and Anse's Onion Element Occurrences (I FW IS 2021) - Avimor Development 4.4.2 Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Monarch butterflies are large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings surrounded by a black border and covered with black veins. During the breeding season, monarchs lay their cggs on their obligate milkweed host plant (primarily Asclepias spp.). Larvae depend on milkweed to feed on during development and sequester toxic chemicals (cardenolides) as a defense against predators. The 2020 Monarch Butterfly Species Status Assessment (SSA) (USFWS 2020) identified the main threats facing monarch butterflies to be habitat degradation and loss from agriculture, logging, insecticide and herbicide use, urban development, drought, and climate change. It is possible the species occurs throughout the property, particularly in areas with high concentration of forbs, including landscaped urban or developed areas, or patchy areas of remnant native forb communities. Milkweed, particularly showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa), is widely distributed throughout Idaho, including in portions of the AD, (Kintcr 2019) and may serve as breeding sites for monarchs. However, in a habitat suitability model created by the USFWS and Xerces Society (USFWS and Xerces 2016), the highest suitability for showy milkweed in southwestern Idaho is mostly associated with the Snake River Canyon with moderate to low suitability in the foothills rangelands. Milkweed can readily grow in many environments, including disturbed areas like roadsides, and efforts to encourage milkweed growth within the AD, including neighborhood pollinator gardens, may provide valuable habitat for the species. Avimor Development - Ilabitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 51 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 246 5.0 DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS The potential impacts to wildlife habitat and associated plant communities from construction actions in the short- and long-term are discussed in the following section. An impact analysis is essential in assessing how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts resulting from the proposed development, which is identified in Section 6.0. Impacts are determined based on the proposed actions and are often location -specific. impact duration is assessed where applicable and can be short-term (less than 1 years) or long-term (greater than 1 years). Additional information used to identify and assess impacts includes: a review of relevant scientific literature, previously prepared environmental documents, interviews with 1DFG personnel and others with local, long -terns knowledge of the arca, and best professional judgment (Table 5). Knowledge is, and always will be, incomplete regarding many aspects of the terrestrial species and vegetative communities and their interrelationships. The ecology, inventory, and management of ecosystems are a complex and evolving discipline. However, basic ecological relationships are well - established and understood. In addition, a substantial amount of credible information about the ecosystems in this region is available. Impacts based on the proposed development were evaluated using the best available information about these ecosystems. Tible5. Impacts to Habitat and V'ildlife impact or Direct or Action Source Potential Impact , Species Affected Duration Indirect Conversion of Open Space Disturbance to Riparian Areas Noise Lights Recreation Construction; Planned Community {Construction; Planned Community Permanent IIabitat All Long-term Both Loss or Alteration Reduced Riparian Habitat Construction; Recreation; Arca Avoidance by .Planned Species (Community Planned Area Avoidance by Community Species Residents of Community; Public Access (when allowed) Increased Use and Disturbance to Soils: Increased Noise; Habitat Fragmentation Riparian and Short- and Aquatic Associated Both :Species (Limited) Long-term Wildlife (Primarily somShort-term and Bird and Coyotes) horn Low.- IDirect Primarily Long-term (Both 1Nocturnal Spccics .A]1 Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan ((IMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 247 ;Short- and Long-term :Both Page 52 of 95 • Impact or Action Pets Introduction of Invasive and Noxious Species Wildland Fire Traffic Nuisance Wildlife Source 1 Potential Impact Residents of Community; Public Access (when allowed) Construction; Planned Community; Recreation Construction; Recreation; Planned Community Road Construction; Residential, Commercial Vehicles Wildlife Entering the Community Mosquitoes and Planned Other Pests Community Permanent Conservation Protection of ILascmcnts Habitat Area Avoidance by Wildlife; Induced Stress to Wildlife; Nest Disturbance and Potential Increased Mortality Ilabitat Loss or Degradation; ,Increased Fuels for Wildfire Habitat'Forage Loss land Degradation: Increased Risk to Residents Species Affected Wildlife (Primarily Rodents and Avian Species) All All Fatality (roadkill); Wildlife Area Avoidance Duration Short- and Long-term Direct or Indirect Direct Short- and some Long- Both term Long-term Both Long-term Direct Species Mortality; Wildlife (Primarily Relocation Rodents and :Short-term (Both Coyotes) Increased Pest Population Permanent Protection of Ilabitat Values and Connectivity of Resources Primarily Avian Short- and Species ;Long-term All (positive) 1Both Long-term Both '"All" Includes plant and yr ildlife populations present within the proposed project area (Table 4 for SCC). However, impacts will vary in intensity by species depending on the type of impact. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 248 Page 53 of 95 For the purposes of this section, it is assumed that all proposed areas identified for development within the proposed AD represent areas of permanent habitat loss or alteration for various plant and wildlife species. While conservation measures can be implemented within residential and commercial development areas to increase habitat value, the majority of developed lands is of limited use for most wildlife species. The opposite is also true. Any permanent protection of private property constitutes a significant benefit to wildlife and the associated habit as these areas would otherwise be developed. 5.1 SUMMARY OF EFFECTS BY RESOURCE 5.1.1 Conversion of Open Space Future developments within the AD will include residential and commercial development. Removing the existing ground vegetation would likely have an adverse impact on native plants and most wildlife species that continue to use the arca by reducing potential nesting sites, amount of forage and cover, and other essential habitat components. However, the overall impact would not likely be significant because vegetation in these areas has already been degraded through historical disturbance (livestock grazing, wildfire, and recreation), and provides only limited habitat for most wildlife species in the area. The loss of shrub lands, which range in condition from poor to satisfactory, would have a far greater impact than grasslands in the area, based on the current condition of most grasslands and the number of species dependent on intact sagcbrush stands for nesting, foraging, and cover. Based on the overall condition and altered community dynamics associated with sagebrush stands in poor condition, impacts would not likely have a significant adverse impact (direct or indirect) on wildlife species. However, disturbance of sagebrush stands in marginal to satisfactory condition would have a greater adverse impact, bosh directly and indirectly. Upland community types (grasslands, shrub, agricultural) provide habitat for a large number of burrowing animals, such as ground squirrels and badgers. These areas provide prey for a wide variety of predators such as coyotes, raptors and snakes. Converting these arcas to residential or commercial would likely reduce the abundance of these prey sources, resulting in short-term adverse impacts. However, the large expanse of open -space public land surrounding the property, which contains the same or similar habitat types, would reduce the overall local impacts taking place on this comparatively small area. Big game species have been identified utilizing the riparian and shrub habitat associated with the AD area, primarily in the upper elevation foothills east of State Highway (SH) 55, and the shelf running along SH-55 on the southern boundary (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 14, Figure 15, and Appendix C). Given results from big game surveys within the AD (Section 4.2.1, Appendix C) and IDFG big game habitat suitability models (for mule deer and elk), Based on the quantity, quality, and variability; its overall connectivity; and its relative proximity to human disturbance, the big game habitat found in the higher elevations and Cartwright Canyon to the east of SH-55 is considerably better than the habitat to the west. Due to this finding, the conservation easement was established to capture a large portion ofthc highest quality big game wintering habitat. The remaining habitat within the AD serves as moderate to low -use big game habitat. Permanent conversion of unprotected high -use areas would likely have a negative direct and indirect effect on big game in the region, resident populations, and especially to wintering populations, though makes a small portion of the AD outside of the easement. In contrast, the current easement and potential future permanent protection of these areas would have a significant benefit. Heavily manipulated or disturbed arcas arc prone to the establishment of invasive plant and animal Avinror Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 54 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 249 • species that compete with and may displace native species. Although some species thrive in these disturbed habitat types, most are eliminated. For example. fox squirrels (Sc•turus roger), European starlings, and California quail may thrive as a result of the proposed project. This invasion causes indirect adverse impacts as species that arc adapted to the drier landscape, such as ground squirrels, sage thrashers, and lizards that are displaced. Therefore, thepemianent replacement ofexisling habitat with non-native spccics, and the associated reduction in biodiversity, is a primary concern (JDFG 2005). Permanent protection of these resources is the highest priority for management of native species. Spec1es/Group impacted Ground nesting'burrowing ianimals' :Sagebrush -obligate and (migratory songbirds' Raptors' 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed "Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, ''Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Direct- Potential mortality during construction. Indirect- Reduction in available habitat. Direct- Potential nest mortality during construction. ndire7ct- Reduction in foraging and nesting habitat ricer- None lndircct- Reduction in prey populations curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; olis e-sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike. 5.1.2 Disturbance to Riparian Areas There are several riparian arcas within the AD, however, at this time, no wetland delineations have been complete to assess the amount present. Project planning will avoid destroying or disturbing any wetlands identified within the property boundaries, when possible. Any delineated wetlands that arc disturbed/destroyed will be assessed and mitigated to ACE requirements. There is riparian habitat within the project arca that could be significantly enhanced. Based on the current conditions, they have diminished value for riparian wetland functionality and as habitat for wildlife (Section 4.0). Actively protecting or restoring and managing the functionality of these communities could increase the hydrologic function of the system; increase water quality; enhance stream morphology; and reduce competition of residual native species with invasive weedy species. In addition, by reestablishing the functional components of the system, the overall amount, availability, and stability ofwildlifc habitat would increase. Based on the dynamic nature of riparian and wetland systems, a static restoration plan is not recommended. Rather, an adaptive approach that allows for multiple actions that can be altered quickly is more preferable. Specific restoration tools may include, but arc not limited to: restructuring channel morphology; changes in elevation and topography through soil grading; structure protection for erosion control and slope stabilization with gcotextiles, riprap, biocngineered treatments (wattles, fascine, bundles, etc.); removing invasive spccics through mechanical, chemical, or biological control; reestablishment of native vegetation through seeding, plant propagation, planting cuttings or plugs, and wetland sod. These tools will be used in conjunction with augmented water supplies associated with wells, irrigation systems, treated effluent, and other sources. Through proper restoration techniques and practices, a riparian system can reestablish pre-existing functioning conditions with natural ecological functions and processes. Overall, the AD will follow the most Io- date guidance and requirements from the Army Corps of Engineers in regard to impacts and restoration of riparian corridors. Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (/IMP) 2022 Page 55 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 250 (Species/Group Impacted Impacts (Direct and Indirect) (Ground ncsting'burrowing Direct- potential mortality associated with construction activity. animals' Indirxt- loss of habitat. (Sagebrush -obligate and Direct- none migratory songbirds' Indirect- limited loss of habitat. Direct- none Indirect- reduction of potential nesting' perching sites. 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; 'Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; 'Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk Raptors' 5.1.3 Noise Current noise levels in the area are generally associated with human recreational activities in the area, such as off -road vehicle use and target shooting. Large machinery, equipment, construction crews, and building processes will increase consistent noise levels during the construction phases of the proposed development and will be short-temi m nature. Noise associated with construction activity is likely to have an adverse impact on many wildlife species that exist within or adjacent to future proposed projects (Oxley et al. 1974). However, the magnitude is unknown and likely species - specific. Big game would likely avoid the area during initial construction. Impacts resulting from construction noise would be very local in spatial extent and short-term in timeframe. Noisc associated with residential activities would likely have an initial adverse impact causing temporary displacement of wildlife. However, some species would likely acclimate to noise conditions of on -going residential activities. Therefore, the magnitude and duration of the impact would be species -specific. Species/Croup Impacted Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Ground nesting/burrowing Direct- none animals' Indirect- avoidance of the arca. Sagebrush -obligate and Direct- none migratory songbirds' Indirect- avoidance of the area. Direct- none lndircct- nesting/breeding disruption Raptors' 'Western bun -owing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel: 'Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan QIMP) 2022 Page 56 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 251 ' I. NO.7 k 5.1.4 Artificial Light The presence of msidential and commercial development will increase light sources through streetlights, commercial facilities, increased traffic, and residential property lights. Increased light sources could have Tong -term adverse indirect impacts on plant and wildlife species by disruption or altering animal behaviors associated with Foraging, reproduction. and others. For example. exposure to artificial light during nocturnal activities can result in reduced feeding and reproductive activity of certain frog species (Harder 2002). It was also identified that behavioral decisions associated with foraging, mating calls, and movement, in relationship to risk of predation, were influenced by associated light levels in some nocturnal species (Lima and Dill 1990). Light pollution can also confuse animal navigation. alter competitive interactions, change predator -prey relations, and influence animal physiology (Longcorc and Rich 2004). For example, many diurnal birds and reptiles forage under artificial lights which are deleterious for prey species such as small rodents. Small rodents forage less at high illumination levels (Lima I998), a tendency also exhibited by bats (Rydell 1992) and other nocturnal wildlife. Species/Group impacted impacts (Direct and Indirect) Ground nesting/burrowing Direct- none animals' Indirect- foraging alteration; increased predation pressures gebrush-obligate and migratory songbirds2 Raptors' Direct- none lndircct- area avoidance, altered forage pattern. I]in_ct- none Indirect- area avoidance, altered forage pattern. ILWestem burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; "-Grasshopper spanow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk 5.1.5 Recreation The AD currently provides a wide range of recreational opportunities that include, but are not limited to: walking, hiking, jogging, mountain hiking, off -highway vehicle (OHV) use. snowmobile use. photography, horse -back riding, shooting, sightseeing, wildlife viewing, antler hunting. dog training, and others. All forms of recreation vary widely and have different potential impacts on wildlife and vegetation. However, due to the nature of private property, recreation can be regulated closely by the property owncr and modified in real-time to adapt to condition and conservation needs. Direct and indirect impacts to vegetation and soils would likely result from the use of non- designated trails and the creation of user -defined trails by hikers, bikers, and OHV users. These types of impacts range from localized to landscape -wide based on the amount and distribution of use. Direct impacts to vegetation could include trampling and crushing of individual plants. While this would have limited short -terns adverse impacts, long-term adverse impacts would likely be greater based on the reduced overall reproductive capability of the population. Indirect impacts associated with recreation could include disturbance and compaction of the soils, increased erosion potential, the spread of non-native plant species, and an increased probability of human -started wildfires associated with OHV use. Wildlife harassment is one of the primary direct impacts from recreational users on wildlife. Wildlife harassment can affect the survival of certain wildlife species, and it can also influence growth rates, Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 57 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 252 0„eirptu NO_ behavior, and reproduction (1DFG 2003). Specific site -related disturbances include avian harassment and direct mortality, generally associated with pets (see below), or nest abandonment, which can result in un-hatched eggs, abandonment of young and loss of reproduction potential for that year. A broad definition of harassment is any activity by humans or their domestic animals that increases the physiological cost of survival or decreases the probability of successful reproduction of wildlife. Based on the probability of increased public access and recreational activities in the area, potential adverse impacts (short- and long-term) to wildlife would be expected without implementation and enforcement of mitigation measures. Species/ Group Impacted Ground nestingiburrowing animals' Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds' Raptors' Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Direct- disruption of nesting activities or nest abandonment azuciated with harassment, indirect- increased use and disruption of soils, reduction of available forage and increased wildfire probability associated with establishment and spread of exotic species. ' pirect- disruption of nesting activities or nest abandonment associated with harassment. Indirect- increased use and disruption of soils, reduction of available forage and increased wildfire probability associated with uitablishment and spread of exotic species. Direct- disruption of nesting activities or nest abandonment associated with harassment. lndiroct- potential reduction in prey base (see above). 'Western burrowing owl, long-hilled curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piule ground squirrel; 'Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike, 'Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (JIMP) 2022 Page 58 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 253 5.1.6 Pets Free -roaming domestic pets can result in significant wildlife harassment. The location of the proposed AD with rcgard to open space public lands creates a higher potential for adverse wildlife impacts resulting from domestic pets. Duos Dogs harass and kill many wildlife species. Dogs can be especially destructive to wildlife when wildlife is most vulnerable, such as nesting and brooding periods. People cnjoy large open space areas, especially for the opportunity to exercise with their dogs off -]cash. Harassment issues that were discussed in the above recreation section are exacerbated when combined with free -roaming dogs. The area of wildlife impact•for this analysis is enlarged substantially to include the range covered by a dog. Wildlife species often flush when dogs approach them, which often provoke a chase that can lead to the animals' or dogs' death (IDFG 2003). As the population of Eagle and the surrounding area increases, the demand for open space to run dogs off -leash will also increase. The likely result will be an increased use of the area and greater overall impacts to wildlife from free -roaming dogs. Controlled leash -less dog parks can significantly reduce these potential impacts by providing open space for dogs to run in areas that arc not used by native wildlife. Cats Domestic and feral free -roaming cats have been shown to be major predators of game and songbird populations. Feral cats predominantly cal birds and small mammals. Domesticated cats, even when fed regularly by their owners, retain their motivation to hunt and will hunt and kill the same animals as feral cats. Feral and free -ranging cats kill millions of native birds and other small animals annually, with birds constituting approximately 20% to 30% of the prey of feral and free -ranging domestic cats (Drennan 2005). In fact, historically, cats have been specifically implicated in at least 33 bird extinctions, making them one of the most important causes of bird extinctions worldwide (Nogales et al. 2004). Increased cat populations could have a significant Tong -term adverse effect particularly on ground nesting birds and other small animals such as voles, snakes. frogs and toads. Species/Group Impacted Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Ground nestingburrow•ing .animals' (Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds2 Raptors' 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed 2Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, 'Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk piree - increased predation pressures, harassment indirect- none Direct- increased predation pressures, harassment Indirect- none Direct- potential predation mortality Indirect reduced prey base. curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; Avmtor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 254 Page 59 of 95 5.1.7 Invasive Plant and Noxious Weed Species Invasive weed species are exotic plant species that invade and displace more desirable native vegetation. In general, invasive and noxious weed species thrive on disturbed soil, and are typically spread by various avenues, including: wind, water, animals, machinery, livestock, pets and people. Invasive and noxious species are currently present throughout most of the AD property, as well as in the surrounding rangeland. Ground disturbance gives invasive species an opportunity to establish and spread because the native plant competition has been removed or disrupted. Once these species have gained a foothold, they can spread into adjacent native stands of vegetation and out -compete them. The establishment and spread of invasive species can have an adverse impact on vegetation by increasing the overall competition with native species for limited resources (water, nutrients, space, ctc.). Over time, invasive species can have an adverse impact on vegetation and wildlife by Altering the structural and functional components ofa system (i.e., soil structure/function, hydrologic function, fire return intervals, energy flow, etc.) severely enough that reestablishment of native or desirable species is extremely difficult (Barbour et al. 1999; West 1993). Compared to perennial species, the small amount of root structure associated with annual invasive grass and forb species provides very little soil stability and contributes little organic matter to the soil structure, which increasing the likelihood of erosion and soil loss during limes of heavy precipitation and runoff. Construction activities associated with future project could create a large amount of ground disturbance, consequently creating ideal conditions for invasive species. The ongoing presence of large amounts of residents and recreational users could further facilitate the introduction and spread of invasive and noxious species. However, reducing the amount and accessibility of livestock to the arca could also have long-tcrm benefit by reducing the overall spread of these species in the arca. Species/Group Impacted Ground nesting/burrowing animals' :Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds' Raptors` Impacts (Direct and Indirect) heel- none Indirect- reduction in suitable foraging habitat and increased competition. potential loss of cover, habitat loss/fragmentation from increased fire cycle. Direct- none Indirect- potential habitat loss/fragmentation from increased fire cycle. Direct- none indirect- reduction in prey numbers, habitat loss 'fragmentation from increased fire cycle 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper spanrov., and Flute ground squirrel; `Grasshopper spanow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; :3Golden eagle and rermgmous hawk Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 60 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 255 —,r,M EEG 9'55 c.{ 5.1.8 Wildland Fire Historic impacts from human uses (livestock, development, etc.) have altered the vegetation components and fire regimes of habitat over a large portion of the Snake River Plains. The communities in the region are generally dominated by introduced annual invasive species (e.g., cheatgrass and medusa head). These altered communities and Ciro regimes have resulted in increased fire frequency and intensity, which has historically: (1) destroyed native vegetation over very large areas, resulting in reduced populations and habitat for SCC and reduced forage potential and habitat for wildlife, (2) reduced soil structure and function, resulting in increased erosion, and (3) increased risk to human structures and life (Whiscnant 1990). During the summer and fall seasons, vegetation on the open rangelands associated with the AD area becomes dry and combustible. Annual invasive grasses and forbs have augmented natural fuel Toads and created a widespread, interconnected ignition source. Construction activities and thc presence of homes, businesses, residents, and recreational activities in the surrounding area would likely increase the probability for human -caused wildland fire ignition. Potential ignition sources may include, but are not limited to, cigarettes, automobiles, ATVs, motorcycles, and fireworks. Based on the historic alteration of the community dynamics (structural and functional components) over a majority of the AD, development, construction and residential activities would reduce fuel Toads and connectivity of fuels, which could have a long-term beneficial effect. However, the increased number of potential ignition sources would likely have a greater potential long-term adverse impact on habitat in the area. SpeciesIGreup Impacted Ground nesting/bun-owing animals' Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds' Raptors' Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Direct- potential mortality. Indirect- decreased/fragmented habitat, loss of cover. Direct- potential murtality. Indirect- decreased fraginetucd habitat, loss of nesting sites and cover. Oirt 1- potential mortality. Indirect- reduced prey populations. 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow. and Piute ground squirrel; '-Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; 'Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk 5.1.9 Traffic Traffic levels along SH-55 between Horseshoe Bend and SH-44 (State Street) are anticipated to increase only marginally during the construction phase of the project. However, as the number of residential and commercial developments throughout the corridor expands, including the growing population of Horseshoe Bend, Avimor, and other planned communities, the overall amount of commuter traffic will increase. In addition, public access to managed trail systems in the area is also likely to augment the amount of traffic in the area. Based on the overall increase in traffic, roadkill rates for all species are likely to increase to some degree as a result of elevated traffic levels (Case 1978; Oxley et al. 1974). Reed and Woodward (1975) identified two primary factors, which help to determine the level of Avintar Development - Habitat Management Plan (JUMP) 2022 Page 61 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 256 r" to r • „ f'' � impact to wildlife resulting from increased traffic: (1) the number of vehicles and (2) the speed of travel. It is reasonable to assume that the number of animals killed as a result of vehicle collisions will increase as the number of vehicles increase. Further, SH-55 is a high-speed highway, having an additive effect on roadkill rates. Big game will be increasingly affected from elevated traffic levels on SH-55, especially during the early spring months when big game has been identified in the area. However, construction, traffic noise, human presence, and inevitably residential and commercial properties, could act as a barrier between SH-55 and the foothills habitat, which could Icad to a potential reduction in the number road kills within the proposed AD arca during periods of construction activities (Forman and Alexander 1998). Preventing access along the proposed AD property on SH-55 would likely redirect and concentrate big game crossings and subsequent road kills to other locations along SH-55. Species/Group impacted Ground nesting.burrowing animals" Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds' Raptors' impacts (Direct and Indirect) Direct- increased mortality Indirect- ace noise and artificial hght above. Direct- i ncrcascd mortality indirect- see noise:and artificial light above. Direct- increased mortality Indirect- see noise and artificial light above. 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squurel; 'Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; 'Golden eagle and fenuginous hawk 5.1.10 Nuisance Wildlife in the Community When open space is converted to residential development, wildlife may not recognize these new boundaries and will encroach into the neighborhood, creating interaction problems with residents. Several wildlife species will continue to access the proposed residential areas, attempting to make a home, forage, or utilize it in other ways. These issues could involve a wide spectrum of wildlife species, ranging from Mormon crickets and rodents to snakes, skunks, raccoons, badgers, coyotes, and other wildlife. Human tolerances for these species, however, arc quite variable depending on personal preferences, past experiences, and one's ecological perspective (DcNtcola et al. 1997). Nuisance wildlife interactions typically result in relocation or destruction of the nuisance animal. This interaction, while a potential nuisance to residents, could have an adverse long-term impact on the encroaching wildlife species. Smaller species would likely be removed or dispatched, while larger species would likely be trapped, chased, or relocated off the properly. Some species would be left alone for viewing pleasure. Regardless of the mechanism for removal, overall impacts to wildlife associated with human harassment are adverse in both the short- and Tong -teen. -4vimor- Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 62 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 257 nrcxk gq1 = 5141-1 Species/Group Impacted Impacts (Direct and Indirect) Ground nesting'burrowing Direct- relocation of animals, harassment. and potential mortality. animals' indirect -future conflicts with residential maintenance. Sagebrush -obligate and (migratory songbirds- Direct- none Indirect- none Direct- now Raptors' Indirect- contamination of food supply (i.e., preying on poisoned pests, potential conflict with pet predation). I' Weslem borrowing off I, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; ^Grasshopper sparrow, sage Thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; 'Golden eagle and fenugtnous hawk 5.1.11 Mosquitoes and Other Pests Development of' residential facilities, including, but not limited to: stomi water retention areas, developed parks. landscaping ponds, and water treatment facilities, will likely increase the available habitat and occurrence of insect pests; specifically, mosquitoes. Increases in these populations could potentially have an adverse long-term impact on human residents, domestic pets, and wildlife species, including migratory species, because of the increased risk associated with the West Nile, hcartworm, and other blood -borne pathogens associated with mosquito and other insect bites. Control measures associated with these pests could also have Tong -term impacts on wildlife species and human health. Many pesticides and insecticides used for pest management arc broad-spectrum poisons which kill a wide variety of insects and pests, as well as some non -target fish and wildlife species (Grue et al. 1997). This could result in direct, long-term adverse impacts to local wildlife. Indirect impacts to non -target insect populations could result in diminished prey fish and wildlife species. When insect populations arc significantly diminished by pesticides, bats and birds that feed on insects must search a much greater arca to find sufficient food. If they are not able to find enough food, adult and juvenile mortality rates can increase (Maurer and Holt 1995). Similarly, reductions in insect populations could have long -tern adverse impacts on plant populations, including crops, by reducing potential pollinators (Pimento] et al. 1992). :Species/Group impacted Ground ncsting'burrowing animals' Sagebrush -obligate and migratory songbirds2 Raptors' impacts (Direct and indirect) Direct- potential increased morality. Indirect- increased number of disease vectors. potential reduction in forage (insects) associated with pc,.sticidc applications and secondary poisoning impacts. Direct- potential increased mortality. Indirect- increased number of disease vectors, potential reduction in forage (insects) associated with pesticide applicanons and secondary poisoning impacts. Direct- potential increased mortality. Indirect- increased number of disease vectors, potential reduction in prey base associated with pesticide applications and secondary poisoning impacts. Avimor• Development - Habitat Management Plan '7IMP) 2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 258 Page 63 of 95 Species/Group Impacted Impacts (Direct and Indirect) 'Western burrowing owl, long -billed curlew, grasshopper sparrow, and Piute ground squirrel; 'Grasshopper sparrow, sage thrasher, olive -sided flycatcher and loggerhead shrike; Golden eagle and ferruginous hawk 5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The cumulative effects on plant and wildlife populations are essentially the same as those identified above. However, based on the growing population in the region and the growing number of proposed developments within the region, the impacts would likely be to a greater extent spatially and temporally when combined with effects of other developments and land uses. Although it is assumed that the proposed development will not have a strong adverse effect on a particular SCC because of the available existing habitat surrounding the project arca, the cumulative effects of multiple new developments within the area will have a much larger impact and may have a strong negative effect on the success of a population within southwestern Idaho. It is estimated that shrub -steppe habitat has been reduced by greater than one-third in the Interior Columbia River Basin and that less than I % of remaining shrub steppe exists in its original condition (West 2000). Remaining shrub -steppe exists in a patchwork of habitat islands which are often highly separated. This fragmentation has serious implications for wildlife species. A recent assessment of the Columbia River Basin has identified shrub -steppe as the highest priority for conservation, based on trends in habitat and wildlife populations (Saab and Rich 1997). Based on the historic and regional loss of sagebrush habitat, these communities are becoming increasingly more sparse, adversely affecting sagebrush -dependent species such as the sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, slickspot peppergrass, and other sagebrush -obligates. Therefore, residual stands of sagebrush, especially those in satisfactory or better condition, have a greater importance and should be protected, enhanced, or reestablished to the greatest extent possible. Direct and indirect impacts, as well as cumulative effects, can potentially be compensated for through proactive conservation measures and active management. The next section identifies actions to avoided, minimized, or mitigate the adverse impacts for the proposed AD identified above. Avinror Development - Habitat Management Plan (IMP) 2022 Page 64 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 259 6.0 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO AVOID, MINIMIZE, OR MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6.1 AD MANAGEMENT ACTIONS This section identifies and describes specific and general management actions identified to compensate for adverse direct and indirect impacts to open space, plant communities, and wildlife species associated with development activities within the AD. Incorporating these management actions into the proposed development plans for cach proposed project could help avoid, minimize, or mitigate potentially adverse impacts, as well as facilitate an ongoing legacy of public education, understanding, and respect for the natural environment within the AD. The general mitigation plan for the AD identifies nine primary components: • Perpetual open space and habitat preservation; • The Conservation Director and Advisory Committee; • Wetland Construction and Restoration; • Compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972; • Nest Boxes and Perches; • Pest Control and BMP's; • Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Plan (Includes Invasive and Noxious WeedManagement Plan); • Construction Precautions; • General Neighborhood Design Features (including Firewisc ? landscaping and annual audits); • Recreation Guidelines and a Trails Advisory Board; and • Nuisance Wildlife Guidelines The identified management actions outlined below are a compilation of local and regional professional suggestion and judgment, state and federal technical references, and over 15 years of site surveys and observations. They arc based on general construction impacts and may require site - specific modification for each application process, as well as the construction and post -construction phases of the development (see Conservation Director and Advisory Committee). Table 6 summarizes the direct and indirect impacts addressed by each management component. In addition to describing the management actions, this section also identifies and describes the monitoring program and funding mechanisms. These aspects of the HMP are the primary mechanism that guide and support the overall plan and are essential to its success. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 65 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 260 NO. 7 : Table 6. Summary of Mrnaacmcnt Actions and Addresscd Impaels. (Mitigation Component Impacts Addressed Conservation Easements All (Conservation Director ,Advisory Committee Wetland Construction and Restoration; Compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1972 Nest Boxes and Perches All All Conversion of Open Space, Disturbance to WetlandsfRiparian Area, Wildlife Habitat Conversion of Open Space, Disturbance to Riparian Areas, Wildlife Ilabitat Conversion of Open Space, Disturbance to Riparian Areas, Wildlife Habitat Tnvasive;Noxious Weeds, Pest Control, and Mosquitoes and Other Pests BMPs Habitat Enhancement and Restoration Actions Construction Precautions General Neighborhood Design Features Recreational Guidelines Conversion of Open Space, Disturbance to Riparian Areas, Wildlife Habitat, Invasive and Noxious Species, Wildland Fire Noise, Light Pollution, Recreation, Pets, Invasive and Noxious Species. Wiidland Fire, raffc Disturbance to Riparian Areas, Light Pollution. Invasive and Noxious Species, Recreation, Wildland Fire. Traffic Noise, Light Pollution, Recreation, Pets, Invasive and Noxious Species. Wildland Fire Nuisance Wildlife Guidelines Nuisance Wildlife 6 I.I Actions to Avoid Impacts Each proposed project within the AD will have a different development footprint relative to the site characteristics and potential impacts to habitat. The layout for all development within the AD will take into consideration these resources to the extent possible. However, based on the landscape and topography of the area, developable sites are generally constrained to specific areas of suitable slope. As such, it is unlikely that the majority of the impacts identified in Section 5.0 could be completely avoided. Therefore, the primary mechanisms to limit the overall impacts to plant and wildlife communities will be reduction and mitigation. Avimor Development - Ilabitat Management Plan (LIMP) 1012 Page 66 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 261 •;37FFif.J. NO 6.1.2 Actions to Reduce and Mitigate Impacts Since it is unlikely that most impacts could be avoided, the primary emphasis of this plan will be to reduce or mitigate the overall adverse impacts identified in Section 5.0. Based on the literature, historic monitoring data, and professional experience, optimizing development (high density) in isolated pockets over the landscape is considerably more effective in conserving natural resources, preserving connectivity, maintaining open space, and supporting the funding of sustainable conservation actions relative to dispersed low density development over the same area. As such, most actions relative to reduction will be associated with landscape -wide reductions in development and reduced impacts to wetlands and riparian corridors. Again, these are constrained based on the amount and availability of developable lands. Therefore, the primary management tools associated with construction within the AD will be associated with mitigation actions, construction precautions, development standards, residential education, and site planning (noxious weeds, recreation, fire, etc.). In particular, the AD through the HMP recognizes and promotes the value of permanent preservation of natural open space and habitat of high conservation value (e.g., riparian areas, migration corridors, etc.) to mitigate the impacts from development (e.g., conservation easements). This approach addresses both the spatial and temporal aspects related to development impacts, and when coupled with other management actions would minimize or mitigate the identified adverse impacts. Since many of the actions identified below both reduce and mitigate impacts, they will be addressed at the same time. Following each narrative description is a summary table outlining the general impact and effect of the reduction or mitigation action. Permanent Protection of Natural °nen Since te.w__ Conservation Easements] Conservation of natural open spacc will be the primary tool used to mitigate development -related impacts within the AD arca. This is the permanent protection of natural opcn space on private lands that could otherwise be developed in the future. Natural open space would be placed within similar habitat (type and location); set aside in perpetuity from future development impacts via a contract with a third -party organization that will be approved by the City of Eagle; monitored by conservation casement holder; reviewed annually by the CAC (see below); and funded in perpetuity using the Avimor Conservation Fund (see Section 6.2). Working with the IDFG over the last 15 years, it has been identified that the most effective way to mitigate development impacts to wildlife habitat is the permanent protection of other lands with similar habitat value that could otherwise be developed in the future. The use of land preservation as a higher priority than habitat enhancement has four primary benefits. First, the action can be fully enacted in the short-term (i.e., the mitigation is immediate and does not require long periods to develop like habitat restoration actions). Second, the success of the action is guaranteed (i.e., once the lands are set aside, the action is successful and is not dependent on variables that can reduce effectiveness, such as precipitation, wildland fire, invasive species, etc.). Third, the action is permanent in nature (i.c., the development rights on those lands are given up in perpetuity). Fourth, the cumulative effective of the action (i.e., placement of an easement can be done in a location that has greater habitat value than the area affected, or it can be placed in proximity to adjacent public lands resulting in a great arca of affect). High -priority areas for conservation, including preservation, enhancement, and general open space, are determined at the preliminary plat level. Multi -factorial spatial analyses, including development features and applicable conservation layers (e.g., big game migration corridors, slate and federal special status species habitat, riparian or wetland habitat, etc.), will be conducted during both plat - Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 67 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 262 level and master planning. This spatial model will identify areas where development could occur while maximizing open space and minimizing or avoiding impacts to areas of high conservation value. The minimum amount of open space that must be set aside for open space within Avimor shall be as follows: For every two (2) acres of developed land within each preliminary plat (excluding developed open space areas), the Master Developer will place one (1) acre of unfragmented habitat land, which may be owned and/or controlled by a third party. The Master Developer has already set aside 640 acres of unfragmented habitat land adjacent to the Avimor development area in a permanent conservation casement-400 acres provide habitat mitigation for the entire Village One Arca in accordance with original Ada County approvals; 240 acres will offset developed acres in future preliminary plats within Avimor. With each preliminary plat, the Master Developer will designate Open Space areas that equal or exceed 20% of the developed land within the preliminary plat. By full build out, Avimor will include total Open Space areas That equal or exceed 50% of the Avimor acreage overall. The 20% per preliminary plat and 50% overall Open Space requirements may be satisfied with designated improved or unimproved Open Space areas within Avimor together with all lands placed into a permanent Open Space. High value open space will generally be located outside the preliminary plats on the eastside of state highway 55 and adjacent to the existing 640-acre conservation casement and BLM parcel (Figure 4, Page 17). Of the existing 640-acre conservation easement, 400 acres were set aside to protect critical wildlife habitat and mitigate impacts from the APC in accordance with the original Ada County approvals. As such, 240 acres is still available to be used to offset developed acres in future preliminary plats within the AD area. As cach preliminary plat within the AD is defined, the location of the developed lands and open space within and outside the preliminary plat will be mapped and preserved with a conservation easement or other approved mechanism. All open space for each preliminary plat will be delineated and placed in an easement or other approved method prior to the final plat for each preliminary plat. A third - party organization will hold and manage the off -site conservation easements in perpetuity. As part of the management requirements, the third -party manager will also develop a summary report outlining the condition of the easements at least every three years. The report will be included in the annual CAC monitoring report (see below). Species/Group Impacted All Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Conversion of open space and habitat fragmentation Natural open space and habitat is protected in perpetuity providing all animals and plant communities within. or wing the area as a migration corridor, protection, Based on the amount of natural open space protected. the n era ll effect of development is mitigated. Conservation Director and Advison. Committee Conservation Director Some of the impacts to plant communities and wildlife species associated with development of the AD arc single -event occurrences; although, the effect and resolution may be long-lemt. Loss of open space and habitat is one example. Other issues related to the development will be persistent throughout the life of the project. Examples include but are not limited to: dogs belonging to construction workers and homeowners harassing wildlife; well meaning, but misguidcd, residents feeding wildlife; habitat Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 68 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 263 �; �. YF1'7 raj i'; •-1 Kt-4 enhancement projects; and weeds management. While single -event issues (e.g., open space and habitat loss) can be predicted and either avoided, minimized, or mitigated, persistent issues (e.g., pets, weeds, etc.) will require constant monitoring and quick response. Consequently, it is both desirable and appropriate to have a Conservation Director as part of the management structure. This position would be responsible for enforcement of the HMP, community education, habitat development and monitoring, recreation issues, interactions with county, state, and federal agencies, as well as other issues related to the ecology of the arca. The duties associatcd with this position would include, but arc not limited to: • implement, manage, and monitor conservation and enhancement programs identified in the HMP; • Monitor and maintain effective fuel breaks. and inventory, monitor, and manage invasive and noxious weed management program; • Establish and implement a wildlife conservation and education program for residents of the current and future developments (newsletter, website, interpretive signage— Appendix A); • Serve as a representative of the AD on local conservation boards, such as Resource Conservation District member or future Cooperative Wccd Management Arca committees, as well as cooperative management programs with the BLM and other public land administrators; • Seek additional funding through grants, cooperative agreements, etc. for conservation and education programs; and • Work with residents to address problems related to nuisance wildlife in the neighborhood, and work with BLM and the IDFG to address the issues. The Conservation Director would be responsible for the implementation, management, and monitoring of HMP for the community. The position is funded and managed under the ASO, and coordinates annually with the CAC (see below). The person or firm responsible for the Conservation Director duties must have an in-depth knowledge of the ecology and land uses of the area, and maintain communication with county, state, and federal agencies, as well as private foundations and groups. It is important that the Conservation Director be independent of the Homeowners Association so the position remains based in wildlife and conservation issues without being steered, influenced, or financially governed by other interests. As this position will be separate from the Homeowners Association, the Conservation Director will not be able to issue fines, rather the ASO would be the entity that may issue lines to residents through the Homeowners Association. Appendix A details potential conservation and education activities. Current and future developments in the surrounding area have similar wildlife and recreation- related issues. The Conservation Director may coordinate a shared Conservation Director position that has responsibilities with other developments. Species/Group Impacted Ilmpact Effect of Mitigation Actions Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 69 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 264 3T7RU. 1\'0'7W7rj�' rYrs �� . All All Based on trend monitoring, quick decisions can be made on :resource management utilizing approved and available tools. :Development and implementation of resource -based education programs for residents and students to reduce adverse impacts by educating the public what those impacts are and how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for their presence and impact. 4vimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (1IMP) 2022 Page 70 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 265 'TFZU. ;NO. Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) The Conservation Director will be the primary mechanism for conservation efforts, environmental and recreational management, and education for the community. However, an advisory committee, made up of a minimum of five representatives from the IDFG, BLM, City of Eagle, HOA representative, Development Representative, and Conservation Easement Manager (if applicable) IA ill make up the CAC. While the Conservation Director will manage the meeting, they arc a non- voting member. The CAC will meet once a year to review the monitoring data and overall progress of the mitigation actions. Based on the progress of the implemented actions, the committee may make recommendations to the Conservation Director for changes in management direction or Alteration of the HMP. In order for thc HMP plan to be adaptive and timely, the Conservation Director will be allowed to make alterations to site -specific plans and management actions. However, those changes must fall within the parameters identified in the HMP. in order to make changes outside those parameters or alter the HMP, the changes identified by the Conscrvvation Director must be addressed and approved by the CAC and the ASO, with final approval from City of Eagle. Species/Group Impacted impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Acts as the cheeks and balances for thc Conservation Director All All and monitors the developments overall progress in meeting the goals and objectives outlined in the I -]MP. Wetland Construction and Restoration Any potential wetlands affected by proposed project within the AD will be assessed and delineated per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) standards, including cultural resource surveys meeting Secretary of Interior standards for Section 106. The ACE will be contacted before any wetland restoration projects arc undertaken. 1 f construction activities impact existing wetlands, mitigation will be completed as directed by thc ACE. in general, there arc two options to address impacts to wetlands; restoration of existing wetlands or construction of a new wetland arca. These two options arc different and will be considered carefully before embarking on any wetland mitigation efforts. Wetland restoration involves returning an existing wetland to a previous state. Wetland construction involves conversion of an upland site into a vegetated wetland area. Wetland restoration is often the less costly of the two because even degraded wetlands display the three wetland characteristics naturally: hydrology, hydric soils, and wetland vegetation. Wetland restoration and mitigation activities will be done in coordination with the ACE and w ill refer to best available and most -recent guidance from the Army Corps of Engineers. In general, the following principles have been identified by wetland specialists for wetland restoration and construction projects (Mitsch and Gossclink 2000) and may be used during wetland restoration and construction projects within the AD: 1. Design the system for minimum maintenance. The .system of plants, animals, microbes, substrate, and water flows will be developed for self -maintenance and self: design. 2. Design a system that utilizes natural enemies, such as the potential energy of livinror' Development - Habitat Management Plan (IlMP) 2022 Page 71 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 266 streams, as natural subsidies to the system. Flooding river transport great quantities of water and nutrients in relatively short time periods, subsidizing wetlands open to these .lows. 3. Design the system with the hydrologic and ecological landscape and climate. Floods, droughts, muskrats, geese, and storms are expected disturbances and will not be feared. Natural ecosystems generally recover rapidly.front natural disturbances to which they are adapted. 4. Design the system to fulfill multiple goals but identify at least one major objective and several secondary objectives. If .a wetland is being created or restored to replace a lost wetland, replacement offunction will be an important consideration. 5. Design the system as an ecotone. This 'nay require a buffer strip around the wetland site, but it also means that the wetland site itself will be a buffer system between upland and aquatic systems. 6. Give the system time. Wetlands do not become functional overnight. Several years may pass before plant establishment, nutrient retention, and wildlife enhancement can become optimal, and mature soils systems may take decades. Strategies that try to short- circuit ecological succession or over manage it are doomed to failure. 7. Design the system forfunction, not form. If initial plantings and animal introductions fail but the overall function of the wetland, based on fulfrlbnent of initial objectives, is being carried out, then the wetland has not failed. The outbreak ofplant diseases and the invasion of alien species are often symptomatic of other stresses and may indicate false expectations rather than ecosystem failure. 8. Do not over engineer wetland design with rectangular basins, rigid structures and channels, and regular morphology. Natural systems will be mimicked to accommodate biological systems. Freshwater Marshes and Ponds Some common emergent plant species used for wetland restoration and construction in areas where water accumulates and ponds will be useful for developments within the AD. These species will include but won't be limited to: bulrush (Scirpus spp. and Schoenoplectus spp.), cattails (Tvpha spp.), and sedges (Carex spp.). Resources spent on submerged plants may bc wasted since their establishment is often limited by algal growth and turbidity. Riparian Areas Restoration of riparian areas associated with Willow Creek, Spring Valley Creek, and other drainages with the AD may be possible but will have limited success unless the stream setbacks allow periodic Flooding. Even without periodic flooding, some restoration of the riparian area is possible given the existing channels morphology in the area. Some common species used for wetland restoration along riparian areas in Idaho include black cottonwood (Populus balsomifera), willow (Salix spp.), river birch (Betula occidentalis), rushes and sedges. Species used for restoration will match those indicated for each mapping classifications of the Preliminary Wetland Delineation. Figure 17 displays how the streambank gradient affects the potential for aquatic, riparian, and upland vegetation. Bioengineering methods to remove debris are described below. These methods providechannel stability with the added benefit of providing wildlife habitat. Mesh plastic or wire tubing helps protect new seedlings from browsing damage and can be installed before or after planting. Consideration will bc given to the location of plantings. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 72 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 267 :\h1-E RUJ. NO: • a) C - a cc m a a c = L. co lobs NO. h rar. :�CO c cr a Ti td L. 7 UPLAND Figure 18. Relationship Between Aquatic, Riparian. and Upland Vegetation. Bioengineering Methods Wattles/Faseines Wattles arc bundles of live, woody material tied into bundles, generally 4 to 12 inches in diameter and typically 8 feet long. They will be placed in shallow trenches on banks or slopes parallel to the stream contour. They will be partially covered with soil. Wedge -like dead stakes will secure them into place at 2-to-3-foot intervals. This live -rooting material grows into a live fence -like erosion barrier. The wattle and the trench create a sediment trap. Straw mulching the site after installation will retain moisture and reduce surface erosion. This is the most functional and easiest to install of the bioengineering materials. Brush (branch) Layering This technique utilizes a 2 to 4-inch layer of readily rooting live branches which are 0.25 to 0.5 inch in diameter and 3 to 6 feet in length. Brush (branch) layering will be planted on terraced benches with two-thirds of the basal material covered with soil. Six to 12 inches of upper growth will bc exposed. Before installing, soil terraces can bc additionally protected by putting down gco-fabric. Secondary layers of live branches are added 3 to 4 feet from the bottom of the slope. Before growth begins, they will add stability and aid in moisture retention. Straw mulch may be used to provide additional moisture retention and erosion control. Brush Mattressing This technique utilizes live, woody material 0.5 to 3-inches in diameter, at random lengths. This material is placed 4 to 6 inches deep on sloped areas. Generally starting at the bottom of the slope, they are laid in a crisscross pattern protecting six or more feet of slope. They are held in place with wedge -like dcad stakes and secured with string or wire. Four inches of' loose soil is placed on top to sufficiently cover the majority of the branches. The brush mattressing will act as an immediate Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 73 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 268 Flit NO. . sediment trap and grows into a shrubby carpet -like protective barrier. This technique is effective on slopes with a 2:1 ratio or flatter. Live Cuttings Cuttings arc living plant material of unrootcd, woody stems that will root and establish shrubs in wet, fertile conditions. They are ideal for planting in mass where erosion control and bank stability are an immediate concern. Live Whips Live whips arc woody shrub material 0.25 to 1 inch in diameter and 4 feet to 6 feet long. Live whips arc used in conjunction with gabion walls, riprap and geo-fabrics. Two-thirds to three quarters of live whips will be covered with soil. Whips can be installed laying on their side or erect in the soil. Live whips must be long enough to reach soil behind or below hard structures. Rooted Cuttings and Bareroot Plants Plants have 8 to 36 inches of above -ground growth and established roots. They arc used to establish shrubs and trees on restoration projects. These materials are to be planted 2 to 8 feet apart and their roots must be covered with soil. Scc list of available species above. Wedge -like Dead Stakes These are pieces of brood cut in long wedges. They measure 1.5 by 3 inches by 2.5 feet long. These dead stakes arc driven into the soil to secure wattles, brush matlressing, and other applications of soil bioengineering. Species/Group !impacted All Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions All Mitigate, restore, or enhance wetlands and riparian areas. Increase hydrologic functionality and structure of system for aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Federal Miaratory Bird Treaty Act (META] To ensure that migratory and nesting bird species are not adversely affected by construction activity and to comply with provisions identified by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (FMBTA), preventative clearing of brush and other vegetation during non -breeding season (September — March) would be done to the extent possible to limit the need for seasonal restrictions. Pre -construction surveys may also be completed by the Conservation Director or qualified biologist prior to construction activities to identify potential nesting locations. In the event that an occupied nest with eggs or juveniles present is identified, the nest and surrounding arca will be marked and construction activity will be diverted around the site until the nest is vacated or relocated in coordination with state or federal wildlife agencies. In the event a tree is occupied, that tree will not be felled until juveniles have vacated the nest. A report of the species, site location, and actions taken to protect the nest will be developed by the Conservation Director or qualified biologist and given to 1DFG and City of Eagle. ;species/Group Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Impacted All nesting and Potential mortality, Avoid nesting and brooding activity disruption until nest sites migratory birds nest abandonment are vacated. avoiding nest/chick abandonment and/or mortality. Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan «IMP,) 2022 Page 74 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 269 -TFJ. NO. Nest Boxes and Perches Loss of open space and habitat associated with construction activities could have a short-term adverse impact on avian and bat species by reducing available nesting and perching sites. To help compensate for the potential Toss of habitat, areas remaining in natural open space will be significantly enhanced for cavity nesting birds. hawks, and bat species by constructing a minimum of arli ficial nest and perch structures. Nest boxes, bat boxes, and perch sites will be funded and strategically placed within the community, as well as the rangeland surrounding the AD. These can include small boxes for cavity dwelling swallows and bats, larger boxes for American kestrels and platforms in appropriate locations for ferruginous hawks. Nest boxes have the potential to be utilized by nuisance bird spccics that displace native spccics, such as the European starlings. Monitoring of these boxes will be done by the Conservation Director, preferably in coordination with education or children's groups. Bat boxes may also be placed throughout the community near riparian areas. These have the added benefit of controlling mosquito and other insect populations without the use of pesticides or insecticides. Specific designs and locations will be determined in conjunction with local BLM and IDFG wildlife specialists and is preferably done in coordination with education or children's groups. Species/Group Impacted (Raptors Impact Loss of nesting and perching structures Cal ity nesting birds Loss of nesting tend bats and perching structures Effect of Mitigation Actions Lessen the effect of loss of hab- itat due to development by creating artificial nesting and perching platforms -boxes, increase availability of nesting sites for platform dependent species. Create educational tools for residents and students. Lessen the effect of loss of habitat due to development by creating artificial nesting, roosting, and perching platforms/boxes. Create educational tools for residents and students. Pest Control and BMP's The increased presence of residential development and associated infrastructure associated with storm water retention areas, developed parks, landscaping ponds, and water treatment facilities, will likely increase the available habitat and occurrence of insect pests; specifically, mosquitoes. To mitigate the potential increased pest population, the Conservation Director will work in conjunction with the Idaho State Department of Agriculture's pcsl management program and urban pest coordinator to create and implement an Integrated Pest Management (1PM) program. The primary emphasis of the 1PM program will be the management of habitat and pest population control within the AD utilizing chemical and non -chemical measures. Non -chemical and biological control measures will be emphasized, with chemical application as a secondary control. Non-chcmical measures include but arc not limited to: • Biological controls; • Water conservation and irrigation management practices; • Turf -management on parks, and residential lawns: • Wetland and landscape pond management; Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 75 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 270 • Equipment storage; • General maintenance and monitoring of stomt water and water treatment systems;and • Residential cducation and training. The overall objective of the pest management program will be to reduce health risks to residents and wildlife species that could be adversely affected by increased presence and population of pest species. The objectives will be measured qualitatively, because of the limited health impacts (West Nile) associated with pest species; rather than quantitatively. based on the ambiguous nature of the impact. Species/Group Impacted Insectivorous wildlife and ati'sociatcd predators I.Avian species Impact Consumption of chemically treated Harassment and disease vectors Effect of Mitigation Actions Reduce mortality due to consumption of pesticides through the trophic feeding levels. Reduce the spread of the disease by reducing the number of vectors (i.c., the spread of West Nile by mosquitoes). Habitat and °Den Snace Enhancement and Restoration Plan To increase the overall health and functionality of the lands within and adjacent to future developments, an enhancement and restoration plan may be developed for each preliminary plat. Each plan would have two primary components. The first is management and control of invasive and noxious weed species (Appendix D). The second is the reestablishment and restoration of natural structural and functional components of natural open space within the development or conservation easements. Species/Group Impacted All Nesting birds Ground nesters and burrowing animals Raptors/other predators Impact Conversion of open space Loss of nesting and foraging habitat Conversion of ' open space Reduced prey base Effect of Mitigation Actions Enhanced or restored remaining open space provides better quality, more sustainable habitat. Provides connected spans of enhanced or restored native habitat for nesting and increased forage base associated with reestablishment of native vegetation for prey. i.c., insccts utilize. Increased diversity of habitat for nesting and increased forage base associated with reestablishment of native vegetation for prey (i.e.. insccts utilized). Increased prey numbers and expanded hunting range. Invasive and Noxious Weed Manaacment Plan invasive and noxious weeds arc currently and will continue to be an ongoing issue for the AD due to current established infestations, initial construction ground disturbance, as well as increased population and recreation levels. Invasive and noxious weed management objectives for the development include, but are not limited to: Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 76 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 271 —AGES _ 1 • Control the current spread of noxious and undesirable weeds within the AD, map existing locations, and keep record of species present to the extent possible; • Prevent new infestations, monitor the effectiveness of control measures, and adaptnew management strategies and control measures as necessary; • Meet state and federal safety guidelines for the use of prescribed burning and chemical application; • Work and coordinate with BLM and other adjacent landowners to extend AD conservation and restoration programs beyond the projects boundary to enhance vegetation, reduce fuel amount and continuity, and to potentially assist in landscape -wide restoration projects; and • Work with residents and the public to educate them on invasive and noxious weeds, and the ecological, social, and economic impacts on the surrounding rangelands. The control and management of invasive and noxious weed species is an essential component of open space and habitat. Therefore, the initial mitigation measures should primarily be associated with reduction and control of these species on all non -developed areas within each project area, including both developed and undeveloped -open space. The AD weed management plan (Appendix D) will be applied during development of each preliminary plat. Invasive and noxious weed management strategies will be adaptive to existing conditions and change over time based on the goals associated with the plan as well as incorporating best available techniques and science. Tools identified for use of invasive and noxious weed control include, but arc not limited to: • Mechanical treatment (mowing, hand pulling, plowing, chaining, etc.); • Prescribed bums; • Biological treatments; and • Herbicide application. These types of treatments should significantly reduce mature populations and the amount and viability of seed for future generations. In areas with only limited components of invasive present, spot - applications of herbicides, bio-control agents, or mechanical thinning should be used, whi Ic restricting prescribed bums. The initial and continued use of herbicides, as well as the type of herbicide, will be deternuned based on a site -by -site basis. In addition, prescribed burns and herbicide application projects may be done in collaboration with BLM, Ada County Pest Management, and other resource agencies and specialists. A weed management program must be implemented and carried out throughout the year. This program will utilize various treatments including mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods. For example, spot spraying of invasive grass species in areas with established native species would likely reduce competition for limited resources and increase the ability of young natives to establish and reproduce. However, the use of herbicides can have adverse effects on native species as well. Therefore, mechanical and biological controls should be used as much as possible in these areas. It is recommended to use biological control agents to the extent possible in order to manage and control invasive and noxious weed species. While invasive and noxious weed species can be reduced Avirnor Development - Habitat Management Plan {IIMP) 2022 Page 77 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 272 with chemical and mechanical treatments, these require significant amounts of time and resources, and can result in adverse impacts to remnant native population. Bio- control agents are generally species -specific and have limited effects on other species. In addition, these treatments are less time and resource consumptive, and can affect a very large area with a minimal application. Initial and continuous treatments of the area will be required to control and manage these invasive communities. However, the primary factor in managing the establishment and spread of new populations will bc cducation and support of the community residents and the public. An aggressive cducation program will be emphasized so that residents and the general public are aware of the impacts from these species on native communities and wildlife. in addition to on -site programs, the community shall have continued communication and enter into cooperative programs for weed management and education with county, state, and federal agencies. Species/Group IImpacted All Ground nesters and burrowing animals Raptors' other predators Impact Increased fire cycle Loss of native habitat Reduced prey densities increased competition Effect of Mitigation Actions Reduction of fuels would reduce overall probability and severity of wildfires Decreased competition with more desirable native vegetation to reestablish native communities that supply better forage and cover. Decreased competition with more desirable native vegetation to reestablish native communities that supply better forage to increase the prey base and provide more cover. Habitat and Oben Space Restoration Plan After initial reduction and control measures have been done or started for invasive and noxious weed species, restoration of the site may take place to enhance habitat in all natural open areas. Habitat restoration objectives for the development include, but arc not limited to: • Reestablish native vegetation in natural open areas within each preliminary plat; • Reduce or limit reestablishment of invasive and noxious weed species in uplands and riparian areas by reestablishing native plant species; • Establish long-term monitoring sites to assess the effectiveness and success rateof restoration activities in order to identify trend and potentially adapt new restoration measures as necessary; • Work and coordinate with BLM and other adjacent landowners to extend AD conservation and restoration programs beyond the projects boundary to enhance vegetation, reduce fuel amount and continuity, and to potentially assist in landscape -wide restoration projects; and • Work with residents and the public to educate them on the natural ecology of the surrounding rangelands, as well as the structural and functional components necessary to sustain that system. Treated (mechanical, prescribed burns, biological, and chemical,) areas will bc reseeded or hydro - seeded. where necessary, with a mix of native grasses, forbs, and some shrub species. .9vnnor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 78 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 273 While native species are emphasized, the use of some desirable non-native species will also be included for structural and functional components. It is recommended that these species tither be sterile or non -aggressive. Lc., they will not out -compete or displace more desirable native species. The shrub component will come primarily from rooted material, plugs, or transplanted individuals rather than seeds. While these spccics arc not native. they can affectivcly be used to reduce erosion potential, reestablish hydraulic function, and act as nurse crops, i.e., sterile whcatgrass or other recommend species. The shrub component will come primarily from rooted material, plugs, or transplanted individuals rather than seeds. Areas with hydro-seedings should be allowed to germinate and set for a minimum of one season based on seasonality and time constraints. The following season, plugs, super -cells, potted plants and transplants of a variety of grass, fortis, and shrubs will be addcd to the sitein order to reestablish a diverse stand, both species diversity and age class diversity, of nativeor desired species. The use of live mature plants in addition to seedings and irrigation will likely increase the potential success rate of the project significantly in relationship to seeding only. In addition, live mature plants will be available for aesthetics and landscaping features, as well as functional and structural components of the system, i.e., soil stability, hydrologic function, and nutrient processing. As the structural and functional components arc reestablished, the site will be more resistant to invasive and noxious weed spccics, and more resilient to disturbances such as recreation, wildfire, and others. In addition, restored areas will have improved habitat for plant and wildlife species, while increasing the intrinsic value of the area for residents and public recreation. IiI)ecies/Group Impacted All Ground nesters and burrowing animals Raptors/other predators Impact Increased fire cycle Loss of native habitat Reduced prey dens itics'increased cxtmpelitiun Effect of Mitigation Actions Restoration of native community dynamics including fire regime conditions that have been significantly Altered through historic uses. Overall increase of native vegetation used for cover and forage, improved sustainahility. Increased prey populations associated with greater stability and quality of habitat; however, restoration of native spccics would also increase cover for prey spccics. Construction Precautions While some direct and indirect impacts associated with construction activity can be avoided, such as unmanaged recreation or unleashed pets, many cannot. Therefore, best management practices (BMP) arc required to be incorporated into the construction plan. Included in these BMPs will be measures that: • Noxious weeds observed near or adjacent to construction areas will be treated with herbicides or physically removed to prevent further establishment and spread; • Periodic surveys by the Conservation Director will take place to identify and treat invasive and noxious wccd infestations, particularly after soil -disturbing activities; • Areas of topsoil salvage will be monitored and aggressively treated with .9vimor Development - Habitat Management Plan ((IMP) 2022 Page 79 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 274 INSTRU. NO341/ 0534 PAGER*1 OF5`1 t/ herbicides to prevent the establishment or spread of invasive and noxious weed species; • Disturbed areas will be reclaimed imrnediately after the completion of construction and restored with native seed and live plants. In areas with high erosion potential, hydro-sccd and mulch with tackificrs will bc used to reduce erosion impacts and reestablish native species; • Certified weed -free mulch will be used in restoration, and certified weed -fret straw bales w ill be used in sediment barriers, and; • Approve of SWPPPs Species/Croup Impacted All Impact Invasive spcies estabIishmcnt and spread All Wildfire Ground nesting birds Harassment, winte mortality, and nest abandonment Soil erosion Aquatic species compaction and eater quality Effect of Mitigation Actions Limit establishment of new species and populations and reduce spread of established invasive and noxious weed species. Reduce probability of wildfire and increase response time to control potential human caused wildfires thereby reducing the !overall adverse impacts associated with a larger wildfire. Reduce harassment and potential indirect mortality of species r dunng critical periods; educate construction personnel on species of interest to report observations that may not normally be reported. Limit adverse impacts to structural and functional components in order to reduce erosion potential and subsequent reduction in water quality, and limit compaction that would normally restrict plant establishment and root depth as well as water permeability. General Neighborhood Ded n Guidelines This section outlines identified requirements associated with construction activities that pertain to the neighborhood layout, design. or Charter. State Hishwav-55 and Residential Roads Wildlife -vehicle collisions along SH-55 are the primary cause of big game mortality (primarily mule deer) in the vicinity of the AD. In an effort to reduce big game mortality and risks to motorists associated with wildlife and road crossings a three-year survey was conducted with wildlife and transportation experts to detemtine some recommended actions (Appendix C). The Avimor Conservation Director will work cooperatively with a partner agency (IDFG, ITD, etc.) to apply and receive money in an effort to make SH-55 more wildlife -sensitive. To reduce the potential for big game collisions within the AD, several measures will be incorporated into the design, which may include but not limited to: a series of signals, signs. and other traffic - calming measures; engineering of roadways with increased line of sight; and roadside barriers were feasible. These measures will bc incorporated into the design of each project based on Ada County _Avimor Development - Ilabttat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 80 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 275 INSTRU. MO141,9534 PAIN.RP S OF5 L/ 1 Highway District standards in order to control or reduce excessive speeding and subsequent collisions, with both wildlife and people. While these actions can reduce the occurrence of wildlife -vehicle collisions, it will not eliminate roadkill altogether. In the event of roadkill along SH-55, the Conservation Director will work with the Idaho Department of Transportation regarding monitoring and reporting. 1Species/Group Impact !Impacted Small mammals and Increased mortality rodents Effect of Mitigation Actions Reduced speed and increased visibility of motorist will reduce automobile -related mortalities. Midland Fire and Fuel Breaks (GreensLrin) The AD is located in an area that is dominated by annual grasses and forbs. When these annual species (primarily medusa head and cheatgrass) arc a dominant presence in a vegetative community, they can form a virtual carpet choking out preferred native species. In the summer and fall months of the year this carpet becomes an ignition and fuel source, which can ignite and spread wildfire at alarming speeds. Fire is a potential threat at any time in the foothills; however, the threat is especially high from July to September when the moisturc levels arc low, vegetation is fully grown and dried out, and recreational usc is greatest. As discussed earlier, increases in local houscs, residents, and recreation will likely increase the wildfire ignition probability in the arca. Therefore, all proposed development within the AD will fall under the management of the Avimor Firc Plan (AFP) (Appendix F) including a requirement to obtain a letter of approval from Eagle Firc District at time of final plat. Included in the management plan will be the use of fuel reduction actions and the usc of green strips to reduce the amount and connectivity of fuels in the area Greenstrips are generally long, narrow bands of fire-resistant vegetation used to reduce the amount and connectivity of fuels, buffer developments from wildfire, and limit ignition potential in high -use areas (Gebhardt et al. 1987; Davison and Smith). Plants growing on these sites should be widely spaced, have high moisture content, and "green -up" longer or later than other species. Greenstrips can also include gravel, decorative rock, or developed walking paths, which arc easily incorporated into the landscaping plan for the community. Greenstrips will have a required width of 8-30 feet in areas adjacent to open space or adjacent rangelands. The variation in width is due to the fact that different land uses will occur along the rangeland boundary of the development. Along the residential areas where backyards and irrigated vegetation exists, a narrower greenstrip would apply. In other non- irrigated open space areas, a broader fuel break will be needed to protect against wildfire. Practical planning will be used when determining fuel break widths. In areas where a connected green strip would detract from the natural aesthetics of the arca, lirescaping will be incorporated around individual residents to create defensible space and reduce risk. Species/Group Impacted All !Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Loss of habitat due Reduced connectivity of fuels and buffers limits the impact of to wildfire potential human -caused fires spreading into the open areas surrounding the development, Avimor- Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 81 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 276 INSTRU. No.3q LP 531 P S(kCF5 / / Perimeter Fire Hydrants. Access Roads. Fire -Wise Community, A series of fire hydrants will be strategically located along roadways, near the perimeter of the proposed developments to provide lire hose access to neighborhood water in the event of a wildfire. Hydrant hose attachment thrcading will be compatible with local city, state, and federal hose attachments to facilitate quickness and efficiency in the event of wildfire. I❑ addition to hydrants, access points will he designed into the proposed projects to allow fire crews to access the rangelands beyond the boundaries of the development, while limiting access to residents and rccreationists. The developer will coordinate with the City of Eagle and Eagle Fire District to identify locations for perimeter hydrants and access points. Species/Group impacted All Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Loss of habitat due Reduced response time and increased access to suppression to wildfire resources would limit the overall size and severity of wildfires. Wildlife Fencing-Residential/Higher Density Areas Charter and design guidclincs will restrict residential fencing from having protruding objects, spikes, or rails that could impale wildlife. Fencing should either be closed to limit direct access to small and medium sized mammals or limited to 4 inch or less distance between bars for rod -iron. Fences will also maintain compatibility with the AFP. Large open areas such as parks and playgrounds will either not be fenced or have large access/egress points for escape in order to reduce the likelihood of trapping or injuring large wild] i lc that may be wandering. Species/Group Impacted Medium and small mammals Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Nuisance wildlife, Reduced injury/fatality events for big game moving through the increased development. Decreased number of trapped animals acting as mortality/injury nuisance to residents. Wildlife Fencine-Coen SnacesiConunon Areas/PerimeterDevelootnent Open space areas of the development that are connected to or adjacent to open rangelands will likely be places that wildlife species enter the development. Development in perimeter areas that are lower density and adjacent to open space will be regulated by Charter and design guidclincs to provide for wildlife friendly fencing. The priority for wildlife -suitable fencing in open areas is easy passage and low risk of injury or death. Fences constructed for livestock grazing control can comply with wildlife friendly fencing standards. Specifically, the bottom wire or barrier on these fences will not be barbed and be at least 16 inches o1T the ground to facilitate the safe passage of pronghorn antelope and young big game species. The top level of fences would ideally be constructed of wood to increase visibility and safety for antelope and mule deer. The top level should not have any protruding objects or rails that could potentially impale crossing wildlife. The top of all fences should be no higher than 40 inches, with al least 12 inches between the top two levels (Figure 10). Residential fences in arcas directly adjacent to natural open areas should be no more than 48 inches high, capped with no protruding ends, less than 4-inch gaps, and comply with the Avitnor Fire plan. Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 82 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 277 INSTRU NO. CS.3, ' PAGES23LOF5 t �i ,Species/Group Impacted Big Game, mainly pronghorn antelope impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Nuisance wildlife, Reduced injury(fatality events for big game moving through and increased around the development. Decreased number of trapped animals mortality;injury acting as nuisance to residents. Artificial Liehtine Lighting within the development will comply with "dark sky" development guidelines to address light pollution. Lighting within residential and commercial areas will be restricted to low wattage, directed fixtures (down). This includes strccllamps and private residential lighting. There will also be fewer light posts that arc increasingly spaced as you travel from more concentrated residential areas toward the peripheral sites adjacent to rangelands or natural open space. These lighting requirements are based on the conceptual plan and are likely to be altered as the plan is altered. In addition, key night use areas may be modified for safety reasons. All lighting will, at a minimum, conform to all city and county lighting standards. Species/Group impacted Raptors, other birds, ground nesting/burrowing animals and other nocturnal terrestrial wildlife Aquatic species Impact Area avoidance Foraging Alteration; increased predation pressures Disruption of Ibrceding (patterns increased (predation pressures Effect of Mitigation Actions Minimize the overall effect by reducing the amount of area affected by artificial light, and leave areas with greater concentrations of wildlife, the periphery of the development, with dark patches for cover. Minimize the overall effect by reducing the amount of area affected by artificial light. which would reduce the effect of changing behavior and area avoidance of nocturnal animals; reduce unnatural right -time exposure of prey animals. Minimize the overall effect by reducing the amount of area affected by artificial light, which would reduce the effect of changing behavior. Recreation Guidelines Recreation poses one of the largest potential adverse impacts to local wildlife and plant communities in the region, and has significant implications associated with public access and use of the area. While the BLM has an obligation to provide public access and use on public lands compatible with the protection and enhancement of wildlife and wildlife habitat, private properties do not. The developer has identified that public access and recreation on open space for the public is a priority; however, this does not include all forms of recreational use during all times of the year. Open space areas do not necessarily imply that it is open for all types of recreation. The developer may work in coordination with, but not limited to, the Conservation Director, City of Eagle. IDFG, BLM, and representatives from various private recreation groups to assess new and existing recreation uses to analyze and ensure compatibility with wildlife and public access. Recreation types that arc not compatible with wildlife objectives of the area may be restricted. As the area on the west side of SH- 55 is developed, so will the recreation system. As such, the Avimor Recreation Plan (ARP) (Appendix E) will continue to adapt and integrate these new trails, uses, and management guidelines. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan ((IMP) 2022 Page 83 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 278 IINSTRU.N0.3L11-05-3 (1 IPAGEs . 0F5q In addition, as per the ARP, the developer may construct and maintain trailheads and trail systems within the private lands and appropriate conservation casements, and coordinate with the City of Eagle and BLM on programs for accessing and maintaining adjacent trails on public lands. The developer and Conservation Director will be required to maintain an ongoing relationship with the BLM and other pertinent agencies and groups in an effort to monitor and update regional Tong -term recreational plan (Appendix E). Species/Group Impacted Raptors and other nesting birds Aquatic species Impact I larassment Increased soil loads Effect of Mitigation Actions Established trails. limited off -road recreation and seasonal regulations will limn overall area affected by recreation and reduce nest disruption and associated abandonment or failure. Reduced soil and vegetation disturbance would reduce overall erosion potential, which would limit stream sedimentation and reduce potential adverse impacts to water quality. Pcts All pets will be required to be on leash at all times within the residential and commercial portion of the development, unless posted. All open space and trail users will comply with leash requirements outlined in the ARP (Appendix E). The Conservation Director will maintain involvement with residents, local agencies, and user groups to identify, and address as needed, potential conflicts and issucs resulting from the presence of dogs and other pets in relationship to native wildlife. Cats can decimate populations of birds and small mammals. They can also become prey to some wildlife spccics. Therefore, it is recommended that residents bc educated on wildlife issues and that cats be kept indoors at all times. If a cat is outside, they will be required to wear some type of auditory device (e.g., bells) to limit their effect on bird populations in the area. To reduce wildlife use of residential properties, pet food will be required through Charter to be stored indoors or in a sealed container. Pet food should not be left outside, because this can entice various wildlife spccics and result in nuisance animals that will have to bc removed or terminated. Species/Group Impacted All Small birds and mammals Raptors and other predators Impact Harassment/ Mortality Effect of Mitigation Actions Reduced harassment or mortality by pets off -leash and out of control of their owners. lncrcascd Rcduccd occurrences of additional exotic predators (cats and predation pressures dogs). Increased Reduce competition for prey by keeping cats inside and dogs competition on -leash, kenneled, or inside. Nuisance Wildlife Based on the potential for wildlife interactions in the area, the Conservation Director will create and distribute educational materials for construction contractors and residents concerning wildlife in the area. This can be in the form of wildlife manuals, informational videos, trail signage, nature walks, etc. Avimor• Development - Habitat Management Plan (1IMP) 2022 Page 84 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 279 INSTRU. NO U-53 PAGES2aeL.OF5L!L( The Conservation Director will develop protocols to address resident/wildlife interactions cooperatively with state and federal wildlife agencies. For example, the Conservation Director should be the initial contact person for construction crews and residents concerning wildlife interactions or questions. This would limit the overall number of calls to state and federal agencies. Other aspects concerning wildlife interactions and protocols will be identified and addressed by the Conservation Director and representatives from state and federal agencies. Based on the location of the AD and likelihood of nuisance wildlife issues, it will be required that the following non -depredation language be incorporated into a home buyer's disclosure statement and signed by all residents within the AD area: "This area has been identified as wildlife habitat. Damage to property or landscaping from wild game animals shall be the responsibility of each individual lot owner and shall not be the responsibility of the State of Idaho, City of Eagle, or the Developer. None of the identified entities will be liable for wildlife depredation." Species/Group Ilmpacted IBig Game Ground nesting/ burrowing animals Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions Relocation and harassment Ilarassmcnt and :mortality !Raptors and other Mortality and predators illness Reduced harassment or accidental mortality through education of residents and construction crews. Education and tolerance of big game interactions will reduce adverse resident feeding or other interactions that result in the need for relocation of animals over time. Education of residents and construction workers will reduce harassment in understanding that they are living in'around natural habitat areas, and that trapping or extermination is not a recommended solution. Reduction in the use of pesticides and chemicals to treat prey `nuisance animals' will reduce the number of infected animals preyed upon. Residential and Commercial Landscaping Landscaping will conform to the standards outlined in the Avimor Dcsign guidelines, as well as the AFP. In addition, any changes to individual landscape plans must be approved by the Avimor design committee. This is a critical step in making sure that homeowner changes do not put their or their neighbor's home at risk for wildland fire, or create potential risks for wildlife species, i.e., incompatible fences, landscape features, or toxic plant species such as Japanese Yew (Taxes cuspidate). 1ISpecies/Group Impacted Big Game Impact Effect of Mitigation Actions injury. or poisoning Reduced injury to wildlife species from landscape features or toxic plant species. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan ((IMP) 2022 Page 85 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 280 INSTRU.�NO 4iP53" 6.2 CONSERVATION FUNDING (AVIMOR STEWARDSHIP ORGANIZATION) Based on the breadth of conservation actions outlined in this HMP, a permanent and sustainable conservation funding source is critical to the success. To address this, the Avimor development has developed a conservation funding system based exclusively on HOA dues. 11 was identified that transfer fees were not dependable funding sources and in most cases were inadequate over the long- term for the number of proposed actions. In addition to funding issues, Avimor also identified that it needed an organization separate from the HOA to collect, distribute, and monitor funding requirements. As such, the Avimor Stewardship Organization (ASO) was developed. This organization is responsible for funding the conservation and education program (CEP). The CEP includes all conservation funding, funding for the ARP and associated events, and outreachisocial programs for residents. In general, 50% of the ASO funds will be used by the CEP towards conservation actions (e.g., riparian restoration), and the other 50% is designated for funding the ARP (e.g., trail development and maintenance) and resident outreachisocial programs. The ASO funding is based on a $10/month HOA fee, which may be amended from time to time due to inflation, for each household and each commercial development. This equates to $120 per household or commercial building per year. As the population within the development increases so does the Conservation Fund. For example, the existing APC has roughly 550 units, which equates to • $66,000/year. At full build out the AD is expected to have 9,500 residential units and 220 commercial units for a total of 9,720 total units. Based on the current HOA fund, that would equate to $1.2 Millioniyear. This estimate does not take into consideration inflation. However, since a fixed percentage of the home price was used to determine the HOA fee, fluctuations in home prices will allow for changes over time. Conservation associated costs, including restoration, enhancements, and the Conservation Director, will be covered by the developer until the conservation funds (i.c., ASO) can do so. Conservation associated actions after that point will be fully financed through CEP funds, as will post -restoration activities, such as, but not limited to: • Continued restoration and enhancement activities and maintenance; • Initial, annual, and trend monitoring; • Invasive and noxious weed monitoring, control, and maintenance; • Wetlands development projects, per the Army Corps ofEngincers; • Educational materials, classes, and outreach events; and • Other activities associated with the CEP and HMP. In addition, these funds can be used to purchase, enhance, and monitor off-sitc conservation easements to mitigate direct and indirect impacts to plant communities and wildlife associated with the development. Costs incurred by the developer that arc directly associated with CEP actions that exceed annual CEP funding can be recouped from the conservation fund when it has sufficient funds to do so. 6.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 6.3.1 Adaptive Management Strategies Avimor Development - habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 86 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 281 Adaptive management is a relatively new tool designed to improve decisions regarding the planning, design, management and operation of large, engineered projects in relationship to their setting. Adaptive management is a highly valued management concept and iterative process that has been at the core of many inter -agency and intra-agency discussions specific to the development, design and operation of the proposed project. Adaptive management is based upon a concept of science that understands ecosystems are complex and inherently unpredictable over time. It approaches the uncertainties of ecosystem responses with attempts to structure management actions using a systematic method from which over time learning is a critical tool. Learning and adapting is based on a process of Tong -term monitoring of impacts to vegetation and wildlife from this project. The development team recognizes that the findings of long-term monitoring could indicate the need for modification of the management of open space within portion of the AD through the application of adaptive management. The development team and the Conservation Director will work cooperatively with the homeowners, City of Eagle, the IDFG, other state and federal agencies, and various special interest groups to develop appropriate actions or mitigation measures designed to address issues or concerns identified as a result of monitoring. Adaptive management tools that are available include but are not limited to: timing stipulations during construction, operational changes of open space management and public use, sighting considerations in future phases of the development, lighting scenarios, and increased mitigation. 6.3.2 Alternative Management Actions In the event that fewer acres remain for natural open space during and after construction within thc proposed preliminary plat, or thc overall amount of identified open space is less than that identified for the preliminary plat, altcrnativc mitigation actions will be taken. Alternative mitigation actions would likely involve additional mitigation acreage (e.g., conservation easement), or revision of the phasing and development plan to ensure impacts to existing habitat are addressed. Any alternative mitigation actions, including any additional acreage set aside in a conservation easement or revision of phasing plans would have to be approved by the CAC (as stated above). 6.4 CONNECTIVITY OPPORTUNITIES WITH ABUTTING PROPERTY With the Ridge to Rivers trail system to the southwest, the City of Eagle's Master Tail Plan in the future, other developable private lands in the region, and patched BLM and state administered lands surrounding thc AD; this location would be an excellent opportunity for cooperative management and maintenance of publicly accessible trail systems. Key sites within thc proposed development could be designated as public access points to trail heads that originate within privately held lands. These trail systems could connect to a managed regional trail system. Similarly, future developments in the area could potentially integrate their community trial system into the regional one. As development pressure increases in these areas, management of interconnected lands will become increasingly important for the successful management of plant and wildlife species, invasive species, open space, human uses, and others. These types of opportunities should be identified and actively pursued by both the developer and adjacent landowners. 6.5 FEDERAL PERMITTING Clean Water Act -Section 404 Permitting All proposed projects will comply with thc Clean Water Act as stated in Section 6.1.2 of this Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 87 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 282 INSTRU. NnIA1053y PAGES LOF5gq document. Endangcred Species Act There arc currently no threatened, endangered or candidate species known to occur within the AD property at this time. Therefore, no incidental take permit under the ESA would be required for proposed actions. However, in the event that a species is listed that has been identified within or directly adjacent to the AD, additional site surveys will be completed, and a species -specific protection plan may be developed by the Conservation Director and incorporated into the HMP, per the approval of the CAC, City of Eagle, and FWS. Mis ratory Bird Treaty Act The developer of the proposed AD will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as stated in Section 6.1.2 of this document. _Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 88 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 283 7.0 REFERENCES Allen -Diaz B. and Bartolome, J. 1998. Sagebrush -grass vegetation dynamics: comparing classical and slate -transition models. Ecological Applications: 8(3) pp. 795-804 Autcnrcith, R.E. and E. Pichler. 1975. On the behavior and socialization of pronghorn fawns. Wildl. Monog. 42:1-111. Barbour, M., Burk, J., Pitts, W., Gilliam, F., and Schwartz, M. 1999. Terrestrial plantecology, third edition. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. Menlo Park CA. Bechard, M.J., K.D. Hague-Bechard, and D.H. Porter. 1986. Historical and current distributions of Swainson's and Ferruginous Hawks in southern Idaho. Dept. Biology, Boise St. Univ., Boise. 58pp. Belnap, J., J. H. KADenecker, R. Rosentreter, J. Williams, S. Leonard, and D. Eldridge. 2001. Biological soil crusts: ecology and management. TR 1730-2. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, BLM/ID,/ST-01 /001 +1730. 110 pp. Blaisdell, P. and J. Pechanec. 1949. Effects of herbage removal at various dates on vigor of bluebunch whcatgrass and arrowlcaf balsamroot. Ecology 30:298-305 (BP&R) Boise Parks and Recreation Department 2000. Public Lands Open SpaceManagement Plan for the Boise Foothills, Final Draft. City of Boise. Brown, C.G. 1992. Movement and migration patterns of mule deer in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:246-253. Callihan, R. H. and T. W. Miller. 1994. Idaho's Noxious Weeds. Agri. Comm. Center, Univ.of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 75 pp. Case, R. 1978. Interstate highway road -kill animals: a data source for biologists. Wild. Soc. Bull. 6:8-13 IHP (Idaho Department of Fish and Game Conservation Data Center). 2008. Data layers delineating habitat for sensitive species in project arca. Chambers, J.C. and B.E. Norton. 1993. Effects of grazing and drought on population dynamics of sAD desert shrub species on the Desert Experimental Range, Utah. J. Arid Environ. 24:261-275. Davison, J., and Smith, E. Living with Fire. Greenstrips: Another Tool to Manage Wildfire. University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 97-36. DeNicola, A.J., S.J. Weber, C.A. Bridges, and J.L. Stokes. 1997. Nontraditional techniquesfor management of overabundant deer populations. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25:496-499. Dewitz, J., and U.S. Geological Survey, 2021, National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2019 Products (ver. 2.0, June 2021): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10,5066,1139KZCM54 Drennan, S. 2005. National Audubon Society: Cats. Availableat: hitm' ww.audubon.ore.local/cn'98utarch;'cats.luntl. (Accessed December 5, 2005). Doremus, J. H., M. Blew, and S. T. Knick. 1989. Abundance of lagomorphs and rodents in the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. pp. 89-95 in Snake River Birds of Prey Research Project Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 89 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 284 INSTRU. ND:3`4 3 1 PAGFS&< OF 5-`/ `/ Annual Report, K. Steenhof, ed. USD], Bureau of Land Management, Boise, ID. Doremus J. H. and M. Blew 1988. Abundance of lagomorphs and rodents in the Snake River Birds of Prey Area. pp. 92-99 in Snakc River Birds of Prey Area 1988 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. Doremus, J. H. and J. Bolin. 1987. Abundance of black -tailed jackrabbits and Kangaroo rats in the Snakc River Birds of Prey Area. pp. 115-120 in Snakc River Birds of Prey Area1987 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. Doremus, J. H. Personal Communication. 2006. Wildlife Biologist, Snakc River Birds ofPrcy National Conservation Area, Field Office, BLM. EDAW, CH2M Hill, and Jensen -Belts Associates. July 1996. Reserves Master Plan, Hulls GulclvCamel's Back Reserve and Military Reserve; in (BP&R) Boise Parks and Recreation Department 2000. Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills, Final Draft. City of Boise. Entwistle, P.G., A. M. Debolt, J.H. KADenecker, and K. Steenhof, Compilers. 2001. Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium. Bureau of Land Management Publication No. BLM/ID/Pt-001001+] 150, Boise, Idaho, USA. Fisher, H.L., L. Eslick, and M. Scyfried. 1996. Edaphic factors that characterize the distribution of Lepidium papilliferum. Technical Bulletin No. 96-6, Bureau of Land Management Boise, Idaho. 27 pp. Forman, R. and Alexander, L. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effect. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 207-231 Gcbhardt, K., Boltz, M., Frazier, S., Mangan, L., Miller, M., Pellant, M., Rosentreter, R., and Taylor, J. 1987. Greenstripping Handbook, Idaho BLM. U.S. Department of thelnterior Bureau of Land Management. Boise, Id. 81 pgs. Grinnell, G. 1929. Pronghorn antelope. J. Mammology. 10(2): 135-14]. Grue, C., Gibert, P., and Seeley, M. 1997. Neurophysiological and Behavioral Changes in Non - Target Wildlife Exposed to Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticides: Thcrmorcgulation, Food Consumption, and Reproduction. American Zoologist 37(4):369- 388 Hanley, T.H. and J.L. Page. 1981. Differential effects of livestock use on habitat structureand rodent populations. California Fish and Game, 68: 160-173. Harder, B. Deprived of darkness the unnatural ecology of artificial light at night. Science News, Vol. 161, No. 16, April 20, 2002, p. 248. Hart, R., Bissio, J., Samuel, M., and Waggoner, J. 1993. Grazing systems, pasture size, and cattle grazing behavior, distribution, and gains. J. Range Manage. 46: 81-88. Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Scattic, Washington. 730 pp. Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist , M. Ownbcy, and J.W. Thompson. 1964. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest (5 volumes). University of Washington Press, Scattic, Washington. Aviator Development - Habitat Management Plan (HMP) 2022 Page 90 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 285 Heekin, P.E., C.A. Vogel, and K.P. Reese. 1994. Uncovering the elusive habits of Mountain Quail in Idaho. Quail Unlimited 12(2):8-11 Holecheck, J., Pciper, R., and Herbel, C. 2001, Range management: principles and practices (fourth edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Willis. 1987. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Divisionof Wildlife in cooperation with USDA FS, Rocky Mtn. Region, Denver, CO USA Hutchings, S. and Stewart, G. 1953. Increasing forage yields and sheep production in intermountain winter production. US. Dcp. Agric. Cir. 925 Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Mule deer progress report, surveys and inventorythru June 30, 2007. . 2007a. Elk progress report, surveys and inventory thru June 30, 2007. . 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. hun:?ifishandearne.idallo.govicrosttechi 1HPicwes.ef n. . 2005a. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Gamc,Boisc, ID. http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cmsltech4HP/cwes.cfm 2005b. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Website. Boise River Wildlife Management Area Information. Available at: http:Ufishandgame.idaho.gov/cros/wildlife/wma/boiseriv/info.cfin#info (accessed November 8, 2005). . 2003. Wildlife Harassment: Effects on Wildlife. Correspondence between IDFG staff. Written April 8, 2003.6 pgs. Interagency Fire Team. September 1996. Interagency fire rehabilitation report. 43 pp.; in (BP&R) Boise Parks and Recreation Department 2000. Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boisc Foothills, Final Draft. City of Boise. Jones, A. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid ecosystems: a quantitative view. Western North American Naturalist: 60(2): 155-164 Katzner, Todd E., Jay D. Carlisle, Sharon A. Poessel, Eve C. Thomason, Benjamin P. Pauli, David S. Pilliod, James R. Belthoff, Julie A. Heath, Kristina J. Parker, Kevin S. Warner, Heather M. Hayes, Madeline C. Aberg, Patricia A. Ortiz, Sandra M. Amdor, Steven E. Alsup, Stephanie E. Coates, Tricia A. Miller, and Zoe K. Duran. "Illegal killing of nongame wildlife and recreational shooting in conservation areas." Conservation Science and Practice 2, no. 11 (2020): e279. Kimball, S. and P.M. Schiffman. 2003. Differing effects of cattle grazing on native and alien plants. Conservation Biology, 17(6):1681-93. Kinter, L. 2019. Guide to the Native Milkweeds of Idaho. Idaho Fish and Game. 2Opp. Accessed 4/19/2022 at https://www.researchgatc.net/publ ication1340997471 _Guidc_to_the_Nati ve_Milkwccds_o f Idaho Avnnor Development - Habitat Management Plan (LIMP) 2022 Page 91 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 286 Knick, S. T. 1990. Habitat classification and the ability of habitats to support Townsend's ground squirrel and black -tailed jackrabbit populations. pp. 59-77 in Snake River Birds of Prey Area 1990 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District. Boise, ID. Knick, S. T. 1991. Habitat Classification and the ability of habitats to support populations of Townsend's ground squirrels and black -tailed jackrabbits. pp. 158-180 in Snake River Birds of Prey 1991 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. Knick, S. T. 1992. Habitat Classification and the ability of habitats to support populations of Townsend's ground squirrels and black -tailed jackrabbits. pp. 247-249 in Snake River Birds of Prey 1992 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. Knick, S. T. 1993. Habitat classification and the ability of habitats to support populations of Townsend's ground squirrels and black -tailed jackrabbits. pp. 237-263 in Snake River Birds of Prey Area 1993 Annual Report, K. Steenhof ed. USD1, Bureau of Land Management, Boise District, Boise, ID. Laycock, W, and Conrad, P. 1981. Responses of vegetation and cattle to various systems of grazing on seeded and native mountain rangelands in eastern Utah. Journal of Range Management. 53:52-59. Lehman, R. N., L. B. Carpenter, M. N. Kochert, and K. Steenhof. 1996. Effects of fire and habitat Alterations on ferruginous hawks. Ch. 4K 19 pp. in USD1. 1996 Effects of Military Training and Fire in the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. BLM/IDARNG Research Project Final Report. USGS, Biological Resources Division, Snake River Field Station, Boise, ID. Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 168 pp. LEPA CCA. 2003. Slickspot Peppergrass Candidate Conservation Agreement, Idaho State Governor's Office of Species Conservation, (2003). Lima, S.L. 1998. Stress and decision -making under the risk of predation: recentdevelopments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives. Adv Stud Behav 27: 215-90. Lima, S. and Dill L. 1990. Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: A review and prospectus. CAN. J. ZOOL. 68 (4): 619-640. 1990. Longcore, T. and Rich, C. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(4): 191-198. Mancuso M. A Summary of the Results from the 16th Idaho Rare Plant Conference. Sage Notes, Winter 2000, Vol. 22(1). Mancuso, M. 1999. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. December 13, 1999. Personal communication with David Kordiyak, Spatial Dynamics; in (BP&R) Boise Parks and Recreation Department 2000. Public Lands Open Space Management Plan for the Boise Foothills, Final Draft. City of Boise. Maurer, B. and Holt, R. 1995. Effects of cronic pesticide stress on wildlife populations in complex Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (I -IMP) 2022 Page 92 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 287 !NUM NO.51f69534/ PAQESORS 7-0FLjg landscapes: process at multiple scales. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: 15 (4): 420-426. Mitsch, William, J. and Gosselink, James, G. 2000. Wetlands. Third edition. John Wiley &Sons, Inc. New York. Monsen, S., Stevens, R., Shaw, N., comps. 2004. Restoring western range and Wildlands. Gen, Tec. Rep. RMRS-GTR-136-vol-1. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Dep. of Ag. Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Mosel ey, R.K. 1994. Report on the Conservation Status of Lepidium papilliferum. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise, Idaho. 35 pp. + appendices. Moseley, R. K., M. Mancuso, and J. Hilty. 1992. Rare plant and riparian vegetation inventoryof the Boise Foothills, Ada County, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Conservation Data Center, Boise. (NOAA) National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 2005. Total Monthly Precipitationfor Each Year of Record, Boise Air Terminal Data January 1940-October 2005. Available at: httn:J/w w.wrh.noaa.eowboi`clitnotrecin%20monthly%20and°20annual%20table%20bcri se%20airnnn.txt (accessed November 7, 2005). Nogales, M., A. Martin, B. Tershy, C. J. Donlan, D. Veitch, N. Puerta, B. Wood, And J. Alsonso. 2004. A review of feral cat eradication on islands. Conservation Biology 18:310-319. Oakley, C. 1973. The affects of livestock fencing on antelope. Wyoming Wildlife. 37(2): 26- 29 Oxley, D., Fenton, M., Carmody, G. 1974. The effects of roads on small mammals. J. appl. Ecol. 1 1: 51-59 Peters, E. and Bunting, S. 1992. Fire conditions pre- and post -occurrence of annual grasses on the Snake River Plain. Symposium on Ecology, Management, and Restoration of Intermountain Annual Grasslands, Boise, ID. Pp 31-36 Piemeisel, R. L. 1951. Causes affecting change and rate of change on a vegetation of annualsin Idaho. Ecology 32:53-72. Pimentel, D., Acquay, H., Biltonen, M., Rice, P., Silva, M., Nelson, J., Lipner, V., Giordano, S., Horowitz, A., and D'Amore, M. 1992. Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use. BioScience, 42: 750-760. Pope, V., Munger, J.C. 2003 Threats to Collared Lizards in Idaho. Idaho Bureau of Land Management, Technical Bulletin No. 03-4. 12pp. Quinncy, D. 2003. Environmental Program Mangcr, Idaho Army National Guard. Personal communication. Reed, D. and Woodward, T. 1975. Deer vehicle accidents. Colorado Game Research Review.8-12: found in: Mader, H. 1984. Animal habitat isolation by roads and agricultural fields. Biological Conservation. 29: 81-96 Rich, T. 1986. Habitat and nest -site selection by burrowing owls in the sagebrush steppe of Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4), pp. 548-555. Ryden J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around strectlamps by bats in Sweden. Funct Ecol 6: 744— Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 93 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 288 50. Saab, V., and T. Rich. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment for neotropical migratory landbirds in the Interior Columbia River Basin. USDA Forest Service General Technical Rcport PNW-GTR-399, Portland, Oregon, USA. Saucer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American breeding bird survey, results and analysis 1966-2000. Version 2001.2, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbsibbs00.htm1. Shcicy, R., M. Manoukian, and G. Marks. 1999. Preventing noxious weed invasion. In:Biology and Management of Noxious Rangeland Weeds. Sheley, R.L. and J.K.Petroff eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Streubcl, John, 2000. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Mammals. Available at hltn: imnh.isu.cdu dieitalatlas•bio mammal:mamli•ant.htrn (accessed September 19 and November 14, 2005). Stephens, D., and S. Sturts. 1998. Idaho bird distribution. Special Publ. No. 13, IdahoMuseum of Natural History, Pocatello, ID. 77 pp. Thomas, J. W., editor. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains ofOregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Agricultural Handbook 553. Washington DC. USA. Thomas, J., Leckcnby, D., Henjum, M., Pedersen, R., and Bryan, L. 1988. Habitateffectiveness index for elk on Blue -Mountain winter ranges. Gen Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-218. U.S. Dep. Ag., F.S. Pacific Northwest Research Center Portland, Oregon. Ulmschneider, H. 2003. Wildlife Biologist, Owyhee Field Office, BLM. Pcrsonalcommunication. USDI (US Department of the Interior). 2000. The Grcat Basin: healing the land. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 36 pp. U.S. Department of the Interior -Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Habitat management guidelines for American pronghorn antelope. Technical Note 347. Denver Service Center. Denver, Colorado U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS) Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces). (2016). Data From: Western Monarch Milkweed Habitat Suitability Modeling Project- Maxcnt Model Outputs. Available online at: hops://catalog.data.gov/dataset/western- monarch-and-m i I kweed-habitat-suitability-m odcl i ng-project-max en t-model-outputs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Monarch (Danaus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report. V2.1 96 pp + appendices. Vayhinger, Jack 2005. Wildlife Biologist, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Personal Communication on 10/24/2005. Watts, S. E., and S. T. Knick. 1994. Habitat classification and the ability of habitats to support populations of Townscnd's ground squirrels and black -tailed jackrabbits. pp. 212-231 in Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area research and monitoring annual report 1994, K. Steenhof ed. USDI, Bureau of Land Management and National Biological Survey, Boise, ID. West, N.E. 2000. Synecology and disturbance regimes of sagebrush steppe ecosystems. pp. 15-26 Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 94 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 289 in Entwistle, P.G., A.M. DeBolt, J.H. KADenecker and K. Steenhof (compilers). Proceedings: Sagebrush Steppe Ecosystems Symposium. Bureau of LandManagement Publication No. BLMfID/PT-0011001+1150. West, N.E. 1993. Biodivcrsity of rangelands. Journal of Range Management. 14:2-13. Western Regional Climate Center 2007. NIHP Station Historical Listing for NWS Cooperative Network. Available at httpJ/www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin%cliMAIN.pl?idbois. (Accessed March 1, 2007) Western Regional Climate Center 2008. SNOTEL River Basin Precipitation. Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/snotelanom/basinpren.html. (Accessed July 1, 2008) Whisenant S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho's Snake River Plains: ecological and management implications. Pages 4-10 In: McArthur ED, Romncy EM Smith SD & Tuellcr PT (eds.) Proceedings — symposium on chcatgrass invasion, shrub die -off, and other aspects of shrub biology and management, 5.7 April 1989, Las Vegas, NV. General Technical Report INT-276, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden Utah U.S.A. Woods, C.P. 1994, The loggerhead shrike in southwestern Idaho. M.S. Thesis. Boise State University, Boise, ID, 199 pp. Yensen, D. 1981. The 1900 invasion of alien plants into southern Idaho. Great Basin Nal. 41:176-183 Yensen, D. 1982. A grazing history of southwest Idaho with an emphasis on the Birds ofl'rey study area. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Snake River Birds of Prey Research Project Report, Boise, Idaho, USA. Yensen, E., Sherman, P.W. Ground -Dwelling Squirrels of the Pacific Northwest. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, April 2003. Avimor Development - Habitat Management Plan (IIMP) 2022 Page 95 of 95 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 290 APPENDIX A Avimor Conservation Director (ACD) Potential Conservation and Education Activities This appendix identities miscellaneous conservation and education activities that the Avimor Conservation Director could undertake. It is used only as an example, with the primary emphasis of the position being associated with the implementation and management of the HMP. Tasks Conservation Education Description of Task Coordinate and facilitate: • Neighborhood Ed. Program • Local Schools Ed. Program • Educational Videos and Manuals • Newsletter • Website ▪ Interpretive sign information • And others as needed or identified Conservation Education Conservation education activities would be a supplementary priority for the Avimor Conservation Director. The highest level of beneficial impacts regarding wildlife may result from an increased public understanding and knowledge of wildlife in the area, and how human presence and disturbance can impact them. Public education can occur through several mechanisms that range from direct interaction in classrooms to informative websites. This educational effort is designed to improve local awareness of their natural surroundings and to create new patterns of behavior towards the open areas in the community and surrounding foothills. This education could include infomlation about the environment and practices that will benefit it; with some integration of education that takes place outdoors in the environment surrounding the proposed AD. if these approaches are successful, learning individuals could gain some knowledge, understanding, and on the ground experience regarding the foothills and associated plant and wildlife communities. The ultimate end goal would be an enhanced value system or concern that residents and local children would have for these natural places and the wildlife that inhabit them. Potential conservation education responsibilities for the Avimor Conservation Director are outlined below. Neighborhood Conservation Education Public education sessions could he made available to all residents living at the proposed AD. Several avenues of infl) l mation would be the most effective way of ensuring an understanding and respect of the conservation objectives and management regarding the open spaces surrounding Avimor. Upon purchase of a home at Avimor, buyers should be infornled about ceminir/wnrkchnn elaaces in,strartP(1 by the Avimor Concervarion DirecU r land Avtmor Planned Cotntnunit) rage t Habitat Management Plan - ,.ra DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 291 IN5TRU. NO.CI 05 3'4 PAGES3E-1-175LI possibly 1DFG). which could cover the gambit of conservation issues surrounding the proposed AD. This would be an effective tool illustrating the potential impacts residents have on local wildlife. the reasoning behind the conservation objectives and restrictions, and each resident's individual responsibility while living at the proposed AD, Other alternative educational possibilities could include an informative homeowner's wildlife video or manual that could be included in a 'welcome package' associated with the initial purchase of a home at Avimor, This could be a collaborative effort with the iDFG or other interested agencies or groups. Local Schools Conservation Education The Avimor Conservation Director could develop a school level cm ironmcntal education program. This program could be incorporated into local school learning through assemblies, field trips, or other mechanisms. The Avimor Conservation Director could visit each local school once annually (minimum) and provide infommtion and resources pertaining to the educational topics covered in Table 1. This effol could he achieved cooperatively with local agencies and resources (Idaho Fish and Gamc, Birds of Prey. Boise State University, Bird Observatory, Park Service, etc.). An alternative may be to present local teachers with information and litcraturc pamphlets to relay infolmation to their students about conservation issues in the Boise Foothills. A video could also be created and distributed to local schools, which could outline Foothills conservation issues. Volunteering programs could be established through local schools to build up the needed habitat enhancement workforce. Table 1. Potential Conservation Educatio i Topics Topic Description Raptor Education Program An overview of raptors of the area and how they use the habitats near the proposed AD. Foothill Trails Rules and Regulations Proper Trail Use and Etiquette Seasonal Trail Closures Explanation Wildfire Risks Discussion of the Fire Risks: -Fire-wise landscaping techniques - Firework Regulations - Outdoor Fire Safety -Off-Road Driving consequences -Motorized Recreation Risks Habitat Enhancement Projects Description and Volunteering Pets Regulations. Rules, and Risks to Wildlife Wildlife and Neighborhood Interaction Info about skunks, deer, ground squirrels, etc. A\ nnor Planned Community Page 2 of Habitat Management flan - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 292 1NSTRU, }NO.9'L/J 4, Took Description Homeowners Wildlife Manual • Definition ofllabitat. • Description of the habitat types and wildlife surrounding the proposed APC. • Encouragement to use native vegetation for landscaping and decoration. • Ettcoumgement toprovide altemative ncta Mites for wildlife • Ways to provide alternative water sources for wildlife • Discussion about feeding wildlife (good and bad) • Suggestions for feeding songbirds properly and information about attracting other species inadvertently. • Advise about dealing with different species of wildlife that will enter the neighborhood. • Advise about wildlife viewing • A list of suggested reading material and field guides relating to the above topics • List of local native plant and seed sources A copy of "Landscaping with Native Plants," a BLM publication. Avimor Conservation Website The Avimor Conservation Director could design and organize a comprehensive website for the All dedicated to informing residents and the general public about conservation issues relating to the Boise Foothills adjacent to the proposed AD. The actual creation of the website could likely be contracted to a webpage professional. This infolination could also be provided through a 'link' to the main Avimor webpage. Conservation/Wildlife Newsletter and Email List A newsletter could be developed by the ACD that will infoml the residents of the proposed AD about seasonal wildlife and conservation issues in the foothills and other pertinent subjects. It could be released four times per year (four seasons), or more or less as appropriate. The Avimor Conservation Director could maintain a residential email list to Avunor Planned Community Page 3 Habitat Manaeement Plan - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 293 provide the conservation newsletter digitally. The email list can be used to send out seasonal notifications about wildlife and recreation issues. Email can also be used as a communication mechanism between residents and the Avimor Conservation Director to resolve and address any issues, concerns, or questions that residents may have regarding wildlife and conservation. Interpretive Signs Informational signage could be strategically placed at various locations throughout the AD. These signs could outline wildlife conservation issues. as well as regulations that pertain to recreation and neighborhood wildlife . Access areas for recreational trails should be a place to utilize interpretive signage regarding wildlife concerns and regulation in the foothills. The Avimor Conservation Director could develop the signs, with feedback from IDFG, Ada County, and other interested parties. then install them at appropriate locations. Annual Avimor Festival Each fall the Avimor Conservation Director may be coordinating and implementing habitat restoration and enhancement programs in the foothills and riparian areas. Community residents could be strongly encouraged to participate in restoration, enhancement, and other conservation related activities. Incentives could be a main focus of promoting public participation in these efforts. For legacy purposes. an annual festival in the McLeod's honor could be conducted each year. This festival would celebrate the conservation efforts of the AD, give the community residents a chance to intermingle and meet one another, and provide a setting to communicate conservation issues and goals, while celebrating the ranching history of the McLeod Family and the Boise Valley. A primary focus of the festival would be a display or speaker that highlights the history and legacy of the McLeod Family. Children's activities could be centered on learning what the historic rural way of life entailed. This could be illustrated with interactive activities that would give children a sense of the valley's past. This festival could be coordinated with historical societies, the Foothills Learning center, and various other interested parties. Avimor Planned Community Page 4 Habitat Management Plan - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 294 INSTRU. NO.3 `1 [n53 L( PAGES d ` OF54/e .I APPENDIX B Avimor Development Soils Table The following is the list of soils. by map unit. found throughout the Avunor Development Area. Soils were delineated using ARC-G1S and broken down based on soil type and individual county soil maps. The total acreage for each soil type, by county. is also included. I Ada County Soil Survey IF Map Cnt_musym GIS Soil Type Name Unit Acres 15 1 12.76 Brent loam, low rainfall, 4 to 8 percent slopes 16 1 2 14 Brent loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes 17 3 38.94 Brent loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes 19 7 121.22 Brent -Ladd loams, 4 to 15 percent slopes 20 15 639.80 Brent -Ladd loams, 15 to 30 percent slopes 2I 5 257.74 Brent -Searles complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 22 5 138.98 Cashmere coarse sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 63 3 64 53 Gem silty clay loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes 64 5 67 37 Gem -Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 40 percent slopes 65 2 97.40 Goose Creek loam 66 1 129.22 Harpt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 67 5 84.21 Harpt loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes 69 2 15.05 Haw-Lankbush complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes 70 2 5.72 Haw-Lankbush complex, 25 to 40 percent slopes 79 1 9 36 Ladd loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes 80 8 457.04 Ladd loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes 81 5 96 15 Ladd loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes 82 5 309.68 Ladd -Ada complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 83 6 91.94 Ladd -Ada complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 84 4 197 15 Ladd -Haw loams, 30 to 60 percent slopes 85 1 65 63 Ladd -Searles complex, 410 15 percent slopes 86 6 154.72 Ladd -Searles complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 87 4 131.51 Ladd -Searles complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes 88 7 173.24 Ladd -Van Dusen loams, 30 to 60 percent slopes 89 1 12.41 Lankbush-Brent sandy foams. 4 to 12 percent slopes 90 3 101.70 Lankbush-Brent sandy foams, 12 to 30 percent slopes 91 18 314.83 Lankbush-Brent sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent slopes 93 14 473.09 Lankbush-Ladd complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 94 12 275 66 Lankbush-Ladd complex, 30 to 60 percent slopes 114 1 7.00 Ola-Searles complex, 30 to 80 percent slopes 150 1 40.56 Quincy-Lankbush complex, 4 to 12 percent slopes DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 295 Map Cnt_musym GIS Soil Type Name Unit Acres 151 9 297.46 Quincy-Lankbush complex, 12 to 30 percent slopes 152 18 541.63 Quincy-Lankbush complex, 30 to 80 percent slopes 159 1 118.05 Rubble land 167 6 200.92 Searles -Ladd complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 168 6 467.87 Searles -Ladd complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes 169 '_ 119.47 Searles -Ladd complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes 171 3 84.46 Searles -Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 80 percent slopes 197 1 23.58 Van Dusen-Payette complex, 30 to 65 percent slopes Total Area (Acres) 6,416.61 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 296 1 Gem County soil survey Map Cnt_musym I GIS Soil Type Name Unit Acres BaE 11.78 Bakeoven and lickskillet extremely rocky soils, 0 to 30 percent slopes BgA 1 37.57 Bissell loam, 0 [0 1 percent slopes BrE 1 2.44 Brownlee coarse sandy loam, 12 [0 30 percent slopes BtF 3 124.32 Brownlee and ola rocky soils, 30 to 60 percent slopes BuE 1 10.44 Brownlee and rainey soils, 12 to 30 percent slopes Cn 1 5.95 Chance fine sandy loam Doc 13 453.41 Dishner extremely stony loam, 0 to 12 percent slopes FfA 1 9.88 Falk fine sandy loam, deep, 0 to 1 percent slopes GmE 2 147.33 Gem extremely stony clay loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes GnE 1 5.19 Gem and bakeoven extremely stony soils, 0 to 30 percent slopes HrD 2 145.12 Harpt loam, 7 [0 12 percent slopes HrE 1 15.93 Harpt loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes HwC 1 17.79 Haw loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes HwD 2 43.88 Haw loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes HwE 15 354.51 Haw loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes HxE 3 99.25 Haw extremely stony loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes LyE 1 39.25 Lolalita coarse sandy loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes LyF 9 179.81 Lolalita coarse sandy loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes MID 3 72.71 Montour clay loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes MfE 9 242.93 Montour clay loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes NcD 1 19.37 Newell clay loam, 7 [0 12 percent slopes PaE 4 42.47 Payette coarse sandy loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes PaF 18 190.06 Payette coarse sandy loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes PaG 1 6.72 Payette coarse sandy loam, 60 to 75 percent slopes PgF 3 102.85 Payette very stony soils, 30 to 60 percent slopes PmE 4 61.46 Perla stony loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes PnE 10 1323.57 Perla extremely stony loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes PnF 15 739.39 Perla extremely stony loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes PpE 2 23.99 Perla and peyetle extremely stony soils, 12 to 30 percent slopes PpF 1 11.46 Perla and payette extremely stony soils, 30 [0 60 percent slopes QcA 1 16.03 Quenzer silly Gay, 0 to 1 percent slopes RaE 2 9.25 Rainey coarse sandy loam, 12 to 30 percent slopes RcF 7 162 .88 Rainey rocky sandy loam, 30 [0 60 percent slopes VdF 7 130.13 Van Dusen loam, 30 to 60 percent slopes VdG 1 0.99 Van Dusen loam, 60 to 75 peitent slopes VnF 11 304.96 Van Dusen stony loam, 30 [0 60 percent slopes- W 1 0.19 Water DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 297 Total Area (Acres) 15,165.26 Boise County soil survey Map Cnt_musy I GIS Soil Type Name Unit m Acres 223 1 19.52 Staircase sandy loam, dry, 1 to 4 percent slopes 227 1 0.34 Piercepark loam, 2 to 4 percent slopes 230 1 25.62 Hann-Doubledia complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes 238 l 31.60 Adaboi silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes 240 3 116.86 Collister-Flofeather complex, 1 to 3 percent slopes 301 5 82.65 Breadloaf-Doubledia complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 302 5 820.70 Breadloaf-Doubledia-Hann complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 303 5 413.94 Doubledia-Hann-Breadloaf complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 305 2 264.68 Siphonlake-Solarview complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes 306 6 93.89 Van Dusen-Siphonlake complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes 307 4 123.98 Adaboi-Meclo complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes 311 3 367.10 Meclo-Crawley-Adaboi complex, 15 to 50 percent slopes 506 3 41.47 Brownlee-Robbscreek-Whisk complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes 513 1 0.39 Shimo-Cartwright-Robbscreek complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes 525 11 2371.51 Robbscreek-Dobson-Brownlee complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 526 30 1244.68 Cartwright-Brownlee-Robbscreek complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 527 24 492.17 Dobson -Roney complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes 533 1 4.70 Olaton-Roney complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes 534 1 12.68 Shimo-Kisky-Schiller complex, 35 to 90 percent slopes 600 1 15.10 McDesh-Immig-Gwin complex, 4 to 25 percent slopes 601 3 213.30 Hann -Gwen -Shafer complex, 2 to 25 percent slopes 602 2 62.42 Hillcreek-Hovelton-Hann complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 606 1 30.00 Hillcreek-Hovelton complex, 35 to 65 percent slopes 610 2 81.79 Hovelton-Duco-McDesh complex, 25 to 65 percent slopes 641 1 25.44 Aradaran-Yad complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes Total Area (Acres) 6,956.5 3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 298 APPENDIX C Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment Prepared By: Environmental Conservation Services Inc. Natural Resource Management & Planning Boise, Idaho www.ecs-serrices.com and Wildlife Consulting Resources Missoula, Montana 2009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 299 Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary/Wildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 300 Author's Biography (Charles Baun) NU' Ada County Big Game Surrey Sunimnq -2009 Charles Baun is a native of Ada County and President/owner of Environmental Conservation Services, Inc., a small consulting first in Boise, Idaho specializing in environmental planning and ecological surveys/reports. He received his Masters Degree in Natural Resource Management (Disturbance Ecology emphasis) from the University of Idaho in 2001 and his B.S. in Biology (Ecology emphasis) from the College of Idaho in 1998. Mr. Baun has over 15 years of academic and work -related experience with natural resource management and planning, almost exclusively m Southwestern Idaho. and has been the lead or assisted in preparing and authoring environmental reports for federal/state agencies and prnate industry including, but not limited to: BLM. USFWS, USFS. 1DFG. 1DL. ITO, DOD. PERC, various engineering and development groups; and a number of private conservation organizations, Mr. Baun specializes in interdisciplinary collaboration, public involvement. and the ecology of the Great Basin and Columbia Plateau. In the past he has been primarily associated with projects in Idaho related to: wildlife and botanical inventories and mapping. including special status species; environmental planning and documentation, including 13 Wildlife Mitigation Plans in Ada. Canyon. and Elmore Counties: transportation: wind energy: land use data collection and analysis: and regulatory compliance including but not limited to. NEPA, ESA. CWA, CAA. FLPMA, NHPA. MBTA. Mr. Bann has been doing annual botanical and wildlife surveys. as well as recreational planning over much of the area identified in the report tier the last six years. Author's Biography (Bill Ruediger) N!t'Ada County Wildlife Crasmutg.issesvneni-2009 Bill Ruediger is a wildlife biologist and operates his own transportation/wildlife consulting business called Wildlife Consulting Resources (WCR). Bill has worked with numerous State Departments of Transportation on wildlife habitat linkage analysis and designing effective wildlife crossings. Some of the DOT's Bill has worked with include Alaska, Arizona, California. Colorado, Florida, Idaho. Montana, New Mexico. New York, Oregon. Utah and Wyoming. He has also worked with agencies or groups in Canada, Europe and Africa on wildlife crossings and transportation issues. Bill has authored or co-authored over 30 published papers on wildlife, carnivores, fish andior highways. Bill has recei\ ed over twenty Forest Service and interagency awards including the Chiefs Award for Excellence in Endangered Species Management and the Forest Service/ELM Combined Award for Best Project of the Year (2000 - Lynx Conservation Assessment and • Strategy). In April 2005 he received "Environmental Leadership Award" from FHWA. the first time this award has been presented to a non -transportation agency person. He has a BS in wildlife management from Utah State University and a Master's degree in Forestry from University of Idaho. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey SummaryWildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 301 Bill retired in December 2005 after 35 years with the US Forest Service. Bill's last position was that of Ecology Program Leader for Highways, a National level position. In this position, Bill worked throughout the US and in other countries on trouble -shooting difficult highway projects with wildlife and fish coordination issues, helping states organize and establish wildlife habitat linkage programs, developing processes to assess and mitigate wildlife and fish habitat with roads and highways and worked with State DOT's on wildlife crossings. He also was a thunder and chairperson of the Western Forest Carnivore Committee and a co-founder of the International Conference on Ecology and Transp0liation. Acknowledgments i would like to thank those that were instrumental in the development of this big game summary and supplemental wildlife crossing rep°1i. as well as those that supplied insight, data, observations, opinions, and comments. These include: the Ada County Commissioners -Fred Tilman, Sharon Ullman, and Rick Yzaguirre; SunCor Idaho Inc.: M3 Eagle LLC; Bill Ruediger (Wildlife Consulting Resources); Greg Burak, Rick Ward_ Eric Leitzinger, Bill London. Jon Rachael, and Kevin Warner (IDFG Biologists); Kim Just, Scott RudeL and their staff (1TD Biologist); Greg Johnston, Dan Bryant, Paul Stanley, and their staff (ITD District 3 Maintenance); Kelly Campbell (1TD Research Analyst); Lynn Nowotny (Silverhawk Aviation Academy); John Ringert (Kittelson & Associates, Inc.); Kavi Koleini (URS); Sandy McLeod and Jerry Thompson (McLeod Farm); Sabrina Bowman and Craig Herndon (ACHD Plal l l 1 ers); the 16 residents that filled out the north Eagle survey form: Brandt Elwell (TRS Range Services); and the ECS staff (Kenn Hardin. Danielle Maguire, and Hilary Heist). Disclosure These reports were developed as reference documents only, with the intent of educating the public on big game in the region, and the issue of transportation and wildlife crossings as it relates to big game. This is a living document and can change in the future based on additional information. It should also be clear to the reader that this report is not meant to endorse or discourage any specific projects. it was funded by the Ada County Board of Commissioners, SunCor Idaho Inc. and M3 Eagle LLC, with support from the City of Eagle and the Ada County Parks and Waterways. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary. Wildhfe Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 302 Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary-2009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 303 JNSTAU. NO. 3LI(a.53I' PAGES -3°3 OF 5'1 L1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Table of Contents -NW Ada County Big Game Survey Summary 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Conditions 3 2.1 Big Game . ..... 6 2.2 Idaho State Highway-55 8 2.3 Idaho State Highway 16 9 2.4 Interior and ACHD Proposed Roadways . 10 3.0 Estimated Big Game Mortality 12 4.0 Big Game Survey Methods 16 4.1 Background Data (Quantitative and Qualitative)- 16 4.1 Local Residential Surveys- 16 4.3 Ground Surveys- 16 4.4 Aerial Surveys- 20 5.0 Survey Results 21 5.1 Combined (IDFG/E(S) Big Ganie Winter Use Data - 21 5.2 GMU-32 (Winter Count Data) 21 5.3 GMU-39 (Winter Count Data) 23 5.4 Ground Survey Observations (SH-55, SH-16, and Secondary Roads) 24 6.0 Discussion/Conclusion 32 7.0 Recommendations 33 8.0 References 35 Appendix A... 1-4 Appendix B 1-4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 304 INSTRU. NO.-41-1953"1 PAGES0E-51.414 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 1.0 Introduction As the population of the Treasure Valley expands and grows into more rural areas, the need to reduce impacts on wildlife and their habitat is becoming an increasing pnority for land use planners. Therefore, an understanding of how, v. hen, and where wildlife use habitat, as well as their interaction with existing human uses (agriculture, recreation. development, transportation, etc.) can assist planners and developers in avoiding. reducing. or mitigating current and potential impacts by incorporating wildlife use and movement patterns into their development designs and long-tenn planning. At the same time, we can identify existing planning inadequacies and try to correct those with future planning. Beginning in 2003. site surveys were conducted by Environmental Conservation Services Inc. (ECS) within the Suncor ownership near State Highway (SH)-55 to identity and im entory the existing type and condition of plant communities and associated wildlife, including the presence and distribution of big game. In 2007, ECS planned and designed, with assistance from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) and other professional biologists. an area wide inventory of big game winter usage and movement patterns in the nOlthwest pOltion of Ada County, southeast portion of Gem County, and southwest poltion of Boise County associated with game management unit (GMU) 39 and GMU 32. Data collected from residential. ground, and aerial surveys conducted by FCS in 2007 and 200g were combined with the nonspecific survey data collected between 2003 and 2006, and all IDFG big gamedata available. In 2009 the survey area was expanded to include all private and public lands within the nOlthem portion of the proposed City of Eagle impact Area. as identified in the 2007 City of Eagle Amended Comprehensive Plan. as well as adjacent lands m Ada, Boise, and Gem Counties (Map 1). The expanded survey area. in conjunction with data. observations and input from ECS biologists, the iDFG, and the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), is intended to describe the general demographics of big game populations in the region, including species composition, use and distnbution patterns, migration corridors, and auto- related mortality patterns associated with SH-16 and SH-55. in addition to the 2009 survey, ECS biologists worked with national wildlife crossing expert Bill Ruediger. of Wildlife Consulting Resources. to develop a wildlife crossing reference for the region. The report outlines: potential wildlife crossing locations associated with SH-16, SH-55, and the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) proposed collectors and ailelials between; the recommended type(s) and associated guidelines for those crossings; and general discussion for each location. While a considerable amount of data and personal agency observations were included in this document. knowledge is, and always will he, incomplete regarding the interrelationships between wildlife and human uses. Therefore, it should be made clear to the reader that this is a reference document only and is not intended to advocate or discourage specific actions or assess the impacts to wildlife associated with existing or proposed transportation corridors, which is under jurisdiction of the TDFG, TTD, and the ACHD, Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 305 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 1 1 Y• L Map 1: Project Area. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 306 Pag ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 2.0 Existing Conditions The project area (Map 1) includes parts of northwestern Ada County, southwestern Boise County, and southeastern Gem County, Idaho. The total project area is approximately 100,000- acres. with Beacon Light and Dry Creek Cartwnght Roads as the southern border. SH-16 the western border, Bogus Basin Road north along the forest line as the eastern border, and the northern border as the first aenal survey line between the northeastern most point and the city of Emmet. The area is bisected by SH-55, north of Dry Creek Road (mile post (MP) 47.4), to Pearl Road (MP 57.7). Elevation ranges between 2.600-feel (ft) and 5.600-11 above mean sea level. General climate conditions in the area can be described as cold. moist winters. and hot dry summers. Average precipitation varies greatly depending on elevation and location. with the wettest portions of the project area in the northeast. getting dry further west and south. November through February is typically the wettest months, while June through August is the driest (Western Regional Climate Center 2007). Temperatures for the area vary seasonally and. according to the National Oceanic and Atinosphenc Administration (NOAA) website (2008). have been as cold as -25 "F in winter 1990 and as hot as 111 "F in summer 1960. The project area transitions from mountain forests woodlands and high -elevation shrublands m the east, to rolling hills and large connected flatlands dominated by expansive grasslands and isolated pockets of xenc shrublands in the west (Map 2). An expanded description of the vegetative communities is found in Appendix B. The primary human uses in the area include. but are not limited to crop production, some timber production. ranching. residential development. recreation; and transportation. Historic human use of the area has directly (agriculture, development, etc.) or indirectly (invasive and noxious weeds, increased wildfires, etc.) altered the community dynamics (interaction between soils. hydrology. vegetation. wildlife. and disturbances) ofa considerable portion of the project area. In general, the land to the east of SH-55 has better overall quality habitat for a greater number of wildlife species. including big game. based on higher levels of precipitation; the diversity of vegetative communities (habitat) present, the amount and connectivity of native plant communities, the availability of water; and the limited amount of human disturbance. The topography ot'the project area ranges from nearly flat near the highway and valley bottoms (Spnng Valley and Dry Creek Valley) to moderately and severely steep slopes toward the northern and eastern border. Key features include, but are not limited to. Cartwright Canyon. Stack Rock, Dry Creek, Currant Creek, Darnels Creek. McFarland Creek, Spnng Valley Creek,- Cartwnght Canyon. Shafer Creek. Cottonwood Creek. and their tributaries. in comparison. the eastern portion or the project area, those lands west of SH-55, have considerably Tess quality habitat. and support fewer overall species. both type and number. including big game. This is primarily due to reduced precipitation, more homogenous vegetative communities. a lower percentage of native vegetation, and a greater amount of human disturbance. The area is generally characterized by rolling hills and flatlands. and is significantly less constrained by topography, i.e. greater percentage of flatlands. Residual sagebrush and bitterbrush communities are found scattered throughout the area, however. due to historic human uses, establishment and spread of invasive and noxious weeds. and Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 307 INSTRU. NO.5 4 �Lf 3 PAGES3(-�.0F 3C? LI ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. increased number and size of wildfires in the area, these are generally isolated pockets. Key features include. but are not limited to: Rocky Canyon, Jack Ass Gulch. Big Gulch, Little Gulch. Rose Gulch, Spring Valley Creek, Willow Creek, Sand Hollow Creek, Dry Creek, and their tributaries. The data and observations used to make the conclusions above are based on six years of botanical and wildlife surveys (ground and aerial) conducted by ECS and URS staff between 2003 and 2009 (Bann, English, and MacDaniels 2003; Baun et al. 2004; Baun et al. 2005; Baun 2006; Baun et al. 2007; Baun et al. 2008; URS 2006; and URS 2008). Community classification and conditions were based on the methods identified below. In addition to site - specific survey data, the conclusions were also based on the data compiled by the Open Space Committee associated with the 2007 Amended Eagle Comprehensive Plan. Professional observations by the author, based on six years of site reconnaissance, were also used. Vegetation Classification and Condition Methods Vegetative Community Types: Environmental Conservation Services' (ECS) staff used aerial photographs provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2006) to delineate vegetative community types at a rough linear scale. Based on the information from these initial maps, site surveys were done to confirm and adjust the delineated classifications, including. agncultural: grassland; shrub, riparian. rock outcrop; and disturbed. After the classifications were ground - trued during tield surveys, Arc-GTS version 9.2 with Spatial Annalist software was used to quantify each of the communities. Detailed notes were recorded regarding plant associations, noxious weeds, and land use patterns. The surveyors kept lists of all plants encountered and identified during the site survey. Unknown species were collected and identified with the following reference matenal: Vascular Plants of the Pacific Nol thwest (Hitchcock et al. 1964) and Flora of The Pacific Northwest An Illustrated Manual (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1976). Habitat Condition Class: ECS stall used the initial vegetative community data and further separated each community type based on its overall ecological condition. The ecological condition of the site is directly related to the presence and absence of structural and functional components of the system. Condition classification was based on the Indicators for Rangeland Health, technical reference 1734-6. This is a national standard (US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Interior) using 17 indicators to identify sod' site stability, watershed function. and biotic integrity. as well as its departure from reference condition. The condition of the vegetation has a direct con -elation with wildlife habitat availability and sustainability. Riparian and wetland areas on the property were classified using the standard for Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) as outlined by the BLM's proper functioning condition workgroup. BLM depicts natural riparian -wetland areas as resources whose capability and potential is defined by the interaction of three components. 1) vegetation, 2) landfonnsoils, and 3) hydrology (BLM 1998). For the purpose of maintaining consistency' throughout this repOlt ripanan condition was categorized in poor, marginal, and satisfactory condition to Clow w ith the upland habitat classifications. Poor condition relates to non-functioning condition, marginal to functioning at nsk, and satisfactory to proper functioning condition. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 308 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Map2: Project Area Vegetation. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary-2009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 309 Page S. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 2.1 Big Game The project area falls within the Boise River Elk Management Zone (EMZ) and GMU 39. with the Weiser River EMZ and GMU-32 on the west side of SH-55. There are three primary big game species identified within the unit mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Ccri'us elaphus), and antelope (Antilocapra americana). Hunting seasons within the unit are restricted to deer and elk, and do not include pronghorn antelope. Small changes to vegetation communities in the lower foothills can have large repercussions for big game winter range across a broad area, especially during hard winters. Big game is pushed down to lower elevation areas. identified by the IDFG as winter range. in order to ovelwinter. i.e. taking up residence in a particular place through the winter months. These sites require shallow snow levels, adequate food, sighs and thermal cover, and limited disturbances in order to maintain energy balance and minimize overwmter weighs loss (IDFG 2004, Thomas et al. 1988). if these conditions are not present, energy losses could exceed gains over an extended time. potentially resulting in winter mortality or failure to reproduce the following year. in addition to a final destination for big game during their winter nngmtions, the region also acts as a movement corndor for big game to access different aspects of their habitat throughout the season. These areas are identified as big game migration corridors and are crucial for winter survival. Mule Deer Mule deer are one of Idaho's most abundant and widely distributed big game animals and provide more recreational opportunity than any other big game species (IDFG 2005; IDFG 2004). Mule deer are best adapted to sera) transitional habitat types. They generally browse on a wide variety of woody plants. primarily during the winter when snow covers most grasses and forbs. Common browse plants include bilterbrush, sagebrush. aspen. dogwood, juniper and Douglas -fir. They graze on vanous grasses and forbs heavily during spring, summer and fall, and to a lesser extent on woody browse. They also fonige in irrigated fields during winter and spring. Streubel (2000) found that migratory mule deer in Idaho showed a high tidelity to their summer range, but less so to their winter range; deer from one summer range migrated to different winter ranges. However. Individual animals may show high fidelity to their winter range as well. Mule deer generally migrate from high mountainous country to lower valleys and foothills during late fall to avoid heavy snow (Brown 1992). Mule deer winter habitat in western North America is generally defined as S. SW, SF., or W aspects of mild to medium slopes (10-45%) below 4,500- I1 in elevation, and are generally associated with some type of thermal cover, such as mature trees with a closed canopy or rock overhangs, with shrub species present For forage (Thomas et al. 1988. Thomas 1979, and Hoover and Willis 1987). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 310 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. The mule deer migration from summer range in the Boise Mountains to the historic winter range along the Foothills is generally triggered by cold temperatures and snow depth. Lower elevation habitat in the foothills is very important during hard winters as mule deer groups try to avoid deep snow, which can hamper their abilities to find forage and quickly deplete their necessary fat storage (IDFG 2005). While the majority of mule deer associated with the Boise Foothills are migratory populations, there are also a number of isolated residential herds that are present year round. These groups are generally much more acclimated to human presence and development (residential and commercial) in companson to migratory populations (Nicholson, Boweer, and Kie 1997). Elk Elk are widespread and abundant throughout Idaho and seem to prefer mountainous country with mixed open- gassy meadows, marshy meadows, river flats, and aspen parkland, as well as coniferous forests, brushy clearcuts, forest edges, and shrub -steppe. Some populations live year-round in sagebrush desel i, using grass -shrub for feeding and tall shrub or pole timber for resting in the spring. They feed in clearcuts and shrub fields and rest in pole limber in the summer and stay in mesic (moderate moisture) pole timber in the autumn (Streubel 2000). Elk habitat Caries greatly according to location. They are pnmarily a grazing species, relying on grasses for most of the year, but they also consume forbs in summer, and may browse on woody plants where grass availability, is low, especially during winter months. Elk migration to winter range is very similar to that of mule deer in the region. In Idaho. and throughout the northern Rockies. herds generally move to lower elevations in winter to feed. Individuals exhibit a high fidelity to their home range but may abandon it if they are excessively disturbed (Streubel 2000). Antelope Antelope are generally found on grasslands, shrub - steppe, and foothills. They prefer rangeland with vegetation less than two feet in height and wide- open, expansive range. They are often found in low shrubs such as sagebrush, and in grassy vegetation in and regions with less than 10 to 12 inches of snow on the ground in the winter. This may lead them to upper, wind-swept slopes in the winter, or fairly long migrations between summer and winter range. In the winter, soulhem Idaho antelope depend heavily on browse, especially sagebrush. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 311 Page INSTRU. N 3 tlU(J( PAGES3i1 OF55LJ I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Antelope home range vanes, but an Idaho study (Autenrenh et al. 1975) found summer home ranges averaged about eight square miles. Horne range of yearlings was two to five times greater than adults. Large herds form in the winter but disperse in spnng and form separate bachelor and female -fawn groups in spring and summer. In Idaho, antelope typically migrate to lower elevations in winter and move back to the heads of mountain valleys in the spring. Antelope have some unique adaptations for their existence in open country. These adaptations allow them to be the fastest mammals in Nolih America. They have been clocked at nearly 70 mph and they can obtain and maintain speeds of 30 to 45 mules per hour (mph) for fairly long distances. Historically. antelope were abundant throughout the west. but agricultural development, cattle grazing and construction of fences has reduced their populations. While some antelope do crawl under fences. many pronghorn populations have not adapted to fences, and their movements, even seasonal migrations. have been blocked by fences. 2.2 Idaho State Highway-55 State Highway-55 has been in existence since 1969. when it replaced former state highways 72 and 15. 1t runs from its southern junction with SH-95 m Marsmg I50-miles north, to the SH-95 junction in New Meadows. The section of SH-55 between the city of Eagle (SH-55.44 junction) and the SH-55'95 junction in New Meadows is currently designated as the Payette River Scenic Byway and is one of the most heavily used highways in Idaho. The section of highway within the project area initially only included the portion of SH-55 from Beacon Light (nip 47. I) to the top of Horseshoe Bend Hill (mp57.7). However. based on big game mortality data and input from the 1TD and IDFG biologists, we expanded the area of discussion to include the section between Beacon Light and the junction of SH-44 and SH-55 (nip 44.7). As this was identified alter the surveys had been completed, the actual project area did not change, just the area of discussion, The expanded area of influence starts at junction of SH-44 and SH-55 and runs north through a high density commercial and residential area for 2.5 rules past Beacon Light Road. There are two primary gaps in the residential and commercial condor adjacent to SH-55 that are of significance. These occur at a field between Home Depot and storage area (nip-45.5), and just south of Beacon Light on the east side of the road where the high -density residential transitions to low density (mp-46.9). From Beacon Light, SH-55 runs northeast and transitions from urban to rural residents, past Shadow Valley Golf Course into a steep canyon al nude marker 50. The canyon area is approximately one and a half miles, at which point the road straightens into the Spring Valley and the speed limit increases from 55 to 60 miles per hour (mph). The highway bisects Spring Valley approximately a mile and a half Gom the canyon, where it splits to two northbound lanes and one south bound. At the base of Horseshoe Bend Hill (nip-54.l ), the road increases to four lanes and continues as this to the Horseshoe Bend Hill Summit near the Pearl Road tum-off(mp- 57.7). The number of daily traffic trips on SH-55. based on average daily lips (ADT) al Dry Creek. has been increasing on average every year since 1990 (iTD 2009a). ADT are generally Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 312 Pag ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. lowest in January. about half the ADT of July. which is normally the highest (Table 1). Traffic levels associated with commuter traffic between Boise, Horseshoe Bend, and other outlying communities has been increasing, but are fairly consistent year-round with only small fluctuations. However. the primary increase in summer use is associated with recreational users from Boise, Meridian, Kuria, Eagle, Star, and the rest of the Treasure Valley traveling north. Table 1. Average Daily Traffic for Dry Creek (010). YEAR 1990 1991 Jim" Feb Mar Apr May 2.196 2624 2297 3348 1992 3031 _ 3646 1993 2982 3517 1994 3829 3578 1995 3778 4423 1996 3439 4303 1997 2639 4375 1998 3847 4387 1999 4188 _ 4124 2000 _ 1 4049 2001 4287 2002 4437 2003 4794 2004 21105 4745 4620 4901 5263 3066 3162 4010 3634 4690 3577 4610 4387 t 5993 3519 .1123 4261 4426 4173 4449 4600 4867 4986 4273 I.5980 Jun Jul" 5240 6207 5471 6101 6223 6619 7002 7859 4864 5671 6777 8655 4877 6195 4875 N/A 5069 5175 5558 6039 N/A 6114 6470 6421 5518 7413 7123 7145 N/A 7371 8691 8813 N/A 9192 1 Aug 5783 6421 6944 7414 7554 7872 8317 N'A 8741 S4'p Oct Nov 5000 4251 3321 5380 5050 3547 5513 5533 3952 6467 1 6011 4503 (,794 6386 4194 6407 6226 14742 6742 61,12_ 4629 N/A N/A N/A 7393 6471 5280 7609 9439 87115 7427 6684 5397 8093 19626 8770 7312 6569 5035 8320 9668 9184 7346 6919 5660 Annual 24-hr Dec Avg. 2507 4077 3267 4403 3067 4951 3948 5237 3872 5539 3822 5701 3578 5704 N/A N/A 4323 6053 4444 4520 4506 6189 6297 6536 4877 5531 7317 1 5225 5685 7526 8579 10027 8941 10327 4407 5113 5574 6359 7718 9105 10729 19714 7816 7129 5780 9864 7962 7529 5766 9403 8523 7671 6122 5252 5870 00114 6407 7884 9076 11052 2006 5178 5720 5728 6227 7604 9225 11022 2007 5666 5950 6297 6790 8403 9671 1 10910 'Ilighcsl Level of lh.e. ••Lowesi Level of Use. 5079 6767 5141 7002 5558 71911 40093 8337 71410 6238 5464 7440 10048 8648 8045 6555 5802 7484 10052 8179 17847 6636 57,13 7679 Vote N/A indiwies where one or niore months did not contain any data, and yews may have been excluded because data was nut available at all sites Dula derived ham ITll Wcbsiie hflp--Amv..ild.tdahagos/planning'ioadwavdaidcounteivcompare.Cap - 2.3 Idaho State Highway 16 State Highway 16 was originated in 1929 and historically ran from Star, Idaho to Horseshoe Bend, Idaho_ Through the years, with the induction and extension of SH-52, it IS now the main thoroughfare from Star to Emmett. ending in Emmett with its intersection with SH-52. The highway is a two lane highway with tum lanes for larger road intersections and heads north from SH-44 through some loss density residential and agiculwral areas and runs adjacent to River Birch golf course where it opens up to grazing lands and ranchettes. The Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 313 INSTRU. NO.3`11 PAGES 31- OF 5 ]y ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. highway peaks in elevation on the top of Freezeout Hill near the junction with Jackass Gulch Road at mile 10.13, before descending into the city of Emmett. Table 2. Average Daily 'Frank for Firebird (274 YF.AI1 Jan Fri Mar A fNil no 9 2003 NIA ISiA N/A 9337 9119 311 2006 8100 8667 8776 8400 9437 9585 2047 8262 8407 8978 9497 .10139 'Higlics Level oFUsc. **Lowest Level of Use Jul 9083 9511 8617 9826 9358 N/A N;A Ssft dsl Nov I te• 8569 8539 7844 8171 8545 N/A 11300 7465 9836 9274 8599 l 7990 Annual 24-hr AwT;. N/A N'A NA Note' N/A indicates where one or more months did not contain any data, and years may have been excluded because data was not available al all sites. Data derived from ITD Wcbsile: llfltlflwwt4,ad idalatituriulawnou rmdiv.miuhecunurtr4comnaf r zm 2.4 Inferior andACHD Proposed Roadways There are several limited maintained and unmaintained roads dissecting the area between SH- 55 and SH-16 within the survey area. Pearl, Willow Creek, Jackass Gulch, Chaparral and Sand Hollow roads are the main, seasonally maintained roads through the area; the other access roads consist of smaller dirt roads and two track auxiliary roads. In addition to the existing network of roads, ACHD has developed a Northwest Foothills Transportation Study for the area (Map 3). The transportation study was initiated to assess the needs and impacts of the future transportation system in the area and act as a policy guide for developing and improving the transportation system. This document is currently in draft form. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 314 INSTRU.wO3 `1Lp5il PAGES3 { 4F5( ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. gap 3. ACHD Proposed Transportation Plan. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 315 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 3.0 Estimated Big Game Mortality Based on the historic and current level of traffic use in the area. auto -related mortality of wildlife. primarily mule deer, has been identified by the TTD and IDFG as a potential safety Issue (TTO 2008; IDFG 2009), the IDFG as a wildlife Issue. and the surrounding land owners as a conservation issue. In order to determine the relative magnitude of the issue for the region, ECS has compiled all available big game moliality data associated with SH-55 and SH-16 (Table 3). Currently, there are no official records associated with big game mortality kept by either the TTD or IDFG associated with the project area. The data used for this summary was collected from: ECS survey records and personal observations (2003-present), IDFG observations: ITD accident records (2009); 1TO linkage project (ITO 2008), and personal observations from IDFG biologists and 1TD maintenance crews (pers. 'comm. Greg Johnston 2009, pers. comm. Paul Stanley 2009). Additional observations associated with the section between SH-4455 junction and Beacon Light was also included from City of Eagle maintenance personnel (pers. comm. Mike Echeita 2009). Table 3 Bi2 G^me Munalit►• Summary. Data Set/ Description/Observation Observer ECS Survey 1TD Accident Reports ECS biologists have kept an ongoing recoid )2003-present) of any big game road mortality on SH-55. no data for SH-16. Observations were only recorded for the area between nip-51.3 and nip-55.0, with additional personal observations (not recorded) from SH-4455 Junction (nip 44.7) north to mp-51.3. ECS, staff was on site at least 3 times per week (on average) from April 1 to August 1 between 2003 and 2006. with little or no observations outside that time period. ECS stab was on site at least 3 limes per week from November I to July 1, dropping down to I visit per hi weeks (on average), between August and October of 2007 to present. Recorded Observations: One dos at mp 51.2 (7-3-03). One fawn at mp- 54.3 (4-16-05): One doe .3 miles north of Al rotor main entrance near nip-52.5 (5-10-06) Personal Observations (Charlie Bonn). Two mule deer Dear Home Depot, Five mule deer near nip-47. Accident report data obtained from ITD-Office of Highway Operations and Safety for ildlife nto I iality hetween mp 44.7 and nip 57.7 on SI 1- 55. and between nip 0,0 to nip 13.9 on S11-16 (110 2009b). It should be noted that these were only w ildlife collisions that were reported, therefore. the actual number of collisions is probably higher. Recorded Accidents (SI1-55). 25 records from 1990-2007. °Recorded Accidents (SI I-16). 29 records from 1990-2007 Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 316 Estimated Mortality Estimated auto -related big game mortality between nip 44.7 to nip 57 7 (2003 to present). 17 animals killed annually. Estimated auto -related big game mortality on SH-55 between nip 44.7 to nip 57.7 (1990 to present) 1 4 animals killed annually. Lstimated auto -related big game mortality on SH-16 between mp 0,0 to nip 13.9 (1990 to present): J 6 animals killed annually. Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Data Set/ Description/Observation Observer ITD Linkage Data IDFG Estimate ITD Maintenance Crew - Estimate Idaho State tltghway Wildlife Linkage project (ITD 2008). There were three sections assou.rted wuh SH-55. Shadow Valley (1133-131. Spling Valley Ranch (ID3-14). horseshoe Bend Hill (ID3-]5). and two assouated with SII-16 (Fncbird North (ID3-42), and Frees Out Hill (1D3-43). m tied to the report, 11 should be noted that lhts is a very think. large scale (state-wide) planning process o ndl limited site spec lie data and meant to quickly identify and prioritize key areas tier more site- specific onalesns (per, Cont. Bill Ruediger 2009), Shadow Valley, Sprung Volley Ranch. and Firehud Korth. No Mortality Data The DIG has no records associated with big game mortality on SH-55 or SH-16. Therefore, big game mortality numbers Me based on personal observations of IDFG biologists (personal communication Greg Burak 2009) IDFG observations were estimated mortality between Hcaunt Light ( nth 47 0) to the top or Horse Shoe Bend 11i11 (nip-57.7) The ITD bus no records associated with big game mortality on SII-55 or S11-16 Thcre]ore. bag game mortality numbers are based on personal observations of ITD maintenance crews SIT-55 (pers. Comm Greg Johnson 21109 pers comm. Scott Rudd 20(19). 51I-16 (pers. Comm Stragley 20(19) SH-55 between Beacon Light (mp 47 0) north to Horseshoe Bend Hilhup (57 7) .npprosim.del) 1-5 animals per week S11-55 between Beacon Light ( nip 47.0) south to SH--14 55 Junction (nip 44.7) approst ulaiel) 2-4 animals per week Estimated Mortality Fslunatell hlg gaille mortality Horseshoe Bend Hill tarp 54.3 to alp 58.X) 5-20 animals killed annually hsuntaled htg game mortality h rce.cnul 11111 (nip 10.2 to nap 13.1) 5-20 animals killed unnualll. Estimated auto -related big game mortality on SH-55 between nip 47.0 to nip 57.7 (no time frame) 20-30 animals killed annual, h limited auto related big game mortality on S11-55 between nip 44,7 to nap 57.7 (no time frame): 26(1-468 anneals killed annually. Estimated auto -related big game mortality tin SH-I6 between mp 0.0 to nip 13.9 (no time frame) IO animals killed annually •SII-16 between STI-44'16 junction (nip 0.0) to nip 13.9 Mortality numbers concentrated around ntp10,5 and mpl2 (pers. Comm. Paul Stanley 2009) •ITD's 2004 Cumdur Improvement Stud) fin SII-16. whah included work on Fro..ieuul 111 1. did not ndutulj mule deer ul any other big game Ill then affected envlronutenl, impacts, or mitigations (ITD 2004). Note There was no atonality data associated with these interior roads. how ever. the remote rural nature. low level of traffic use. and limited speeds would indicate vent' few big game automobile Interactions. Based on the significant vanance in mortality estimates, ranging from 1.4 to 468 big game animals killed annually on SH-55. and general consensus with representatives from the IDFG and ITD biologists. during the April 1, 2009 site meeting, was that general mortality rates are too inconsistent to be used as a primary indicator for this report. Instead, it was determined that this report would isolate specific areas that have had greater than average observed mortality 111 the past. which have been leaned 'hot -spots'. These hot spots (Map 4) were based on data and observations from all five sources cited in table 3. and the site meeting with ECS. IDFG. and ITO biologists on April 1, 2009. Northwest Ada County Big Game SurveySummary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 317 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. A general description of each area and relative mortality rating by location is found in table 4. This mortality index arranges the hotspots in order from greatest to least observed mortality based on the overall number of recorded observations (ECS and 1TD data) and personal observations (TDFG, TTD, ECS, and City of Eagle), with greater weight given to personal observations. as there is still limited mortality data available. There were no identified hotspots on SH-16, based on the relatively low recorded mortality rates and limited big game observation in proximity to the highway (section 5.1). rabic 4. Hotpot Nkxntky index Site Description Mortality Rating: Home Depot: The arca north of home Depot and south of X-storage unit ncarmp-45. Chevron: The area southeast of the Chevron station near inp-46.9. Shadow \'alley: The area from the Dry Creek bridge, through the Shadow Valley golf course to the southern portion of the canyon at inp-50.3, Spring \'alley: The area from the northern canyon opening (mp-51.3) through Spring Valley Crcck valley. Horseshoe Bend Hill South: The area on llorseshoc Bend Will from mp-54.6 to the top 57.7. Horseshoe Bend Hill North: The arca from the top of Iorseshoe Bend Itill at mp-57.7 to the bottom of the grade at llorseshoc bend Mortality Rating: Ranked from (greatest observed mortality) to 6 (least observed mortality). Reason 5 3 1) Third highest recorded mortalities. greatest number of personal observations (all parties but IDFG). 3) Lowest recorded mortalities, second lowest personal observations. 2) Second highest recorded mortalities, third most observations. 4 5) Second fewest recorded mortalities, third lowest observations. 6 4) Third fewest recorded mortalities, lowest observations. 2 6) Highest recorded mortalities, second highest observations. Note' The index is based on all available data (records and personal observation). However, big game mortality data currently available is very limited. therefore. the index relies heavily on personal observations that are subject 10 interpretation and could change as additional information is included While the project area and area of influence are limited to Sh-1 6, SH-55, and the secondary roads between, there were two other transportation cOlTidors in the area that are of interest to ECS. The first is Dry Creek'Cartwright Road between SH-55 and Bogus Basin Road. This is a winding two lane road with limited visibility in locations that run east to west across 1DFG- identified winter habitat. Based on potential changes to the area associated with development and transp0l cation, It should be identified for long -tern monitoring and planning. The second section is Semen Gulch Road, running north/south between Dry Creek and Hill Road. This is also a winding two lane road with limited visibility in a location with a known residential mule deer population associated with the Ada County Land Fill (pers. comm. Eric Leit'inger 2006, ECS observations). This section was also identified by 1TD as an area of high mortality for mule deer (pers. comm. Greg Johnston 2009). ADT were not known for either section but was assumed to be significantly lower than SH-55. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 318 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. r—• Map. 4 Big Game Mortality Hot -Spots (SH-55)'. Nanllw I Hdo l'nunty t ig (tame '..survey DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 319 rage ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 4.0 Big Game Survey Methods 4.OBackground Data (Quantitative and Qualitative) - in order to identity big game use and distribution patterns associated with the project area, ECS biologists has been working with the local. state. and federal agencies, as well as local residents. to collect all available information on: species composition, temporal and spatial use patterns, as well as mortality data. The primary data sets collected have been from the IDFG and ECS surveys (ground and aenal), as well as TTD accident and linkage data sets. in addition to quantifiable data, ECS biologists have integrated the personal observations (qualitative data) from IDFG wildlife biologists and mangers, ITD biologists and maintenance crews, City of Eagle maintenance staff. and area residents. In addition, supplemental information including, but not limited to. soils. hydrology, vegetation, wildfire, recreation, transportation and development has been collected from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). National Resource Conservation Services ('MRCS). Ada County Highway District (ACHD). City of Eagle and Ada County planners. and local developers and residents. This information was used in conjunction with big game data to determine the conditions and characteristics associated with specific patterns of use, which can be used to identify potential impacts associated with current and future planning efforts. 4.1 Local Residential Surveys - In November of 2007, residential surveys were conducted to identify big game use patters based on personal observations of local residents. ECS biologists conducted house to house interviews with residents on Willow Creek, Sand Hollow, and Pearl Roads. it'the residents were not present, their mailing addresses were recorded and a letter survey was sent. Nineteen letters were mailed out that included the survey and a map for residents to record where, when, and how many big game (mule deer, white -tail deer, elk, and pronghorn antelope) they had observed in the area (Appendix A). An additional ten local residents. who recreate regularly in the foothills. were also mailed a survey and asked to complete it based on their familiarity with the area. A combination of 16 completed surveys and -or verbal interviews were collected and mapped. The results were used as a reference in determining survey points (Map 5). The seasonal observations were also used to identify where and what species used the area year round, i.e. resident population (year round) vs. migratory population (winter use only). 4.2Ground Surveys - Ground surveys were conducted from November of 2007 to March of 200R. Fourteen high. - elevation survey points (Map 5) were identified based on residential surveys, ECS biologists' observations, and 1DFG observations and past point counts. These observation points were developed to monitor big game winter use and distribution. Observations included. visual sightings, tracks (Figures 1 and 2), scat, and remains. GPS points were taken at all points and mapped. The points were designed to give the observer an unobstructed landscape view of an Northwest +vda County Etig t iunte :survey :summary. imge DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 320 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. area that had some overlap with an adjacent viewpoint so that only a small portion of the project area was not visually surveyed. As the snow levels increased, access to these points became limited to snowshoeing or cross- country skiing. Two of the original monitoring points were removed from the initial survey route because their vantages were too repetitive with other points, i.e. too much overlap reduces monitoring efficiency. To compensate, three additional cross-country survey routes were created in January to access more telTain. Monitoring points were generally surveyed once a week for any observation of big game. Based on the amount of activity associated with each point, some areas were surveyed less often, i.e. dropped to once every second or third week based on the potential for observations. Areas where big game observations had been identified continued to he surveyed weekly. All big game observations were recorded on a map and a survey form (Appendix A) was completed. The point was either correlated to an established survey point or a new GPS point was taken. Identified tracks (Figures I and 2) and pellets were also recorded on data forms and a point taken. Winter tield work was always done in pairs for safety purposes. Ground surveys were also conducted from December of 2008 through March of 2009. The pnmary survey points identified in the 2007-2008 survey were surveyed again (Map 5), however. these points were only visited one or two times over the duration of the survey based on similar use patterns observed and additional aerial surveys. Based on fewer point surveys on the ground, ECS staff took a more comprehensive approach to dispersal and migration patterns associated with SH-55 and SH-16 and the secondary roads between, including. Willow Creek. Rose Gulch, Little Gulch, Big Gulch, Jack Ass Gulch, and Pearl roads (Map 5)- These roads were driven at very low speeds, or walked. in order to identify signs of wildlife use. including. tracks (Figures I and 2). scat, bedding sites. remains, and even evidence of winter browse on shrubs and grosses, Sun eyors also hiked side drainages and ridge tops not accessible by vehicle to look for signs of use. Use and migration surveys conducted to the ease ofSH-55 were restncted to non -motorized surveys (cross-country skiing and hiking). Noflhswest Ado t'runty Htg ltamt surrey summary- r age DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 321 INSTRU. N61053/ PAGE (_ F51q ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. IN rtfl cs1 Ada l:owily Big6. tame flUVCybum mary DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 322 rngc INSTRu.311C053g ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Figure 1. Example of Mule Deer Tracks Used to Identify Use or Movement. Figure 2. Example of Elk Tracks Used to Identify Use or Movement. Northwest Ada County Big Garne Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 323 Page fNSTRU. N[l 'f(-��►41 PAGES3 Op + ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES fNC. 4.3Aeriai Surveys - On January 14th and February 110, 2008, ECS contracted Silverhawk Aviation to complete two aerial surveys (point counts) using a Robinson 44'Raven ll helicopter. In order to duplicate the IDFG's aenal survey protocol for point counts, not including sex determination procedures, ECS worked with IDFG staff and contracted Mike Schlegel, a retired IDFG biologist from McCall, ECS biologists worked with Mr. Schlegel to develop an aenal survey form (Appendix A) and he instructed'participated in aerial point counts to acclimate ECS biologists. Aerial surveys were flown in ''/ mile wide swaths from north to south and worked from the east side to the west side (Map 5). The pilot flew from 35-60 knots. depending on snow coverage and topography, with a minimal visibility of three miles and able to fly 1000-f1 below cloud level. Total Flight time was approximately four hours on January 14th. and seven hours on February I1th. In addition to the pilot, two observers, one on each side of the helicopter, with equal viewing coverage on both sides of the aircraft. were always used. Generally, one person would record information on elk while the other recorded on mule deer. If any white-tailed deer, antelope, or moose were identified. the same information would be recorded on either the mule deer or elk data sheet. All big game species observed during aerial surveys were counted and a single GPS waypoint taken at each observation point. The ECS-developed data sheet contains information on: species, number of animals. weather conditions, animal activity, vegetation class, snow cover, slope, aspect, and UTM coordinates. In 2009. a single aerial survey (point count) was completed using the same protocol, and Silverhawk Aviation was contracted again. Flights were conducted on February 24th, flight time of seven hours, and March 3rd, flight time of three hours. Based on the expanded search area, aerials surveys were conducted in east to west patterns between the east and west borders. starting from the northeast boundary and working south (Map 5). The entire project area could not he completed with a single flight, so the March 3rd flight was concentrated in the southeast corner of the project area to complete the survey. Observation data for both days was combined for the 2009-point count data. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 324 INSTRU. Nab /153t PAGES-3 OF5Li t i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 5.0 Survey Results 5.0 Combined (IDFG/ECS) Big Game Winter Use Data - All available big game winter use data (count totals only, no associated locations) recorded between 1989 and 2007 by the IDFG is shown in tables 5, 6. and 7. The count data received from the IDFG is grouped by unit and broken down based on year and subunit. Specific dates were not included in either data set, but big game winter counts are normally completed between December and March (pers. Comm. Greg Burak 2009). Big game counts associated with units 32 and 39 are not completed annually in this area based on relative use (low and moderate) by big game and IDFG funding`resource limitations (personal communications Enc Lettzmger 2006, Jon Rachael and Kevin Warner 2007; Rick Ward 2008. and Kevin Warner 2009)_ The ECS count data was also grouped by unit and broken down based on year. llight, and subunit (Tables 5-7) and added to the IDFG data for comparison over time. Point locations were also mapped (Maps 6-8) to show observation points. ECS ground survey data was not included in the tables or maps as these would be redundant point counts, i.e. same individuals and groups counted twice. However. both the ground data and ECS aenal observation data were combined with IDFG observation points (no count data available) to develop a project area -wide distribution map (Map 9) to illustrate general use areas. It should he understood by the reader that the distribution map includes multiple years of data overlaid on each other and multiple observations of the same animals in the same year. The map is intended to show the overall spatial distribution relative to use on the east and west sides of SH-55 only. it should also be understood by the reader that these observations are single points in time and will vary year to year. This report uses all of the existing data and observations to try and extrapolate use and distribution patterns. However, without actual long-term tracking data these are just suppositions based on the author's professional observations and the best available data. 5.1 GMU-32 (Winter Count Data) Table 5 is associated with mule deer counts within the project area in unit 32. Based on IDFG survey results. the overall number of animals using the area dropped considerably between 1989 and 1993 (92% reduction). Mule deer observation data by the IDFG averaged 453 animals. or 280 animals excluding the 1,588 (high) and 45 (low) observed in 1989 and 2003. For comparison in this report. we will use 280 mule deer as the IDFG average. ECS observations in 2008a were approximately 74°a lower, in 2008b were approximately 67% lower, and in 2009 were approximately 72°% lower than the IDFG average. There were no recorded counts for either elk or antelope. ECS surveys were conducted in years with greater than average snow fall and accumulation, 2008. and average to less than average snow fall and accumulation. 2009. In companson to the IDFG data, the ECS point count data generally exhibits reduced use within the project associated with GMU 32 within the project area. Anecdotal evidence, based on seasonal mortality data from TTD. personal observations and surveys from ECS. and resident survey Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 325 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. results, also indicated that the majority of the groups observed within the project area are likely residential populations rather than migratory ones. in addition to mule deer, six groups of antelope and elk were also recorded. There were no observations of antelope in 2008. However, this could be attributed to insufficient surveys completed in the western portion of the project area in 2008. In 2009 there were lour observations of antelope, with a total of 19 animals found in subunits 3, 7, and 8. The group in the nOl theast pOltion of subunit 3 had 15 animals but was the only antelope observation with more than 2 animals at a single location. It is probable. based on the limited overall number of antelope observed. the amount. quality, and connectivity of habitat in the north Eagle Foothills west of SH-55, as well as the amount and type of fencing in the area, that this is not a sustainable population (Trainer et al. 1983). Only two groups of elk were observed in unit 32. In 2008, a single herd of 34 elk were observed in subunit 18. This subunit is outside the project area boundary but was included in the results. Based on the proximity, it is assumed that this group is part of the Montour Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and is not likely a migratory population associated with the group to the east of SH-55 (see below). In 2009, a single group of 54 elk were located in the western portion of subunit 8. This group was within the project area. but it is still likely associated with the Montour WMA population. Table 5. Combined 'lute Pets Winte Count§ ILinit 1/1 Subunit 1989 1993 1994 19961 2003 2004 2008a 2008b 2009 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Total *2008a *2008b *2009 4 92 ` 162 6 121 15 408 32 139 629 91 • 10 104 135 3 30 4 4 61 4.i 8 .9 I- 30 - 41 20 16 17 - 8 9 - 80 - - 9 97 4 5 45 21 149 - 7 3 12 - 90 - 53 107 31 1,558 144 167 365 45 440 74 93 79 -95"n -49% -56% -80% 164% -83" i -2(i"P -6% 94% -35% -44% -75% I107% -79% 126% * +1ti% -95% -43% -53"7e -18"-1-/6°j° -82% i TV; -I5°i, ` *Percent reduced(-) or percent increased (+) observations in comparison to 200Ra. 200Rh, and 2009 F S surveys. Northwest Ada County I3ig Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 326 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 5.2GMU-39 (Winter Count Data) Tables 6 and 7 are associated with elk and mule deer count data for unit 39. east of SH-55. No antelope were recorded east of SH-55 during any ECS or IDFG surveys. Based on IDFG survey results. the overall number of elk using the area dropped by almost half (44%) between 1990 and 1994. Elk observation data by the IDFG averaged 250 animals, or 270 animals excluding the 422 (high) and 2 (low) observed in 1990 and 2000. For comparison in this report we will use 270 elk as the 1DFG average. ECS observations in 2008a were approximately 50% lower than the 1DFG average, but were 188% greater in 2008b, and 174% greater in 2009. Mule deer observation data by the IDFG was fairly consistent between 1991 and 2005, averaging 422 animals, or 460 animals excluding the 549 (high) and 41 (low) observed in 1999 and 1994. For comparison in this repOl t we will use 460 mule deer as the IDFG average. ECS observations in 2008a were approximately 92% lower. in 2008b were approximately 91 % lower. and in 2009 were approximately 88° lower than the IDFG average. In general. ECS count data demonstrated a sizable increase in the number of elk in comparison to IDFG records. while mule deer counts were much lower. approximately one- tenth that recorded by 1DFG on average. One possible explanation for the significant changein mule deer nil mbers could be attributed to the increased presence of elk in the area, which tend to displace mule deer populations (Lindzey et al. 1997, Johnson et al. 2000; Stewart et al. 2002). Another potential explanation could be the increased amount of human use in the area (recreation and development). Mule deer generally have a lower fidelity to their home ranges, e.g. they are more Likely to move away from their home range in response to disturbance (Streubel 2000). However. mule deer populations, even migratory ones. are generally more acclimated to human presence than migratory elk herds (Nicholson, Boweer, and Kie 1997). Therefore, if human disturbance was the pmnary impact, we should also see greater reductions in elk use, which is not the case as of yet. Table 6. Combined Elk Winter Counts (Unit 39). Subunit ' 1990 1994 1998 2000 2008 2008a 2011h 2009 166 - 189 - 13 167 422 286 - 135 445 168 32 - 170 - 300 214 - 5 - - t 90 215 - 253 2 76 1b - 218 - - - - - 80 Total 422 253 291 1 265 135 507 470 *2008a -68% -47% -54% 16650% -49"/° " -73% -7t% *Z00Bb +20% +100% +74°% +25250°%° +91% +276% I8% *2009 I11% I86°° 162%° 123400% I77o I248% -7"/° • • 1•erreni rei nred 1- I or percent inenaad (• Infisrnmnnas in iip alum to friMa. 200 0r and 2009 TIN surveys Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 327 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Table 7. Combined Mule Meer Winter Counts (Unit 39). Subunit 1991 1993 1994 1995 1998 1999 2001 2003 2005 2008a 2008b 2009 166 13 194 - 222 137 148 166 89 - 9 42 167 316 92 164 117 66 49 1'89 140 20 4 6 168 - - - - - - - 10 170 - - '- - 5 - 8 214 40 19 - - 57 70 18 36 27 1 - 215 109 83 41 7Y 63 I3S 132 53 58 16 - 216 bV 98 - 122 125 141 36 94 - Total 538 486 41 365 584 549 38.3 444 408 38 40 56 *2008a -93% -92% -7% -90% -93% -93%-90°,4i -91% -91% -5% -32% *2008b -93% -92% =2°,u -89% -93"/ -93% -90%-91°•tu -90% +5% -29% *2009 -90°0 -88% +37% -85% -90% -90% -85% -87% -86% +47% +40% •Percent realccd (-) ZIT perCat11 incitarrd t ,1 ui serw+tions in rnm(uttizun [n 21081k 200 :b, and 20 19 ECS surveys. 5.3 Ground Survey Observations (SH-55, SH-16, and Secondary Roads) Ground surveys associated w ith movement patterns across SH-55 and SH-16, and the secondary roads between. were conducted for approximately 16 weeks in 2009 (section 4.3). ECS Geld crews specifically looked for any signs of big game movement patterns, emphasizing those areas in close proximity to SH-55 and SH-l6. There was significant evidence (tracks and scat) of both mule deer and elk movement east of SH-55 in the higher elevation hills between Spring Valley and Cartwnght Canyon. Observations were generally associated with high -elevation ridge tops. south -facing slopes, and drainage bottoms with ripanan communities and water. There was also a number of gut piles (elk) observed where Cartwright Canyon and Spl ing Valley Creek met. These were identified in December during the hunting season. Of note, there were a number of wolf tracks associated with the gut piles in Cartwright Canyon. While there was significant evidence of large migratory groups moving to the east of SH-55 on the ndgelines, there were no observable signs of large groups moving across (trailing) SH- 55 or SH-16. and only limited trailing associated with the secondary roads between. The trailing associated with the secondary roads was minimal. normally Individual or pairs of tracks. always isolated, and no discernable movement pattems. Based on these observations, the amount of area, and limited existing use associated with the roads, the ground survey results will be limited to SH-55 and SH-16. Northwest Ada County Big Gamc Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 328 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. There were no observations associated with big game use in close proximity to SH-16 anywhere during the 16 weeks of ground surveys. There were however, four sites with nine recorded observations of big game use in close proximity to SH-55. The first two sires were associated with recorded tracks, both on the west side of SH-55 north of Willow Creek (mp- 54.7). The first set of tracks was an individual mule deer traveling from Willow Creek to the roadside (within 5ft), where it parallels the highway north for approximately 75 feet then back to the hillside and up into the hills. Based on no visual tracks on the east side of the highway for at lease 100 feet in either direction, it was assumed the animal did not cross the highway. The second set of tracks was located just north of mp-56.1. The tracks were associated with a well defined drainage basin on the west side of SH-55 (Figure 3). Based on the direction, number, and type of tracks observed we believe these were made by a small group of mule deer that use the area regularly. The tracks crossed the basin bottom north and south, in both directions, but there was no evidence that any animals crossed the highway. i.e. no tracks on the other side of the road. 200 feet in either direction. The tracks to the north and south of the drainage tum west and go up into the hills away from the highway (Figure 4). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 329 INSTRU. NO3'-U(2J `. aF57-`/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. rigure 4. Mule Deer Tracks Near MP-56.I. The third site was a group of mule deer, ranging in size between 2 and 6 animals, on the southeast side of SH-55 just north of Spring Creek Road near mp-50.0. The group was observed and recorded for five, nearly -consecutive days (March 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30 of 2009) in the same drainage basin, just northeast of the highway sign pullout. The area exhibited significant' signs of use, including tracks and scat. The tracks were most concentrated following the drainage up to the ridgeline, with several individuals following the canyon up (northeast) on the west facing slopes (same side of the road). There was also large distribution of multi -aged scat observed in the area, i.e. multiple piles of both new and desiccated scat. Based on the number of age of the desiccated scat. we assumed this area is used annually. The roadside opposite where the mule deer group was observed was also walked by ECS field crews. Starting at the driveway of the last resident before the canyon on the northwest side of the highway, surveyors walked approximately 0.5 miles up the canyon, nOlihwest. There were several observed side hilling tracks approximately one quarter of the way up the hill side on the northwest side of the canyon that paralleled the road, but they ended at a riparian zone with water and willows. There was no signs (tracks or scat) from the point of observation north through the canyon that displayed evidence of big game crossing the highway. The last site was just north of inp-51.3 on the west side of SH-55 under the power lines. A pair of mule deer was observed on two separate days (March 25 and 28 of 2009). Both times the pair was observed in the same location, about half way up the hill side, foraging on a pileof hay or alfalfa that was put out for livestock earlier in the year. There is a well used livestock trail from the feeding site down the hill to where Spring Valley Creek crosses under the highway. Mule deer tracks were observed in the trail and around the stream bank, but Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 330 INSTRU. ND.-- 9(053--/ PAGES3 OF 511 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. there were no tracks or scat on the ease side of the road or around Spring Valley Creek, i.e. no evidence that these or any other big game have crossed the highway at this location. All tour site observations, including subsequent site surveys of each location, exhibit use on only that side of the road, e.g. there was no noticeable evidence, tracks, scat, or otherwise, that These groups crossed the highway at these locations. This is not to say that we do not think that animals cross the highway (sections 3.0 and 6.0). Rather, the lack of crossing evidence coupled with the personal observations (ECS Staff 2003-2009) and mortality data, suggests that big game That do cross the highway are generally individuals, or very small groups. This would account for the lack of crossing evidence that would likely he apparent with larger groups. Furthermore, the lack of trailing evidence associated with SH-55 and SH-16 coupled with the migratory observations to the east. strongly suggest that large groups and migratory populations do not cross either SR-55 or SH- 1 6. Northwest Ada County I3ig Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 331 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Map 6• ECS Point Locations by Subunits within Unit 32 and 39 (2008a). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 332 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. � t -1 is — �oo 7 - t Map7: ECS Point Locations by Subunits within Unit 32 and 39 (2008b). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 333 Page ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Map 8: ECS Point Locations by Subunits within Unit 32 and 39 (2009). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 334 Page INSTRU. Ntv.-544(05.3 et/ PAGEsILoF2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. :• 1iii' 1 IJl1 ..11.1 1111 i11111 :1 lulu I i.9....e..O Map9: Combined Observations by Subunits within Unit 32 and 39. Nole. There rs r ro JDFG observalion dala for GMU 32 (Wesi side of SH-55). Northwest Ada County Big Gamc Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 335 Pagc INSTRU. N ta5341 PAGES 350F5'1 �I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 6.0 Discussion/Conclusion General information on distribution. movement, and seasonal use patterns of big game within the project area was compiled and summarized from multiple sources including BLM vegetation data; spatial and temporal data from the LDFG, LTD, and ECS; personal observations by [DEG, 1TD, and ECS biologists, mortality observations by 1TD and city of Eagle maintenance crews. and residential surveys. By compiling the data, we can make several inferences regarding: the quantity. quality, and connectivity of general wildlife habitat. seasonal use and distribution of big game relevant to GMUs 32 and 39, including migration patterns; and areas of greatest observed auto -related mortality of big game. The information Identified in this report will be used as the baseline data for the discussion points in the associated wildlife crossing report. Based on the quantity. quality. and variability, its overall connectivity, and its relative proximity to human disturbance, the habitat found in the higher elevations and Cartwright Canyon to the east of SH-55 is considerably better than the habitat to the west. The region to the east also supports a greaser amount and variety of wildlife species relative to the west, including big game species. Big game species identified in the area included mule deer, elk, and antelope. Based on the compiled data we can make several suppositions. First, overall big game use, especially winter use, is greater to the east of SH-55 relative to the west. Mule deer numbers are on average twice as large as those to the west, and elk populations are 6 to 10 tunes as large (Section 5.0). Antelope are the only big game species that utili7ethe western portion of the project area to a greater extent than the eastern pOl uon. and based on a number of factors, this population is unsustainable and will likely be extirpated from the region in time. The second supposition is related to migration patterns associated with mule deer and elk. Based on the distribution data and personal observations, we can conclude that the majority of mule deer observed west of SH-55, and the western p011ion of unit 39-subunit 166, are resident populations. There is also a well -documented residential population associated with the Ada County land fill in the southern pOltmn of unit 39-subunits 113 and 114 (pers. comm. Eric Leitzinger 2006). Both of these groups are found in the area year round and are generally much more acclimated to human presence. i.e. more likely to cross roads than migratory populations that are much less acclimated to human presence. in addition to resident mule deer populations, we can also conclude that the larger big game populations, mostly elk, observed in subunits 214, 215, 166, 167, and 168 of unit 39 are primarily migratory herds traveling south from around the Harris Creek comdor. These populations almost exclusively migrate from north to south in the fall winter along the Cartwright Canyon corridor, and do not cross SH-55. Our inference is that habitat conditions, noise from the highway and high fidelity to historic winter range is the primary reason for the migration pattern, and not that SH-55 acts as a barrier or restricts migration. Our final supposition is associated with big game mOltality patterns. The hotspot mortality index (Table 4) identifies and ranks six pnmary sections associated with big game mortality on SH- 55. There were no hot -spots identified for SH-16. Two of the three highest ranked Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 336 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. sites. Home Depot (1) and Shadow Valley, (3) are associated with areas that have known resident mule deer populations and little or no migratory elk populations. In contrast, two of the three lowest ranked areas. Spring Valley (4) and Horseshoe Bend Hill South (6)_ have fewer resident populations and sizable migratory elk populations to the east. Insufficient information is known about the population associated with Horseshoe Bend Hill North (2) to make a similar assertion, Based on the distribution of preserved residential and migratory populations, the level of auto - related mortality seems to be greater in areas associated with residential populations relative to migratory ones, however. more studies are needed to make this delerntinalion. 7.0 Recommendations Based on the results summarized in section 5.0 and the conclusions identified in section 6.0. the author recommends three lines of action. The first and most critical recommendation, in the author's opinion, is to continue to collect data on the size and distribution of migratory and residential big game populations in the region, seasonal use patterns, and auto -related mortality data. We recommend that point counts continue on an annual basis, a migratory tracking study is developed and nnplemented utilizing tracking collars, and that 1TD, iDFG, and other agencies and private groups develop and implement a mortality data base that identifies and records where. when. and the type of animal killed. This could he easily done using a mobile recording device with GPS capability, or even a daily log. While we recommend that monitoring takes place on al lease SH-55. SH 16. SH-44. Dry Creek'Cartwright. and Semen Gulch Roads. we strongly recommend that this monitoring take place county -wide and in perpetuity. The second recommendation would be to develop and implement a regional plan that protects and aggressive restores habitat to the east of SH-55 associated with Cartwright Canyon and the high elevation mesic shruhlands between the Harris Creek Drainage and the Boise Front. Because this area is primarily pm'ate property, and therefore habitat values are secondary based on stale law. we recommend that this region be identified for acquisition, set aside in conservation easements for landowner tax benefits; or that an incentive -based approach he incorporated into the Ada County or City of Eagle Comprehensive Plans that allows for -density bonuses associated with permanent protection and or enhancement of these sites. These are only a few potential mechanisms that could be identified to permanently protect this habitat. This is not to say that there is no valuable habitat to the west of SH-55. Many of the areas with desirable habitat have already been identified. as have some of -the mechanisms to protect them. during the City of Eagle's comprehensive planning process (2008). However, in the authors opinion and based solely on habitat values associated with native plant and wildlife communities, the habitat to the west of SH-55 is significantly better and should be of higher priority relative to those lands west of SH-55. The last recommendation is associated with short and long-tenn transportation planning associated with SH-55, Sh-16, and the ACHD-proposed arterials and collectors between. Based on the annually increasing use of SH-16 and SH-55 for commuting and recreation, as Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 337 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. well as the proposed amount of development in the north Eagle Foothills, we recommend that a wildlife crossing repolt he completed to address potential types, design guidelines, and locations of wildlife crossings associated with the prolecl area. The author strongly believes that combination of long-term big game monitoring, coupled with active restoration and regional land use/transportation planning will have a significant effect on reducing existing and potential impacts to big game and other wildlife populations. However, in order to successfully develop and implement these recommendations on a landscape -wide scale, public agencies, private interest groups, and pnvale landowners/developers need to work collaboratively, think holistically, and plan regionally. Northwest Ada County Big Gamc Survey Summary- Pagc DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 338 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. 8.0 References Autenreith. R.F. and E. Fichter. 1975. On the behavior and socialization of pronghorn fawns. Wildl. Monog. 42:1-111. Baun, C., English, A., and MacDaniels, S. 2003. Sensitive species and archeological findings report for the Spring Valley Ranch (Phases 1 and 2). Findings Report for SunCor Inc. Boise, Idaho Baun, C. 2004. Botanical, s ildh le, and sensitive species findings report for the Spring Valley Ranch (Phases 1 and 2). Findings Report for SunCor Inc., Boise. Idaho Baun, C., Blades, J., Hardin, K., Koleini, K. and Miller, S. 2005. Botanical, wildlife, and sensitive species findings report for the Spring Valley Ranch (Phase I). Findings Report for SunCor Inc., Boise, Idaho Baun. C. 2006. Wildlife Mitigation Plan. Avimor Planned Community (Village 1). Report developed byURS Corporation, Boise, Idaho. Baun, C.. Hardin. K.. Maguire. D.. and Heist. H. 2007. Botanical and Wildlife findings report for the Spring Valley Ranch (Village II). Findings Report for SunCor Inc., Boise, Idaho. Report developed by ECS Inc. Baun, C. 2008. Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Avimor Planned Community (Village 1I)-Draft. Repolt developed by ECS Inc., Boise, Idaho. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1998. Riparian Area Management Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition. TR 1737-9. Bureau of Land Management. BLM SC ST- 93 0034 I737+REV95+REV98, Service Center, CO. 51 pp. Brown. C.G. 1992. Movement and migration patterns of mule deer in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 56:246-253. Hoover, R.L. and D.L. Willis. 1987. Managing forested lands for wildlife. Colorado Division of Wildlife in cooperation with USDA FS. Rocky Mtn. Region. Denver. CO USA Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 730 pp. Hitchcock. C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist _ M. Ownbey. and J.W. Thompson. 1964. Vascular Planes of the Pacific Northwest (5 volumes). University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 339 IwsTRU. No3q (,53,4 PAGE . ' of5`ly ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) 2004. SH-16 State Highway Corridor Improvement Study. Project No. STP3330(105) Key No. 8630. Environmental Assessment. 163pp. 2009a. Idaho Department of Transportation Website at: hltn: •www•.itd.idahn.inn• 2009b. Idaho Department of Transportation. Office of Highway Operations and Safety (Accidents Repoli Associated with Wildlife Collisions). ITD Contact. Kelly Campbell, Principal Research Analyst. 2008. Idaho Highway Wildlife Linkage at• blip; uuw.ut4inhrst.net idnhohiuhwavw•ildlifelinkage inclrn_ ci Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Mule deer progress repoli. surveys and inventory thru June 30, 2004. 2005. Idaho Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Idaho Conservation Data Center, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Ill. liop: tishandgaine.idalm.govkats test CDC cwcs.cfm 2007. Districts 3, 4, and 5 Fish and Wildlife Linkage Project GIS Layers FinalReport. 16pp. 2009. Comments received from Scott Re -meeker. Southwest Regional Supervisor, on the Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary and Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment -Draft. April 24, 2009. Johnson. B. K. J. W. Kem. M. J. Wisdom, S. L. Findholt. and J. G. Kie. 2000. Resource selection and spatial separation of elk and mule deer in spring. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:685-697. Lindzey, F. G.. W. G. Hepworth, T. A. Mattson, and A. F. Reeve. 1997. Potential for competitive interactions between mule deer and elk in the Western United States and Canada. Laramie: Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. Historical Weather Events, Boise, Idaho_ National Weather Service Forecast Office. http:/www.wrh.noaa.gov'boilhistory.php?span-year. (Accessed on January 28. 2009). Nicholson, M.. Boweer. R., and Kie. J. 1997. Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: tradeoffs associated with migration. Joumal ofMammalogy, Vol 78(2): 483-504. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). 2004. Raw vegetation data for the Boise Foothills. Northwest Ada County Big Gamc Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 340 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Pers. Comm. Greg Burak. March 17 and April 1, 2009. Personal communication with Greg Burak Wildlife Biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Nampa. Idaho. Pers. Comm. Rick Ward. December 2008. Personal communication with Rick Ward Wildlife Biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Nampa. Idaho. Pers. Comm. Eric Leit7inger. December 2006 (City of Eagle Comprehensive Plan). Personal communication with Enc Leitcinger Wildlife Biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Nampa. Idaho. Pers. Comm. Scott Rudel. March 17 and April 1, 2009. Personal communication with Scott Rudel. Wildlife Biologist for the Idaho Department of Transpolation-District 3. Boise, Idaho. Pers. Comm. Kim Just. March 3 and April 1. 2009. Personal communication with Kim Just. Wildlife and Habitat Coordinator for the Idaho Department of Transportation. Boise, Idaho. Pers. Comm. Greg Johnston. March 23. 25, and April R. 2009. Personal communication with Greg Johnston. Boise Maintenance Foreman (District 3) for the Idaho Department of Transportation. Boise, Idaho. Pers. Comm. Paul Stanley. April 13, 2009. Personal communication with Paul Stanley, Emmet Maintenance Crew (District 3) for the Idaho Department of Transportation. Emmet. Idaho. Pers. Comm. Michael Echeita. March 24, 2009. Personal communication with Michael Echeita, Director of Public Works for the City of Eagle. Pers. Comm. Kevin Warner. December 2007. Personal communication with Kevin Warner. Wildlife Biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Nampa, Idaho. Pers. Comm. Kevin Warner. March 17. 2009. Personal communication with Kevin Warner. Environmental Management Office Director. Boise, Idaho. Pers. Comm. Jon Rachael. December 2007. Personal communication with Jon Rachael. Regional Wildlife Manager for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Nampa, Idaho. Stewart. K. M.. R. T. Bowyer. J. G. Kie, N. J. Ctmon. and B. K. Johnson. 2002. Temporospatial distributions of elk. mule deer, and cattle: resource partitioning and competitive displacement. Journal ofMammalogy 83(1): 229-244. Streubel. John, 2000. Digital Atlas of Idaho: Mammals. Available at http• imnh.isu.edu,digitalatlas,birnmammal mamfram.him (accessed September 19 and November 14. 2005). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 341 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICES INC. Thomas. J. W., editor. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. Forest Service Agncultural Handbook 553. Washington DC. USA. Thomas, J., Leckenhy, D., Henjum, M., Pedersen, R., and Bryan, L. 1988. Habitat- effectiveness index for elk on Blue -Mountain winter ranges. Gen Tech. Rep. PN W- (iTR-218. U.S. Dep. Ag., F.S. Pacific NOlihwest Research Center Portland, Oregon. Trainer. C. E.. M. J. Willis. G. P. Kcistcr, Jr.. and D. P. Sheehy. 1983. Fawn mot iahty and habitat use among pronghorn during spring and summer in southeastern Oregon. 1981-82. Federal Aid in Wildlife W-70-R. Wildlife Research Report 12, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, Oregon. URS. 2006. Final habitat Study and natural features analysis. M3 Eagle Proposed Planned Community. Eagle. Idaho URS. 2008. M3 Eagle Habitat Mitigation Plan. Eagle. Idaho Western Regional Climate Center. 2007. NC'DC Station Historical Listing for NWS Cooperative Network. http://www.wrec.dri.eduicgi-binicliMAIN.pl?idbois. (accessed March 26, 2008). Northwest Ada County Big Game Survey Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 342 Page INSTRU. NVO?`1453/ PAGES 10F5`11( Appendix B1- Forms DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 343 1NSTRU. NO. 3'4(1' 3 Y PAGEs33OF1-5 2007-20IO8 Sig Game Residents Suntv Outline on the map (see back) where you have seen the group(s) of big game. Mule deer White-tailed Deer Elk Pronghorn Antelope Unknown What month or season did you see them? Estimate how many animals were in the herd,group? 1-5� 6-200 20+0 How many times have you seen them using this area? Once ❑ Occasionally ❑ Regularly❑ Comment~• Can we contact you if there are further questions? Yes, No If yes, please list your contact information. Name. Address. Phone Number and'or E-mail .Address Appendix A: Big Game Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 344 • Appendix A. Big Game Summary - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 345 NAM Ugh Foothills Pag INSTRU. Np,3q rrk53Lf PAG£SOF 5 1 L1 ffig Game Ground Survey Obsen•ation Data Sheet Date: Time: Area surveyed.: Species Identified: Mule deer ❑ White-tailed Deer ❑ Elk ❑ Pronghorn Antelope ❑ Unknown ❑ Ill Method: tracks scat❑ visual remains Estimated number of animals: Comments: Appendix A: Big Game Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 346 1M S1 Sur uy Farm for D..r Ohio Imo WasY.rr. Cloud Cover I.mmtakre Pio:ri ALA WxW _ �.nwy Rwa.ryw N.4anott oe r+h+ IStaN I Iu1d I UT1.i CaorOn.r. Nolo. Pape d ITrp r'..• i.[1,gw%1n1 ?• W1C"nlW,.. UPI, 7-V+m 4-..d 4s rpm, an i.Nnm AC.11, 1=bed OK 2=S1an4ep. 1. moony Sorg 1 M.y+hr1 Sa. ? ¢77%. H 216. . Appendix A: Big Game Summary- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 347 Appendix B2- Community Classification Crosswalk DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 348 INSTRU. NOc.YQ5 PAGES ��1 The land cover classes and suhclasses in the project area were determined from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) raw vegetation data (2004). The PNNL data identified 50 dominant vegetation associations within the project area. The raw PNNL data was then combined into nine classes and 13 different suhclasses based on the BLM'RMP Area Land Cover Classification System to increase the accuracy and usefulness of the map (Table 1). Table 1. Plant Community Crosswalk. Class 1 Subclass 1 Association I PNNL Raw Data VEGETATED (SEMI) -NATURAL VEGETATION Evergreen Forest PIPO ABLA PSME PIPO-PSME ABLA-PSME Forest Picea-PSME JUNIPER JUNIPER-ARTR Woodland Shrubland Grassland Semi -Desert Mixed Evergreen Deciduous Deciduous Woodland Deciduous Shruhland Herbaceous Wetland Annual Grassland : Perennial Grassland Evergreen Shruhland PSME-ASPEN ASPEN Tall Shrubland RIPARIAN MTNSHRUB CEVE WET MEADOW BRIT BRT-AGCR Exotic Annuals Native BG BG shrub) BG-BRTE Forbs Non -Native Wheatgrass Seeding Tall Shrubland PUTR'BG PUTR'BG-BRTE ARTR'BC ARTR BG-BRTE ARTR,BRTE ARTR NIIX%BG ARTR-MIX. BG-BR TE Appendix B: Big Game Summary -Community Classification Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 349 IINSTRU. PAGESag,a)FS__ ` 1 I Class Serni-Desert (Cont'd) Sparse Vegetation and NaturdE Barren Land Agriculture Open Water Urban/ Industrial/ Extraction Areas Subclass .t, ociation Evergreen Shrubland (Cont'd) Tall Shrubland (Cont'd) CULTURAL VEGETATION Crops Pasture/ Hay! Other NON -VEGETATED (SEMI) NATURAL CULTURAL Appendix 8: BigGame Summary -Community Classification DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 350 PNNL Ha►+ Data ARTR-MIX/BRTE (ARTRVBG-BRTE ARTRViT3[i ARTRV-MTNSHRUB ARTRV-PUTR/BG CHVI/BG CHVI/$G-BRTE CHVI- ARTR/Wheatgrass CH VI -MIX CELE GREASEWOOD-ARTR SAVE ATCO/BG ATCO/BRTE ATCO-MIXBG ATCO-MIXBG-BRTE SPARSE VEG SPARSE VEG/ROCK Agriculture WATER Urban Urban2 IN5TRU. N0 C PAGES 35UOF 5 I L Land Cover Subclass Descriptions: Forest Evergreen Forest Principal species associated with the Evergreen Forest subclass include ponderosa pine, Douglas tir, subalpine fir, serviceberry, sagebrush species, Oregon grape, snowberry, bitterbrush, and spiraea. Typical tbrbs and grasses include lupine species, blue bunch, wheatgrass, and Idaho fescue. ,Mixed Evergreen/ Deciduous Forest This community is dominated by a combination of aspen and Douglas fir. Common shrubs include serviceberry, sagebrush speci es, Oregon grape, western chokecherry, wild rose, snowberry, bitterbrush, red -osier dogwood, willow species, and spiraea. Woodland Deciduous Woodland The Deciduous Woodland subclass consists of aspen dominated communities. Common shrub species include serviceberry, sagebrush species, Oregon grape, and chokecherry. Shrubland Deciduous. Shruh/and (Tall) The Deciduous Shrubland subclass includes the Tall Shrubland association. As stated above, the Deciduous Shrubland subclass in the project area consists of mountain shrub and riparian communities. Riparian communities make up a very small percentage of the subclass. Typical shrubs associated with this subclass include alder species, serviceberry, Oregon grape. snowberry, ninebark, western chokecherry, wild rose, currant species, willow species, elderberry species, and spirea. Semi -Desert Evergreen Shrubland (Tall) The Semi -Desert Evergreen Shrubland subclass includes the Tall Slmlbland association. Typical shrub species of the Evergreen Shrubland subclass are bitterbrush. xeric, basin and Wyoming big sagebrush; and rabbitbrush communities. Commonly associated grass Species include bluebunch wheatgrass and Idaho fescue. Appendix S. Big Game Summary -Community Classification Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 351 i!NSTRU, No.314 [ 0S3q PAGES .1 pF Sy L Annual Grassland Typical annual grass species include cheatgrass and medusahead wildrye. Associated forbs include exotic annuals such as tumble mustard. prickly lettuce, Russian thistle. field bindweed and rush skeleton weed. Perennial Grassland (Native) The Semi -Desert Perennial Grassland subclass, Native Grassland association is typical made up from perennial grass species including, but are not limited to. bluebunch wheatgrass, Idaho fescue. three -awn. needle -and -thread grass, Thurber's needlegrass and Great Basin wildrye. Associated forb species include lupine, arrowleaf balsamroot, slender -tipped hawksbeard, Pursh's milkvetch, and common sunflower. Perennial Grassland (Non-native) The Semi -Desert Perennial Grassland subclass. Non-native Grassland association is typically made up from grassland areas that are dominated by wheatgrass species planted during previous seeding eff01 Is. Sparse Vegetation and Natural Barren Anus The Sparse Vegetation and Natural Barren Areas subclass is composed of areas with sparse vegetation caused by either natural circumstances or human degradation. Appendix B: Big Game Summary -Community Classification Pa DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 352 INSTRU. NO.3°I 10534/ PAGES OFS`!� Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment-2009 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 353 1WSTRU, N0.6 t4 i.95y PAGESaaOF Sy y Table of Contents -NW Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Use of North Ada County 2 2.1 Potential Wildlife Crossings on State SH-55 3 2.2 Potcntial Wildlife Crossings on S11-16 12 2.3 Potential Crossings and Other Mitigation Measures for Proposed Arterial and Connectors Between SH-55 and 16 14 3.0 General Guidelines for Wildlife and Aquatic Organism Crossings 16 3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Crossings Recommendations 18 3.1.1 Across Grade Wildlife Crossings 18 3.1.2 Small Culverts for Reptiles, Amphibians and Small Mammals 19 3.1.3 Medium -sued Culverts for Reptiles, Amphibians, and Small to Medium Sized Manitnals 20 3.1.4 Four to Six Foot Culverts for Wildlife up to and Including Coyotes and Bobcats 21 3.1.5 Large Animal Wildlife Underpass Crossings 21 3.2 Specific Types of Large Animal Wildlife Crossings 22 3.2.1 Steel or Concrete Arches 22 3 2.2 Three -Sided Boxes and Box Culverts 23 3 2.3 Wildlife Bridges 74 3.2.4 Multi -Span Bridges (Ecobridgcs or Viaducts) 25 3.2.5 Wildlife Overpasses or Ecopasses 26 3.2.6 Fencing for Large Animals 27 3.2.7 Fencing For Small Wildlife 28 3.2.8 Aquatic and Riparian Crossing Recommendations 29 3.2.9 Bat boxes and Other Structures Useful to Wildlife on Bridges 31 4.0 Potential Funding Sources 32 5.0 Summary 33 6.0 References and Literature Cited 34 Appendix A- 40 Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment-2009 TOC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 354 INSTRU. NO. iq L05 $L/ PAGES35 9 OF SLI 1.0 Introduction The project area is located in two areas to the east and west of Stale Highway (SH)-55 in Ada County. There are two proposed planned communities and several large private land holdings that would impact traffic volume. present highway design and the location of SH-55, and potentially the same factors on SH-16. Several interior roads. now single land, gravel or forest- type primitive "di It" roads are proposed for upgrading to 2. 3. 4 or even 5 lane roads. The total increase in housing could be as much as 24.000 units. Even so, a malonty of the present landscape is proposed to remain to parks. recreation areas or other open space. One of the factors being considered is "how can wildlife be accommodated with the development and future highway expansion and construction". The issues of integrating wildlife and wildlife habitat issues with urban growth and development is faced by many communities around the United States. San Diego County has developed an open space plan that protects many ofthe most cntical habitats for threatened and endangered species and also provides living space and habitat connectivity for endemic resident species (The Nature Conservancy 2009). Tucson, Anzona is also developing a plan where open space is integrated with wildlife habitat, bike and hiking trails. riparian (river and stream) set asides and other relatively natural habitats (T. Davis 2009). In Europe, where human densities are generally higher than the United States or Canada. there are many examples of incorporating wildlife and ecology concerns with high human densities (F. Bank. et al. 2002). The information in this report will provide several recommendations, based on the author's expenence. for wildlife crossings. fencing and other potential mitigation measures. as well as a set of "general guidelines" that can be applied to road and highway situations within any planned development. Most of the proposed guidelines are used by Federal or State Goi eminent agencies. Cost is a major concern for Federal agencies. for State Departments of Transportation (DOT) and for County governments and developers. Often, there are relatiiely inexpensive modifications to drainage or cross -drainage pipes that would allow for use by small species of terrestrial or aquatic animals. Slightly different stream crossings designs often can provide much better passage for wildlife species, fish and other aquatic organisms. Providing wildlife and aquatic habitat and population connectivity can become expensive and complex for major highways. such as SH-55 and SH-16. All attempts were made to provide options for the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) and Ada County Highway District (ACHD). as well as the most cost-effective wildlife crossing structures to meet the overall wildlife, development, and highway objectives. Previous to the present review of North Ada County, 1TD, Idaho Department of Fish and Game (TFG) and other agencies and groups had assessed SH-55 and 16 for wildlife habitat connectivity as well as highway safety. This effort was a pan of an Idaho Statewide Highway Linkages effort principally directed towards Idaho's highway system (lTD 2008). This report used the Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 355 information from the Idaho State Highway Linkages. but also made site specific recommendations for structures and crossings not possible with in a broad -scale (statewide) assessment. Wildlife crossings contained in the assessment and report are intended to provide an overview of potential crossing opportunities and have not had engineering assessments, cost analysis or feasibility repolts or review of specific compatibility with some adjacent pnvate lands. These potential crossings and guideline also are not a commitment from the developers or any agency to implement the findings and recommendations. They are solely the author's best professional appraisal of options that appear to be present to facilitate wildlife habitat and population connectivity. A field revi w was taken by the author. Charles Baun. Kenn Hardin and Danielle McGuire on March 2, 3 and 4th 2009, which included an aerial review on March 3rd. 2.0 Wildlife Habitat and Wildlife Use of North Ada County See preceding North Ada County Big Game Summary Repoli. Wildlife habitat in North Ada County is varied from mountainous, high elevation Douglas fir forests in the northeastern county signified by Douglas fir forest types near Bogus Bassin on the Boise National Forest. Moving down in elevation, aspen and willow communities are mixed with Douglas fir on the eastern slopes of Boise Ridge. intermixed with sagebrush habitats. To the east. near SH-55 the habitat is almost entirely sagebrush habitat, with southern slopes being bunchgrass or xenc sagebrush stands. Streams in the eastern portion of the study area. near Boise Ridge are well defined and run water either perennially or intermittently and often have well developed or fairly well -developed riparian habitat, consisting of wi Ilows and other shrubs in the more mesic areas. The area north of SH-44 and Eagle is historical irrigated farmland and grazing lands and is the most productive in the study area. Most of this habitat is now giving way to housing and commercial development as populations in Ada County grow. Mammals east of SH-55 include, but are not limited to mule deer, elk. black -tailed jack rabbits, Pmte ground squirrels and a few antelope. Carnivores include black hear mountain lion. bobcat, coyote. skunks. and raccoons. Reptiles and amphibians include gaiter snakes. gopher snake. western skink. short -homed lizard. Western fence lizard, long -toed salamander. Western toad. and Great Basin spadefool toad. Between SH-55 and 16, the elevation decreas s, as does the amount of moisture. The result is a mixture of'sagebrush and bunchgrass habitats that area sparse and less productive compared to the areas near Boise Ridge to the east. Terrain moderates and is gently rolling with distinct salleys. Some of the only standing water is in willow creek and the lack water results in a desert habitat. Many of the stream channels only run water in the most intense rain events and are poorly defined. Wildlife m this portion is less vaned and consist of mostly w intenng mule deer. a Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 356 INSTRU. NO.34/ t053 PAGES35cP OF54111 small heard of antelope and occasional elk, likely associated with the Montour Wildlife Management Area. However, groups of elk could also cross SH-55 during winter penods. Smaller mammals include deseli cottontails and black -railed jack rabbits. Carnivores would Include coyotes, skunks, and occasional raccoons, East of SH-16. habitat is lower in elevation and moisture. resulting is very sparse. desert habitat similar to much of southeastern Idaho. Animals include. but are not limited to mule deer. antelope. mountain cottontails and black -tailed jack rabbits. Mule deer and antelope undoubtedly cross SH- 16, however, the amount of developments. lack ot'standing water, and more desert -like habitat likely results in less attractions for large mammals to move hack and torth. The exception to this is that antelope usually inhabit drier habitats than mule deer and also exist in limited numbers throughout North Ada County. 1f antelope are to persist in the study area. it is certain that wildlife habitat linkages must remain as populations are small. fragmented. and subject to demographic, genetic and stochastic issues and problems. No time was spent during the Geld re‘ iew east of SH-16. The ability of these areas to sustain wildlife over time will be partly a factor of habitat and population connectivity. Small. isolated wildlife populations. such as the mule deer and antelope populations in the central and western portions of the study area, are not likely to persist unless efforts are taken to ensure their connectivity with other larger populations (Bissonette and Storch 2002. Garrison 2005, Mills 2007, Wilcox and Murphy 1985). 2.0 Potential Wildlife Crossings on State SH-55 Potential sites were reviewed on State SH-55 for wildlife habitat and population connectivity. The identified sites were determined based completely on the current site characteristics (topography, drainages, existing structures, etc.), without regard to wildlile presence or use patterns, moliahty rates, or human uses (planned deselopment and recreation use). This process was used in order to identify all potential sites without biasing the observer. Alter the sites were identified and described. we developed a number of discussion points for each site. These discussion points were developed to characterize the conditions of the site based on the preceding big game summary report. and to promote dialogue on the issue of wildlife crossing from a regional perspective. li should be made clear to the reader. these points are not meant to be planning tools or recommendations for or against future planning ef11:) l is. which are under the jurisdiction of the ITD. in general. there are three primary discussion points relative to wildlife crossings that we feel need to he discussed and addressed, First. is there a need for a crossing based on the existing'proposed conditions, or is there other avenues') Second, will wildlife use the crossing? The overall success of a wildlife crossing is related to the probability of use by wildlife, which is directly related to a number of factors, including but not limited to the type and onentalion of the crossing: light, noise. limiting alternative access 10 the Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 357 roadway; the presence. amount. movement patterns of wildlife in an area; and the amount- type. and proximity of human uses (development. apiculture. recreation. etc.), especially at night (Cramer and Bissonette 2006). Third, what is the cost and benefit of the crossing in the short and long tem l? Speciiic costs would be dependent on the type of structure, required modifications to the highway, and other components including fencing and long-teml monitOlmg. and will not be specified in this repOli as there are too many variables and limited design specifics to do so. Rather, refer to section 3.2 for general cost differences. However. all of the identified options associated with SH-55, with the exception of Dry Creek. would be costly and require significant modifications to the existing highway. One other aspect that was considered but will not be included in the report was visual impacts. The' section of highway within the project area is currently part of the Payette River National Scenic Byway. As such, visual impacts associated with the development of potential crossings and the associated fencing would need to be considered. As we have insufficient information on specific designs and it would be required under any iTD project. visual impacts will not be included in the discussion points. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 358 Map 1. Potential CrosAng Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 359 Pag INSTRIJ. NO. PAGES3S9 OF __ _ 2.0.1 Dry Creek Bridge (1) Dry Creek, located al Mile Post (MP) 48.5, is a perennial stream that has good flows through the wetter parts of the year and has a well -developed riparian area for a stream in an and climate. Species present include mule deer. raccoon, garter snakes (one observed at bridge site) and other local mammals. amphibians. and reptiles. The presence of fish in this section of stream is not known. If there are fish_ the bridge provides adequate passage - there are no blockages. The riparian habitat up and downstream from the bridge includes cottonwood and other deciduous vegetation. Dry Creek — t-- t rir► Figure 1. Dry Creek Bridge. could and probably is a comdor for wildlife and aquatic organisms moving from the Boise River. This corridor should he protected and managed as much as possible as part of a lloodplam, open space and green -way. The present bridge is adequate for movement ofmost terrestnal and aquatic species up to mule deer. Based on current guidelines. the bridge is slightly low, appearing to be approximately 8 feet tall at the upstream side. Also, there is rip -rap armoring throughout the bottom of the structure which hampers movement of mule deer through the structure. It is recommended that the rip -rap be moved to the concrete abutments so the stream channel is more easily traversed by wildlife. In the future, if the bndge is replaced, it should be 10 feet high and at approximately 10 feel wider thail it is now. Bridge substrate should mimic the surrounding soils. The area near Dry Creek has the highest number of collisions w ith mule deer in the SH-55 project area, probably because of the lush agricultural fields and riparian habitat. Fencing is recommended for all wildlife crossings and would be necessary to funnel mule deer and other wildlife into the crossing structure. Normal big game highway fencing consists of 8 foot high page wire with stout posts. The author believes that a five foot high fence might be adequate for mule deer. Some animals would likely jump the fence, but most would use the wildlife crossing, In the event that mule deer continue to jump the fence (after monitoring), one or two wires could be added to the top of the fence to provide more height. A five foot fence would be experimental but would cost less and probably have less visual impact. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 360 Discussion Points (1): This proposed site is unlike any others identified, as it has an existing structure that already provides connectivity to wildlife. The structure is located within the third Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 361 highest ranked hot -spot (see summary report), with known residential mule deer populations to the southeast (Ada County land till) and northmorthwest. The structure can easily be modified, with little or no impact to the function of the structure, and at a minimal cost. The structure canbe used by a number of wildlife (mule deer. small mammals, birds. and aquatic species), with existing habitat and comlectivily, via riparian corridor, with large Tracts of natural open space to the east and west. 1t is very unlikely that elk would use this crossing based on proximity to existing and proposed development in the area. There are currently development plans for both sides of SH-55, and the area directly north of the site has been identified as a commercial center, with a proposed grade separated intersection (Brookside). While there will he a significant amount of development in the area, there will he a riparian corridor that would be adequate for wildlife use, all be it at a reduced Level. The proposed corridor to the west (Alpine Creek) would be approximately 400 feet (200 feet on each side), and the proposed corridor to the east (Dry Creek) would be approximately 100 feet (50 feet on each side). The nparian comdor connects, generally across low density residential, to the foothills to the north on the west side, and to the north and south on the ease side. While the riparian cOlTidor would connect ssildlife from one side ofthe highway to the other, the higher density residential and commercial developments would act as a harrier. restricting movement across the highway, likely reducing auto -related mortality. and increasing driver safety. Based on the location in proximity to an identified hot -spot. the type of existing structure and low cost tor modification, and the existing use by wildlife, this site should he highly considered as a wildlife crossing, 2.0.2 Mile Post 50 (2) There is little opportunity for any large mammal crossing sites between Dry Creek Bridge and MP 50. Al approximately MP 50, the canyon cons erges and would allow big game. pnmarily mule deer, to move from the hilly felnin to the east and west across the highway. There are some houses and minor facilities near MP 50. but a linkage could be des eloped Through this site. Unfortunately, there is no place to locate an underpass structure unless the entire highway fill is elevated. The only feasible option at the south entrance of the canyon would he an overpass. There are two locations just north of MP 50. The recommended size for an ov erpass suitable for big game and other wildlife would be 75 feel wide. This is less than half -the width of most wildlife overpasses (see Ecopasses 3.1). in the i Jnited States, Ecopasses are designed and constructed for major landscape linkages for plant and animal communities. The MP 50 wildlife overpass would he focused primarily on maintaining some connectivity for big game. 2.1.3 Mile Post 50.5-51.2 (2) Further north. at approximately MP 50.5 to MP 51.1. there are several potential sites Tor wildlife underpasses. The underpass locations are provided by the highway being elevated across draws. The road till at the potential locations appeared to be adequate to provide a 12 foot high arch, box cub.ert or bridge to pass mule deer or elk. If only mule deer passage were required. a 10 foot Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 362 high structure would be adequate. Other wildlife would use the structure such as bobcats, mountain lion, coyotes, skunks and other local fauna. The recommended structure if only mule deer passage is required would be an arch or box culvel l at least 1 O' high by 25 feet wide. If elk passage is an objective, the recommend structure would be a box culvert or bridge at least 12' high by 25' to 30' wide. Elk appear to have more rigid passage requirements compared to mule deer, mountain lion or black bear, probably because they often cross in larger herds where if one animal does not cross, the entire herd will not. The author prefers box culverts to arches because they allow more light corning in from above and appear to be more "open" compared to arches. Often, costs are sunilar, but not always. Arches can be an effective wildlife crossing for all species or large animals, especially mule deer, black bear and mountain lion that are resident animals. Whenever migratory elk or mule deer herds are target animals for the crossings, more open structures are recommended - such as box culverts or bridges. 2.1.4 Mile Post 51.6 (2) At the north entrance to the canyon (MP 51.4), representatives from the ITD identified a third location for a potential underpass. This would be a 12-foot box culvelt or bridge. bridge option preferred by ITD, which could be located just north of canyon where the power lines cross the highway, near where the Avimor water treatment facility is located (Pers. comm. Scott Rudel 2009). Discussion Points (2): This area consists of three general crossing locations- canyon -south overpass, mid -canyon underpasses, canyon -north underpass. In general, all three locations are in close proximity to known big game populations, primarily resident mule deer, but does not exhibit use by elk or any large migratory populations (see preceding summary report). The area within the canyon itself has relatively little mortality in comparison to the south and north entrances, both identified as hot -spots (south ranked 3"' and the north ranked 4°i of six). Based on the proximity to each other, and the bug game populations in the area, any of the three proposed locations could provide connectivity across SH-55. Based on the location and type of structures identified for these three proposed locations the south canyon overpass would likely have the second most human use, but would probably be the most costly, noting that this is the only option that would likely be done without an associated expansion project. The area is in close proximity to a golf course and several residents to either side of the highway, including a number of residents on the southeast side above where the overpass would be located. It would be assumed, based on the location and accessibility of the overpass that it would get at least some recreational use, including equestrian. The mid -canyon underpass locations would likely have the least amount of human use and would be the least expensive, assuming it was done in conjunction with a highway expansion project. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pag DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 363 This option would get little or no human use based on the topography of the area, which would significantly limit human presence and recreational use. The north canyon underpass would have by far the most human presence and would be the second most costly, again assuming it Was done in conjunction with highway expansion project, This location would he directly adjacent to the Avimor water treatment facility, a paved walking trail with lighting. and a recreational trail connected to the Ridge to Rivers system. in addition. the site is in close proximity to where a proposed realignment of SH-55 would be located. Regardless of the location. a successfiil crossing would need a fence system or other means to limit big game access to the highway, including jump -out points throughout, before and after the canyon entrances. Restricting access to the highway. primarily al the north and south entrances would likely reduce auto -related mortality and increasing driver safety. Again. estimated costs are relative (section 3.2) without specific design information. 2.1.5 Mile Post 54.0 (3) There appears to he a suitable location fora potential os erpass. Target species would be mule deer and elk. The recommended size for an overpass suitable I'or mule deer. elk and other v, ildlife would be 75 feet wide. 2.1.6 Mile Post 54.2 (3) There appears to he a suitable location for a potential underpass, Target species would be mule deer and elk. The recommended su-ucture type would be an arch or box culvert approximately 12' high by 25' to 30' wide. Discussion Points (3): Big game use associated with the Spring Valley Creek area (MP 51.4 through 55.7) is generally limited to small resident groups and individuals, primanly mule deer and to a lesser extent antelope. There is little evidence that supports movement across SH-55 by large migratory elk herds. which make up the largest percentage of big game in the area. or large groups of mule deer or antelope. i.e. wildlife movement across SH-55 is u0lmally small groups or individuals (see preceding summary repo)s). The area was ranked as the 4h of six hot -spots. In addition to big game movement in the area. proposed development patterns associated with regional planning efforts (City of Eagle's Amended 2007 Comprehensive Plan -Final and 2008 ACHD Aolih Ada County Transp0llation Plan -Drat) have identified high density residential and commercial- including two regional commercial centers (east and west sides of the highway), as well as a grade separated intersection associated with the northern portion of the Spnng Valley corridor (Willow Creek). Based on the amount of planned development in the area, these sites would be costly and of limited or no value to w ildh fe. However, development patterns would act as a barrier and restnct big game access to the highway within the corridor, reducing auto -related mortality and increasing driver safety. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Pas DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 364 INSTRU. NO 3 L11753`f PACES-1475gLi • 2.1.7 Mile Post 55.7 (4) This is probably the best single potential crossing for elk on SH-55. There is a natural stream channel and riparian area that would funnel elk from the east side habitat (Mores Mountain and Boise Peak - National Forest lands), across SH-55 to the Pearlarea in upper Willow Creek. The site lends itself to a wildlife bridge such as is used in Banff National Park (Canada) and Highway 260 near Payson, Arizona. Bndges provide one of the most reliable highway crossing structures for elk. but are more Figure 2. Elk herd cast of SH-55 near Nlores Mtn. expensive than either concrete or steel arches or box culverts. Mule deer, mountain lion, bobcats, coyotes and smaller mammals would also readily use a bndge type crossing but would also use an arch or box culvert. The size of the bridge should be at least 12' feet high to allow elk passage. The length of a potential bndge would be determined by engineering feasibility and cost but should allow elk and other wildlife to pass along the South Fork of Willow Creek unimpeded. On -site determination would be needed, but thirty feet wide at structure bottom would allow 15 feel of useable space on each side of the creek. Alternative structures would include either an arch structure or box culvert at least 12-feet high and 30-feel wide. Since elk would be a target species, the recommendation would be for a box culvelt (3-sided box)_ Discussion Points (4): The discussion associated with this proposed site is the same as Mile Post 51.2 55.7. The proximity to the amount of human use at Willow Creek and the adjacent lands would considerably limit the probability of use by most big game and other large wildlife. While there would be a buffer and trail system around the ripanan corridor similar to the east side of Dry Creek. the potential amount and proximity oftrattic east west would be much greater. as would the amount of commercial development. and the cost would be exponentially greater. in addition. the populations associated with Dry Creek corridor are likely limited to residential populations acclimated to human disturbance. while the populations east of Willow Creek are migratory and much less adapted, therefore less likely to use a crossing with that much human disturbance. While a crossing may have limited benefits for larger animals, designs associated with the proposed intersection should take small mammals and aquatic species into consideration (Section 3.0). Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 365 INSTRU.NO.34L 531-/ PAGES] ��I 2.1.8 Mile Post 56.0 (5) This is a good underpass location with a small stream that ran water during the field review. The till would have to he removed and the existing culvert, which is only adequate to pass water. replaced with a wildlife crossing. Since this area has one of the highest uses by elk in the SH-55 project area. a 3-sided box culvert would be recommended. This would allow mule deer and perhaps antelope to use the structure. too. The terrain does not lend itself to antelope. being steep. A box culvert or bridge at least 12 feet high and twenty five feet wide is recommended. Fencing would be recommended from the South Fork of Willow Creek to the divide. Eight foot page wire with stout poles is recommended since elk are a target species. 2.1.9 Mile Post 56.6 (6) This location is on a fill, near an old and abandoned bend of SH-55. The location appears to be adequate to provide a box culvert for mule deer, elk, mountain lion and smaller wildlife. The existing till n,ad till appears adequate to provide for a box culvert or arch. The recommended height would be at least 12' and a width or 25 to 30 feet. Fencing is recommended from the divide to Willow Creek. Standard 8 foot high page wire wildlife fencing is recommended. Discussion Points (5/6): Big game use associated with the Horseshoe Bend Hill -South area (MP 55.7 through 57.7) is generally limped to small resident groups and individuals, prunarily mule deer and to a lesser extent antelope. There is little evidence that supports movement across SH-55 by large migratory elk herds, which make up the largest percentage of big game in the area. or large groups of mule deer or antelope. i.e. wildlife movement across SH 55 are normally small groups or individuals (see summary report). The area was ranked as the 6'1' or six hot- spots. However. unlike sites three and four, this area will remain as natural open space. with little or no direct impacts from human use, including recreation. which could increase use of the area by big game in the future. Therefore, this site, and site six, should be highly considered in long-tenn planning efforts. As part of the planning for the area, it is critical that adequate fencing and associated jump -out points be included in the overall design and construction. Currently. there is no expansion projects proposed for that section of SH-55 that would facilitate the construction of a wildlife crossing (pen. comm. Kim Just 2009). However, based on existing safety issues associated with winding roads and high speed, coupled with existing wildlife crossings and mortality in this section, a set of activated signs could be put in place to increase dnver safety. These signs incorporate sensors on the road side that activate lighted signs and issue warnings to dnvers to slow down. The overall affects of these types of signs vary but would at least be a cost effective way to increase driver safety in the short-term. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 366 2.1.10 Bread Loaf Rock (7) Bread Loaf Rock is approximately one mile north of the Pearl location. There is a very large road fill that spans a live creek that eventually flows into Robbs Creek. Mule deer tracks were observed crossing SH-55 on the north side of the drainage. Passage across the highway is difficult because of cement rails, steep fill slopes, livestock fencing and side road cuts. The fill is so high at the stream crossing that it would be unfeasible to place a wildlife crossing at the drainage structure. The best locations for wildlife crossings would be in the fill slope where the till is only 15 feet deep. Figure 3. SH-55 Adjacent In Bread Loaf Rock. Any potential wildlife crossings would be primarily for large and mid -sized mammals and should be at least 12 feet high. if elk passage is an objective. Wildlife crossings at the edges of the large road fill would not be easy for wildlife to Lind. however, over time use would likely occur. Wildlife fencing would he necessary 10 funnel elk and mule deer into the crossings structure. Locating good wildlife crossings on the highway heading down to Horseshoe bend will not be easy. Highway fill slopes are large and steep and draws have been completely filled in. It may be best only to provide crossing south of the divide. Discussion Points (7): Big game use and distnbution information associated with the Horseshoe Bend Hill -North area (MP 57.7 through 63.3) is limited, as this area was outside the project area. However, the area had the greatest number of recorded mortalities (TTD 2009) and was ranked second out of the six hot -spots; therefore, it should be highly considered in Tong -term transportation planning. Similar signage identified for sites 5 and 6 could also be incorporated In this section. 2.1 Potential Wildlife Crossings on SH-16 Wildlife habitat becomes more sparse and dry to the east of SH-55. The center portion of the project area, between SH-55 and 16 is drier than east of SH-55 where conifers (forest) and aspen (woodland) stands exist within healthy stands of sagebrush (xeric shrubland). The center of the project area is almost all sagebrush and grassland, indicating drier habitats. To the west of SH-16 most of the habitat is grassland, with some sage and other xeric shrub lands. Along SH-16 much of the landscape is occupied by ranches and ranchettes, with fencing, livestock and domestic animals. The only riparian area observed that had any vestige of water or riparian vegetation was Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 367 Willow Creek. Lower Willow Creek. near SH-16 appeared to be channelized, over grazed and of minimal use as wildlife habitat. Two tnps were made through the SH- 16 corndor. the first on Monday, March 2, 2009 and the second on Wednesday. March 41h. During both these field reviews, there seem to be almost no opportunities for wildlife crossings without either. 1. Building up highways fills to provide the height necessary for a wildlife crossing, or. 2. Building an overpass. Before either of these options were considered there needs to be a considerable assessment of the need for wildlife connectivity and the present ownership patterns, which are almost entirely private. 'igurc 4. Antelope occur in low numbers adjacent to SH-16 and in other parts of North Ada County. Wildlife use of the area seems minimal, as does the quality of w ildlife habitat. There is one marginal site for a wildlife crossing that would provide connectivity to public lands to the west, which are mostly BLM properties associated with the Payette River Breaks. This would include parts of Hartley Gulch, Sand Hollow and Homestead Gulch (east of interstate R4). The hest location for a wildlife crossing would he in Sections 5 or 32 at the head end of Jack Ass Gulch. There is a road cut as SH-16 crosses the ridge that could be bridged The cost of such a structure would be considerable, however the terrain appears to provide the abutment slopes. and so fill on each end would be minimal. if an overpass was considered at this location, it should be approximately 75 wide. A narrower overpass may be suitable. Use would be by mule deer, antelope, coyotes, badger, and similar desert biota. Fencing would need to be placed to guide animals to the structure. Standard R foot page wire is recommended. Discussion Points: The general consensus by ECS, the author and 1TD (pers. comm. Scott Rudel 2009). is that the constrained placement opportunities coupled with the limited use of the area by big game does not warrant a crossing within the project area. However, the area around Freezeout Hill should he at least considered in future planning efforts. it was also noted by iTD (pers. comm. Scott Rudel 2009) that a potential crossing associated with livestock movement across SH-16 has been identified for future consideration. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 368 2.2 Potential Crossings and Other Mitigation Measures for Proposed Arterial and Connectors Between SH-55 and 16 A number of low standard, low traffic volume roads would be upgraded min paved Iwo -lane, three -lane and five -lane roads. Traffic volume would increase commensurate with the sire of roads. Even with the large number of proposed housing units, there would he adequate open space to provide habitat for some mule deer, antelope (unlikely), elk and other smaller mammals, birds, reptiles. and amphibians. A short review was conducted of Figure 5, Mule deer occur in the desert shrub and grassland between SH-55 and 16. the project area to see if options would be available to provide passage across the interior roads, linking open space areas for wildlife. Much of the open space would also be used by recreation and the question was asked whether or not crossings could be multiple -use for low volume roads, recreation (hiking, biking and equestrian) and wildlife. To some extent, the answer to tlus is there is compatibility. However. for species like elk. mule deer and antelope human use will be inverse to use by large wildlife (Clevenger and Waltho 2000). Studies in Banff National Park indicated that the wildlife crossings on the Trans -Canada Highway received more use the further away from the town site of Banff. The reason for this was that hikers and other recreationalisls commonly used the wildlife crossings to cross the highway. even though there were no developed trails to facilitate this use. Since the objective of the development is housing and limited commercial use for humans. the amount of wildlife use will be severely limited especially for large mammals. Even large mammals are adaptable to human developments if adequate open space is available. When large animals are present in densely populated areas, Factors like animal -vehicle collisions and potentials for conflicts between animals and humans exists. The objective of this review was to make recommendations on where habitat connectivity could be developed or maintained. To address the wildlife habitat connectivity issues. two approaches are suggested. The first was to review the proposed development area to see if there were obvious places where habitat connectivity was feasible. The second was to address various types of wildlife crossing options for large. medium and small animals - and for aquatic organisms (fish and other water dependent species). The second option will be described in the report follow ing specific site recommendations. There w ill be no discussion Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 369 points in this section. The field review for potential wildlife connectivity areas was started on the west portion of the Willow Creek Road. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 370 INSTRU, td0.3L1CO' 53 ' RAGE .ORS`- t 2.2.1 Rose Gulch (A) There was viltually no defined stream channel and it appears that the stream rarely, if ever, runs water. Vegetation, even in the valley bottom was sparse. No recommendation is provided for this drainage. Opportunities for wildlife habitat connectivity are minimal to none. 2.2.2 Little Gulch (B) Has a slightly better defined stream channel with a small culvert. Vegetation is nearly absent near the Willow Creek Road. Livestock grazing has been heavy over a prolonged penod. There is minimal wildlife habitat and wildlife in this area. No recommendation is provided. 2.3.4 Big Gulch (C) Has a defined stream channel and 5 Coot diameter culvert going under the Willow Creek Road. The stream is mlernnuent and flows only, at high rainfall or snowinelt periods. Use by livestock is high and the riparian habitat degraded. When the steel culvert is replaced, a concrete box culvert at least 4 feet high by 4 feet wide is recommended. This would allow passage of small mammals (up to the size of coyotes and badger. not including mute deer), reptiles and Amphibians up and down Big Gulch. The Figure 6. Piute ground squirrel in Big Gulch. bottom of the structure should be below the stream grade so there is a natural soil substrate provided throughout the structure. Care should be taken to minimize or eliminate scounng at the dow nslream end of the road crossing and sand deposits at the upstream end. The riparian area should be restored. Wing -fencing should be al least four feet high with page wire that is 2" x 4" in diameter. Fencing would reduce the number ofsmail animals trying to cross the road and decrease road -kill. 2.3.5 South Fork of Willow Creek Road (D) There was water in the channel. which is fed by a small reservoir upstream. The channel is well defined but has been modi tied in various ways. Riparian vegetation had been removed by the present land -owner, however, there were still some willows and other brush in the channel. This stream channel is by far the best wildlife habitat for riparian species in the inlenor project area. The existing crossing structure bottom was completely covered by water. which would require some species to move over the road surface. If the present concrete bndge were replaced (figure 7). the recommendation would be to make the new structure 4-6 feet wider to allow small and mid- sized mammals to walk on either side of the stream. A bridge or concrete structure would be suitable. There also may be an opportunity in the future to work with land owners along Willow Creek to improve the nparian vegetation. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 371 Figure 7. Bridge al crossing of South Fork of Willow Creek. Bridge provides good fish passage, but limited passage for terrestrial species. Kenn Hardin from Environmental Conservation Services in photo. 3.0 General Guidelines for Wildlife and Aquatic Organism Crossings The following are some general guidelines for providing wildlife crossings and wildlife and aquatic habitat connectivity. They are useful whenever road or highways cross habitats that are important to terrestrial or aquatic species. The appropriate use of these "tools" Is up to the decision -makers, agencies, and their staffs. Not every road crossing is important as a wildlife habitat linkage. Some areas have too much habitat fragmentation. too few acres of useable habitat - or are of too little value to justify placing expensive structures for minimal gams. Having mentioned this. many nparian or riverine habitats are highly used by wildlife and often existing or new structures can be used effectively for minimal costs. Using existing drainage and other crossing, with additional fencing or other modifications, is called "retro-fitting" and often can provide substantial benefits with a fraction of the cost of "stand-alone" wildlife crossings. The other issue encountered in developments is using a recreational, bailie or other type of crossing to benefit wildlife. Each situation needs to be analyzed on the merits of the situation. Not every wildlife crossing is going to be an ideal situation. in fact, few are. Any opportunity to improve wildlife habitat connectivity and reduce road or highway mortality should receive serious consideration. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 372 Figmc 8, Ncwbeic wildlife ciossmg in Canada. Fencing with associated wildlife crossings has been shown to be an effective measure to substantially reduce large animal roadkill mortality and reduce highway, collisions (Romin and Bissonette 1996a). The efficiency of various structures to pass wildlife across highways continues to mount (Foster and Humphrey 1995, Clevenger and Waltho 2003, Gordon and Anderson 2003, Dodd et al. 2007a). There is little doubt that the most effective highway crossing structures are wildlife overpasses and large multi -span "eco-bridges", but these structures are also much more expensive than many DOT's can or will afford. One of the benefits of wildlife overpasses and "eco-bridges" is that they allow for habitat (grass, shrubs, and often tree cover) to extend over or under the highway. For large species like mule deer and elk, bridges are also favored for highway crossings. These structures are less expensive compared to wildlife overpasses and eco-bridges, but can still cost $3.000,000 per structure, or more. Large box culverts have many of the characteristics of bridges (relatively wide at the top of the structure, which allows light to penetrate). but are usually less expensive. Arches may be the least expensive structures. but also may be the least effective for some species (elk. moose. antelope). Arches and box culverts are readily used by common large species such as mule deer, black bear, and mountain lion. Species tend to use all types of structures more over time. This increase in use may extend for 10 years. or more, and make a decision for less costly structures a good alternative. If the animalsare resident to the area (as opposed to migratoly) and have access year-round to the crossing Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 373 structure. it is thought that they have more exposure and hence may adapt faster than ungulates that only see the structures two or three tines per year. Virtually all species (except antelope) use all of the structures defined above. The correct decision as to type and number of structures involves both economic and biological factors. Redundancy is often and impoltant aspect of wildlife crossing efficacy and 2 or _ structures are often recommended within a wildlife habitat linkage. 3.1 Terrestrial Wildlife Crossings Recommendations 3.1.1 Across -Grade Wildlife Crossings These are normally situations where traffic volume is relatively low and where wildlife crossing structures are eitltei too expensive. or otherwise nol feasible. Fencing may he employed to funnel animals across the highway grade at a specific point. The crossing location might he 50 to 100 feet wide to several hundred yards. The most sophisticated crossings have animal detection systems that are connected to wildlife watning signs that flash or light up only when animals arc in the right of way The "interactive signing" is needed because motorists will not slow down when standard wildlife sighs are used (Huilsci, et al. March 2009). The downside of across grade wildlife ctsslngs is that the defection systems now available only detect large animals the size of mule deer and elk (sometimes as small as coyote). The systems currently used often fiul for a vat iety of reasons ielating to maintenance, weather and equipment Figure 9. Inleraclne Higheay Sign (Sultrerlantl) failure. The good news is that the detection and interactive signing is getting better as equipment improvements continue. A recent development is called Electro-MATs whtLh arc placed across the highway so animals do not walk into the highway nght-of-way and get trapped by the fencing in the traffic lanes The Electro-1v1ATs provide a mild clectncal shock when animals try to cross them. The cost of an across grade wildlife crossing is not inexpensive, but is less than many highct cost structures would be Electric puwet is often provided by solar panels of directly off power lines when available (Gagnon, et al 2008). Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 374 INS'7T U. IvD�i(jIt75.-''- PAGELOFSf� 1 3.1.2 Small Culverts for Rep iles, Amphibians and Small Mammals These are usually pipes or box culverts 12" to 24" in diameter or width. These structures are adequate for frogs, lizards. salamanders. toads. small turtles. and mammals such as mice, voles. ground squirrels, badger and matniots (Fonnan, et al. 2003). Wing -fencing is almost always necessary and can be plastic, fabric, or woven wire 18" to 24" in height. Erosion fencing works well for this purpose (used to minimize sediment going into ditches and streams). Wire mesh of 1/4" to ! also can be used. Small pipes work better if a small amount of soil or sand is available throughout the length of the culvert to provide a natural. surface (Bank. et al. 2002, Clevenger etal 2001). Figure 10. Small cubed in 'The Netherlands used far badger and other small animals. Nate fencing. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 375 3.1.3 Medium-sized Culverts for Reptiles, Amphibians, and Small to Medium Sized Mammals This usually includes 24" to 36" pipes and box culverts (Forman, et al. 2003). Three -sided or box culverts are often better wildlife crossing structures than corrugated steel round pipes. since the bottom is flat. wider and more natural than corrugated steel. Concrete is also better than corrugated steel. The reasons for this are that concrete usually retains or absorbs some moisture. which is important to some species (especially amphibians) and provides a more natural -like surface. Soil, sand or gravel should be placed in the bottom of the structure to provide a more natural surface. Fencing is usually at least 36" tall, with approp I iate mesh size to avoid target species from crawling through the fence. Erosion control fencing provides a suitable barrier. Target species include animals up to raccoon (use at (east 36" pipes). badger. marmots. skunks and similar sized. or smaller animals. Coyotes and bobcats will use 36" culverts. but structures at least 48" wide and high provide more suitable crossings. Coyotes and bobcats will also jump three foot high fences. Concrete is the recommended structure material, but steel pipe with soil, gravel or sand will also suffice. Figure 11. Another example of a badger crossing from The Netherlands. Note that fencing is only 3 feet high. 1 his structure and fencing also nark xcll fur other small mammals and amphibians. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 376 Page 3.1.4 Four to Six Foot Culverts for Wildlife up to and Including Coyotes and Bobcats Round or box type (3-sided) culverts are recommended. Concrete is preferred, as are "box" structures. Fencing should be at least four feel high page wire with one or two strands of wire and cannot have areas where coyotes and bobcat will push under the fencing. All animals up to and including coyote and bobcat will use 48" structures, but mule deer will not use structures this small (Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007). 3.1.5 Large Animal Wildlife Underpass Crossings Size requirements for large animals like mule deer, bighom sheep, black bear and mountain lion are generally at least 10 feet high and 20 feet wide (or larger). Structures should be at least 12 feet high and 30 feet wide for elk. antelope and moose. Moose and antelope may require larger structures for consistent use - 14 feet to 18 feet high if possible. Both antelope and moose have been observed using the 12' x 30' crossing sizes, but scientific studies are not conclusive at this time as to structure size or types preferred (Clevenger and Waltho 2000, Dodd et al 2007a, Evink 2002, FOlman et al 2003, Gordon 2003, Hardy et al 2003, Ruediger et al 2007a, Ruediger and DiGiorgio 2007b, Watson and Klingel 2000). Figure 12. Wildlife underpass (box culvert) on the Copeland Project, Highway 95, north of Itonners Fern, Idaho. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 377 Page INSTRU. No,',5L(1p ..3N PAGES 514 q 3.2 Specific Types of Large Animal Wildlife Crossings 3.2.1 Steel or Concrete Arches These are generally the most economical of large animal underpass designs. Lower cost is a primary benefit of these structures. Since arches are narrow at the lop and wide at the bottom, the amount of direct and ambient light that penetrates the structure is lower than for either box culverts or bridges. All species use arch type structures. but more open designs are often recommended for migratory elk, migratory mule deer, antelope and moose. For resident wildlife such as mule deer and elk, arches provide an economical and effective wildlife crossing. Black bear, mountain lion and most mule deer readily use arch structures (Forman et al 2003). See fencing section. Figure 13. Sleet arch wildlife crossing on 1-15, Ulah. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 378 3.2.2 Three -Sided Boxes and Box Culverts These are intermediate in cost and effectiveness for all large species. The structures are wider at the top than arches and allow more light and interior room. All species are known to use adequate sized box -type wildlife crossings, including migratory elk, migratory mule deer, moose and antelope. Cost is usually slightly more than arches, but often worth the additional funds. See fencing section. Figure 14. Large box culvert wildlife underpass in France. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossme Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 379 3.2.3 Wildlife Bridges These are normally wide at the top and narrower at the bottom. Provide more light and interior space than either box culverts or arches. Also cost more (up to three times as much). Bridges are often recommended for high volume migratory elk herds, grizzly bear and are probably superior for moose and antelope because they are more open. Often used in four -lane highways or greater. Interstate Highways in combination with divided highways that minimize the length of structure encountered at any one time (Forman et al 2003). See fencing section. Figure 15. Wildlife bridge in Banff National Park, Canada. Bruce Leeson photo. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 380 3.2.4 Multi -Span Bridges (Eco-bridges or Viaducts) These structures are almost never built strictly for wildlife alone but provide high and wide bndges that may span large tloodplains, rivers or other habitat. Are often large enough that rain and light are adequate for vegetation to grow naturally under the structures. See fencing section. Figure 16. Multtspan hridgc near Vail, Colorado on 1-70. Provides excellent habitat and population connectivity. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 381 3.2.5 Wildlife Overpasses or Eco-passes These are extremely expensive, but effective wildlife and habitat connectivity structures. Since these structures span over highways, they are Tight and receive the same moisture and climate as surrounding natural habitat. Benefits Include having the habitat transcend the highway. which provides continuous plans and animal habitat connectnity. The larger or these structures, called ecopasses, are used to connect plant and animal communities and provide supel ior crossing opportunities for everything from invellebrates (including insects) to gntdy bears. Ecopasses are often used in Europe where they have been constructed for decades and are v. here acceptance of the extra cost is required or accepted. Ecopasses are generally 50 meters, or more in width and are planted sh ith vegetation similar to the surrounding area. including trees. Smaller wildlife overpasses are used where underpass locations are not available for mule deer. elk. moose. antelope, bighorn sheep and all camn-ores. Even these smaller structures provide small strips of native grass or shrub communities and superior to most underpass designs because they are completely open and have natural moon. sun and moisture regimes (Bank et al 2002). See fencing section. Figure 17. Wolverine overpass in Banff, Canada. Tony Clevenger photo. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 382 Page INSTALL N0,34 (.00" :$ 3.2.6 Fencing for Large Animals Fencing is an important aspect of wildlife crossings for large and small animals. Most animals are intimidated to cross under a highway through a structure that appears unnatural and even dangerous. Fencing forces animals to use crossings, rather than cross highways - which is dangerous for both motorists and wildlife. The usual big game fencing is 8 toot high page wire (stout wire) with sturdy poles (Clevenger et al 2001). Fencing is not an incidental parr of wildlife crossings; either from a planning or cost standpoint. Once a wildlife crossing type and size is determined, a detailed assessment of fencing needs to be conducted. Some fencing will likely be continuous (from one crossing to another) and most will likely be "wing -fencing", which is placed on all sides to a length that funnels most wildlife into the structure. There is no set length for wing -fencing. and it depends on topography and vegetation, target species, cost considerations and other factors. Wien, wing -fencing must be monitored for effectiveness and modified if a significant number of animals go around the structure and attempt to cross the highway surface (Dodd et al 2007c). Figure 18. Wildlife fencing on TransCanada Highway (far big game). Katie McDermott photo. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 383 INSTRU. .4t PAGES3a3OF 5ti C' In many situations , contractors do not have experience with building wildlife fencing and the result can be fencing that is too fragile or not constructed so that wildlife cannot enter the highway right-of-way. A good source of information on contracting species and wildlife fencing requirements is the following: MDT's website has their contract specifications, This information can be accessed al: ban: •www.intlt.int.iitw•other.csd'extemnl'us93 corridor snecialsOETAli S' Also at: �lttn: www.intIi.mt.euv other csd esternaf ttu93 corridor specials SECTION"••u OE For coyotes, badger and similar sized animals, three foot fencing will usually funnel animals the along highways, but individuals may dig under or climb these fences. Adding two wires on top will provide some additional security and will also dissuade mule deer from crossing if it is at lease 5 feet high. This is for wing fences and not recommended for big game crossings. even if mule deer are target species. 3.2.7 Fencing for Small Wildlife There are many situations where fencing will allow small wildlife species to move into stnuctures (could be either existing stream crossings or highway cross ditches) and avoid becoming highway mortality. Fencing for small wildlife is common in Europe but has not evolved in much of North Amenca (Banks, el al 2002). Often, fencing, used to indicate the right of way and control human and wildlife movement, is an existing element on highways. This fencing can incorporate features to funnel small wildlife species into structures and allow passage across highways. Small wildlife would include animals from appmximately the size of raccoons or smaller. Tt includes wildlife such as small carnivores (weasels, skunks, raccoon and badgers). squirrels. other rodents, snakes, turtles, frogs, toads and salamanders. These species are often not thought of as significant wildlife deserving of protection from road impacts but are part of the native wildlife that provide citizens with contact with nature. Small wildlife crossings are not as expensive as large wildlife crossings and can often he accommodated with little cost or effbl t. Fencing for coyotes, badger and similar sized animals should be al least three feel high and be anchored or tightened closely to the ground so animals do not find holes or dig under the fence. There are several fencing designs that will funnel wildlife through culverts or small crossings. These include. 1, Right-of-way fencing. This is often three to four feet high, using page wire (also called sheep fencing or hog wire). Instead of using normal sized mesh (4"x4") mesh size can he reduced to I"x2" for small mammals (down to large squirrel si7.ed wildlife). or even',i" x',u" for reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. Another option is using 18" of small (%'x',")mesh fencing attached to larger fencing. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 384 2. For only reptiles and amphibians, a stand-alone fence 18" to 24" high will funnel most species. Lizards may climb this fencing. Small (!b" x '4") wire mesh or cloth (similar to erosion fencing used on highways) can be used. Figure 19. Screening is used on the bottom half of this wildlife fence in The Netherlands to prevent amphibians and small mammals from crossing onto the highway surface. 3.2.8 Aquatic and Riparian Crossing Recommendations Riparian habitats are unusually rich in plant and wildlife abundance and productivity. Many highway and road crossings designed and built even a few decades ago considered only transmission of water. Later on, starting about 1970, emphasis began to be placed on culverts and hndges moving water and fish (usually adult trout or salmon) through structures. In the last two decades, knowledge of terrestrial and aquatic systems has grown and has changed the way many agencies view stream crossings. Now. there is emphasis on maintaining natural stream channels (with similar bottoms and grade as natural surrounding channels). passage of fish, other aquatic organisms and terrestrial species likely to use riparian channels. Many motorists take note that Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 385 IINSTRU. No.:33'-HJ53 ' FAeE .3(rat ( 1 road -killed wildlife is often most common near bridges and culverts that cross streams. This is because many animals use riparian corridors for travel. bun- wwv._fs.feel.us,ene Dabs talc StreninSimulatio intles..html hun: ,w vw.mass_env•dfweleriver:ndf•stream crossings bandbook.ndf Jinrr •www atnacc.ndu an:41 ndf tiles/guidelines river ,5tream crossines.ndf Figure20. Large bottomless arch on a stream on the Wenatchee National Forest (L SFS photo). Note: that the stream can move within the structure and small animals are allowed passage. Stream crossings provide an opportunity to allow aquatic and terrestrial animal passage. To allow passage the following should be considered- 1. A natural substrate (bottom) is recommended to allow fish, aquatic organism and terrestrial animal passage. 2. Adequate dry area is recommended on each side of the structure to allow a natural stream bank for animals needing to pass under the bridge. Ideally, this includes a wetted Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 386 perimeter next to the water for salamanders and other species that require damp habitat. There should also be adequate dry or upland habitat to allow target species to walk along the stream bank. 3. There should be enough height to the structure to allow passage of target species. Examples of heights necessary Include three feet height for species up to raccoon in size; four feet height for species up to coyote and bobcat, 10 feel height for species up to mule deer (includes black bear and cougar) and 12 feel height for elk and moose (and antelope until better research is available). 4. Fencing is recommended to funnel animals into the crossing structure and prevent them from accessing the highway. 5. Based on wildlife passage requirements, the best structures are often bottomless, such as bridges. three sided box culverts and arches. In situations where streams are intermittent. cement box culvel is and pipes are somewhat better for small animal crossings than corrugated steel pipes. Steel pipes are functional if a natural substrate is maintained in the structure bottom to facilitate fish and wildlife use. Getting soil into pipes and keeping it stable if water runs through the structure is challenging. 3.2.9 Bat boxes and Other Structures Useful to Wildlife on Bridges Bat boxes can be either designed Into, or added to bridges to provide roosting areas for bats. Other structural aspects of bridges useful to wildlife include places where swallows can attach mud nests and roosting areas on top of beams for owls and other birds. Bat Boxes - see the following websites- bun-•=www.hatcan.nel-new4 sarinl. a niele.nxn'anicleI I)-73&arwxleuerle-7 lour: nooks.tioone-cons-bookc"id-aSf11HiICGG(]'1C'Rne-PA14&Iise•:'PAt4Rrde -bridms-and_ +hat+hnxeg&snnrce-blots-l--Svl'HaW li&sie-(7,ClfinewOn-sie1)DnEhht W- 3rrniRu•Rr.hl^rmGri it17K5ai it SCiNA0 YNhC'-.it7+Fr.m^'^lux* rrvnit&nlsanm`9Ami—rra,i It#PPA31.M 1 hltn: www.dnr.state.mcl.us•wikllife hnis hnihoxes a,,n bun www.buconnre hhresearchcr 6v7n2-3,hnnl Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 387 4.0 Potential Funding Sources While we have identified a number of potential tools and guidelines that could be incorporated into future transportation and development projects, it is seldom that lack of options or information is the limning factor m implementing these types of projects, rather it is the cost. More specifically, it is the lack of funding. This section identifies several potential funding sources and opportunities that could be used in future projects. Please note, these are only a small fraction of the options available, and we should aggressively seek additional sources. One of. if not the largest funding source for projects of this nature is the DOT -Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). As part of the national environmental program the FHWA has developed the Streamlining/Stewardship toolkit, which identifies a number of funding opportunities and associated examples (FHWA 2009). These include hut are not limited to• • Federal Program Funding: • Funding Matches Through Parinenng; • innovative Financial Tools; and • Special Funding and Use of Funds within Programs. Examples and descriptions can be found at UAL: http:, ' www.environment. fhwa.dot.gov' ecologi cal'eco_app_b.asp In addition to these programs there is a number of potential funding or supplemental sources Including but not 'united to: • Transportation Related Taxes (Fuel, Registration, etc.); • Portions of Hunting Related Fees (Permits. Tags, etc.); • Federal and State grants; • Private Grants with share funding. • Use and Consolidation of Regional County Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT funds; • Senal Levy's; • Regional Impact Fees; and • Others. There are numerous potential funding mechanisms, and we should explore all reasonablemethods to secure regional funding for these types of projects, as this is a regional issue. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 388 5.0 Summary Wildlife and wildlife habitats are often neglected on both highway and development projects. The North Ada County development plan would provide for many wildlife species to continue within a matrix of homes, businesses and open space. There is presently the technology to address wildlife habitat moliality, wildlife habitat and population connectivity and protect muchof our wildlife heritage when designing highways and home developments. This report provides North Ada County with some of the tools to develop livable human communities that incorporate wildlife and nature. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 389 6.0 References and Literature Cited Bank, F. G., C. Leroy Irwin, Gary L. Evink, Mary E. Gray, Susan Hagood, John R. Kinar, Alex Levy, Dale Paulson, Bill Ruediger and Raymond M. Sauvajol. (2002). Wildlife habitat connectivity across european highways. Federal Highway Administration US Department of Transportation, Office of international Programs. FHWA-PL-02-011. 48 pages. Bissonette, J. A., and 1. Storch. 2002. Fragmentation: is the message clear? Conservation Ecology 6.14. Boulanger, J. 1999. Analysis of highway traffic volume and wildlife mortality for Storm Mountain Lodge environmental screening. In. Environmental Assessment for the Stoml Mountain Lodge redevelopment, Axys Environmental Consulting Ltd., Calgary, Albelia. Clevenger, A.P., ChrUSLCL, B., Gunson, K., & Wierzchowski, J. 2002. Roads and wildlife in the canadian rocky mountain parks - movements, mortality and mitigation. Final Report (October 2002). Report prepared for Parka Canada, Banff, Alberta. Clevenger, A., B. Chruszuz, and K. Gunson. (2001). Drainage culverts as habitat linkages and factors affecting passage by mammals. Journal of Applied Ecology 38: 1340-1349. Clevenger, A.P., B. Chruszcz, and K. Gunson. 2001. Highway mitigation fencing reduces wildlife vehicle collisions. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29: 646-653. Clevenger, A.P. & Waltho, N. 2000. Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in BanfiNational Park, Alberta, Canada. Conservation Biology 14.47-56. Clevenger, A. P., and N. Wahho. 1999. Dry drainage culveli use and design considerations for small- and medium-sized mammal movement across a major transportation corridor. In: Proceedings of the Third international Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by G.L. Evink, P, Garret and D. Zeigler. FL-ER-73-99. Florida Department of Transportation. Tallahassee, FL. Pages 263-277. Cramer, P. C., and J. A. Bissonette. 2006. Wildlife crossings in North America. The state of the science and practice. Pp. 442-447; In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, San Diego, California. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, NC. http.. %www.icoet.neVICOFT_2005,`proceedingsi06iPCh9-442-460.pdf Dodd, N.L., J. W. Gagnon, A. L. Manzo, S. Boe and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2007a. Evaluations of measures to minimize wildlife -vehicle collision and maintain permeability across highways - star route 260, Arizona. Final project report (2002-2006). Projects JPA 01- 152 and JPA 04 -024T. Arizona Game and Fish, Research Branch. 156 pages. Dodd, N. L., J. W. Gagnon, A. L. Manzo, and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2007b. Video surveillance to assess highway underpasses by elk in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:637- 645. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 390 Dodd. N. L., J. W. Gagnon. S. Boe. and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2007c. Assessment of elk highway permeability by Global Positioning System telemetry. Journal of Wildlife Management 71.1107-1117. Dodd, N. L., W. Gagnon. S. Boe. and R. E. Schweinsburg. 2007d. Role of fencing in promoting wildlife underpass use and highway permeability. In C. L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and K. P. McDermott. editors. 2007 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA. Dodd, C., W. Barichivich, L. Smith (2004). Effectiveness ofa barrier wall and culverts in reducing wildlife mortality on a heavily traveled highway in Florida. Biological Conservation 118. 619-631. Evink, G.L. 2002. Interactions between roadways and wildlife ecology: a synthesis of highway practices. NCHRP Synthesis 305. Transportation Research Board. Washington D.C. 78 pgs. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2009. Streamlining%Stewardship. Eco-Logical. An ecosystem approach to developing infrastructure projects. See URL http:,Iwww.environment.thwa.dot.gov,ecological eco_app_b.asp Forman. R. T. T.. and D. Sperling. J. A. Bissonette. A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Culshall. V.H. Dale, L. Farhrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.J. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Science and Solutions. Washington D.C.. Island Press. 481 pages. Fonnan. R. T. T. 2000. Estimate ofarea affected ecologically by the road system in the United States Conservation Biology 14-31-35. Forman. R. T. T.. and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29:207-231. Fumis, M.J., T.D. Roeloffs and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road constniction and maintenance. Pages 297- 323 in W.R. Meehan, editors. Influence of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Amencan Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Gagnon, J.W. N.L. Dodd, S.C. Sprague, K. Ogren and R.B. Schweinsburg. 2008. Preacher Canyon Fencing and Crosswalk Enhancement Project - Star Route 260, Payson, Anzona. Arizona Game and Fish Department. Research Branch. Phoenix, AZ. 66 pages. Gagnon, J. W. 2006. Effect of traffic on elk distribution. highway crossings, and wildlife underpass use in Arizona. Thesis. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff. USA. Garrison, B. A. 2005. Fragmentation of terrestnal habitat- an overview for wildlife biologists. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 41: 42-58. Gordon. K. M. 2003. Mule deer use of underpasses in western and southwestern Wyoming. In: 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transpoltation, edited Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 391 INSTRU. NO.4 ti7`� PAGES OF by C. Leroy 1rwm, Paul Garret. and K.P. McDemlOtt. Raleigh. N.C. Center for Transportation and the Environment. North Carolina State University. Pgs 309-318. Gunson, KE., A.P. Clevenger. 2003. Large animal -vehicle collisions in the central Canadian Rocky Mountains patterns and characteristics. In 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy irwin, Paul Garret. and KP. McDermott. Raleigh, NC' Center for the Environment, North Carolina State Univ.. 2003. Pgs 355-365. Hammond. C. and M.G. Wade. 2004. Mule deer avoidance: the assessment of real world enhanced mule deer signage in a virtual environment. Final Report. Minnesota Department of Transportation. St. Paul. Mmnesola. USA. Mailable from the Internet. URL http'ww•w.Inb.gen.mn.usrpdf200413.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2004. Hardy, A., A. Clevenger, M. Huijser, G. Neale (2003). An Over • iew of Methods and Approaches for Evaluatine the Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossing Structures: Emphasizine the Science and Applied Science. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transp01 union, Luke Placid. NY. August 24-29. 2003. Huijser. L.D. and J. Scheck. 1991. From implications to applications the dispersal corridor principle applied to the conservation of biological diversity. Pages 189-220 in D.A. Saunders and R.J. Hobbs. editors. Nature Conservation 2 the role of corridors. Surrey Beatty, Australia. Huijser, M.P. 2003. Animal detection systems research questions, methods and potential applications. 9 p. Proceedings of infra Eco Network Europe (IENE) Conference. Habitat Fragmentation due to Transportation Infrastructure & Presentation of the COST 341 action, 13 - 15 November 2003. Brussels, Belgium. CD-ROMs with the proceedings can he ordered from the Internet. URL. help ;,www.iene.tnfo Hmjser, M.P. and P.T. McGowen. 2003. Overview of animal detection and animal warning systems in North Atnenca and Europe. Pages 368-382 tin C.L. Irwin, P. Garrett, and KP. McDermott (eds.). 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment. North Carolina State University. Raleigh. NC. USA. Also available from the Internet, URL http..•www.itre.ncsu.edu,cle icoet 03proceedings.html Huijser. M.P., P.T. McGowen, W. Camel. A. Hardy, P. Wright. A.P. Clevenger. L. Salsinan and T. Wilson. 2006. Animal -Vehicle Crash Mitigation Using Advanced Technology. Phase I. Review, Design and implementation. Report No. FHWA-OR-TPF-07-01, Research Unit. Oregon Department of Transportation. Salem. OR. Available from the intern.eC http.• twww.oregon.gov'ODOT'TD•TP_RES ResearchReports.slilml Huijser. M.P.. J. Fuller. M.E. Wagner. A. Hardy. and A.P. Clevenger. 2007a. Animal -Vehicle Collision Data Collection: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 370. Project 20-05, Topic 37-12, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington DC. USA. Available from the intemet: http•, www.trb.org'news•blurb_detail.asp?id=8422 Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 392 Huijser, M.P.. T.D. Holland and M, Blank. 2007b. The comparison of Anneal Detection Systems in a Test -Bed• A Quantitative Comparison of System Reliability and Experiences with Operation and Maintenance. Intenm Report. 4W0049 Inlenm report, Western Transportation Institute - Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana, USA. Huyser. M.P. and A.V. Kociolek. 2008. Wildlife -Vehicle Collision and Crossing Mitigation Measures A Literature Review for Blaine County, Idaho. Report 4WI403A. Western Transportation Instihlto- Montana State University. Bozeman, Montana, USA. Huijser. M.P.. T.D. Holland. A.V. Kociolek, A.M. Barkdoll and J.D. Schwalm. March 2009. Animal -Vehicle Crash Mitigation Using Advanced Technology. Phase 11 System Effectiveness and System Acceptance. Federal Highway Administration RepOlt FHWA- OR-TPF-09-14. 162 pages. Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). 2008. Idaho Highway Wildlife Linkage al: blip: www.socialtext.net idahohighwaywildlifelinkage index.cgr Leeson. B.F. 1996. Highway conflicts and resolutions in Banff national park albe]ta. canada. m G.L. Evink, P.A. Garrett. D. Zeigler and J. Berry editors. Trends m Addressing Transportation Related Wildlife Moltality. FL-ER-58-96, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. 4 pages. Mills, S. L. 2007. Conservation of wildlife populations demography. genetics and management. Blackwell Publishers. 406 paces. Perry, C., and R. Overly. 1977. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains of Washington. Washington Game Department. Bulletin No. 11. Reed. D.F. 1995. Efficacy of methods advocated to reduce cervid-vehicle accidents research and rationale in North Amenca. Conference presentee lors du collogue international "Route et faune sauvage". Strasbourg. Conseil de ('Europe. 5-7 jinn 1985 and Sapporo. Reh. W. and A. Seitz. 1990. The influence of land use on the genetic structure of populations of the common Rana temporaria. Biological Conservation 54.239-249. Romin. L.A.. and J.A. Bissonette. 1996a. Mule deer -vehicle collisions. status of state ofmonitonng activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24.276-283. Romin. L.A., and J.A. Bissonette. 1996h. Temporal and spatial distribution of highway mortality of mule deer on new ly constructed roads at Jordanelle Reservoir. Utah. Great Basin Nahlralist 56 1-11. Rondini, C., and C.P. Doncaster. 2002. Roads as barriers to movement for hedgehogs. Functional Ecology 16.504-509. Row land, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K.Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2004. Effects of roads on elk - implications for management in forested ecosystems. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Naturals Resource Conference 69. in press. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 393 Ruediger. W.C. A. Aoude. C. Bailey, J. Chaney. P. Cramer, R. Crosland, R. Drnbntck, D. Fliant- S. Frye. A. Green. K. Hartman, B. Herrmann, J. Higgins. V. lcco, J. Jewkes. P. Jewkes, S. Marshall, L. Meade, D. Sakaguchi, H. Spoor, D. Waller and P. West. 2007. An assessment of wildlife habitat linkages on US 6 from 1-15 to I-70. Utah. Utah Department of Transportation Proj. No. SP-0006 (51) 172. 22 pages. Ruediger, B. and M. DiGiorgio. 2007. Safe passage. a user's guide to developing effective highway crossings for carnivores and other wildlife. USDA Forest Service, Federal Highway Administration, Wilburforce and Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project. 19 pgs. Ruediger, B. 2004. Carnivore conservation and highways' understanding the relationships, problems and solutions. In: People and Predators• From Conflict to Coexistence, edited by Nina Fascione, Aimee Delach and Martin E. Smith. Island Press. Pgs• 132-150. Ruediger. B. and J. Lloyd. 2003. A rapid assessment process for detennming potential wildlife, fish and plant linkages for highways. In: 2003 Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garret. and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, N.C. Center for Transportation aid the Environment, North Carolina State University. Pgs 309-318. Ruediger, B., P. Basting, D. Becker, J. Busick, P. Caville, J. Claar, K. Foresman, G. Hieinz. D. Kaiey, S. Kratville. J. Lloyd, M. Lucas. S. McDonald. G. Stockstad, J. Vore, K. Wall and R. Wall. 2004. An assessment of wildlife and fish habitat linkages on highway 93 - Montana. USDA Forest Service Publication #RI-04-81. 37 pgs. R. Ruediger and B. Ruediger. 1999. The effects of highways on trout and sahnon. Pages 151-159 in G.L. Evink. P.A. Garrett and D. Zeigler editors. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-673-99. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Servheen, C., Shoemaker, R. and L. Lawrence. 2003. A sampling of wildlife use in relation to structure variables for bridges and culverts under 1-90 between Alberton and St. Regis, Montana. Pages 331-341 in C. L. Irvin, P. Garrett, and KP. McDermott, technical coordinators. Proceedings of the International Conference on Ecology and Transportation. North Carolina Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh. USA. Spellerburg, 1.F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7:317-333.The Nature Conservancy. 2009.http: r/www. nature.org' wh ereweworkn01 t hameri ca states: ca li f orn in' preserves/art97 61.html Thomas. A. 1998. The effects of highways on western cold water fisheries. Pages 249-252 in G.L. Evink. P.A. Garrett. D. Zeigler and J. Berry editors. Proceedings of the International Conference on Wildlife Ecology and Transportation. FL-ER-69-98. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Tony Davis. 2009. Arizona Star. help:,;www.azstarnet.com/dailystar'274599 Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 394 Trombulak. S.C. and C.A. Fnsell. 2000. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14.18-30. Utah Department of Transportation. September 2005. US 6 final environmental unpact statement and section 4 (f) evaluation. UDOT Project Number SP-0005 (51) 172. Volumes 1 and II. Watson, M.. and J. Klingel. 2000. Literature summary assessing methods for reducing mule deer - vehicle accidents. New Mexico Department of Fish and Game Website. hltp. !www.wildlife.state.run.us-conservation habitat _handbook Mule deer- V ehicleAccident s. htm. West, P.W. June 7, 2006. Wildlife connectivity across Utah's highways. Utah Department of Transportation Report No. UT-06-09. 11 pages. Wilcox. B.A., and D. D. Murphy. 1985. Conservation strategy the effects of fragmentation on extinction. American Naturalist. 125. 879-887. Woods. J. G. 1990. Effectiveness of fences and underpasses on the Trans -Canada Highway and their impact on ungulate populations project. Report to Banff National Park, Environment Canada Parks Service. Banff. Alberta. Canada. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment• Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 395 INSTRU. I10 r 51-1 1P53q PAGES Ot,5-244-1 Appendix A: Boise Foothills Wildlife Checklist Mammals ICommon Name Scientific Name Masked shrew Sorex ciner-eus Viernam's shrew* Sorea- merrianu Dusky shrew Sores obscro-us Northern water shrew Sores palustr•is Vagrant shrew Sores ragrans California myotis Myntis califor•nicus Long-eared myotis Myotis erotis Little brown myotis Myons luc•ifugus Small -tooted myolrs Myons subulatus Fringed myotis* Myotis thrtsanodes Long-legged myous* Myotis rolans Yuma myotis Myotis 1'arnanensrs Silver -haired bat Lasionyeteris norttragans• Hoary bat Las iurus cinemas Big brown bat Eptesicusfilscus Western big -eared bat Plerouts townsendi Black hear Ucsus americanus Raccoon Procyon lotor Short -tailed weasel Mustela erminea Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 396 Lung -wiled weasel Mt:strla frcurrrlrur Mink Markin visor Badger Taxidea taxus Spotted skunk Spllogale putar•tiis Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Coyote Canis !unrolls Red fox rulpes firlva Mountain lion Fells eoncolnr Bobcat lyvrt rt fus Yellowbelly marmot Marmot('flavivenetris Porte ground squitrcl Sperrnoplulus ntollrs-irlalroensis Golden -mantled squirrel Citellus 'Wet -cults Foresi chipmunk Dutamia,s i in.imtts Yellow pine chipmunk Eirtamias atnoenus Northern pocket gopher Sciurus urger Thomomys lalpoides Great Basin pocket mouse Perognulhus parvus Ord's kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordi Mountain vole Micratus montanus Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys rnegalotis Mule decr mouse Peromvscus rnaniculatus Desch woodrat Nentoma lepido Meadow vole Richardson volt Microtus pennsylvanicus rtlicrotus richardsorri Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 397 INSTRU. No.:Sq(,,53Lf PAGESF 511 Y House mouse Mus n+uscu/us Porcupine £rerhi=on dorsatum Beaver Castor canadensis Snowshoe hare Lcpus americanus Black -tailed jackrabbit Lepus tali/ornieus Mountain cottontail Svh't/an+s nutta//i Pygnny rabbit * Syh ilagus idahoensis Rocky mountain elk Cervus elap/n+s Mule deer Odocoileus hem+ontcs• Pronghorn Antelope Antilocapra americana Birds Common Name Scientific Name Great blue heron Ardea he-odias Mallard Anas platyrhynochos Cinnamon teal Anas cvanoptera Turkey vulture Catharses aura Bald eagle* Haliaeetus leiteocepha/us Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Sharp -shinned hawk Accip+ter stt-tatus Cooper's hawk Accipt ter cooperii Northern goshawk* Aceipiter gentilis Red-tailed hawk Bureojamateensis Golden eagle* Aquila chtysaetos American kestrel Falco spat-oertus Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 398 Merlin* Falco colunbarius Peregrine falcon* Falco peregrmus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Gray partridge Perdix perdix Ring-necked pheasant Plrasianus colchicus California quail Colhpepla californica Virginia rail Rallus limicola American coot Fuhca Americana Kil!mule deer Charadrius vociferous Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularra Common snipe Gallinago gallinago Ring -billed gull harms delau-arerrsis California gull Larus californicus Rock dove Columba livia Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Common barn -owl Tyro alba Western screech -owl Onu kennicotnl Great horned owl Bubo vrrginianus Norlhem pygmy -owl Glaucidium gnonra Long-eared owl Asia ores Northern saw -whet owl Aegolius acadicus Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Black -chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Anna's hurmmingbird Calypte anna Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 399 Calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Belled kingfisher C'eiyle akyon Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes leuis Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus rarius auchalis• Downy woodpecker Picoides pubercenr Hairy woodpecker Pircnde.r vdlnrier Northern flicker Colapler auratur Olive -sided tlycatcher Contopus borealis. Western wood -pewee Contopur.sordidulur Willow flycatcher Enipidonar tratlii Say's phoebe Sayorni.c ,Tara Western kingbird Tyranmis nerticalis Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannies Tree swallow Tachycinata bicolor Violet -green swallow Tachyc meta thalassina Northern rough -winged swallow Stelgidopteryx se77 pennis Bark swallow Kiparia riparia Cliff swallow Ilirunda pyrronota Barn swallow Ilirunda rurtica Steller's jay Cyanoeitta rtellert Blue jay Cvanocitta crivara Clark's nutcracker Nueifraga eolutn/nana Black -billed magpie Pica pica Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 400 INSTRU NO:- 1R534t PACES�(j 0 `r American crow Corms brachyrhynchos Common raven Corms curax Black -capped chickadee Parts atricapillus Mountain chickadee Pants gambeli Red -breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis White -breasted nuthatch Sitta car•olinensis Brown creeper Certhia americana Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus House wren Troglodytes .sedon Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Marsh wren Cisthohorus palustris Golden -crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Ruby -crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Blue -gray gnatcatcher Pohoptila caerulea Townsend's solitaire Myadesres townsendi American robin Turdus migratorius Sage thrasher Oreoascoptes montanus Bohennan waxwing Bomhycilla garrulous Cedar waxwing Bonrbyc•illa redrornm Northern shrike Lanius excubitor Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludorrcianus European starling Sturnus vulgarly Solitary vireo Vireo solitarius Warbling vireo Vireo gdvus Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 401 Orange -crowned warbler Vernzivora celata Nashville warbler 6ermivora n�/ieupilla Yellow' warbler Dendrozca peyechia Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata MacGillivray's warbler Opor•ornis tolnrerei Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilln Yellow -breasted chat lc•te•ia rirens Western tanager Piranga /udoriciana Black -headed grosbeak Pheucucus melanocephalus Lazuli bunting Passerina anwena Rufous -sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus American tree sparrow Spizella arborea Chipping sparrow Spizella passcrnm Lark sparrow Chondestes granimacus Fox sparrow Pas.serella iliaca Song sparrow Melospiza nielodia White -crowned sparrow Zonou•rchia leucophrys Harris Sparrow Zonotrrchia guerilla Dark -eyed junco Junco hyemalis Red -winged blackbird Age!aius• phoeniceus Western meadowlark S'turnella neglecta Yellow -headed blackbird Xanthocephalus aant/rocephalus Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Brown -headed cowbird Molothrus ater Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 402 INSTRU. N {05 14 PAOESL 06-1.�. Northern oriole krerus galbula Cassin's finch Carpadacas cassrnri House finch Carpadacus nreric•anus Red crossbill Lasin can Trash cr Pine siskin Carduelis pines American goldfinch C'arduelis tristis Evening grosbeak Coccathraustes vespertinus House span -ow Passer domectrrus Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name Long -toed salamander Ambystonm macrodac•tyhan Western toad* Bufo boreas Woodhouse's toad* Bufo woodbausei Pacific treefrog Hpla regilla Striped chorus frog Pseudacris biseriata Bull frog Rana rateshiana Northern leopard frog* Rana pipiens Great Basin spadefoot toad Spea intermontanus Reptiles Common Namc Scientific Name Mohave black -collared lizard Crotaplivres brcincra•es Western skink F_umeres skiltonianus Longnose leopard lizard Ganibelia u•isli_emi Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 403 INSTRU.140 41-19 5.3q PAGES063.11. Short -homed lizard Sagebrush lizard Weslem fence lizard Side -blotched lizard Rubber boa Western whiptail Phyrnosoma douglassi Sceloporus graciosus Sceloporu3 occidental's Uta stanshuriana Charina hottae Cnemulophorus t'gris Racer Coulher constrictor Western rattlesnake Crotalus riridus Ringneck snake Diadophi.s punctatus Stnped whtpsnake Masncophu taeniatus Gopher snake Pituophis melanoleucus Wandering garter snake T hanntophis elegans vagrans Common gaiter snake Thanutophi% sittahs Fish Common Name Scientific Name Bluegill Leponns niae ochirus Trout Oncorynchus sp. Inland Redband Trout* Oncu'ynchus niyk'ss gairdnert Sculpins Cottus sp. Sunfish Centrarchidae Dace Rhinichthvs sp, Mountain Whitefish Prosopiuni willian,soni * indicates "Special Status Species" he Ada, Gem, and Boise County Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossine Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 404 Visit Digital Atlas of Idaho online to look up photos. descriptions. diet, ecology, etc. on each of these wildlife species •hun::.imnh.isu.edu -di uitalatlas index_btmt The US Geological Survey and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center have created an online bird identification. Northwest Ada County Wildlife Crossing Assessment- Page DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 405 APPENDIX D Avimor Development - Invasive and NoxiousWeed Management Plan This AD weed management plan follows the model set forth by the Ada County Comprehensive Noxious Weed Plan. The first priority of wecd management plan will be to establish weed management zones. All areas associated with each proposed project will be placed into one of four weed management zones: Zone 1 -Potential New hivaders Identified: There are no known infestations of the specific invasive or noxious weed in this designated zone so the target species will be treated as a potential new invader. Emphasis will be placed on an education, awareness, identification, recognition and monitoring program to prevent introduction. Zone 2 - New Invaders Exist: These are very limited infestations of specific invasive or noxious weeds in this zone so the target species will be treated as a new invader. Emphasis will be placed on a community -wide eradication and extensive monitoring program. • Zone 3 - Widespread but Limited Infestations Exist: The infestations of the specific invasive or noxious wecd in this designated zone will he treated as small enough that reducing the stand or the vigor of the infestation is achievable, Emphasis will be placed on arca- widc control with thc ultimate goal as being eradication. Zone 4 - Established Infestations: The infestation of the specific invasive or noxious weed in this designated zone will be treated as being so well established that eradication is impractical and uneconomical. Various treatment Alternatives will be utilized to control and contain the target species. Specific sites or rights -of -way will be designated within this zone for receiving special treatment considerations. Emphasis will be placed on Integrated Pest Management, resident education, and participation. A specific set of policies and guidelines will direct thc approach to managing weeds within each of the weed managcmcnt zones. The policies and guidelines for each zone arc presented below: Nns.• Weed Msj a,'e'inent {Lunt 11 1. Record source of weed species from other areas where potential introduction may occur. 2. Identify possible avenues or methods of introduction into the community. 3. Conduct weed tours and educational and awareness programs to alert construction crews, residents, land management agencies and the general public to be on the alert for these weeds. 4. Identify appropriate quarantine and exclusion procedures. 5. Utilize the University of Idaho's plant identification program for verification of suspected newly introduced weed species. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 406 IIVEflOine y a. Once a new weed is confirmed in the area, reclassify it to an appropriate category (Ii, TT, TV) utilizing the invasive and noxious weed management program. Weed control in Zone 1 areas will include education, awareness, identification, recognition and monitonng to prevent introduction(s) into the community. Noxious weed update meetings will be convened by the Conservation Director annually to update residents on the types of weeds to look for, how to identify invasive and noxious weeds. and where to report new occurrences. In addition, the Conservation Director will publish a list of those invasive and noxious weeds present in and around the community for distribution to all residents of the AD. The Conservation Director will inspect all occurrences of weeds in this zone within two days of the reported observation. Further. the Conservation Director will conduct ongoing inspections monthly during the growing season to identify new weed infestations. All new infestations will be mapped and logged into a data base for future reference and inspections. Nnrinuc. 'Nerd Moriararnr*it (Ynnw 7� 1. Target species confirmed in AD. 2. Identify extent of infestation(s) and boundaries. 3. Determine accessibility of infestation(s). 4. DeteImine feasibility of eradication, monitonng and treatment capabilities, invasive and noxious weed eradication is the goal in all Zone 2 areas. Weeds will be considered eradicated if the target invasive and noxious weed species is absent from the zone for a period of two (2) years. The Conservation Director will inspect all reports of weeds in this zone within two days of the first observation. Further the Conservation Director will conduct ongoing inspections of Zone 2 areas for any new weed infestations. When a new infestation occurs it will be mapped and logged into a data base for future reference and inspections, Community newsletters giving facts for the AD will be published and distributed as often as possible. Education will help residents identify early life stages of the weed species in these areas through annual invasive and noxious weed abatement meetings and -or brochures and pamphlets. Personal contact and consultation N%ith the Conservation Director will be made for each homeowner with an infestation in this category. ennc 1Veed Man:1Uttttenr ('Lour 31 I. Determine that under existing programs the target species cannot be eradicated in two years due to the large number or size of infestations. 2. Deteltnine extent of infestations. Control will be community -wide to reduce the vigor and stand of the infestation with the ultimate goal of eradication. Integrated methods of control will be incorporated, including, but not limited to, agreements with and extensive landowner participation and monitoring. Weed complaints will be inspected within two working days of the complaint and processed as any other infestation within the respective category. The Conservation Director will conduct ongoing inspections of the county for the purposes of identifying new weed infestations in this category. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 407 rlla. I -TRU NC-? PACES 0 -f-7 `-0E-5q Infestations will be mapped and logged into a data base for future reference and inspections. Each homeowner with weeds in this category present on their parcel will receive consultation by the Conservation Director on how best to control the weeds. Community newsletters giving facts for the AD will be published and distributed as often as possible. Educational community meetings set up by thc Conservation Director will help residents identify early life stages of the weed species in these areas. Personal contact and consultation with thc Conservation Director will be made for each homeowner with an infestation in this category. Nn►'inuc Weed Management ('lone 41 I. Determine the extent ofinfestation(s). 2. Determine that target species cannot be eradicated within two years. 3. Determine containment possibilities. 4. Determine identifiable and defensible boundaries. 5 Determine technical, economical and manpower considerations. 6. Determine environmental and wildlife considerations. 7. Determine integrated wccd managcmcnt principles to be utilized. 8. Determine appropriate zones. Control treatments will be Alternatives ranging from no action to several levels of integrated weed management, including prevention, eradication, restoration. Invasive and noxious weeds will continue to be an ongoing issue at the proposed AD duc to established infestations, initial construction ground disturbance, and increased population and recreation levels. Invasive and noxious weed managcmcnt goals for thc AD development and the Conservation Director arc as follows: • • • • Control the current spread of noxious and undesirable weeds at the AD, map existing locations, and keep rccord of species present Prevent new infestations, monitor the effectiveness of control measures and adapt new management strategies and control measures as necessary; Meet state and fcdcral safety guidelines for the use of prescribed burning and chemicalapplication; and Work and coordinate with Ada County, state, and federal weed supervisors on wecd control and mapping. The Conservation Director will be responsible for the development and implementation of an invasive and noxious weed management plan. This weed program will he implemented and carried out indefinitely. This program will utilize various treatments including mechanical, chemical, and biological. For example, spot spraying of weeds in areas with established native species will likely reduce competition for limited resource and increase the ability of young natives to establish and reproduce. however, the use of herbicides can have adverse effects on native spccics. as well; therefore, mechanical and biological controls will be used as much as possible. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 408 iln:17,U, i.;03.al.L54- PAQE QJr17. ScIyr Biological control agents will be utilized to the extent possible in order to manage and control invasive and noxious weed spccics. While invasive and noxious wccd spccics can bc reduced with chemical and mechanical trcatmcnts, these require significant amounts oftimc and resources, and can result in adverse impacts to remnant native populations. Bio-control agents are often species - specific and have limited effects on other spccics. In addition, these trcatmcnts arc less time and resource consumptive, and can affect a very large arca with a minimal application. The Conservation Director will pursue the use of a burrowing weevil (Bradyrrhoa gilveolella) to control and reduce rush skeleton wccd populations. Rush skeleton weed is a dominant noxious wccd spccics in the arca. The release of this burrowing weevil in the area could have a significant affect by limiting the spread of an extremely aggressive weed species, while having little or no effect on any other species. This is only one example of a successful biological control that could be used in the area. Initial and continuous trcatmcnts (mechanical, chemical, and biological) of the arca will bc required to control and manage these invasive communities. However. the primary factor in managing the establishment and spread of new populations will be education and support of the residents of the community and thc public. An aggressive education program will bc emphasized so that residents and thc general public arc aware of the impacts from these spccics on native communities and wildlife. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 409 I TfV.IWO (1r,S3 PACES OP`1 Appendix E Avimor Recreation Plan Executive Summary The following plan describes the existing and future planning guidelines for use and maintenance of the Avimor Planned Community Trail System. The goal of this document is to provide an outline of designations to provide a quality recreational experience within a conservation driven community. In the event there is a conflict between the recreation plan and the Avimor Wildlife Mitigation Plan (WMP), the WMP shall govern in all regards. The Avimor Recreation Plan (ARP) outlines use designations associated with user safety and wildlife habitat management; and trail maintenance/ sustainability guidelines. The intent of the ARP is to create a sustainable trail system and limit user conflicts and impacts to wildlife and associated habitat. The ARP also outlines the decision proccss for reviewing races, developing annual work plans, recommendations regarding, new trails or designs, and seasonal closures. These ideas will be submitted to or by the Avimor Trail Board (ATB). The ATB will make recommendations to the Avimor Conservation Advisory Committee (ACAC) (See Avimor WMP). Some of trails in the Avimor Trail System arc within an casement held by Ada County. Any recommendations for races, annual work plans, the development of new trails, and seasonal trail closures within an easement held by Ada County must be approved by the Director of Ada County Parks and Waterways. Amendments, modifications andlor repeal of the recreation plan shall be made pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6509 and Ada County Code. This plan is intended to create a proccss that provides for changing needs and conditions of the community and the trail system. As recreational patterns, regional trail systems, and adjacent landownership changes, the ARP process will adapt to the needs and opportunities to provide the best user experience and recreational opportunities while maintaining conservation goals. User Designations and Guidelines The Avimor trail system is open for use to the general public. A wide range of recreational opportunities exist throughout the trail system for all types of trail users. In an effort create the most enjoyable recreational experience while balancing conservation requirements, user safety, and trail limitations or impacts, Avimor has developed use designations for specific areas and trails. Understanding that this may restrict some users from desirable areas and trails, it is the best way to try to manage user conflicts and provide the best overall user experience for all user types. Avimor Planned Community Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 410 Page I of 7 In addition to designating areas and trails to reduce user conflicts, portions of the trail system will be restricted during the winter months approximately (December 1 through March 1) for critical wintering areas for elk, mule deer, and migratory bird populations. The upper elevations of the trail system are one of the largest areas in the Treasure Valley for wintering population of elk and mule deer. Restricting access will reduce user/wildlife interaction which often results in wintering animals using essential energy reserves needed to survive the winter. Some designated lower elevation trails will be available for use on a limited basis throughout thc year. Trail use and big game movement will continue to be monitored and any adjustments needed to protect the big game populations will be addressed. User Types Although open to public use, the Avimor trail system is on or granted access through its private lands. To maximize thc user experience and preserve the natural resources on the land, Avimor has designated some areas by user type, season of use, and limited motorized uses. Trail users may include hikers and wildlife viewers, mountain bikers, equestrians, on and off -leash dogs, and controlled hunting and use of motorized vehicles. Use Designations Seasonal Closures - The majority of the Avimor trail system will be shut down from approximately December 1" to March 1" every winter to help protect wintering big game (elk and mule deer) and migratory bird populations within the Avimor properly. Special use permits can be obtained for use of these trails during this time, and somc lower elevation trails will remain open, conditions permitting, for year-round use. During unusually harsh winters (heavy snowfall and cold temperatures) these trails may also be restricted based on movement of big game to lower elevations. Based on big game movement patterns and prior years monitoring of wintering areas, the trails that will be available for year-round use are: • All internal walking paths within the Avimor Village development (pathways within the development); • All Heritage Park Trails; • Trail 2 — Ricochet- entire trail; • Trail 3 — Whistling Pig- entire trail; • Trail 5 — Shooting Range- portion of trail south of posted closure; • Trail 7 — Knecht Loop: entire trail; • Trail 9 — Spring Valley Creek Trail- open from the trailhead to the canyon gate (posted annually); • Trail 10 — Burnt Car Draw Trail- open from trailhcad to junction with trails 16 and 18a (posted annually); • Trail 18 and 18a — Ranch Access Road to RAC/Harlow Connector Avunor Planned Community Page 2 of 7 Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 411 These trails will provide recreational users the opportunity for some scenic loops used for hiking, biking, and equestrian opportunitics, while protecting wintering big game and migratory bird populations. The availability of trails may vary dependent on weather conditions and future monitoring of big game. If the winter snow line is low or persistent, or big game are found to use these arcas frequently for winter bedding and foraging, access may be restricted bascd on an index developed by the ATB/ACAC in conjunction with the IDFG. Regardless of conditions, all trail users must comply with seasonal closures and closures are subject to change at the discrepancy of the Conservation Director and the ATB/ACAC. Hikers/Foot-traffic- Trails in the Avimor trail system arc open for all hikers and other foot traffic. However, hikers must comply with the season closures listed in the prior section and usc best judgement and available recommendations from ATB in determining whether conditions on open trails arc suitable for use (e.g., not extensively muddy). Mountain Bikers - Currently, all trails in the Avimor trail system are available for usc by mountain bikers. Future plans could include directional trail use, such as downhill only, which would reduce potentially dangerous encounters. At this time, there is one downhill -only trail (i.e., Pick Your Poison). If problems with encounters are present, the ATB may recommend directional flow to increase safety for all trail users. In the case of direction designations, signage will be posted to inform and direct users to proper use and alternative routes. EBikes are allowable on Avimor trails and are not currently considered to be a motorized vehicles unless otherwise deterniined by a separate landowner/manager (e.g., BLM) or by the ACAC in the future. Equestrian - The majority of trails in the Avimor trail system are available for equestrian trail users with a few exceptions. Some trails have been designated for foot traffic and mountain biking only to reduce user conflicts or maintain trail integrity. Equestrian -accessible trails are updated on the Avimor wcbpagc at: https://www.avimor.comrtrails-and-outdoors Future trails could be restricted from equestrian use in order to maintain public safety and trail integrity. Motorized Vehicles - All motorized vehicles use in the Avimor trail system is by special permit only. In order to monitor and promote sustainable use by motorized vehicles, Avimor has decided to permit a fixed number of motorized vehicle users per day. All motorized vehicle use on Avimor trails is restricted to designated routes, i.e. no off road or cross country travel is permitted. A day permit can be acquired at the Avimor administrative office. Once a special use permit is acquired, motorized vehicle users are allowed to access the following Avimor trails: Avunor Planned Community Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 412 Page 3 of 7 INSTilU, NO.-S `ICP,s31� PAcESop5---/L-/ • All existing two -tracks; • Trail 10 — Bumt Car Draw Trail; • Trail 13 — Fiddleneck Ridge Trail; and • Trail 14 — Stack Rock Ridge Trail. Motorized vehicle use associated with emergency medical services (EMS), trail maintenance activities, or permitted livestock operations arc exempt from the restrictions. Dogs Dogs are permitted on all trails in the Avimor trail system. However, to prevent user conflicts, protect wildlife, and ensure the safety for dogs and other trail uscrs, off -leash restrictions exist on some trails. All dogs will be on leash on all trails from December 1 to May 1, with the exception of any designated off -leash dog area. The on -leash restrictive time period is extended beyond winter trail closures to cnsurc wildlife safety and to protect nesting birds in Avimor. Some wildlife may be present near opcn trails during this time of year and off -leash dogs threaten winter survival by chasing or disturbing wintering wildlife. Currently, from May I to November 31, controlled off -leash dogs arc allowed on all Avimor trails with exception of the following trails which are on -leash year round only for uscr safety and to reduce uscr conflicts. • Trail 1- Willow Creek Trail; • Trail 9- Spring Valley Creek Trail (Canyon Portion Only); and • Trail 10a- Harlow Hallow Connector. Additional trails may be designated as on -leash year round in order to maintain user safety and to reduce user conflicts. Hunting In the past, Avimor had a depredation hunt with a number of tags for big game within their property. While Avimor is not currently part of the Idaho Fish and Game's depredation hunt, it could be in the future, and Avimor does have access to a number of privately held tags for their properly. Like motorized vehicles (see above), hunting is only allowed via specialized permission, inquire al the Avimor administrative office. Use of motorized vehicles during hunting season will be restricted, with the exception of permitted use for disabled hunters and game removal on an as needed basis. All motorized vehicles will stay on designated trails, and hunting directly from any motorized vehicle is strictly prohibited. Signs will be posted to alert all trail users that hunting season is open and educated users and hunters about safety measures to take while hunting in the Avimor foothills. Trail Design Guidelines and Maintenance For any new trail construction or re-routing of trails at Avimor, general trail building guidelines will be followed during each step in the planning and construction process. Following the Avimor Planned Community Page 4 of 7 Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 413 INISTRU. WO.3 1 p53 PAGES 4r L? ! general guidelines will help create a more sustainable and user friendly trail system, while reducing maintenance or reconstruction requirements of faulty trail design and construction. Trail design should follow the five essential elements of sustainable trails as presented in the US Forest Services trail design parameters (http://www.fs.fed.us!recreation/programs/lrail- management%trail-fundamentals/National_Design_Paramcters_10_16_2008.pdf). Although certain stretches of new trails may require deviations, the following live principals should bc used during planning and construction of all new trails at Avimor, 1. The Half Rule. The grade of the trail should not exceed half the grade of the hillside or side slope that the trail traverses. Trails that exceed the half rule are considered fall -line trails and encourage waterflow down the trail rather than across it, increasing probability of erosion damage. 2. The Ten Percent Average Guideline. On average the overall trail grade ([elevation gain/trail length] x's 100) should not exceed 10 percent. Although some trail segments may exceed ten percent grade, the general rule for a sustainable trail is an average of ten percent over the length of the trail. 3. Maximum Sustainable Trail Grade. Although the ten percent rule is a general rule for an entire trail, determining a maximum grade (typically 15-20 percent) for trail segments should bc determined in planning based on site specific factors: • Half talc; • Soil type; • Rock; • Annual rainfall; • Grade reversals; • Types of users; • Number of users; • And difficulty level. 4. Grade Reversals. Grade reversals arc spots in the trail where a climbing trail levels out then changes direction, dropping subtly for up to 50 feet before rising again. The change in grade allows water to exit the trail at the low point, reducing erosive power of water running down the trail. Depending on soil stability, grade reversals should be placed every 2010 50 feet. 5. Outslope. When a trail contours across a hillside, the downhill edge of the tread surface should tilt slightly down and away from the high side of the trail, promoting water flow across the trail rather than down the trail. A general rule is to build all trails with a 5- percent outslopc. In looser soils, i.c. sandy soils, frequent gradc reversals will aid in cross -trail drainage. In addition to using these five design guidelines, all new trail construction will require input and approval from the ATB and the ACAC. AV] mor Planned Community Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 414 Page 5 of 7 Annual Trail Maintenance Trail maintenance is a critical component to a sustainable trail system. As such, an annual work plan will be developed by the ATB and submitted to the ACAC. The annual work plan will outline the dales, recommended actions, and associated justification for more intensive maintenance actions throughout the trail system. Intensive maintenance actions include, but arc not limited to: trail diversions or reroutes; projects associated with wetlands/riparian areas; and new construction projects. In contrast, routine maintenance actions will not be included in the annual work plan, and do not require approval from the ACAC. Routine maintenance actions include, but arc not limited to: light mechanical vegetation control to include pruning, grubbing, lopping, and hand pulling; noxious weed control; and minor erosion control and emergency trail stabilization. However, these actions will still require approval from the ASO (land owner) prior to implementation. Annual Race Events The Avimor trail system has a long history with organized mountain biking race events and will continue to do so. However, as the population of the region continues to grow with thc use of the Avimor trail system, it will be imperative that future races are well organized, have a minimal effect on the public use of the trail system (temporal or spatial), and result in a net gain for the trail system. As such, the number of annual race events will not exceed five (5) in any calendar year, with two of the five reserved for the Knobby Tire Series and Broken Spoke Cycling. Regardless of the applicant, all races will go through the ATB application process and be submitted to the ACAC for approval no later than September 1 of each year. Some exceptions may apply; however, the ASO reserves the right to disapprove any applicant. If a race occurs on a trail within an Ada County casement, the Director of Ada County Parks and Waterways will need to approve of the race and proper liability insurance as determined by Ada County shall be obtained. Avimor Trail Board The ATB is made up of one representative from each of the following groups: the ASO, Avimor Home Owners Association (HOA), Avimor Trail Coordinator, thc Avimor Conservation Director (CD), and a member for each of the following user groups: equestrian, running, biking, and one at large. The purpose of the rcvicw board is to monitor trail use, identify and address any concerns or conflict, develop the annual work plan, and to review and make recommendations on proposed trail developments and raccs. The ATB will meet on a bi-annual basis or more often if the need arises and can conduct business (e.g., new trail reviews) via email communication, as necessary. The board will make professional recommendations on trail designations, new construction, maintenance issues, and conflicts, which will be presented to the ACAC (Figurc 1). The ACAC will review the trail Avimor Planned Community Page 6 of 7 Recreation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 415 irdSTfu. NO. - (7 j5 3 board's reconunendation and make the final ruling on any issues or proposed changes to the trail system and its users. Modifications andior amendments and/or repeal of the recreation plan must be made pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6509 and Ada County Code. Avimor Trail Board Process Applicant (Start) • User Group or Individual Proposes Project (Trail, Race, or Other) • Projects Require Location Map, Timetable, Funding Mechanism, Maintenance Plan, and Net Benefit Mechanism ACAC (Finalize): Avimor-HOA, ASO, and CD; Ada County; IDFG; BLM; NRCS; and ASWCD • Reviews and Approves Changes to Avimor WMP, Fire Plan, and Development Agreement • Reviews and Approves Changes to Avimor Recreation Plan (Additional Trails, Seasonal Closures, Trail Designations, etc.) • Reviews and Approves Annual Work Plan and Races Figure 1: Avimor Trail Process Flow Chart. Armor Trail Board (Avimor Lands Only): Avlmor-ASO, HOA/TC, CD; Reps from: Equestrian, Run/Hike, Blke, and AL. IDFG/BLM/Ada County as needed *Reviews Trail Applications and Races, makes recommendation to ACAC *Recommends Changes to Recreation Plan (Additional Trails, Seasonal Closures, Trail Designations, etc.) •Makes Recommendation to the ASO •Develops Annual Work Plan (Trails O/M) •Works with BLM and Other Adjacent Land Owners Funding Funding for all trail projccts, including trail construction, maintenance, signagc, and kiosk will he provided by a combination of funds from the Avimor Conservation Fund, external partners, and by actively pursuing grant money from local, slate, and federal agencies. Ada County holds some casements within the Avimor Planned Community. Ada County explicitly retains authority as to whether the County will appropriate funding, including but not limited to trail construction, maintenance, signagc, and kiosk for the casements that Ada County holds. A large portion of work to be done on the trail system has and will continue to be completed through volunteer efforts and community support/building projccts by Avimor residents and the surrounding communities. AA imor Planned Community Recitation Plan May 2017 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 416 Page 7 of 7 Appendix F: Avimor Fire and Vegetation Management Plan "JP I-30-2023 Introduction Currently, there is no defined Wildland-Urban Interface district or associated ordnances within the City of Eagle or the City's Arca of Impact. Based on the high probability of wildland fire in the foothills surrounding the proposed Avimor Development area, Avimor Development has developed its own Wildland Urban Interface requirements which are outlined m this Fire and Vegetation Management Plan. The Avimor Wildland Urban Interface requirements are based on the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards for Reducing Structure, the principles from Ignition Hazards from Wildland Firc-I 144 (NFPA 2018) and guidelines outline in the 2018 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC). The proposed Avimor Firc and Vegetation Plan requirements incorporate components of the existing Wildland-Urban Interface requirements, requirements identified in the Avimor Habitat Management Plan, and additional management tools identified by the Firewise USAg recognition program. The plan provides guidelines for Avimor Homeowners, and steps to be taken by the Homeowners' Association and Avimor Conservation Director to mitigate or reduce the potential risk of wildfire and to improve the health and stability of the surrounding vegetation and wildlife habitat. Additionally, in 2008 and prior to any homes being occupied, Avimor became the first planned community in Idaho to be recognized as a Certified Firewisc USA® Site. As part of this recognition, Avimor must complete a re -certification process annually. This process includes providing information including, but not limited to: the number of units inhabited within the development, estimated number of total residents, updated fire protection plan (i.c., this plan). and the amount of funding, committed to Firewise practices within the year. This re -certification is then reviewed by a Certified Wildfire Mitigation Specialist assigned to the region for accuracy and adequacy. This plan will be used by Avimor in this recertification process so they can continue to be in good standing as a Certified Firewise Site. This plan will be submitted for review by the Eagle Firc District Chief, City of Eagle staff, and the City of Eagle Building Department for approval. The intent of this Avimor-specific Firc and Vegetation Management Plan is to develop a plan that satisfactorily addresses structural, landscaping, and open space standards for residential and commercial development within the Wildland-Urban Interface. Site Description The proposed Avimor Development is located in parts of eastern Ada County, western Boise County, and southern Gem County Idaho in Townships 05 and 06 North, and Range 01 and 02 East (Figure 1). The Avimor Development is approximately 19,000-acres in size and is surrounded by private, state, and public lands. The properly is bisected by Highway 55, north of Dry Creek Road and South of Horseshoe Bend. Portions of the South Fork of' Willow Creek, Alkali Creek, Big Gulch and Gulch Creeks, Woods Gulch Creek. Spring Valley Creek, Custer Creek run through the properly, as does roughly 4.5 miles of Pear Road. Elevation ranges between approximately 3,200 and 4,500 feet above mean sea level. The Avimor Development property is primarily used for agricultural purposes, including an alfalfa field and paslures'opcn range for domestic livestock grazing. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 417 Ii vl„!1. ND.1/4 PACES1.40/Y— The proposed Avimor Development will incorporate residential housing, commercial space, sporting and recreation facilities, as well as parks, natural open areas, trails, paths, roads, and natural open space. As each Preliminary Plat is submitted to the City of Eagle, all residential, commercial units, or super pads will be defined as either an external or internal unit relative to natural open space. In 2022, Avimor Development entered into a water service agreement with the City of Eagle. In which the City of Eagle Water Department will provide water for the development needs, such as fire flows, with Avimor Development providing the water rights and infrastructure to serve the development. Avbnai Prop•rty Dralapnxit Ana oo Dbe, 2O1I011 Figure 1. Vicinity Map — Avimor Development Viceetation The plant communities and associated species composition found within the Avimor Development are those commonly found throughout the western portion of the Snake River Plains (See Avimor Habitat Management Plan Section 4.0). Based on the amount of arca with similar habitat found throughout the Snake River Plains (millions of acres), the Avimor Development (19,000-acres) is only a very small fraction of that area. The Avimor Development area generally supports five vegetation communities: riparian, grassland, shrub, agriculture, and disturbed; and one non -vegetative community, rock (Table I and Figure 2). These communities were determined by the dominant vegetation or characteristic present (Avimor Habitat Management Plan Section 4.0). In addition, past and current use and disturbance, as well as defining boundaries including roads, slope, and aspect were also DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 418 +IISTRU.t;g?U10.s PAGES nrSI� considered. Table 1 quantifies the amount and percent of each community type found within the proposed Avimor Development boundary. Table 1. General Vegetation Community Types within the Avimor Development Community Type Total Acres Agriculture 290 Disturbed Grasslands Riparian Rock Shrubs Total Acres 160 16,183 380 7 2,000 19,056 Percent 1.52% 0.84% 84.92% 1.99% 0.04% 10.50% Figure 2. Vegetative Communities within Avimor Development. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 419 IMat U. t4 PAGESWIOF Fuel Models (IWU1C) Based on the vegetative communities present within the Avimor Development (Table l and Figure 2), there are only three fuel models identified by the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWU1C), which are described below: • Fuel Model A- This fuel model represents western grasslands vegetated by annual grasses and forbs. Brush or trees may be present but are very sparse, occupying less than a third of the area. Examples of vegetative communities within the Avimor Development where Fucl Model A should be used are where chcatgrass (Bromus tectar ni) and mcdusahead (Taeniutherum cuput-niedusue), along with annual fortis, such as tall tumble mustard (Sisvmbrium alms -mum), occur. Open pinyon -juniper, sagebrush -grass, and desert shrub associations may appropriately be assigned this fuel model if the woody plants meet the density criteria, though this community type occurs only sparsely within the property. Due to the annual nature of vegetation communities included in this Fuel Model, the quantity and continuity of the ground fuels vary greatly with rainfall from year to year. • Fuel Model L- This fuel model is meant to represent western grasslands vegetated by perennial grasses. The principal species are coarser and the loadings heavier than those in Model A fuels. Otherwise, the situations arc very similar: shrubs and trees occupy less than one-third of the area. Conversely to Fucl Model A, the quantity of fucl in these areas is more stable from year to year. In sagebrush areas, Fucl Model T may be more appropriate (described below). • Fuel Model T- The sagebrush -grass types of the Great Basin and the Intermountain West are characteristic of "T" fuels. The shrubs in the model burn easily and are not dense enough to shade out grass and other herbaceous plants. Under Model T, shrubs must occupy al (cast one-third of the site. Where shrubs occur at proportions less than one- third, the A or L fuel models should be used. Of these models, the predominant fuel type directly adjacent to the development is Model A, with scattered patches of Model T throughout, and only limited patches of Model L (Figure 2). Fire Hazard Severity f IWIJICI Based on the fuel models identified for the site and compliance with access and water supply requirements identified in the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code, the fire hazard severity was determined by completing the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code Fire Hazard Severity Forum (Appendix B). This hazard rating is also updated periodically as part of the Firewise community re -certification to capture potential long-term changes in vegetation conununities over time or due to large disturbances, such as recurrent wildland fire. Avimor was determined to have a moderate to low hazard rating. Avimor-Specific Fire Management Plan Construction Guidelines and Maintenance of Defensible S ace Based on the high probability of wildland fire in the foothills surrounding the proposed development areas, Avimor has developed its own Wildland-Urban interface requirements, outlined in this Fire and Vegetation Management Plan. The Avimor Wildland-Urban Interface DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 420 requirements are based on the National Fire Protection Association Standards for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire-1144 (2018) and guidelines outline in the 2018 International Wildland-Urban Interface Codc. Under this Plan, perimeter residential units within the development must comply with the ignition -resistant construction codes identified in Chapter 5 sections 501 through section 505 of the international Wildland- Urban Interface Code, as amended (Appendix A). In addition to being built to the standards outlined in Appendix A, residential and commercial structures directly adjacent to natural open space, as defined for each preliminary plat, will also be required to have: 1) landscape plans reviewed and approved by a certified specialist (c.g., Fircwisc Certified Landscaper), 2) have all landscaping modifications go through an approval process directed through the HOA, and 3) Firewise home inspections every 5-years conducted by a subject -matter -expert with experience in Firewise concepts and wildland fire mitigation. Firewise home inspections include a detailed assessment of the landscape features around the home, non -vegetative hazards that may exist (i.e., propane tanks, pergola structures, etc.), and recommendations (or requirements) to the homeowner for corrective measures to maintain compliance with Firewise guidance. Firewise home assessments will be tracked annually with an integrated gco-database and an annual summary report will be given to the City of' Eagle and Eagle Fire district during the annual Conservation Advisory Committee meetings (Avimor Habitat Management Plan Section 6). Prior to final plat for each preliminary plat, lots that will require Firewise home assessments will be identified and added to the database. All units directly adjacent to areas of natural open space will permanently maintain defensible spaces in accordancc with the zoning plan identified in Figure 3 and described below. /ow 2 Pro ix- tt1 Iin..' )( X X X )( )( )( X X )( )( ;t Figure 3. Defensible Space Fuel Management Zones. • Zone 1 is the area of maximum modification and treatment. It consists of a minimum arca of 30-feet on hill tops and sides, and a minimum of 20-feet on hill bases around the structure in which all combustible vegetation is significantly reduced or removed. This area will normally consist of irrigated lawns and stone landscaping. The area is measured from the outside edge of the home's eaves or any attached structures, such as decks. This arca will be developed and maintaincd by the homeowner in accordance with the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 421 requirements identified below. In the event that the homeowner's property is less than the required Zone 1 distance (30-1), the Avimor Homeowners' Association or Avimor Stewardship Organization will coordinate with the homeowner for the development and maintenance of the remaining portion of Zone 1. Landscaping within three feet of the structure will be restricted to widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing shrubs or other "fire -wise" plants to be approved by the Conservation Director and Avimor Design Review Committee. These foundation plants will not be planted directly beneath windows or next to foundation vents. These plants will be frequently pruned and maintained by the homeowner. Storage of firewood or other combustible materials will be prohibited in these areas, unless in an enclosed, non-combustible storage structure. This includes storage of materials under attached decks. Highly flammable trees and shrubs (conifers, junipers, arborvitacs, etc.) in Zonc 1 shall be limited to no more than one tree per 2,000-sf and one shrub per 250-sf, and they must be incorporated into the landscape design, taking into consideration the slope of the property as well (Table 2). Contiguous fuels and ladder fuels will be restricted. The placement of trees and bushes will not create contiguous fuel connections between Zone 1 and Zone 2 or between Zone I and the structure or attached deck (Table 2). Trees within Zone 1 will be isolated from each other (minimum of 18 feet crown width) and pruned to at least 10-feet above ground (or 1/2 the height, whichever is the least). In addition, trees and shrubs will be restricted from contacting the roof and must be pruned to at least 10 to 15-feet from the structure. The Conservation Director will work with homeowners to identify site - appropriate species and educate residence on wildfire, fire hazards, and fire -wise concepts. Table 2. Minimum tree crown and shrub clump arming in Zone 1. Tree Crown % slope Brush and Shrub Clump Spacing Spacing 0-10% l0. 2l/2xshrub height 11 - 20% l5' 3 x shrub height 21 - 40% 20' 4 x shrub height 1 > 40% 30' 6 x shrub height • Zone 2 is an area of fuel reduction designed to reduce the intensity of any fire approaching the structure. Typically, this zone should extend at least 75 to 125 feet from the structure depending on slope. Within this zone, the continuity and arrangement of vegetation will be based on a modified natural community emphasizing native species that have reduced fuels or stay green longer. Diseased, dead, or dying trees and shrubs will be removed to the extent possible. This arca forms a buffer and provides a transition between Zones 1 and 3. In the event that homeowner property boundary goes bcyond Zone 1 distance, the homeowner will be responsible for developing and maintaining the area in accordance to Zone 2 standards. However, this area can also be managed and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 422 maintained by the homeowner in coordination with the Avimor Homeowners Association and Conservation Director. Treatment and restoration programs. as well as funding mechanisms and adaptive approaches for fuels and vegetation management are described in detail in the Avimor Habitat Management Plan • Zone 3 is of no particular size and occur beyond the Zone 2 limit (i.e., >125 feet). Fuels and community composition will generally be managed by the Conservation Director or the Homeowners Association, in accordance with the Avimor Habitat Management Plan and enhanced to the extent possible with native or desirable nonnative species. In the event that the homeowner's property boundary includes Zone 3, the homeowner will work collaboratively with the Conservation Director or the Homeowners Association to develop and maintain the area based on the required standards. Invasive and noxious weed treatments and native community restoration programs are described in detail in the Avimor Habitat Management Plan as are the associated funding mechanisms and adaptive approaches for fuels and vegetation management. Defensible Snacc Checklist The following checklist will be used to determine if the home site is meeting the requirements described throughout this this fire plan. Should a home site fall short of any of the following requirements, additional work or maintenance may be necessary. • Requirements identified in the Avimor Habitat Management Plan will be implemented and monitored annually. • Zonc I tirll be maintained by the homeowner at a minimum of 20-feet from the base of hill slopes, and 30-feet from the top of hill slopes. • There arc no ladder fuels that connect Zone 1 to the structure. • There are no contiguous fuel sources that connect Zone 2 with the structure. • Trees and shrubs are properly thinned and pruned within the defensible space. Slash from thinning must be disposed of off -site, with the cxccption of limited mulching. • Roof and gutters are to be clear of debris in the spring and checked regularly throughout the fire season. • Branches overhanging the roof or chimney will be removed. • Grasses are mowed to a maximum height of 4 inches, with the exception of ornamental landscaping grasses that are fire -wise recommended or pose little or no threat as a contiguous fuel source. • An outdoor water supply is available, complete with a hose and nozzle that can reach all parts of the structure. • Road signs and access requirements are met (see Avimor design guidelines) and house numbers arc posted and easily visible. • Trash and debris accumulations will be taken off -site and restricted from storage on -site, with the cxccption of limited mulching. • Non-combustible materials, such as stone or irrigated lawn, shall be used to create a three-foot buffer around the base of the foundation. Landscaping within this area will be restricted to widely spaced foundation plantings of low growing grasses, (orbs, or shrubs that have low ignition thresholds. • Decks, benches, and outdoor storage units shall be constructed of non-combustible materials, such as fire -rated composite products. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 423 NST W.10-1-1lns.71 PACESW3pF5z1L-1 • Non-combustible materials, such as decorative rock, gravel, irrigated lawn, and stepping stone pathways shall be used to break up the continuity of the vegetation and fuels. This can modify fire behavior and slow the spread of fire across property. A — Mow grass short around shrubs (4—inches or less). B — The hest tree species to plant generally are those naturally occurring on or near the site (See Habitat Management Plan, Firewise Literature, and Avimor Conservation Director). C — Plant low-growine shrubs near structures away from windows and vents, limit connectivity with other fuel sources. D —Keep grass mowed around structure to a maximum of 4 inches, and irrigate regularly, with conservation in mind, based on recommendations from the Conservation Director. F, — Plant wildflowers or other recommended Firewise plants near structures only if they are we11- ungated and cut back during the dormant season. F Gravel arca or mow grass short next to the structure. Note Figure from the Colorado State University Extension Program found at URL httpJ/www ext colostate edu/PUBS/NATRES/06304.html Figure 4. Example for landscaping and placement of vegetation near the structure. Reuuirentents for the Residents. Ronleowners Association. and Conservation Director Firepits and Fireplaces Outdoor fireplaces/pits that use wood, pellets, or other similar fuel types that produce embers, are not permitted for use on any units within the Avimor Development. Only gas, propane, or similar arc allowed. Indoor fireplaces must be gas or have industry -standard spark/ember screens installed by a licensed professional and approved by the Avimor Design Review Committee. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 424 iINt„'71111. irrf )(-1(.f�� PAGESOF �� Fireworks The use of fireworks (as defined below) arc prohibited during lire season (as defined below). Exemptions to these prohibitions must be obtained from the City of Eagle or the Avimor Stewardship Organization, along with the approval from the Eagle Fire Department. CURRENT FIRE SEASON: The period of time between April 1 and October 31. annually. FIREWORKS: Any combustible or explosive composition, or any substance or combination of substances, or article prepared for the purpose of producing a visible or audible effect by combustion, explosion, deflagration, or detonation. Fireworks include items classified as common or special fireworks by the United States Bureau of Explosives or contained in the regulations of the United States Department of Transportation and designated as UN 0335 1.3 or UN 03336 1.4G. The term "fireworks" shall not include any automotive safety flares, toy guns, toy cannons, party poppers, or pop -its or other devices which contain twenty-five hundredths (.25) of a grain or less of explosive substance (see Idaho Code § 39-2602(3)). Fuels Maintenance within Common and Open Space The Homeowners' Association , in conjunction with the Conservation Director will be responsible for the control and management of fuels directly adjacent to all walking paths and trails within the boundary of the Avimor Development. These areas will be primary dispersal sites for invasive and noxious weed spccics that could increase the overall amount and connectivity of fuels. These areas will be treated annually to control the establishment and spread on invasive and noxious weeds species, per the Habitat Management Plan, and targeted for restoration and enhancement projects. Minimum widths of the paths' trails and associated fuels reduction will be 8-feet. The intent of controlling fuels and reestablishing natural vegetation adjacent to these paths is two -fold. First, they will be used as fire breaks in areas of natural open space in order to reduce the overall connectivity of fuels. This can limit the size and spread of wildfires in the arca. Second, vegetation associated with these paths arc the primary connection between the natural open where wildfires arc more likely to be, with the internal residential and commercial structures that will have fewer lire -associated restrictions. By limiting fuel connectivity with natural open areas, the probability of wildfire affecting structures that are not directly adjacent to natural open space will be significantly reduced. In addition to treatment activity and restoration programs within the boundary of the Avimor Development, the Conservation Director will work in coordination with adjacent private land owners, the Eagle Fire District, Bureau of Land Management, and other agencies to do similar fuels reduction and restoration projects on lands adjacent to the development. The intent of off - site projects will be to reestablish historically altered vegetative communities and associated fire regimes on a larger area to create a buffer (i.c., reduce the overall probability and frequency of wildfires in the area rather than limit efforts to just the Avimor Development boundary). In concept, other developments in the area and throughout the Boise Foothills will be doing similar programs that could have the long-term cumulative effect of reducing the establishment and spread of invasive and noxious weeds species, reestablishing native vegetative communities and the associated structural and functional components. and reestablishing more natural fire regimes which would reduce the overall adverse impacts of wildfire in the Boise Foothills. Funding for these types of off -site projects will be associated with the Avimor Conservation and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 425 Education program identified in the Habitat Management Plan, as well as potential cooperative grant opportunities. Registered Fire -Wise Development Program Avimor Development will stay in good -standing as a nationally recognized Certified Firewise Community through annual re -certifications. The Conservation Director will work in cooperation with local fire agencies and Fircwisc representatives to complete the re -certification process and enforce the requirements set forth by the Firewise committee (wmw.firo%isc.ore). The Conservation Director will also be familiar with the science of wildfire ecology or behavior and how to conduct home inspections and hazard assessments per Firewise guidelines. Adaptive Wildfire Mitigation and Management As Avimor Development grows and changes, so will' the needs and requirements of a Fire and Vegetation Management Plan. Therefore, this will be a living document to be altered and updated on an as -needed basis. Similar to the Avimor Habitat Management Plan, the Avimor Conservation Director and the Homeowner's Association will be able to use all tools identified in the current Fire and Vegetation Management Plan and Habitat Management Plan. However, in order to make changes to the Fire and Vegetation Management Plan, it will require the approval of the Avimor Conservation Advisory Committee, City of Eagle, and Eagle District Firc Chief. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 426 APPENDIX A: ` `�• ��r K ' I ;1-30-202.A �Q I WILDLAND-URBAN FIRE INTERFACE CONSTRUCTION REQU slE_NTS .' (Revised 2018 IWUIC Standards) �'r L. t 5.01.1 SCOPE Buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the International Building Code and this Code. • Exceptions: 1. Accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet (11 rn2) in floor arca where located not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) from buildings containing habitable spaces. 2. Agricultural buildings not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) from buildings containing habitable spaces_ 504.3 PROTECTION OF EAVES Eaves and soffits shall be protected on the exposed underside by ignition -resistant materials or by materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction, 2-inch (51 mm) nominal dimension lumber, or 1-inch (25 mm) nominal fire -retardant -treated lumber or'/4-inch (19 1 mm) nominal fire -retardant - treated plywood, identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the international Building Code. Fascias arc required and shall be protected on the backside by ignition -resistant materials or by materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance- rated construction or 2-inch (51 mtn) nominal dimension lumber. 504.4 GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of noncombustible material. Gutters shall be provided with an approved means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. 504.5 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls of buildings or strictures shall be constructed with one of the following methods: ,. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction on the exterior side. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 427 INSTRU. NO.u L a5 51j PAGES�7- lfi 51144 z. Approved noncombustible materials 3. Heavy timber or log wall construction. 4 Fire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The fire -retardant - treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. 5,-4gx-4ion resisiant--r mer-ia,ls—tee .i ,g t-ke crrta✓ aim Such material shall extend from the top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing. 504.6 UNDERFLOOR ENCLOSURE Buildings or structures shall have underfloor areas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls in accordance with Section 504.5. • Exception: Complete enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction or heavy timber construction or fire -retardant -treated wood. The fire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Codc. 504.7 APPENDAGES AND PROJECTIONS Unencloscd accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections. such as decks. shall be not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction, heavy timber construction or constructed of one of the following: i Approved noncombustible materials. 2 Fire -retardant -treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Codc. a—Ign.i ivn resistatt�t—i�ctii in rxtut�tenls in—aeeOtda ee--+rak e-tiers 503.2. 504.7.1 UNDERFLOOR AREAS Where the attached slruclurc is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 428 the area below the structure shall have underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches (152 rnm) of the ground, with exterior wall construction in accordance with Section 504.5. 504.8 EXTERIOR GLAZING Exterior windows, window walls and glazed doors, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, mullilaycrcd glazed panels, glass block or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes. 504.9 EXTERIOR DOORS Exterior doors shall be approved noncombustible construction, solid core wood not less than 1% inches thick (45 mm), or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes. Windows within doors and glazed doors shall be in accordance with Section 504.8 504.10 VENTS Attic ventilation openings, foundation or underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches (0.0929 rn2) each. Such vents shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion -resistant mesh with openings not to exceed 1/4 inch (6.4 mm), or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. 504.11 DETACHED ASSESSORY STRUCTURES Detached accessory structures located Icss than 50 feet (15 240 mm) from a building containing habitable space shall have exterior walls constructed with materials approved for not less than 1-hour lire -resistance -rated construction, heavy timber, log wall construction, or constructed with approved noncombustible materials or tire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The lire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. 504.11.1 Underfloor areas Where the detached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent. the area below the structure shall have DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 429 underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches (152 mm) of the ground. with exterior wall construction in accordance with Section 504 5 or underfloor protection in accordance with Section 504.6. • Exception: The enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns. beams and supporting walls arc protected as required for exterior 1-hour lire -resistance -rated construction or heavy timber construction or Tire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The fire -retardant- treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. 505.2 ROOF COVERINGS Roofs shall have a roof assembly that complies with not less than a Class B rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790, or an approved noncombustible roof covering. For roof coverings where the profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the space at the cave ends shall be fircstopped to preclude entry of flames or embers, or have one layer of 72-pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced, nonperforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Compliance Alternatives Practical Difficulties. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this section, Eagle Fire District Chief or their representative is authorized to grant modifications for individual cases on application in writing by the owner or a duly authorized Avimor representative. The Fire Chief or their representative shall work with Avimor representatives to identify that a special individual reason makes enforcement of the strict letter of this section impractical, the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this section, and the modification does not lessen any fire -protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered into the files of the code enforcement agency. If the Fire Chief or their representative determines that difficult tcrrain, danger of erosion or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the vegetation control provisions of this section detrimental to safety or impractical, enforcement thereof may be suspended provided that reasonable alternative measures are taken. Technical Assistance. To determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises subject to the inspection of the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative, the Eagle Fire Chief or DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 430 their representative is authorized to require the owner or the person in possession or control of the building or premises to provide, without charge to the jurisdiction, a technical opinion and report. The opinion and report shall be prepared by an approved engineer, specialist, laboratory or fire -safety specialty organization acceptable to the Eagle Fire Chief, or their representative and the owner and shall analyze the fire -safety of the design, operation or use of the building or premises, the facilities and appurtenances situated thereon and fuel management for purposes of establishing fire hazard severity to recommend necessary changes. Alternative Materials or Methods. if the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building officials designee concurs, they arc authorized to approve alternative materials or methods, provided that they find that the proposed design, use or operation satisfactorily complies with the intent of this section and that the alternative is, for the purpose intended, at least equivalent to the level of quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety prescribed by this section. Approvals under the authority herein contained shall be subject to the approval of the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building official's designee whenever the alternate material or method involves matters regulated by the Fire Code. The Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building official's designee shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use. The details of any action granting approval of an alternate shall be recorded and entered in all the files of the code enforcement agency. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 431 APPENDIX B FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY FORM The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically ordinance. • Z 1-30-�623 referenced in the adopting This appendix is used to determine the fire hazard severity of the proposed development and is based on IWUIC (2018). A. Subdivision Design Points 1. IngressiEgress: Two or more primary roads 1_X_ One road 3 One-way road in, one-way road out 5 2. Width of Primary Road: 20 feet or more 1_X Less than 20 feet 3 3. Accessibility: Road grade5%or less 1 Road grade more than5% 3_X_ 4. Secondary Road Terminus: Loop roads, cul-de-sacs with an outside turning radius of 45 feet or greater 1 X Cul-de-sac turnaround Dead-end roads 200 feet or less in length 3_ Dead-end roads greater than 200 feet in length 5 5. Street Signs: Present 1 X Not present 3 B. Vegetation (IWUIC Definitions) 1. Fuel Types Light 1 X Medium 5 Heavy 10 2. Defensible Space 70% or more of site 1_ 30% or more, but less than 70% of site 10_X_ Less than 30% of site 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 432 INSTRU. M).j Lke5311 C. Topography 8% or less 1 More than 8%, but Icss than 20% 4 X 20°%o or more, but Icss than 30% 7 30% or more 10 D. Roofing Material Class A Fire Rated 1_X_ Class B Fire Rated 5 Class C Fire Rated 10_ Nonrated 20 E. Fire Protection —Water Source 500GPMhydrant within 1,000 feet 1_X_ Hydrant farther than 1,000 feet or draft sitc 2_ Watcr source 20 min. or less, round trip 5 Water source farther than 20 min., and 45 min. or less, round trip 7 Water source farther than 45 min., round trip 10 F. Existing Building Construction Materials Noncombustible siding/deck 1 X Noncombustible siding/combustible deck 5_ Combustible siding and deck 10 G. Utilities (gas and/or electric) All underground utilities 1 X One underground, one aboveground 3 All aboveground 5 Total for Subdivision 27 Moderate Hazard 40-59 High Hazard 60-74 Extreme Hazard 75+ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 433 APPENDIX A: WILDLAND-URBAN FIRE INTERFACE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS (Revised 2018 IWUIC Standards) 5.01.1 SCOPE Buildings and structures shall be constructed in accordance with the International Building Code and this Code. • Exceptions: 1. Accessory structures not exceeding 120 square feet (11 m2) in floor area where located not less than 50 feet (15 240 mm) from buildings containing habitable spaces. Agricultural buildings not less than 50 feet (15 240 min) from buildings containing habitable spaces. 504.3 PROTECTION OF EAVES Eaves and soffits shall bc protected on the exposed underside by ignition -resistant materials or by materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction, 2-inch (51 min) nominal dimension lumber, or 1-inch (25 trim) nominal fire -retardant -treated lumber or'/a-inch (19.1 mm) nominal fire -retardant - treated plywood, identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. Fascias arc required and shall bc protected on the backside by ignition -resistant materials or by materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance- rated construction or 2-inch (51 nun) nominal dimension lumber. 504.4 GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS Gutters and downspouts shall be constructed of noncombustible material. Gutters shall be provided with an approved means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. 504.5 EXTERIOR WALLS Exterior walls of buildings or structures shall be constructed with one of the following methods: i. Materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction on the exterior side. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 434 INSTRU. Kne;Lit'QS.� PAGE .�0F5-44'/ 2. Approved noncombustible materials. s. Heavy timber or log wall construction. 4. Fire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The fire -retardant - treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. s. Ignition—twyini—mewr-ials complying, with Section 503.2 on the erzwii aiet. Such material shall extend from the top of the foundation to the underside of the roof sheathing. 504.6 UNDERFLOOR ENCLOSURE Buildings or structures shall have underfloor arcas enclosed to the ground with exterior walls in accordance with Section 504.5. • Exception: Complete enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction or heavy timber construction or lire -retardant -treated wood. The fire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Codc. 504.7 APPENDAGES AND PROJECTIONS Unenclosed accessory structures attached to buildings with habitable spaces and projections, such as decks, shall be not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction. heavy timber construction or constructed of one of the following: r. Approved noncombustible materials. 2. Fire -retardant -treated wood identified for exterior use and meeting the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Codc. a. igniton re a --ice rg mates"ialf, in accordance with--See}ion 503.2. 504.7.1 UNDERFLOOR AREAS Where the attached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 435 /INSTRU. N0. the area below the structure shall have underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches (152 mm) of the ground, with exterior wall construction in accordance with Section 504.5. 504.8 EXTERIOR GLAZING Exterior windows, window walls and glazed doors, windows within exterior doors, and skylights shall be tempered glass, multilaycred glazed panels, glass block or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes. 504.9 EXTERIOR DOORS Exterior doors shall be approved noncombustible construction, solid core wood not less than 13/4 inches thick (45 nun), or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes. Windows within doors and glazed doors shall be in accordance with Section 504.8 504.10 VENTS Attic ventilation openings, foundation or underfloor vents, or other ventilation openings in vertical exterior walls and vents through roofs shall not exceed 144 square inches (0.0929 tn2) each. Such vents shall be covered with noncombustible corrosion -resistant mesh with openings not to exceed 1/4 inch (6.4 mm), or shall be designed and approved to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. 504.11 DETACHED ASSESSORY STRUCTURES Detached accessory structures located less than 50 feet (15 240 aim) from a building containing habitable space shall have exterior walls constructed with materials approved for not less than 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction, heavy timber, log wall construction, or constructed with approved noncombustible materials or fire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The fire -retardant -treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. 504.11.1 Underfloor areas Where the detached structure is located and constructed so that the structure or any portion thereof projects over a descending slope surface greater than 10 percent, the area below the structure shall have DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 436 underfloor areas enclosed to within 6 inches (152 turn) of the ground, with exterior wall construction in accordance with Section 504.5 or underfloor protection in accordance with Section 504.6. • Exception: The enclosure shall not be required where the underside of exposed floors and exposed structural columns, beams and supporting walls are protected as required for exterior 1-hour fire -resistance -rated construction or heavy timber construction or lire -retardant -treated wood on the exterior side. The lire -retardant- treated wood shall be labeled for exterior use and meet the requirements of Section 2303.2 of the International Building Code. 505.2 ROOF COVERINGS Roofs shall have a roof assembly that complies with not less than a Class B rating when tested in accordance with ASTM E108 or UL 790, or an approved noncombustible roof covering. For roof coverings where the profile allows a space between the roof covering and roof decking, the space at the cave ends shall be firestopped to preclude entry of flames or embers, or have one layer of 72-pound (32.4 kg) mineral -surfaced, nonperforated cap sheet complying with ASTM D3909 installed over the combustible decking. Compliance Alternatives Practical Difficulties. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this section, Eagle Fire District Chief or their rcprescntativc is authorized to grant modifications for individual cases on application in writing by the owner or a duly authorized Avimor representative. The Fire Chief or their representative shall work with Avimor representatives to identify that a special individual reason makes enforcement of the strict letter of this section impractical, the modification is in conformance with the intent and purpose of this section, and the modification does not lessen any fire -protection requirements or any degree of structural integrity. The details of any action granting modifications shall be recorded and entered into the files of the code enforcement agency. If the Fire Chicf or their rcprescntativc determines that difficult terrain, danger of erosion or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the vegetation control provisions of this section detrimental to safely or impractical, enforcement thereof may be suspended provided that reasonable alternative measures are taken. Technical Assistance. To determine the acceptability of technologies, processes, products, facilities, materials and uses attending the design, operation or use of a building or premises subject to the inspection of the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative, the Eagle Fire Chicf or DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 437 their representative is authorized to require the owner or the person in possession or control of the building or premises to provide, without charge to the jurisdiction, a technical opinion and report. The opinion and report shall be prepared by an approved engineer, specialist, laboratory or fire -safety specialty organization acceptable to the Eagle Firc Chief, or their representative and the owner and shall analyze the fire -safety of the design, operation or use of the building or premises, the facilities and appurtenances situated thereon and fuel management for purposes of establishing fire hazard severity to recommend necessary changes. Alternative Materials or Methods. If the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building officials designee concurs, they are authorized to approve alternative materials or methods, provided that they find that the proposed design, use or operation satisfactorily complies with the intent of this section and that the alternative is, for the purpose intended, at least equivalent to the level of quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety prescribed by this section. Approvals under the authority herein contained shall be subject to the approval of the Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building official's designee whenever the alternate material or method involves matters regulated by the Fire Code. The Eagle Fire Chief or their representative and the City of Eagle Building Official or the building official's designee shall require that sufficient evidence or proof be submitted to substantiate any claims that may be made regarding its use. The details of any action granting approval of an alternate shall be recorded and entered in all the files of the code enforcement agency. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 438 Nsx^u.NO.J 1495`516f `�1 APPENDIX B FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY FORM The provisions contained in this appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance. This appendix is used 10 determine the fire hazard severity of the proposed development and is based on 1WU1C (2018). A. Subdivision Design Points 1. Ingress,/Egress: Two or more primary roads 1 X One road 3 One-way road in, one-way road out 5 2. Width of Primary Road: 20 feet or more 1_X Less than 20 feet 3 3. Accessibility: Road grade5%or less 1 Road grade more than5% 3 X_ 4. Secondary Road Terminus: Loop roads, cul-dc-sacs with an outside turning radius 0145 feet or greater 1 X Cul-de-sac turnaround Dead-end roads 200 feet or less in length 3_ Dead-end roads greater than 200 feet in length 5 5. Street Signs: Present 1 X Not present 3 B. Vegetation (1WUIC Definitions) 1. Fuel Types Light 1 X Medium 5 Heavy 10 2. Defensible Space 70% or more of site 1_ 30% or more, but less than 70% of site 10_X_ Less than 30% of site 20 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 439 IJ1sT . 10;.;4 69 5-3q' 1PAG 8 FsLi C. Topography 8% or less 1 More than 8%, but Icss than 20% 4 X 20% or more, but less than 30% 7_ 30% or more 10 D. Roofing Material Class A Fire Rated ]_X Class B Fire Rated 5 Class C Fire Ratcd 10 Nonrated 20 E. Fire Protection —Water Source 500GPMhydrant within 1,000 feet 1_X_ Hydrant farther than 1,000 feet or draft site 2— Watcr source 20 min. or less, round trip 5 Water source farther than 20 min., and 45 min. or less, round trip 7 Water source farther than 45 min., round trip 10 F. Existing Building Construction Materials Noncombustible siding/deck 1_X Noncombustible siding/combustible deck 5 Combustible siding and deck 10 G. Utilities (gas and/or electric) All underground utilities 1 X One underground, one aboveground 3 All aboveground 5 Total for Subdivision 27 Moderate Hazard 40-59 High Hazard 60-74 Extreme Hazard 75+ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 440 APPENDIX G Avimor Development IPaC Report (April 2022) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 441 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Idaho Fish And Wildlife Office 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368 Boise, ID 83709-1657 Phone: (208) 378-5243 Fax: (208) 378-5262 In Reply Refer To: Project Code: 2022-0029136 Project Name: Avimor- Habitat Management Plan (2022 Revision) April 07, 2022 Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location or may be affected by your proposed project To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies arc required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 442 0i/07/2022 2 evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts see https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php. The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures see https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird-enthusiasts/threats-to- birds.php. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/ executive-orders/e0-13186.php. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 443 04/07/2022 3 Attachment(s): • Official Species List • USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries • Migratory Birds • Wetlands DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 444 }:..u. N6.3 (495J4 PA Esy`-N or5yy 04/07/2022 1 Official Species List This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the requimment for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed action". This species list is provided by: Idaho Fish And Wildlife Office 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368 Boise, ID 83709-1657 (208) 378-5243 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 445 INSTRU. ND.34 t-53t PAGES 573F S Pf 04/07/2022 2 Project Summary Project Code: 2022-0029136 Event Code: None Project Name: Avimor- Habitat Management Plan (2022 Revision) Project Type: Management Plans Land Management/Restoration Project Description: IPaC report pulled for Avimor Habitat Management Plan 2022 Revision to ensure most to -date reporting for recently listed or de -listed species since 2017 HMP document version. Project Location: Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: httos:// www. google.com/m ansI 43.8163483.-116.286$018734 6702.14a men tri "' 45-, 1 Eagle Counties: Ada , Boise , and Gem counties, Idaho DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 446 II \!STRU. h'03q PAGES-ViliaF5444-1 04/07/2022 Endangered Species Act Species There is a total of 2 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your project area under this offices jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions. 1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. Insects NAME STATUS Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: jps•17vrns twcs�stvirtp'uy�ripc97d3 Flowering Plants NAME STATUS Slickspot Peppergrass Lepidium papilli ferum Threatened Population: There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. Species profile:lntns:IMcos.Ews.v,SZWe>;nrspeciesh1027 Critical habitats THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROIEC:T AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S JURISDICTION. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 447 DISII1U.140 411195. 11 PAGES-r r 0F,St[q 04/07/2022 1 USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish Hatcheries Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuee system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination` conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 448 04/07/2022 Migratory Birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Actl and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act2. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 3. 50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data manning tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list arc available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Thjs is not a Bird of Conservation Concem (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because o[ the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types o[ development or activities. hlltsw'//eto4.twS.oiw!Y& npdiPset62C Black Rosy -finch Leucosticte otrata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) thmughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httas://eros.fws.env/ecolsnedes Nfin DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 449 BREEDING SEASON Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Breeds Jun 15 to Aug 31 ! fU.INo,31 95311 PA iES litOW 04/07/2022 NAME Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. hl lns'llprns_iw s.env/ecorsnecies+9 4ti? Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concem (BCC) thmughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird o[ Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potenual susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. httnn f!ecris.htt.rtnv/ecnisnecies/1tiH0 Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. htta:Heras.[ws.aowern!snecie s!9408 Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concem (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. iwns:neroe flcs.4nviern!snecles+:;fi.it Olive -sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. )tnnst lerns.iws.env/erohoeciesfNI4 Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rujus This is a Bird of Conservation Concem (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. httrmAfecos.iwc2nvlecnfsneriesrfitlf 12 Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus This is a Bird of Conservation Concem (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (SCRs) in the continental USA httts:/lecns. fws.envlernlsneries+ BREEDING SEASON Breeds May 15 to Jul 15 Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31 Breeds May 15 to Aug 10 , Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 30 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Breeds May 20 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15 Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 10 Probability Of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 450 2 N.SDU. w,16!r*o -3'1 PAGES .�U- OF5Lit 04/07/2022 3 FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence (bE) Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the l0km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. Breeding Season ( ) Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time -frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Effort (I) Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the l0km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. No Data (—) A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. ir.F_ probability of presence breeding season 1 survey effort — no data DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 451 04/07/2022 4 SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Bald Eagle Non -BCC Vulnerable Black Rory -finch BCC Rangewide (CON) Cassin's Finch BCC Rangewide (CON) Clark's Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) Evening Grosbeak BCC Rangewide (CON) Golden Eagle Non -BCC Vulnerable LewIs's Woodpecker BCC Rangewide (CON) Long-eared Owl BCC. Rangewide (CON) Olive -sided flycatchci BCC Rangewide (CON) Rufous I1ummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) Sage Thrasher BCC - BCR 111+ 11 1 + I+++ +++-I- +-I-++ ++++ ++++ ++++ +II1++ ++++ ++++ -I-++ - I+++ +i-+-l- +tt+ .-++1 4-+++ --•--.-+ ++++ ++++ +++1 +++11441 ++++ cE +++ ++++ ++++ I+++ ++++ U4+++ 11 ■1 +++1 +111-1111 *I+ I ++++ ++++ ++++ +++ F 0++ 1I++ +'I. ++ IIL++ II1+ *II* I-11+ *+++ +-I I-+ ++d 4- ++++ -1 ++a- ++++ ++++ ++11 + ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ 1 I+* +1+ i I +++ ++++ ¶+++ ++++ ++++ ++++ ++++ -H-++ +I++ 1 I S+ Oil+ I 1++ +++-1 1 +++ -l--I-++ I1 ++ ++-I I- +4--1--I- -1 +++-I-+i-+ +++-I- +++1 +++I +++- ++-I + ++1+ -14-++ +++ -I +-I-++ I -I-I- ++++-I--1-+-I- +I+i I+1+ ++it+ +11-+ OK ++++ ++a -a- 1--I i-+ +a-++ Additional information can be found using the following links: • Birds of Conservation Concern httn:llwww.fws.eov/birdslmanaeement/manaeed-species/ birds-of-conserva(ion-con cern.oh n • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds htto:llwww.fws.eov/birds' man asemendnroiect-assessmcn t-tan I s-and -eu i da nce/ conservation--tneasu res.nho • Nationwide conservation measures for birds httn:llwww.fws.eovlmieratorvbirdslndf/ inanauc men unot ioriwi dcsi anda rduonscrvationmeasures.ndf DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 452 'PAGES a .q j 04/07/2022 5 Migratory Birds FAQ Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To sec when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKNi. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey. banding. and citizen science damsels and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phennlouy Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey. banding. and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithoionv All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotrouical Birds nuide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 453 04/07/2022 6 project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non -BCC - Vulnerable" birds arc not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non -eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (c.g. offshore energy development or longlinc fishing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Manning of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Divine Bird Studv and the nanotaa studies or contact Caleb Sniesei or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a oerrnit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 454 04/07/2022 data indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 455 04/07/2022 Wetlands Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corns of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We arc currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. FRESHWATER POND • PUSCh • PUBFh • PUSC • PUBHx RIVERINE • R4SBA • R3USC • RSUBH • R4SBC • R3UBF • R3UBH FRESHWATER FORESTED SHRUB WETLAND • PSS1A • PSS1A • PSS1C FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND • PEM1B • PEM1C • PEM2F DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 456 04/07/2022 2 IPaC User Contact Information Agency: Duran Environmental Consulting, LLC Name: Zoe Duran Address: 1973 N Patricia Ave City: Boise State: ID Zip: 83704 Email zoeduran.dec@gmail.com Phone: 7207712096 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 457 INSTRU. N0, 'SL b 5.3L/ PAeEd.5.a-51.It4 EXHIBIT J WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phd McGrans BOISE IDAHO Pgs=9 NIKOLA OLSON CITY OF EAGLE, IDAHO AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE BY AND BETWEEN AVIMOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC SAGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC AND CITY OF EAGLE I5JNR28S 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 458 2022-036228 04113/20221121 AM NO FEE IIS„.No, S AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE BY AND BETWEEN AVIMOR DEVELOPMENT, LLC SAGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC AND CITY OF EAGLE 1546072885 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 459 IN5 flW. CS . 53 1 PAGEHS.1_c sqq AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE This Water Service Agreement ("Agreement') is entered into by and between the City of Eagle, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, Sage Investment Partners LLC. an Idaho limited liability company ("Sage") and Avimor Development, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company ("Avimor"), effective this'. Z day of March, 2022 (the "Effective Date"). The City of Eagle, Sage Investment Partners, LLC and Avimor are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Eagle has a municipal water department capable of providing water utility services to customers both within and beyond the boundaries of its city limits, within Eagle's municipal water service planning area: and WI-1EREAS. Avimor and Sage developments are located within Eagle's Comprehensive Planning boundary and Municipal Water Planning Area; and WHEREAS, Avimor and Sage must supply their respective developments with a potable water system: and WHEREAS, the development of water and expansion of the City's municipal system into the Avimor and Sage developments will provide redundancies and efficiencies for the City of Eagle's existing municipal water system_ and WHEREAS, Avimor and Sage will donate and assign to the City of Eagle Idaho Department of Watcr Resources ("IDW R') Permit Nos. 63-32061 and 63-34281 and Application for Permit No. 63-34801; and WHEREAS. the anticipated timing of the phased build out of the Avimor and Sage developments will exceed the IDWR-authorized development deadlines for Permit Nos. 63- 32061 and 63-34281 and Application for Permit No. 63-34801 resulting in a need for assurance of long-term options to acquire or assist in the acquisition and development of water necessary for the developments. This can be achieved by obtaining water right authorization for reasonably anticipated future needs ("RAFN"); and WHEREAS. Avimor and Sage cannot legally apply for or own water rights for a RAFN: and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle can legally acquire RAFN water rights: and WHEREAS, the City of Eagle is willing to provide water service to Avimor and Sage and in consideration of this service will accept donation and assignment of ID W R Permit Nos. 63- 3206] and 63-34281 and Application'for Permit No. 63-34801; and 2 154607288,5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 460 WHEREAS. Avimor and Sage wish to receive water service from the City of Eagle and will construct at their sole expense the necessary infrastructure to effectuate and receive water service as well as any expenses related to the acquisition of a RAFN water right; and WHEREAS, the execution of this Agreement does not bind the City of Eagle to annex the Avimor and/or Sage developments; and WHEREAS, Avimor and Sage will convey ownership of the water service system in phases to the City of Eagle as it is constructed and approved. NOW. THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual covenants contained herein. which are hereby incorporated into and made part of this Agreement, the Parties furthcr agree as follows: DEFINITIONS 1. "Arca of Service" shall mean areas located as shown in Exhibit A. ? "City of Eagle" as used herein shall mean the City of Eagle acting through its properly authorized officers, agents or employees. each acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them. 3. "Developer" shall mean Avimor and/or Sage. 4. "Subdivision" shall mean the legal dividing of a tract of land into two or more tracts. lots or parcels. 5. "Water Facilities" shall mean wells. water storage, mains, water extension lines, pumps. treatment systems and related infrastructure required to provide water service as described in the Master Water Plan(s) yet to be approved by the City and any applicable regulatory agencies. Any undefined terms shall have the definitions proscribed to them in the City Codc of Eagle, Idaho. TERMS OF AGREEMENT 6. The City of Eagle agrees to provide municipal water to the area of service as depicted in Exhibit A. Prior to submittal of development plans to the City of Eagle. Sage shall submit a supplemental Master Water Plan detailing the project for review and approval by City of Eagle. 7. Immediately after the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall diligently proceed to obtain all governmental approvals including, without limitation, a]1 necessary rights, permits, information, and consents required by the appropriate federal, state, or local governmental authorities, agencies, or officials to permit the construction, operation and maintenance of the Water Facilities on Developer's property. As soon as practicable, after receipt of such governmental approvals, Developer shall diligently procecd to construct the Water Facilities. 8. The cost of obtaining all governmental approvals (including but not limited to any applications. permitting, beneficial use and licensing of water rights for use in the Avimor and 3 154607288.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 461 Sage developments), the cost of Master Water Plans and specifications, and the cost of the construction of the Water Facilities for any offsite facilities within the Water Master Plan necessary to serve the Developers Property) located on property owned by Developer shall he borne by Developer at its/their sole cost and expense. The plans. specifications. and construction of the Water Facilities shall he reviewed, approved and inspected by City of Eagle prior to acceptance. City of Eagle may at its sole discretion alter the performance from strict adherence to such plans and specifications based on job site experience, or if adherence to such plans and specifications becomes impractical or infeasible under the circumstances. 9. City of Eagle shall be the sole judge as to the adequacy of the Water Facilities. However. City of Eagle agrees that alternative specifications may be considered on a case -by -case basis as determined acceptable by the City of Eagle. City of Eagle will work with Developer in good faith to review requests. 10. Developer will be required to develop a well monitoring plan and will be responsible for the on -going monitoring of the wells through the completion of construction of the developments. Developer will ensure that source water meets Idaho Department of Environmental Quality requirements upon dedication of Water Facilities to the City of Eagle. 1 1 . The constructed and approved Water Facilities and IDWR Permit Nos. 63-32061 and 63- 34281 and Application for Permit No. 63-34801 shall be contributed, transferred, assigned and conveyed to City of Nagle by Developer or their agent/designee. at no cost to City of Eagle, through bill(s) of sale, special warranty deed(s). casement(s), assignment(s) of permit. assignment(s) of application. or other similar type of document. The City of Eagle will proceed to acquire RAFN water rights as necessary to facilitate delivery of water required to meet the current and reasonably anticipated future needs of the Avimor and Sage developments. Developer will pay all costs associated with the acquisition of such RAFN water rights, including attorney and consultant fees. The Parties understand and agree that such RAFN water rights must be authorized by IDWR, pursuant to law, and City of Eagle makes no guarantee or representation regarding the outcome of any administrative or judicial proceedings regarding the same. The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith and take any actions reasonably necessary to maximize the amount of water donated/assigned/acquired and ultimately licensed to City of Eagle. Developer shall bear all costs for development of water, from application preparation and prosecution through licensing. 12. The transfer of the Water Facilities, or the components thereof, to the City of Eagle are contemplated to be completed in phases as they are constructed and approved by City of Cagle. 13. Developer or their designees shall warrant to City of Eagle in writing that the Water Facilities have been constructed in accordance with applicable plans and specifications and shall provide City of Eagle with as -built record drawings of the Water Facilities. Developer also warrants the Water Facilities against defects in construction for a period of one (1) year from the date of completion unless otherwise required in Eagle City Code or negotiated as a term of acceptable alternatives as discussed in paragraph 8 of this Agreement. 4 154607288 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 462 14. The City of Eagle shall have the right to conduct, review and confirm, to City of Eagle's satisfaction, test results in connection with any and all wells, soil tests, engineering tests. environmental surveys. plans and specifications and/or record drawings, and related studies of the Water Facilities deemed necessary by City of Eagle to determine the suitability, in City of Eagle's sole discretion. of the Water Facilities. 15. In accordance with City Code 6-5-25, a Cooperative Agreement may be entered into on a case -by -case basis at the time of construction drawing approval to provide for. among other things, reimbursement of City of Eagle contributed costs such as engineering and legal expenses, reimbursement of Developer's costs incurred for construction of facilities that benefit "late- comers." and cost -sharing for special facilities. The fact that this Agreement requires construction at Developers "sole expense" does not necessarily render these expenses non - reimbursable. 16. Upon conveyance of the Water Facilities or portions thereof to City of Eagle. and acceptance thereof by the City. City of Eagle shall be solely responsible for management, maintenance and operation of the Water Facilities, with the exception of any warranties provided herein or in exchange for alternative specifications and standards as allowed in paragraph 8 of this Agreement. 17. The Parties agree that the Water Facilities shall be managed. owned and operated by City of Eagle in a manner consistent with City of Eagle's management and operation of its other water utility facilities within the State of Idaho. If Developer is using or is shown to need water in excess of amounts authorized by IDWR to meet the current and reasonably anticipated future needs of the Avimor and Sage developments, the City of Eagle shall notify Developer that no future development will be served until additional municipal water is procured, at Developer's cost. 18. Developer shall prepare and record (prior to the sale of any lot) perpetual restrictive covenants which Include, without limitation, that the Water Facilities are or shall be owned and operated by City of Eagle. City of Eagle shall cooperate with Developer in the preparation of such restrictive covenants and shall have the right to approve such restrictive covenants prior to recordation. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Developer shall cause a notation to be made on any subdivision plat that states that the Water Facilities are or shall be owned and operated by City of Eagle. 19. The term of this Agreement shall be for thirty (30) years from the Effective Date. 5 154607288 5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 463 CITY OF EAGLE ES Print Name lac00 �rC� Its ril • ''4rnpn.''+• 6 154607?88.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 464 INSTRU. I 0.3 44 ( /753 PACE 1OFSL( SAGE INVESTMENT PARTNERS, LLC ST: Dv 7 ,44 Print Name —TT, A r:I a -LC, L. _ STATE OF' IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this } fir, day o1'April. 2(122. before me. L4 Notary Public in and for the Stale or Idaho, personally appeared Todd McCauley. known or identified to the to be the member of Sage Investment Pan tiers. 1.I.C. the limited liabiility company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. mil•'■ t 1 :._.._ *.- Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: , �c My commission expires: A j 1'� j .? : s� CtO1'•IR Y , PUBLIC: 'a ,,OF,,,,,,, we 7 154607288.5 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 465 AVIMOR DI:VF.L.OPM cNT, LLC 8ti Print Name • 4 l! <<t i r it i e' tr Its tilr� r: " %\e",n1I Gti— } STATE OF IDAI1O ) ) ss. County of Ada ) On this ; day of April. 2022. before me, a Notary Public in and for the State or Idaho. personally appeared Dan Richter, known or identified to me to be the managing member of Avirttor Development_ LLC, the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company, and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed the same. IN WITNESS WI IEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. icke tyotAR y PUBLIC,,/ oF .,���T ''�< :sa6m2as s C ' Notary Public-ior Idaho Residing at: My commission expires: ! t7 1 7er. µt 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 466 III1ST.TJ. NO.69 PAGES 5_q_q L, r' 1 1 -1' ;1.3 g,J- ;_! 1 1 SAGE I i1 1 I PROPERTY \ 1 km..... r nl• .m. Mt ttm. \__ I 1 Exhibit A Eagle Water Map ._J •l • nr- AVIMOR I PROPERTY ; I • DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 467 POO toll 1,111 —r 1 ,l—e.,._.,..,...r,.,aa upon fr.raq+.oa urrMo•^++H4 wh.Ir to ohmic without . l..nn er r1n•1. rdrvn 61•1 r1d r.r.rt r[r•a.aw M t000t Coto Mm1.aranimam a IMaegnp. Tht plan is No proprrty of "winter and omd ba published a repredu<ed—nod lh..iol.-NA•ry C..na now.. dor Mr, 1 F -U 1 z:j 1 L EXHIBIT K-1 #202101322-CU Decision BEFORE THE ADA COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION In re: Application of Ada County Sheriff's Office Project No. 202101322 CU FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT If any of these Findings of Fact are deemed Conclusions of Law, they are incorporated into the Conclusions of Law section. A. The Commission finds that the record is comprised of: 1. Exhibits to the Staff Report. 2. Exhibit A to thc Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. 3. All other information contained in Ada County Development Services File for Project No. 202101322 CU. 4. All information and testimony presented at the Public Hearing held on June 10, 2021. B. As to procedural items, the Commission finds the following: 1. In accordancc with Section 8-7A-2B of the Ada County Codc, the applicant completed a pre -application conference with the director prior to the submittal of thc application on September 15, 2020. 2. In accordance with Section 8-7A-3 of the Ada County Codc, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 6, 2021. 3. On May 13, 2021, Development Scrvlces accepted Project #202101322 CU and scheduled it for public hearing before the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission on June 10, 2021. 4. On May 14, 2021, staff notified other agencies of this application and solicited thcir comments. Any comments received were incorporated into the staff report and are attached as Exhibits. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER 1'lolect k202101322 CU Ada County Sheriffs Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 468 Page 1 5. On May 18, 2021, property owners within 1,000 feet of the site were notified of the hearing by mail. Legal notice of the Commission's hearing was published in The Idaho Statesman on May 17, 2021. Notices of the public hearing were postcd on the property on May 25, 2021 and a certification sign posting was submitted to the director on May 28, 2021. C. As to the project description, the Board finds based on the application materials found in the file for Project No. 202101322 CU the following: 1. PROPOSED USES: Communications Tower (Tower or Antenna Structure, Private) 2. PROPOSED STRUCTURES: 100 foot tall communications tower and equipment shelter. 3. PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Fencing along the lease arca. D. Based on the materials found in the file for Project No. 202101322 CU, the Commission finds the following concerning the project description: 1. PARCEL NUMBER AND LOCATION: The parcel number is S0107212400 and the property is located at 20751 N. Highway 55 in Section 7 of T. 5N, R. 2E. 2. OWNERSHIP: Dual Beneficiary Trust No. 8562 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Property size: 325.7 acres. Existing structures: A 100 foot tall commercial cell tower with an equipment shelter. Existing vegetation: Dryland shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Slope: The subject property has varying slopes with some of the slopes exceeding 15%. Irrigation: None. Drainage: The natural drainage of the property is towards the southeast. Views: The sitchas clear views in all directions. E. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the current land use and zoning: The property is rangeland in the Rural Preservation (RP) District. F. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the surrounding land use and zoning: North: The site is rangeland in the Rural Preservation (RP) District. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office Page 2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 469 uST;J.g0.IL//r� PACE3 DF L South: The site is rangeland in the Rural Preservation (RP) District. East: The site is single-family residential in the Avimor Planned Community in the Planned Community (PC) District. West: The site is rangeland in the Rural Preservation (RP) District. G. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps and materials found in the file for Project No. 202101322 CU, the Commission finds the following concerning services: Access Street and Designation: Access is off Highway 55, which is designated as a principal arterial. Fire Protection: Eagle Fire District. Sewage Disposal: None. Water Service: None. Irrigation District: None. Drainage District: None. H. As to the applicable law, the Commission finds the following: This section details the comp plan goals, objectives and policies; the zoning ordinance regulations; and other applicable standards regarding development of the subject property. 1. The Commission finds that the Ada County Comprehensive Plan is applicable because the subject property is not within an area of city impact. The Commission finds the application complies with the Ada County Comprehensive Plan. Regarding the Ada County Comprehensive Plan the Commission finds the following: The Commission finds that the Future Land Use Map designates the property as Agriculture (Irrigated), which is primarily intended for farmland, cropland, vineyards, pastures, orchards, and othcr low intensity agricultural uses. As the proposed emergency communications lower will occupy only a small portion of the 325-acre site, the majority of the property will continue to be conducive to future agricultural uses. As such, the proposed tower is compatible with the adopted Future Land Use Map. The Commission finds that the emergency communication tower is proposed in order to provide improved public safety to the area, it is supported by the following goals of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan which call for a high level of public safety and other public services to be provided to Ada County residents. Goal 5.4: Protect human life and property and reduce public and private expenditures resulting from natural and manmade disasters. Goal 6.1: Provide public services and facilities for which the County is responsible in a fair, efficient, and professional manner. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriffs Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 470 Page 3 IPiSTI1U. f�0, Goal 6.1 a: Ensure all services are provided to the level required and maintain a solid fiscal foundation to support all services. Goal 6.1 b: Maintain the highest level of public safety and health in cooperation with other agencies and service providers. Goal 6.1f— Coordinated Service Planning. Coordinate with internal and external service providers — library, school districts, ACHD, VRT, and others — to plan for the short and long-term needs of Ada County residents. 2. The Commission finds Section 8-5-3-115 of the Ada County Code is applicable because the applicant has applied to construct a communications tower (Tower or Antenna Structure, Private). The Commission finds that the application complies with Section 8- 5-3-115 of the Ada County Code. Regarding Section 8-5-3-115 the Commission finds the following: A. Applicability: The following regulations shall apply to tower structures for the purpose of private radio, television, or satellite reception and antennas for amateur radio. Towers shall not be subject to the accessory structures regulations of section 8- 5-3-1 of this chapter. The Commission finds that the proposed communications tower is a private radio tower for the Ada County Sheriff in conjunction with other emergency service providers. B. General Standards: 1. The tower or antenna structure is only for private, not commercial, use. The Commission finds that the tower is for the Ada County Sheriff's office private use and will not be used by commercial carriers. 2. The tower or antenna structure is accessory to a permitted or approved use. The Commission.frnds the tower is accessory to a public use. 3. The applicant shall provide verification of compliance with the regulations and requirements of the following agencies, as applicable: a. Federal Aviation Administration. b. Idaho Transportation Department (Bureau of Aeronautics). c. The City of Boise Airport Commission. The Commission finds as conditioned that the tower shall have approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Idaho Transportation Department (Bureau of Aeronautics), and the City of Boise Airport Commission. These agencies were notified of this project through the application's transmittal, which was sent to them on May 14, 2021. 4. An amateur radio tower for a licensed amateur radio operator that exceeds the height limit for structures in the applicable base district shall require accessory use approval by the Director. The applicant must be a licensed amateur radio FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 471 Page 4 (ESTP,U. I PAGE L07sy f l operator. Any other tower that exceeds the height limit for structures in the applicable base district shall require conditional use approval. The Commission finds that the proposed tower is not for a licensed amateur radio operator. Therefbre, since the height of the tower exceeds the height limit of 35 feet for structures in the Rural Preservation (RP) District the applicant has applied for a conditional use application. C. Towcr Construction Standards: 1. Within the Boise Air Terminal Airport influence Areas Overlay District, the height limit on the tower shall be as required by the Code of Federal Regulations 14 CFR 77. The Commission finds as evidenced on. the Ada County Zoning Map that the tower is not located within the Boise Air Terminal Airport Influence Areas Overlay District. 2. If the tower does not exceed the height limitations of the applicable base district, the tower shall meet the setback requirements of the district. The Commission finds that the tower exceeds the 35 foot height limitation of the Rural Preservation (RP) District. 3. If the tower exceeds the height limitation of the applicable base district, the following standards shall apply: a. The tower shall meet the setback requirements of the district or it shall be set back one foot (1') for every ten feet (10') of total tower height from all property lines, whichever is greater. The Commission, finds that Rural Preservation (RP) District setbacks of 50 feet from a property on an arterial, collector, or section line street and 25 feet from a property line not fronting a roadway are greater than a setback of one Pot (1 ) for evert' ten feet (10') of total tower height from all property lines. As shown on the site plan the tower exceeds the minimum setback requiremnentsfor the Rural Preservation (RP) District. b. The applicant shall submit a report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer and installed in accord with the manufacturer's specifications that describes the facility height and design (including a cross section and elevation). The report must include the engineer's stamp and registration number. The Conunission finds that Emulate, LLC has prepared a site plan, which includes documentation that describes the facility height and design and includes a cross section and elevation. As conditioned, a final set of plans shall be submitted that includes the engineer's stamp and registration number. c. The applicant shall provide a copy of the notice of construction ailed with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project 4202101322 CU Ada County Shenff , Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 472 Page 5 1NSTRU, NO PAGP The Commission finds as conditioned that the applicant shall provide the Director with a copy of the notice of construction filed with the Federal Aviation Administration (F.4A). d. A fall zone for each tower shall be delineated and permanently restricted from future development, as follows: (1) The fall zone shall consist of the land area centered beneath the tower and circumscribed by a circle with a radius equal to a length of one foot (1') for every ten feet (10') of tower height. (2) If the fall zone does not lie completely within the subject property, the applicant must obtain a nonrevocable casement from all owners of the property within the fall zone that prohibits the construction or placement of new structures within the fall zone, except as may be specifically permitted through the conditional use process. If an easement is utilized, a copy of the fully executed easement agreement shall be submitted as part of the application. The Commission finds that fall zone lies completely within the subject property and is within the lease area for the tower. 4. Towers not requiring FAA painting and/or marking shall either have a galvanized finish or shall be painted a nonconlrasting blue, gray, or black finish. Alternative colors or finish materials may be approved by the Director. The Commission .finds as evidenced in the record that the tower will have a galvanized finish. 3. The Commission finds Section 8-5B-5 of the Ada County Code is applicable because the applicant has applied for a conditional use to construct a communications tower. The Commission finds that the application complies with Section 8-5B-5 of the Ada County Code. Regarding Section 8-5B-5 the Commission finds the following: A. The proposed use shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; The Commission. finds that the communications tower is not detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare because it is in conformance with the specific use standards for a (Tower or Antenna Structure, Private) as evidenced by Findings of Fact Section H(2). In addition, the communications tower will enhance the public health, safety, and welfare by improving radio coverage fbr first responders handling emergencies in north Ada County. B. The proposed use shall not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties; The Commission finds that the communications tower does not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Although the tower will he visible from neighboring properties, adjacent uses will he able to continue to function as they have in the past. It is not anticipated that the tower will impede the normal use and development of surrounding properties; or create undue adverse impacts. In addition, the tower is adjacent to an existing tower. C. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff,; Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 473 Page 6 PAeEsLi 7-3 oF.S `('� The Commission,finds as evidenced in Findings of Fact Section H(1) herein, that the tower is consistent with the Ada County Comprehensive Plan. D. The proposed use complies with the purpose statement of the applicable base district and with the specific use standards as set forth in this chapter; The Commission finds that the communications tower complies with the purpose statement of the Rural Preservation (RP) District as the tower will be improving radio communications for those lands in the Rural Preservation (RP) District in north Ada County. The Commission finds as evidenced in Findings of Fact Section H(2) that the communications tower complies with the specific use standards for (Tower or Antenna Structure, Private). E. The proposed use complies with all applicable county ordinances; The Conunission,ftnds that the communications tower complies with all applicable county ordinances as outlined in Findings of Fact Section B and as outlined herein. F. The proposed use complies with all applicable state and federal regulations; The Commission finds that all uses are innately required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations as a !natter of law. G. The proposed use and facilities shall not impede the nornial development of surrounding property; The Commission finds that there has been no evidence of record submitted at this time to indicate that the communications tower will impede the normal development of surrounding property. H. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces, and traffic circulation measures are, or shall be, provided for the proposed use; The Commission finds that adequate facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces, and traffic circulation measures are being provided for the communications tower. The application was transmitted to applicable agencies and political subdivisions on May 14, 2021. • Brent Moore, Community & Regional Planner responded in Exhibit #19 that the Future Land Use Map of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan designates the site as "Agriculture (Irrigated), which is primarily intended for farmland, cropland, vineyards, pastures, orchards and other low intensity agricultural uses. As the proposed emergency communications tower will occupy only a small portion of the 325-acre site, the !majority of the property will continue to be conducive to filture agricultural uses. As such, the proposed tower is compatible with the adopted Future Land Use Map. • The Payette River National Scenic Byway Advisory Committee provided a memo (Exhibit #20) with guidance and resources for review of development proposals along the scenic byway. For Telecommunication .facilities they suggest where possible require cell towers to be sited within tree clusters and camouflaged to mimic a tree appearance. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project f202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office Page 7 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 474 • The Ada County Building Official replied in Exhibit #21 that the Building Division has no objection to the conditional use application for a communication tower; however, the applicant should be aware permits will be required for the equipment building, propane pad, and the fence as well as the tower prior to construction. • The Ada County Highway District stated in Exhibit #22 that they do not have any comments on this application. An ACIID impact fee and inspection are not due. • The Eagle Fire District responded in Exhibit #23 that they have reviewed the application and mentioned that the installation of this tower will enhance the radio communications in this area of Ada County there by enhancing public safety. This area has been lacking in good radio coverage for a very long tirne and this installation should remedy that situation. • The Associate Ada County Surveyor in Exhibit #24 has requested draft copies of the Lease Area description and the Record of Survey for review. 1. Political subdivisions, including school districts, will be able to provide services for the proposed use. The Commission finds that the application was transmitted to political subdivisions including the West Ada School District on May 14, 2021 and there has not been any evidence submitted into the record to indicate that political subdivisions would not be able to provide services to the communications tower. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW If any of these Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Findings of Fact they are incorporated into the Findings of Fact section. 1. The Conunission concludes that Project No. 202101322 CU complies with the Ada County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Commission concludes that Project No. 202101322 CU complies with Section 8-5-3-115 of the Ada County Code. 3. The Commission concludes that Project No. 202101322 CU complies with Section 8-5B-5 of the Ada County Code. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER I'roject #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 475 Page 8 t'3iC£611t ;t ORDER Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained herein and the testimony from the public hearing, the Commission approves Project #202101322 CU, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A and the Site Plan Drawing dated May 5, 2021. DATED this it Today of SUN C ATTEST: Le.....--,E.t retary .202(. By: Zj,,/? t2/ Brenda Blitman, Chairperson Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Project M202101322 CU Ada Count} Sheriff's Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 476 Page 9 INSTRU. i:0: ail p ?c. 1 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRED ACTIONS. THE FOLLOWING LIST DETAILS THE TASKS THAT MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF PROJECT #202101322 CU WILL BE CONSIDERED FINAL.' THE APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER HAVE UNTIL TWO YEARS OF THE WRITTEN DECISION TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED ACTIONS AND TO OBTAIN A ZONING CERTIFICATE UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION IS GRANTED. SEE SECTION 8-7-6 OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOR INFORMATION ON TIME EXTENSIONS. IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, THE ZONING CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BECOME VOID IF A VALID ZONLNG CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BY THAT DATE. SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNTIL THE ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 1. The applicant and/or owner shall obtain written approval of the development (site plan and/or use) from the agencies noted below. All site improvements are prohibited prior to approval of these agencies. a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shall approve the facility. b) The Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics shall approve the facility. c) If applicable, the County Engineer must approve a surface drainage run-off plan. The plan shall contain all proposed site grading. Please contact the County Engineer at (208) 287-7900 for fee and application information. See Section 8-4A- ] 1 of the Ada County Code for drainage plan standards. 2. The facility shall have approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation. 3. The applicant and/or owner shall provide details of the fencing material. The fencing material shall comply with the standards in Section 8-5-3-78 of the Ada County Code, Cyclone or chainlink fencing (with or without slats) shall not be deemed a screening material. 4. The applicant and/or owner shall submit a copy of the final set of plans that is stamped by a licensed engineer. 5. The applicant and/or owner shall submit to the Director a draft of the lease area description and the Record of Survey for review prior to recording. 6. If required by the Ada County Building Code as set forth in Title 7, Chapter 2, of the Ada County Code, the applicant and/or owncr shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing any development. Please contact the County Building Official at (208) 287- 7900 for fee and application information. The design and construction of the development shall comply with the approved and stamped master site plan and the Ada County Code. 7. A building permit is required for the tower, equipment building, propane pad, and fence. 8. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when all of the above conditions have been met. In the event conditions cannot be met by the desired date of occupancy, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 477 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. TERMS OF APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING TERMS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES OR YOUR APPROVAL MAY BE REVOKED. 9. A zoning certificate and/or a building permit may not be issued until 15 days after the Commission issued the written decision on the proposed development. In the event the decision of the Commission is appealed, the building permit may not be issued until the appeal is resolved in favor of the proposed development. See Section 8-7-7 of the Ada County Code for more information on appeals. 10. The Director must approve any modification and/or expansion to the master site plan. See Section 8-4E-3 of the Ada County Codc. 11. The use must comply with the specific use standards for [Tower or Antenna Structure, Private] in Section 8-5-3 of the Ada County Code. 12. The property must be managed and maintained consistent with the standard regulations in Title 8, Chapter 4, Article A of the Ada County Code. Please note that this Article contains specific regulations regarding the accumulation of junk, atmospheric emissions, construction sites, hazardous material storage, outdoor public address systems, outdoor storage of chemicals and fertilizers, transmission line corridors, and utilities. 13. Any lighting on the site shall comply with the lighting regulations in Title 8, Chapter 4, Article H, of the Ada County Code. 14. The use must comply with the noise regulations in Ada County Code, Title 5, Chapter 13. 15. All drainage shall be retained onsite during and after construction. 16. The contractor shall restore disturbed areas to predevelopment condition according to the County Engineer. 17. Any outdoor storage on the site shall comply with Section 8-5-3-78 of the Ada County Code. 18. If there is a change in ownership or lessee interest, Ada County Development Services shall be notified of such change and any subsequent owners or lessee interests will abidc by the conditions of approval. 19. The tower and associated facilities shall comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions. 20. The facility shall be maintained in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations and construction standards, 21. The facility shall be removed within sixty (60) days after cessation of use. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Project #202101322 CU Ada County Sheriff's Office DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 478 Exhibit A Pape 2 INSTiU, IMA4i DSJ PAe oF54 EXHIBIT K-2 #201201173-CU DECISION BEFORE THE ADA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In re: Application of Insite Towers File No. 201201173-CU/HD FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT If any of these Findings of Fact are deemed Conclusions of Law, they are incorporated into the Conclusions of Law section. A. The Commission finds that the RECORD is comprised of: 1. Exhibits attached to the Staff Report; 2. Exhibit A to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; and 3. All other information contained in Ada County Development Services File No. 201201173-CU/HD. B. As to PROCEDURAL ITEMS, the Commission finds the following: 1. In accordance with Section 8-7A-3 of the Ada County Code, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 11, 2012, as shown by the neighborhood meeting certificate form dated June 11, 2012, submitted with the application; 2. Application submission of File No. 201201173-CU/HD occurred on September 14, 2012, and the application was scheduled for the November 8, 2012, Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing; 3. On September 25, 2012, staff notified other agencies of this application and solicited their comments. Any comments received were incorporated into the staff report and are attached as exhibits; and 4. On September 25, 2012, property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the hearing via U.S. mail as shown by the mailed radius notice letter and associated mailing list. Legal notice of the Commission's hearing was published in The Idaho Statesman on October 23, 2012. Notices of the public hearing were FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File Na 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 479 Page 1 Jr.STRU. j 07 ,--j 1.e5u3 . PAC:09. OF +'-] posted on the property before October 29, 2012, and a certification of sign posting document was submitted to the Director before November 1, 2012. C. As to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the Commission finds, based on the application materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the following: 1. PROPOSED USES The present request concerns the establishment of a commercial tower (cell tower) with accessory equipment storage and vehicular access improvements to provide infrastructure to augment wireless communication service in the general area. 2. PROPOSED STRUCTURES A 100-foot tall tower with 6-foot lightning rod and a 300 s.f. equipment shelter are planned in conjunction with the proposed use. 3. PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS Proposed site improvements include the establishment of an access road originating from State Highway 55 up to a building pad that will be improved to support the proposed tower and equipment yard. D. Based on the materials found in File No. 2012011.73-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning the SITE DESCRIPTION: 1. PARCEL NUMBER AND LOCATION The subject property is identified as Ada County Tax Parcel No. S0107110050. The overall property contains 592.400 acres and the tower is located within a 5,625 sq ft lease area on the west side of HW 55, north of Avimor at 20751 N. HW 55, BOISE, 83714, Section 7, 5N, 2E. 2. OWNERSHIP According to currently available records retained by the Ada County Assessor's Office, First American Title Insurance Company and Suncor Development Company presently own the subject property. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Property size: The subject property contains approximately 592 acres. Existing structures: There appears to be roughly one (1) existing structure located on the site, which will remain. Existing vegetation: Vegetation on the site includes sagebrush, grasses, and weeds, etc. Slope: The subject property contains varying slopes some of which exceed 15%. Irrigation: Unknown. Drainage: Unknown. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 480 Page 2 IN ;Trill. NJ.: `I [A 53EI PACES,= 51/ Views: The site has clear views in all directions. Other Opportunities and/or Constraints: The property is located within the Hillside and WUFI Overlay Districts. E. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject site is generally vacant with agricultural and rural uses; the property is currently zoned PC/RP. F. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: The property to the north is zoned RP, and is predominantly used for rural uses. East: The property to the east is zoned PC, and is vacant. South: The property to the south is zoned PC and RP, and is predominantly used for rural and single-family residential uses. West: The property to the west is zoned RP, and is vacant. G. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps and materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning SERVICES: Access Street and Designation: Access to the site is provided from N. Highway 55, a principal arterial. Fire Protection: The subject property is not located with in the jurisdictional limits of a fire protection district. Sewage Disposal: Sewage disposal service is not presently available or proposed for the envisioned use. Water Service: Water service is not presently available or proposed for the intended use. Irrigation District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established irrigation districts. Drainage District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established drainage districts. I. As to the APPLICABLE LAW, the Commission finds the following: This section details the comp plan goals, objectives and policies; the zoning ordinance regulations; and other applicable standards regarding development of the subject property. 1. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 3, Article H of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request to authorize the modification of slopes that exceed fifteen percent (15%) to allow the property to be improved with FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 481 Page 3 I JSTt,U. i,034 (05.34( PACES 07544 an access road and building pad. The required findings for approval of a hillside development plan are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-3H-6: REQUIRED FINDINGS: A. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development. The proposed development shall result in minimum disturbance of hillside areas; 1) The Commission finds that the site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development because of the following: a) The property will include adequate space for the siting of the envisioned access road upgrades and the proposed structure once hillside modifications are completed; and b) The physical characteristics of the property, as described in the submitted geotechnical evaluation and recommendations of the engineer of record, will support the design of the proposed development and planned access road. 2) The Commission finds that the extent of the disturbance caused the proposed modifications of the subject property for the benefit the proposed use, will be kept at a minimum as demonstrated by the following: a) Grading of the property for the envisioned use is proposed in a manner that minimizes hillside disturbance; and b) An existing access road is used to the greatest extent possible minimizing additional area that would need to be disturbed if an entirely new access roadway was improved. b. B. The grading and excavation proposed in connection with the development shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; 1) The Commission finds that a term of approval will ensure that the proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road will not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, based on the professional recommendation and analysis provided by the engineer of record as described in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and as recommended by the Ada County Interim Engineer. c. C. Areas not suited for development because of soil, geology, vegetation, or hydrology limitations are designated as open space use; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 482 Page 4 INSTRU.Ir'D. V-11P53. `, PAAESt l07.5q- 1) The Commission finds that no area of the subject property has been identified as not being suitable for development and that all other areas not associated with the disturbed areas being addressed will remain in their present state. d. D. Disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat is minimized; and 1) The Commission finds that disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat has been minimized because of the following a) A relatively flat area of the property was selected to be improved with the building pad for the proposed use; and b) The area selected to be disturbed was in close proximity to or within the existing access road thus minimizing the need for additional disturbance for a longer or new roadway. e. E. The proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigation for the identified visual impacts beyond the normally expected impact of hillside development. 1) The Commission finds that the proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigation for the identified visual impacts due to the following: a) The proposal and supporting documentation does not identify any visual impacts that would exceed what would normally be expected with hillside development; b) As detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report submitted with the request, disturbed areas will be revegetated; c) Based on topography associated with the subject property and proposed access road improvements, the most highly disturbed areas associated with the access road are not readily visible from Highway 55; and d) Finished slopes will be finely graded to portray a more natural slope transition to match natural slopes as detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report. 2. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 5, Article B of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request far the establishment of a commercial tower in the RP Zoning Base District, which requires conditional use approval. The required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-58-5: REQUIRED FINDINGS: a. The proposed use is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because of the following reasons: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 483 Page 5 I .x.w.146:94 i(l5..j PAGES c�O". a) The proposal will be required to comply with all applicable county regulations; b) The proposal has been transmitted to public agencies such as fire, police, and emergency service providers and no comments have been received indicating concern with impacts to health, safety or welfare; and c) The proposal complies or is conditioned to comply, with the specific use standards found Title 8, Chapter 5 of the Ada County Code as described below. b. The proposed use shall not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties because of the following reasons: (a) The proposed use will be subject to specific use standards that have been established to aid in the protection of surrounding properties by setting limits on noise, hazards and the overall intensity of a conditional use; (b) Large amounts of traffic are not anticipated due to the nature of the use; and (c) Property surrounding the identified lease area is presently vacant as detailed above. c. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan because of the following reasons: a) According to official zoning maps, the subject property is not located within an established area of city impact; b) Since the subject property is not located within an area of city impact, the Ada County Comprehensive Plan is applicable; c) The use location is identified as "Rural" on the applicable Ada County Future Land Use Map; d) The location and low intensity of the proposed use will assist in achieving Goal 5.7 which calls for allowing a limited amount and range of commercial uses in rural areas, consistent with rural character; and e) The proposed use will provide wireless telecommunication and E-911 service to the rural community assisting in the achievement of Policy 5.9- 9, which calls for the allowance of quasi -public uses in rural areas if they serve the needs of the rural community. d. The proposed use complies with the purpose statement of the applicable base district and with the specific use standards as set forth in this chapter; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 484 Page 6 INSTRU. NO.• q3 j ` PAGES 1) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the applicable base district purpose statement: a) As highlighted above, the proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan; b) As demonstrated by a review of the subject property and it's relationship to the official Prime Farmland Geographic Information Layer retained by Ada County, the proposed use will not be located on prime agricultural land; c) The proposed use will allow agricultural uses and rangeland uses to continue; and d) No evidence was found that showed that the location of the proposed use is considered a hazardous area. 2) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the standards for a commercial tower or antenna structure outlined in Section 8- 5-3-114, of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance: a) Applicability: (1) As described in the detailed letter, the specific use standards outlined in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance are applicable since the proposed commercial tower will be used to propagate wireless radio signals for telecommunications; and (2) The proposed use entails the construction of an entirely new commercial tower and as stated above, requires conditional use approval. b) General Standards for Commercial Tower Structures and Associated Equipment: (1) A condition of approval will require the facility to comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions; (2) An approval from the Federal Aviation Administration was submitted with the application, and a condition of approval will require the use to receive applicable approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation; (3) A condition of approval will require that the facility receive approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation; (4) A condition of approval will require the applicant and / or facility owner to obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal , state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits; (5) A condition of approval will require that the facility be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 485 Page 7 (6) A condition of approval will require that the owners of the tower continuously ensure that the facility is maintained in a manner to prevent the creation of a public nuisance; (7) The Commission further finds that the proposed facility meets the specific use standards for outdoor storage set forth in Ada County Code Section 8-5-3-78, as demonstrated by the following: (a) As shown on the submitted site plan, and as specifically described in the detailed letter dated September 14, 2012, six foot (6') tall cedar fencing is proposed along the boundary of the identified lease area that will provide screening of any outdoor storage or equipment shelters; (b) A review of the submitted site plan does not show that any storage is proposed within required yards, or on sidewalks or parking areas; (c) As demonstrated by the description of the proposed use identified in the materials submitted with the application, the site will not be used as a pit, mine or quarry, or as a contractor's yard or shop; (d) As detailed in the information included with the application, the site will not be used as a junkyard, an automobile wrecking yard, or as a vehicle impound yard; (e) The proposed use is not located within a designated special flood hazard area, or within a regulated floodplain as shown by FEMA Panel 0075; and (f) Accessory outdoor storage is not specifically proposed with the application. (8) As specifically described in Finding of Fact B.4, all property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the request for conditional use approval; (9) A condition of approval will require that the tower be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use; and (10) The Commission further finds that the proposed tower complies with construction, setback and fall zone standards as demonstrated by the following: (a) A condition of approval will require that the tower be constructed to the Telecommunications Industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended; (b) According to the official zoning maps maintained by Ada County, the subject property is not located within an airport influence area; (c) Since the proposed tower is over 20 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the tower accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 486 Page 8 PJSTRU. f4a ti � t 'L r !'ACi=34f 5 ' - (d) Although the proposed tower as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings exceeds the minimum height limitation for the RP zoning base district, the tower will be required to be setback in accord with the minimum setback standard of 25 feet from any property not fronting a public street since the minimum exceeds the alternative of one foot (1') for every ten feet (10') of tower height; (e) Since the proposed tower is 106 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the identified lease area which is located entirely on the subject property be considered the fall zone and that it be restricted from future development; and (f) The proposed muted gray color of the proposed tower, similar to the color used on existing transmission line towers in the vicinity, will be architecturally and visibly compatible with existing vegetation and rural uses in the area. c) Application Requirements: The Application materials shall include the following written documentation: (1) The Commission finds that a suitability analysis was submitted with the application that included the following: (a) The application materials include an aerial photograph indentifying the proposed tower location along with one and two mile radius circles from the proposed tower location; (b) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; (c) A description of the site and surrounding area is included in the submitted Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report; (d) The topography in the vicinity of the proposed tower was described on multiple drawings included to fulfill the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and (e) Propagation maps were included with the application that clearly show the need for the proposed facility to be located in the chosen location. (2) A signed lease agreement was submitted with the application, and it does not appear the requirement for the tower owner to remove the tower and associated facilities upon cessation of the use was applicable as no language was included in the agreement; however, the tower will be required to be removed within 60-days of cessation of the use via term of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 487 Page 9 lit'i'J. �' (OS :3G PAEE i o, 54'J d) Additional Application Requirements For Facilities That Require A Conditional Use Approval: (1) The Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application show that the tower is designed structurally, electrical, and in all other respects to accommodate both the proposed equipment and comparable equipment for at least three other potential users; (2) While a condition of approval will require that a report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer be submitted with the building permit application, the Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application describes the facility height and design, documents the height above grade for the recommended mounting position for collocated antennas, describes the minimum separation distances between antennas, and describes the facility's capacity; (3)`A letter of intent dated September 13, 2012, was submitted with the application that indicates that the facility owner is committed to allowing the shared use of the facility in accord with reasonable terms and conditions of shared use; (4) A review of Ada County Zoning records did not reveal any existing or approved commercial towers within a one mile radius that could be utilized instead of constructing a new tower in the proposed manner and location; and (5) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; e. The proposed use complies with all applicable county ordinances; 1) The Commission finds that Ada County Code 8-4A-21 is applicable, and when considering compliance with the identified code section the Commission find the following: a) Ada County Code Section 8-4A-21 requires all new utilities to be installed underground; b) According to the detailed letter submitted with the application, new utilities will be installed to serve the proposed use; c) The applicant also indicates in the detailed letter that the new utilities are proposed to be installed above ground because burying the utilities at the present time is premature due to the fact that the property which must be crossed in order to access the proposed use is undeveloped, and any utilities installed underground at the present time most likely will have to be relocated and altered once development occurs; d) A condition of approval has been added that either requires the installation of utilities underground, or due to the rural setting of the proposed use, requires the applicant, after securing approval from the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 488 Page 10 INSTFU. PA,CE L07 sq Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing, to submit a utility or similar plan demonstrating that all above ground utilities are proposed in a manner that represents minimal visual impact to the Payette Scenic Byway and rural character of the area. 2) The Commission finds that finds that the proposed use complies with all other applicable County ordinances as outlined in Finding of Fact B and as required by Condition of Approval 28. f The proposed use complies with all applicable state and federal regulations; 1) The Commission finds that all uses are innately required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations as a matter of law. The proposed use and facilities shall not impede the normal development of surrounding property; and g• 1) The Commission finds that the proposed improvements will not impede the normal development of surrounding property because of the following: a) Surrounding properties will still be able to be developed even after the proposed use is established as has been seen with other cell towers approved by Ada County; and b) The proposal assists the normal development of surrounding property by potentially providing a needed service for said development. h. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces, and traffic circulation measures are, or shall be, provided for the proposed use. 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will be provided with adequate public and private facilities as demonstrated by the following: a) The proposed use will be served by electrical and telephone service as described in the Detailed Letter; b) The subject property has roadway frontage on Highway 55 and will utilize an existing access point; c) Traffic circulation measures have been provided that allow service vehicles to access the site without the need of backing out onto the public right-of-way system; d) Service employees will be able to park their vehicles either within the fenced lease area, or on the access road in front of the fenced equipment area; and e) The Idaho Transportation Department has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed concerns with impacts associated with transportation issues. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 489 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW If any of these Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Findings of into the Findings of Fact section. 1. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD 3H-6 of the Ada County Code. 2. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD 5B-5 of the Ada County Code. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 490 Fact they are incorporated complies with Section 8- complies with Section 8- Page 12 INlSTRU. No.. . Uo 5.3 ORDER Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Commission hereby approves File No. 201201173-CU/HD subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A. DATED this ri"" day of N°'' ,2012. By: ATTEST: Richard Beck, Secretary ja ► eidl, Chairman Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 491 Page 13 JPACES I�ISTRU�h°0�. EXHIBIT A REQUIRED ACTIONS. THE FOLLOWING LIST DETAILS THE TASKS THAT MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF FILE 201201173-CU/HD WILL BE CONSIDERED FINAL. THE APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER HAVE TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE USE TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED ACTIONS AND TO OBTAIN A ZONING CERTIFICATE UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION IS GRANTED. SEE SECTION 8-7-6 OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOR INFORMATION ON TIME EXTENSIONS. IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, THE ZONING CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BECOME VOID IF A VALID ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEAR TIME LIMITATION. SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNTIL THE ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 1. The applicant and/or owner shall obtain written approval of the development (site plan and/or use) from the agencies/entities noted below. The approval may be on agency letterhead referring to the approved use or written/stamped upon a copy of the approved site plan. All site improvements are prohibited prior to approval of these agencies. a) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation if applicable; b) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation if applicable; and c) Since a portion of the access road that will be used to access the facility is located within Boise County, the applicant and/or owner shall submit evidence that all Boise County requirements for access road, grading, and hillside improvements, as may be applicable, have been satisfied. 2. The Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation states that soil exploration at the tower site was not possible due to high fire danger at the time the field work was completed. The closest test pit was approximately 2,000 ft. from the tower site. The recommendation on page 10 of the Evaluation under Geotechnical Continuity should be followed to verify soil and rock conditions to allow the Geotechnical Engineer to provide consultation regarding potential impacts on the foundation construction. Provide documentation that these recommendations will be implemented. 3. The following plan deficiencies and clarifications shall be addressed prior to issuance of a zoning certificate or building permit: a) The Roadway and Drainage plans are missing the typical roadway section for station 62+70-42+37.60; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 492 Exhibit A Page 1 EXHIBIT A b) The typical roadway sections included in the Roadway and Drainage plans do not show the proposed conveyance method for the storm drainage. Culverts are shown, but no information on how the stormwater will reach the culverts. The soils in this area are highly erodible. if a conveyance channel is not constructed as part of the roadway, one will form, and likely result in significant damage to the roadway; c) The Roadway and Drainage plans do not reflect the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation recommendation for grading the final and underlying subgrade at the foundation a minimum of 5% away from the proposed tower; and d) Although Page 3 of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan states that a Public Comment Document is attached, no such document was found. Provide a copy of the Public Comment Document if it exists. 4. The applicant and/or owner shall install all utilities needed to serve the proposed use underground, unless the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission specifically authorizes aboveground installation. If above ground installation is approved, the applicant and/or owner shall submit and receive approval of a utility or similar plan that shows the location of the utility installation route and describes what efforts were undertaken to be sensitive to the greatest extent possible to visual impacts on the Payette Scenic Byway and the rural character of the area. 5. The applicant and/or owner shall submit an updated site plan or separate exhibit that shows the location of the required fall zone within the lease area as described in Ada County Code 8-5-3-114-B-10-e. The document must indicate that the fall zone will be permanently restricted from future development during the operation of the facility. 6. If required by the Ada County Building Code as set forth in Title 7, Chapter 2, of the Ada County Code, the applicant and/or owner shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing any development. Please contact the County Building Official at 287-7900 for fee and application information. The design and construction of the development shall comply with the approved project and the Ada County Code. A report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer shall be submitted with the building permit application. The tower shall be constructed to the Telecommunications industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended. 7. The applicant and/or owner shall secure a zoning certificate before any site work commences. A zoning certificate may be issued when all of the above conditions have been met. In the event conditions cannot be met before site work needs to be commenced, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 493 Exhibit A Page 2 EXHIBIT A 8. The use may commence once a final zoning inspection has been completed by Planning Staff. The applicant and/or owner shall submit a zoning inspection request form and pay the applicable fee. In the event conditions or requirements cannot be met by the desired date of occupancy, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. TERMS OF APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING TERMS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES OR YOUR APPROVAL WILL BE REVOKED. 9. The applicant and/or facility owner shall obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal, state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits. 10. A licensed engineer(s) registered with the State of Idaho shall be retained as Engineer of Record and shall monitor all work covered by this approval. After the work is complete and the site has obtained final inspection approval from the Ada County Building Department, the monitoring engineer(s) shall provide Ada County with a report stamped with their seal indicating that all work performed on site was in compliance with the documentation, plans reports and studies submitted with the Hillside Application. 11. The applicant and/or facility owner shall complete and submit sufficient documentation that confirms that the repair, reseeding, remulching, replacement as needed and indentified in the maintenance procedures on Page 7 of the Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report, have taken place and 60% cover has been established by the end of the 2013 growing season. 12. Construction shall be scheduled to minimize soil disturbance between December 1 and April 15. 13. Proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 14. The applicant and/or owner shall follow and complete the recommendations contained in the technical reports and studies submitted with the application including but not limited to the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared by Strata, Inc., dated September 17, 2012, the Visual Impact Study prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 28, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Storm Drainage Letter Report prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 28, 2012, the Avmior Cell Tower Road Roadway Plan and Drainage Plan prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report prepared by Land West Studio, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 494 Exhibit A Page 3 INST1U. No. SL QT-37 PAC S I o S`'� EXHIBIT A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, along with any recommended clarifications identified by the Ada County Interim Engineer in a memo dated October 25, 2012. 15. Vegetation shall be removed only when absolutely necessary, such as for the construction of structures, filled areas, roadways, firebreaks. 16. Every effort shall be made to conserve topsoil that is removed during construction for later use on areas requiring revegetation or landscaping, e.g., cut and fill slopes. 17. Curb and gutter, pavement, and appurtenant roadway drainage facilities shall be designed to control roadway runoff to such a point that it is contained within the natural watercourse system. 18. No construction material including soil and other material shall be deposited within any floodway or watercourse. 19. Sediment catchment ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the owner at the downstream property line of each development or at other appropriate locations to protect downstream properties and watercourses from the adverse impacts of sediment generated on -site due to development construction work. 20. All sediment catchment ponds shall be designed to provide a minimum of forty five (45) minutes detention time at a velocity not greater than two feet (2') per second and shall provide for the removal of surface debris and surface contaminants. Stockpiles shall be a maximum of fifteen feet (15') in height. 21. The facility shall be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance. 22. The commercial tower facility and associated equipment shall continuously be maintained in a manner so as to prevent the creation of a public nuisance. 23. The commercial tower shall be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use. 24. The commercial tower shall accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights. 25. The identified fall zone shall be permanently restricted from further development during the operation of the facility; the restriction does not precluded commercial tower related improvements including equipment shelters from being located within the fall zone. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Flle No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 495 Exhibit A Page 4 EXHIBIT A 26. The applicant and / or tower owner shall comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions. 27. The property must be managed and maintained consistent with the standard regulations in Title 8, Chapter 4, Article A of the Ada County Code. Please note that this Article contains specific regulations regarding the accumulation of junk, atmospheric conditions, construction sites, hazardous material storage, outdoor public address systems, outdoor storage of chemicals and fertilizers, transmission line corridors, and utilities. 28. The use must comply with all applicable County regulations. 29. Any lighting installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-4H. 30. Any signage installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-41. 31. The use must comply with the Ada County Noise Ordinance as set forth in Ada County Code Title 5, Chapter 13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 496 Exhibit A Page 5 i':'i ;f ;'u, ir0 MEM:91 07 9W BEFORE THE ADA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In re: Application of Insite Towers File No. 201201173-CU/HD FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT If any of these Findings of Fact are deemed Conclusions of Law, they are incorporated into the Conclusions of Law section. A. The Commission finds that the RECORD is comprised of: 1. Exhibits attached to the Staff Report; 2. Exhibit A to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; and 3. All other information contained in Ada County Development Services File No. 201201173-CU/HD. B. As to PROCEDURAL ITEMS, the Commission finds the following: 1. In accordance with Section 8-7A-3 of the Ada County Code, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 11, 2012, as shown by the neighborhood meeting certificate form dated June 11, 2012, submitted with the application; 2. Application submission of File No. 201201173-CU/HD occurred on September 14, 2012, and the application was scheduled for the November 8, 2012, Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing; 3. On September 25, 2012, staff notified other agencies of this application and solicited their comments. Any comments received were incorporated into the staff report and are attached as exhibits; and 4. On September 25, 2012, property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the hearing via U.S. mail as shown by the mailed radius notice letter and associated mailing list. Legal notice of the Commission's hearing was published in The Idaho Statesman on October 23, 2012. Notices of the public hearing were FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 497 Page 1 IINZ.Z;U.1.631 1PACE9311- -:54- posted on the property before October 29, 2012, and a certification of sign posting document was submitted to the Director before November 1, 2012. C. As to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the Commission finds, based on the application materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the following: 1. PROPOSED USES The present request concerns the establishment of a commercial tower (cell tower) with accessory equipment storage and vehicular access improvements to provide infrastructure to augment wireless communication service in the general area. 2. PROPOSED STRUCTURES A 100-foot tall tower with 6-foot lightning rod and a 300 s.f. equipment shelter are planned in conjunction with the proposed use. 3. PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS Proposed site improvements include the establishment of an access road originating from State Highway 55 up to a building pad that will be improved to support the proposed tower and equipment yard. D. Based on the materials found in File No. 2012011.73-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning the SITE DESCRIPTION: 1. PARCEL NUMBER AND LOCATION The subject property is identified as Ada County Tax Parcel No. S0107110050. The overall property contains 592.400 acres and the tower is located within a 5,625 sq ft lease area on the west side of HW 55, north of Avimor at 20751 N. HW 55, BOISE, 83714, Section 7, 5N, 2E. 2. OWNERSHIP According to currently available records retained by the Ada County Assessor's Office, First American Title Insurance Company and Suncor Development Company presently own the subject property. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Property size: The subject property contains approximately 592 acres. Existing structures: There appears to be roughly one (1) existing structure located on the site, which will remain. Existing vegetation: Vegetation on the site includes sagebrush, grasses, and weeds, etc. Slope: The subject property contains varying slopes some of which exceed 15%. Irrigation: Unknown. Drainage: Unknown. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 498 Page 2 ill. : ,.u. No.IS4 PACES 0.75a_q_ Views: The site has clear views in all directions. Other Opportunities and/or Constraints: The property is located within the Hillside and WUFI Overlay Districts. E. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject site is generally vacant with agricultural and rural uses; the property is currently zoned PC/RP. F. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: The property to the north is zoned RP, and is predominantly used for rural uses. East: The property to the east is zoned PC, and is vacant. South: The property to the south is zoned PC and RP, and is predominantly used for rural and single-family residential uses. West: The property to the west is zoned RP, and is vacant. G. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps and materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning SERVICES: Access Street and Designation: Access to the site is provided from N. Highway 55, a principal arterial. Fire Protection: The subject property is not located with in the jurisdictional limits of a fire protection district. Sewage Disposal: Sewage disposal service is not presently available or proposed for the envisioned use. Water Service: Water service is not presently available or proposed for the intended use. Irrigation District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established irrigation districts. Drainage District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established drainage districts. I. As to the APPLICABLE LAW, the Commission finds the following: This section details the comp plan goals, objectives and policies; the zoning ordinance regulations; and other applicable standards regarding development of the subject property. 1. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 3, Article H of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request to authorize the modification of slopes that exceed fifteen percent (15%) to allow the property to be improved with FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 1D/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 499 Page 3 an access road and building pad. The required findings for approval of a hillside development plan are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-3H-6: REQUIRED FINDINGS: A. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development. The proposed development shall result in minimum disturbance of hillside areas; 1) The Commission finds that the site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development because of the following: a) The property will include adequate space for the siting of the envisioned access road upgrades and the proposed structure once hillside modifications are completed; and b) The physical characteristics of the property, as described in the submitted geotechnical evaluation and recommendations of the engineer of record, will support the design of the proposed development and planned access road. 2) The Commission finds that the extent of the disturbance caused the proposed modifications of the subject property for the benefit the proposed use, will be kept at a minimum as demonstrated by the following: a) Grading of the property for the envisioned use is proposed in a manner that minimizes hillside disturbance; and b) An existing access road is used to the greatest extent possible minimizing additional area that would need to be disturbed if an entirely new access roadway was improved. b. B. The grading and excavation proposed in connection with the development shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; 1) The Commission finds that a term of approval will ensure that the proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road will not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, based on the professional recommendation and analysis provided by the engineer of record as described in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and as recommended by the Ada County Interim Engineer. c. C. Areas not suited for development because of soil, geology, vegetation, or hydrology limitations are designated as open space use; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 500 Page 4 1) The Commission finds that no area of the subject property has been identified as not being suitable for development and that all other areas not associated with the disturbed areas being addressed will remain in their present state. d. D. Disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat is minimized; and 1) The Commission finds that disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat has been minimized because of the following: a) A relatively flat area of the property was selected to be improved with the building pad for the proposed use; and b) The area selected to be disturbed was in close proximity to or within the existing access road thus minimizing the need for additional disturbance for a longer or new roadway. e. E. The proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigation for the identified visual impacts beyond the normally expected impact of hillside development. 1) The Commission finds that the proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigation for the identified visual impacts due to the following: a) The proposal and supporting documentation does not identify any visual impacts that would exceed what would normally be expected with hillside development; b) As detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report submitted with the request, disturbed areas will be revegetated; c) Based on topography associated with the subject property and proposed access road improvements, the most highly disturbed areas associated with the access road are not readily visible from Highway 55; and d) Finished slopes will be finely graded to portray a more natural slope transition to match natural slopes as detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report. 2. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 5, Article B of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request for the establishment of a commercial tower in the RP Zoning Base District, which requires conditional use approval. The required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-58-5: REQUIRED FINDINGS: a. The proposed use is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because of the following reasons: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 501 Page 5 IINSTRU. f'.'.r PAGEa2 . __ a) The proposal will be required to comply with all applicable county regulations; b) The proposal has been transmitted to public agencies such as fire, police, and emergency service providers and no comments have been received indicating concern with impacts to health, safety or welfare; and c) The proposal complies or is conditioned to comply, with the specific use standards found Title 8, Chapter 5 of the Ada County Code as described below. b. The proposed use shall not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties because of the following reasons: (a) The proposed use will be subject to specific use standards that have been established to aid in the protection of surrounding properties by setting limits on noise, hazards and the overall intensity of a conditional use; (b) Large amounts of traffic are not anticipated due to the nature of the use; and (c) Property surrounding the identified lease area is presently vacant as detailed above. c. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan because of the following reasons: a) According to official zoning maps, the subject property is not located within an established area of city impact; b) Since the subject property is not located within an area of city impact, the Ada County Comprehensive Plan is applicable; c) The use location is identified as "Rural" on the applicable Ada County Future Land Use Map; d) The location and low intensity of the proposed use will assist in achieving Goal 5.7 which calls for allowing a limited amount and range of commercial uses in rural areas, consistent with rural character; and e) The proposed use will provide wireless telecommunication and E-911 service to the rural community assisting in the achievement of Policy 5.9- 9, which calls for the allowance of quasi -public uses in rural areas if they serve the needs of the rural community. d. The proposed use complies with the purpose statement of the applicable base district and with the specific use standards as set forth in this chapter; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 502 Page 6 1) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the applicable base district purpose statement: a) As highlighted above, the proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan; b) As demonstrated by a review of the subject property and it's relationship to the official Prime Farmland Geographic Information Layer retained by Ada County, the proposed use will not be located on prime agricultural land; c) The proposed use will allow agricultural uses and rangeland uses to continue; and d) No evidence was found that showed that the location of the proposed use is considered a hazardous area. 2) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the standards for a commercial tower or antenna structure outlined in Section 8- 5-3-114, of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance: a) Applicability: (1) As described in the detailed letter, the specific use standards outlined in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance are applicable since the proposed commercial tower will be used to propagate wireless radio signals for telecommunications; and (2) The proposed use entails the construction of an entirely new commercial tower and as stated above, requires conditional use approval. b) General Standards for Commercial Tower Structures and Associated Equipment: (1) A condition of approval will require the facility to comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions; (2) An approval from the Federal Aviation Administration was submitted with the application, and a condition of approval will require the use to receive applicable approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation; (3) A condition of approval will require that the facility receive approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation; (4) A condition of approval will require the applicant and / or facility owner to obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal , state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits; (5) A condition of approval will require that the facility be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 503 Page 7 (6) A condition of approval will require that the owners of the tower continuously ensure that the facility is maintained in a manner to prevent the creation of a public nuisance; (7) The Commission further finds that the proposed facility meets the specific use standards for outdoor storage set forth in Ada County Code Section 8-5-3-78, as demonstrated by the following: (a) As shown on the submitted site plan, and as specifically described in the detailed letter dated September 14, 2012, six foot (6') tall cedar fencing is proposed along the boundary of the identified lease area that will provide screening of any outdoor storage or equipment shelters; (b) A review of the submitted site plan does not show that any storage is proposed within required yards, or on sidewalks or parking areas; (c) As demonstrated by the description of the proposed use identified in the materials submitted with the application, the site will not be used as a pit, mine or quarry, or as a contractor's yard or shop; (d) As detailed in the information included with the application, the site will not be used as a junkyard, an automobile wrecking yard, or as a vehicle impound yard; (e) The proposed use is not located within a designated special flood hazard area, or within a regulated floodplain as shown by FEMA Panel 0075; and (f) Accessory outdoor storage is not specifically proposed with the application. (8) As specifically described in Finding of Fact B.4, all property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the request for conditional use approval; (9) A condition of approval will require that the tower be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use; and (10) The Commission further finds that the proposed tower complies with construction, setback and fall zone standards as demonstrated by the following: (a) A condition of approval will require that the tower be constructed to the Telecommunications Industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended; (b) According to the official zoning maps maintained by Ada County, the subject property is not located within an airport influence area; (c) Since the proposed tower is over 20 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the tower accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 504 Page 6 (d) Although the proposed tower as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings exceeds the minimum height limitation for the RP zoning base district, the tower will be required to be setback in accord with the minimum setback standard of 25 feet from any property not fronting a public street since the minimum exceeds the alternative of one foot (1') for every ten feet (10') of tower height; (e) Since the proposed tower is 106 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the identified lease area which is located entirely on the subject property be considered the fall zone and that it be restricted from future development; and (f) The proposed muted gray color of the proposed tower, similar to the color used on existing transmission line towers in the vicinity, will be architecturally and visibly compatible with existing vegetation and rural uses in the area. c) Application Requirements: The Application materials shall include the following written documentation: (1) The Commission finds that a suitability analysis was submitted with the application that included the following: (a) The application materials include an aerial photograph indentifying the proposed tower location along with one and two mile radius circles from the proposed tower location; (b) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; (c) A description of the site and surrounding area is included in the submitted Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report; (d) The topography in the vicinity of the proposed tower was described on multiple drawings included to fulfill the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and (e) Propagation maps were included with the application that clearly show the need for the proposed facility to be located in the chosen location. (2) A signed lease agreement was submitted with the application, and it does not appear the requirement for the tower owner to remove the tower and associated facilities upon cessation of the use was applicable as no language was included in the agreement; however, the tower will be required to be removed within 60-days of cessation of the use via term of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 505 Page 9 iVISTrill. NO. 34(954 Pr40E3 OF 541 y d) Additional Application Requirements For Facilities That Require A Conditional Use Approval: (1) The Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application show that the tower is designed structurally, electrical, and in all other respects to accommodate both the proposed equipment and comparable equipment for at least three other potential users; (2) While a condition of approval will require that a report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer be submitted with the building permit application, the Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application describes the facility height and design, documents the height above grade for the recommended mounting position for collocated antennas, describes the minimum separation distances between antennas, and describes the facility's capacity; (3) A letter of intent dated September 13, 2012, was submitted with the application that indicates that the facility owner is committed to allowing the shared use of the facility in accord with reasonable terms and conditions of shared use; (4) A review of Ada County Zoning records did not reveal any existing or approved commercial towers within a one mile radius that could be utilized instead of constructing a new tower in the proposed manner and location; and (5) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; e. The proposed use complies with all applicable county ordinances; 1) The Commission finds that Ada County Code 8-4A-21 is applicable, and when considering compliance with the identified code section the Commission find the following: a) Ada County Code Section 8-4A-21 requires all new utilities to be installed underground; b) According to the detailed letter submitted with the application, new utilities will be installed to serve the proposed use; c) The applicant also indicates in the detailed letter that the new utilities are proposed to be installed above ground because burying the utilities at the present time is premature due to the fact that the property which must be crossed in order to access the proposed use is undeveloped, and any utilities installed underground at the present time most likely will have to be relocated and altered once development occurs; d) A condition of approval has been added that either requires the installation of utilities underground, or due to the rural setting of the proposed use, requires the applicant, after securing approval from the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 506 Page 10 Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing, to submit a utility or similar plan demonstrating that all above ground utilities are proposed in a manner that represents minimal visual impact to the Payette Scenic Byway and rural character of the area. 2) The Commission finds that finds that the proposed use complies with all other applicable County ordinances as outlined in Finding of Fact B and as required by Condition of Approval 28. f. The proposed use complies with all applicable state and federal regulations; 1) The Commission finds that all uses are innately required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations as a matter of law. The proposed use and facilities shall not impede the normal development of surrounding property; and 1) The Commission finds that the proposed improvements will not impede the normal development of surrounding property because of the following: a) Surrounding properties will still be able to be developed even after the proposed use is established as has been seen with other cell towers approved by Ada County; and b) The proposal assists the normal development of surrounding property by potentially providing a needed service for said development. h. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces, and traffic circulation measures are, or shall be, provided for the proposed use. 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will be provided with adequate public and private facilities as demonstrated by the following: a) The proposed use will be served by electrical and telephone service as described in the Detailed Letter; b) The subject property has roadway frontage on Highway 55 and will utilize an existing access point; c) Traffic circulation measures have been provided that allow service vehicles to access the site without the need of backing out onto the public right-of-way system; d) Service employees will be able to park their vehicles either within the fenced lease area, or on the access road in front of the fenced equipment area; and e) The Idaho Transportation Department has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed concerns with impacts associated with transportation issues. g. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 507 Page 11 Y PAi':E ? O 61 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW If any of these Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Findings of Fact they are incorporated into the Findings of Fact section. 1. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD complies with Section 8- 3H-6 of the Ada County Code. 2. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD complies with Section 8- 5B-5 of the Ada County Code. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 508 Page 12 ORDER Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Commission hereby approves File No. 201201173-CU/HD subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A. DATED this day of N ° ' , 2012. By: ATTEST: Richard Beck, Secretary Ja ISeidl, Chairman Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 509 Page 13 +J JSTnU.N EXHIBIT A REQUIRED ACTIONS. THE FOLLOWING LIST DETAILS THE TASKS THAT MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF FILE 201201173-CU/HD WILL BE CONSIDERED FINAL. THE APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER HAVE TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE USE TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED ACTIONS AND TO OBTAIN A ZONING CERTIFICATE UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION 1S GRANTED. SEE SECTION 8-7-6 OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOR INFORMATION ON TIME EXTENSIONS. IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, THE ZONING CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BECOME VOID IF A VALID ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEAR TIME LIMITATION. SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNTIL THE ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 1. The applicant and/or owner shall obtain written approval of the development (site plan and/or use) from the agencies/entities noted below. The approval may be on agency letterhead referring to the approved use or written/stamped upon a copy of the approved site plan. All site improvements are prohibited prior to approval of these agencies. a) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation if applicable; b) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation if applicable; and c) Since a portion of the access road that will be used to access the facility is located within Boise County, the applicant and/or owner shall submit evidence that all Boise County requirements for access road, grading, and hillside improvements, as may be applicable, have been satisfied. 2. The Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation states that soil exploration at the tower site was not possible due to high fire danger at the time the field work was completed. The closest test pit was approximately 2,000 ft. from the tower site. The recommendation on page 10 of the Evaluation under Geotechnical Continuity should be followed to verify soil and rock conditions to allow the Geotechnical Engineer to provide consultation regarding potential impacts on the foundation construction. Provide documentation that these recommendations will be implemented. 3. The following plan deficiencies and clarifications shall be addressed prior to issuance of a zoning certificate or building permit: a) The Roadway and Drainage plans are missing the typical roadway section for station 62+70-42+37.60; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 510 Exhibit A Page 1 t TU.i,;n')9 3 PACE1GG EXHIBIT A b) The typical roadway sections included in the Roadway and Drainage plans do not show the proposed conveyance method for the storm drainage. Culverts are shown, but no information on how the stormwater will reach the culverts. The soils in this area are highly erodible. If a conveyance channel is not constructed as part of the roadway, one will form, and likely result in significant damage to the roadway; c) The Roadway and Drainage plans do not reflect the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation recommendation for grading the final and underlying subgrade at the foundation a minimum of 50 away from the proposed tower; and d) Although Page 3 of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan states that a Public Comment Document is attached, no such document was found. Provide a copy of the Public Comment Document if it exists. 4. The applicant and/or owner shall install all utilities needed to serve the proposed use underground, unless the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission specifically authorizes aboveground installation. if above ground installation is approved, the applicant and/or owner shall submit and receive approval of a utility or similar plan that shows the location of the utility installation route and describes what efforts were undertaken to be sensitive to the greatest extent possible to visual impacts on the Payette Scenic Byway and the rural character of the area. 5. The applicant and/or owner shall submit an updated site plan or separate exhibit that shows the location of the required fall zone within the lease area as described in Ada County Code 8-5-3-114-B-10-e. The document must indicate that the fall zone will be permanently restricted from future development during the operation of the facility. 6. If required by the Ada County Building Code as set forth in Title 7, Chapter 2, of the Ada County Code, the applicant and/or owner shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing any development. Please contact the County Building Official at 287-7900 for fee and application information. The design and construction of the development shall comply with the approved project and the Ada County Code. A report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer shall be submitted with the building permit application. The tower shall be constructed to the Telecommunications Industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended. 7. The applicant and/or owner shall secure a zoning certificate before any site work commences. A zoning certificate may be issued when all of the above conditions have been met. In the event conditions cannot be met before site work needs to be commenced, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 511 Exhibit A Page 2 IN Tf U. Ro: sy to 3y PAGE& SI i _o &/y EXHIBIT A 8. The use may commence once a final zoning inspection has been completed by Planning Staff. The applicant and/or owner shall submit a zoning inspection request form and pay the applicable fee. In the event conditions or requirements cannot be met by the desired date of occupancy, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. TERMS OF APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING TERMS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES OR YOUR APPROVAL WMLL BE REVOKED. 9. The applicant and/or facility owner shall obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal, state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits. 10. A licensed engineer(s) registered with the State of Idaho shall be retained as Engineer of Record and shall monitor all work covered by this approval. After the work is complete and the site has obtained final inspection approval from the Ada County Building Department, the monitoring engineer(s) shall provide Ada County with a report stamped with their seal indicating that all work performed on site was in compliance with the documentation, plans reports and studies submitted with the Hillside Application. 11. The applicant and/or facility owner shall complete and submit sufficient documentation that confirms that the repair, reseeding, remulching, replacement as needed and indentified in the maintenance procedures on Page 7 of the Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report, have taken place and 60% cover has been established by the end of the 2013 growing season. 12. Construction shall be scheduled to minimize soil disturbance between December 1 and April 15. 13. Proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 14. The applicant and/or owner shall follow and complete the recommendations contained in the technical reports and studies submitted with the application including but not limited to the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared by Strata, Inc., dated September 17, 2012, the Visual Impact Study prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 28, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Storm Drainage Letter Report prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 28, 2012, the Avmior Cell Tower Road Roadway Plan and Drainage Plan prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report prepared by Land West Studio, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Ce11 Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 512 Exhibit A Page 3 EXHIBIT A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, along with any recommended clarifications identified by the Ada County Interim Engineer in a memo dated October 25, 2012. 15. Vegetation shall be removed only when absolutely necessary, such as for the construction of structures, filled areas, roadways, firebreaks. 16. Every effort shall be made to conserve topsoil that is removed during construction for later use on areas requiring revegetation or landscaping, e.g., cut and fill slopes. 17. Curb and gutter, pavement, and appurtenant roadway drainage facilities shall be designed to control roadway runoff to such a point that it is contained within the natural watercourse system. 18. No construction material including soil and other material shall be deposited within any floodway or watercourse. 19. Sediment catchment ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the owner at the downstream property line of each development or at other appropriate locations to protect downstream properties and watercourses from the adverse impacts of sediment generated on -site due to development construction work. 20. All sediment catchment ponds shall be designed to provide a minimum of forty five (45) minutes detention time at a velocity not greater than two feet (2') per second and shall provide for the removal of surface debris and surface contaminants. Stockpiles shall be a maximum of fifteen feet (15') in height. 21. The facility shall be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance. 22. The commercial tower facility and associated equipment shall continuously be maintained in a manner so as to prevent the creation of a public nuisance. 23. The commercial tower shall be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use. 24. The commercial tower shall accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights. 25. The identified fall zone shall be permanently restricted from further development during the operation of the facility; the restriction does not precluded commercial tower related improvements including equipment shelters from being located within the fall zone. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 513 Exhibit A Page 4 EXHIBIT A 26. The applicant and / or tower owner shall comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions. 27. The property must be managed and maintained consistent with the standard regulations in Title 8, Chapter 4, Article A of the Ada County Code. Please note that this Article contains specific regulations regarding the accumulation of junk, atmospheric conditions, construction sites, hazardous material storage, outdoor public address systems, outdoor storage of chemicals and fertilizers, transmission line corridors, and utilities. 28. The use must comply with all applicable County regulations. 29. Any lighting installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-4H. 30. Any signage installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-41. 31. The use must comply with the Ada County Noise Ordinance as set forth in Ada County Code Title 5, Chapter 13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 514 Exhibit A Page 5 I SThu.1:0739 [a S-3111 PAGE14 0754UJ BEFORE THE ADA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION In re: Application of Insite Towers File No. 201201173-CU/HD FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT If any of these Findings of Fact are deemed Conclusions of Law, they are incorporated into the Conclusions of Law section. A. The Commission finds that the RECORD is comprised of: 1. Exhibits attached to the Staff Report; 2. Exhibit A to the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; and 3. All other information contained in Ada County Development Services File No. 201201173-CU/HD. B. As to PROCEDURAL ITEMS, the Commission finds the following: 1. In accordance with Section 8-7A-3 of the Ada County Code, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 11, 2012, as shown by the neighborhood meeting certificate form dated June 11, 2012, submitted with the application; 2. Application submission of File No. 201201173-CU/HD occurred on September 14, 2012, and the application was scheduled for the November 8, 2012, Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing; 3. On September 25, 2012, staff notified other agencies of this application and solicited their comments. Any comments received were incorporated into the staff report and are attached as exhibits; and 4. On September 25, 2012, property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the hearing via U.S. mail as shown by the mailed radius notice letter and associated mailing list. Legal notice of the Commission's hearing was published in The Idaho Statesman on October 23, 2012. Notices of the public hearing were FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 515 Page 1 I`!sl U. PAC1Z_07SW, posted on the property before October 29, 2012, and a certification of sign posting document was submitted to the Director before November 1, 2012. C. As to the PROJECT DESCRIPTION, the Commission finds, based on the application materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the following: 1. PROPOSED USES The present request concerns the establishment of a commercial tower (cell tower) with accessory equipment storage and vehicular access improvements to provide infrastructure to augment wireless communication service in the general area. 2. PROPOSED STRUCTURES A 100-foot tall tower with 6-foot lightning rod and a 300 s.f. equipment shelter are planned in conjunction with the proposed use. 3. PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS Proposed site improvements include the establishment of an access road originating from State Highway 55 up to a building pad that will be improved to support the proposed tower and equipment yard. D. Based on the materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning the SITE DESCRIPTION: 1. PARCEL NUMBER AND LOCATION The subject property is identified as Ada County Tax Parcel No. S0107110050. The overall property contains 592.400 acres and the tower is located within a 5,625 sq ft lease area on the west side of HW 55, north of Avimor at 20751 N. HW 55, BOISE, 83714, Section 7, 5N, 2E. 2. OWNERSHIP According to currently available records retained by the Ada County Assessor's Office, First American Title Insurance Company and Suncor Development Company presently own the subject property. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS Property size: The subject property contains approximately 592 acres. Existing structures: There appears to be roughly one (1) existing structure located on the site, which will remain. Existing vegetation: Vegetation on the site includes sagebrush, grasses, and weeds, etc. Slope: The subject property contains varying slopes some of which exceed 15%. irrigation: Unknown. Drainage: Unknown. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 516 Page 2 INs7 1. NO.S Views: The site has dear views in all directions. Other Opportunities and/or Constraints: The property is located within the Hillside and WUFI Overlay Districts. E. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject site is generally vacant with agricultural and rural uses; the property is currently zoned PC/RP. F. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps, the Commission finds the following concerning the SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: The property to the north is zoned RP, and is predominantly used for rural uses. East: The property to the east is zoned PC, and is vacant. South: The property to the south is zoned PC and RP, and is predominantly used for rural and single-family residential uses. West: The property to the west is zoned RP, and is vacant. G. Based on the officially adopted Ada County land use maps and materials found in File No. 201201173-CU/HD, the Commission finds the following concerning SERVICES: Access Street and Designation: Access to the site is provided from N. Highway 55, a principal arterial. Fire Protection: The subject property is not located with in the jurisdictional limits of a fire protection district. Sewage Disposal: Sewage disposal service is not presently available or proposed for the envisioned use. Water Service: Water service is not presently available or proposed for the intended use. Irrigation District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established irrigation districts. Drainage District: The subject property is not located within the jurisdictional limits of any of the established drainage districts. 1. As to the APPLICABLE LAW, the Commission finds the following: This section details the comp plan goals, objectives and policies; the zoning ordinance regulations; and other applicable standards regarding development of the subject property. 1. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 3, Article H of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request to authorize the modification of slopes that exceed fifteen percent (15%) to allow the property to be improved with FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 517 Page 3 U [o S an access road and building pad. The required findings for approval of a hillside development plan are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-3H-6: REQUIRED FINDINGS: A. The site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development. The proposed development shall result in minimum disturbance of hillside areas; 1) The Commission finds that the site is physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development because of the following: a) The property will include adequate space for the siting of the envisioned access road upgrades and the proposed structure once hillside modifications are completed; and b) The physical characteristics of the property, as described in the submitted geotechnical evaluation and recommendations of the engineer of record, will support the design of the proposed development and planned access road. 2) The Commission finds that the extent of the disturbance caused the proposed modifications of the subject property for the benefit the proposed use, will be kept at a minimum as demonstrated by the following: a) Grading of the property for the envisioned use is proposed in a manner that minimizes hillside disturbance; and b) An existing access road is used to the greatest extent possible minimizing additional area that would need to be disturbed if an entirely new access roadway was improved. b. 8. The grading and excavation proposed in connection with the development shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; 1) The Commission finds that a term of approval will ensure that the proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road will not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, based on the professional recommendation and analysis provided by the engineer of record as described in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and as recommended by the Ada County Interim Engineer. c. C. Areas not suited for development because of soil, geology, vegetation, or hydrology limitations are designated as open space use; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 518 Page 4 1) The Commission finds that no area of the subject property has been identified as not being suitable for development and that all other areas not associated with the disturbed areas being addressed will remain in their present state. d. D. Disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat is minimized; and 1) The Commission finds that disruption of existing native vegetation and wildlife habitat has been minimized because of the following: a) A relatively flat area of the property was selected to be improved with the building pad for the proposed use; and b) The area selected to be disturbed was in close proximity to or within the existing access road thus minimizing the need for additional disturbance for a longer or new roadway. e. E. The proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigation for the identified visual impacts beyond the normally expected impact of hillside development. 1) The Commission finds that the proposal sets forth sufficient and adequate mitigatioh for the identified visual impacts due to the following: a) The proposal and supporting documentation does not identify any visual impacts that would exceed what would normally be expected with hillside development; b) As detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report submitted with the request, disturbed areas will be revegetated; c) Based on topography associated with the subject property and proposed access road improvements, the most highly disturbed areas associated with the access road are not readily visible from Highway 55; and d) Finished slopes will be finely graded to portray a more natural slope transition to match natural slopes as detailed in the Revegetaion and Slope Stabilization Report. 2. The Commission finds Title 8, Chapter 5, Article B of the Ada County Code is applicable as this application includes a request for the establishment of a commercial tower in the RP Zoning Base District, which requires conditional use approval. The required findings for approval of a conditional use permit are set forth below in italics text, followed by the Commission's findings: 8-58-5: REQUIRED FINDINGS: a. The proposed use is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare because of the following reasons: FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No.201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 519 Page 5 NS1 U. fa. - I' � 59 1 DACES=`�-0:7C a) The proposal will be required to comply with all applicable county regulations; b) The proposal has been transmitted to public agencies such as fire, police, and emergency service providers and no comments have been received indicating concern with impacts to health, safety or welfare; and c) The proposal complies or is conditioned to comply, with the specific use standards found Title 8, Chapter 5 of the Ada County Code as described below. b. The proposed use shall not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will not create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties because of the following reasons: (a) The proposed use will be subject to specific use standards that have been established to aid in the protection of surrounding properties by setting limits on noise, hazards and the overall intensity of a conditional use; (b) Large amounts of traffic are not anticipated due to the nature of the use; and (c) Property surrounding the identified lease area is presently vacant as detailed above. c. The proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan; 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan because of the following reasons: a) According to official zoning maps, the subject property is not located within an established area of city impact; b) Since the subject property is not located within an area of city impact, the Ada County Comprehensive Plan is applicable; c) The use location is identified as "Rural" on the applicable Ada County Future Land Use Map; d) The location and low intensity of the proposed use will assist in achieving Goal 5.7 which calls for allowing a limited amount and range of commercial uses in rural areas, consistent with rural character; and e) The proposed use will provide wireless telecommunication and E-911 service to the rural community assisting in the achievement of Policy 5.9- 9, which calls for the allowance of quasi -public uses in rural areas if they serve the needs of the rural community. d. The proposed use complies with the purpose statement of the applicable base district and with the specific use standards as set forth in this chapter; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 520 Page 6 jNSTi;U. r�o. I tgs3t PAOES5 Or1� Sci 1) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the applicable base district purpose statement: a) As highlighted above, the proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Ada County Comprehensive Plan; b) As demonstrated by a review of the subject property and it's relationship to the official Prime Farmland Geographic Information Layer retained by Ada County, the proposed use will not be located on prime agricultural land; c) The proposed use will allow agricultural uses and rangeland uses to continue; and d) No evidence was found that showed that the location of the proposed use is considered a hazardous area. 2) The Commission finds the following concerning compliance with the standards for a commercial tower or antenna structure outlined in Section 8- 5-3-114, of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance: a) Applicability: (1) As described in the detailed letter, the specific use standards outlined in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance are applicable since the proposed commercial tower will be used to propagate wireless radio signals for telecommunications; and (2) The proposed use entails the construction of an entirely new commercial tower and as stated above, requires conditional use approval. b) General Standards for Commercial Tower Structures and Associated Equipment: (1) A condition of approval will require.the facility to comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions; (2) An approval from the Federal Aviation Administration was submitted with the application, and a condition of approval will require the use to receive applicable approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation; (3) A condition of approval will require that the facility receive approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation; (4) A condition of approval will require the applicant and / or facility owner to obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal , state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits; (5) A condition of approval will require that the facility be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 521 Page 7 (6) A condition of approval will require that the owners of the tower continuously ensure that the facility is maintained in a manner to prevent the creation of a public nuisance; (7) The Commission further finds that the proposed facility meets the specific use standards for outdoor storage set forth in Ada County Code Section 8-5-3-78, as demonstrated by the following: (a) As shown on the submitted site plan, and as specifically described in the detailed letter dated September 14, 2012, six foot (6') tall cedar fencing is proposed along the boundary of the identified lease area that will provide screening of any outdoor storage or equipment shelters; (b) A review of the submitted site plan does not show that any storage is proposed within required yards, or on sidewalks or parking areas; (c) As demonstrated by the description of the proposed use identified in the materials submitted with the application, the site will not be used as a pit, mine or quarry, or as a contractor's yard or shop; (d) As detailed in the information included with the application, the site will not be used as a junkyard, an automobile wrecking yard, or as a vehicle impound yard; (e) The proposed use is not located within a designated special flood hazard area, or within a regulated floodplain as shown by FEMA Panel 0075; and (f) Accessory outdoor storage is not specifically proposed with the application. (8) As specifically described in Finding of Fact B.4, all property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed use were notified of the request for conditional use approval; (9) A condition of approval will require that the tower be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use; and (10) The Commission further finds that the proposed tower complies with construction, setback and fall zone standards as demonstrated by the following: (a) A condition of approval will require that the tower be constructed to the Telecommunications Industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended; (b) According to the official zoning maps maintained by Ada County, the subject property is not located within an airport influence area; (c) Since the proposed tower is over 20 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the tower accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights; FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 522 Page 8 INSTIL). Iag425a/.. PACES52a.e7e5`Iy (d) Although the proposed tower as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings exceeds the minimum height limitation for the RP zoning base district, the tower will be required to be setback in accord with the minimum setback standard of 25 feet from any property not fronting a public street since the minimum exceeds the alternative of one foot (1') for every ten feet (10') of tower height; (e) Since the proposed tower is 106 feet in height as depicted on the submitted site plan and elevation drawings, a term of approval will require that the identified ]ease area which is located entirely on the subject property be considered the fall zone and that it be restricted from future development; and (f) The proposed muted gray color of the proposed tower, similar to the color used on existing transmission line towers in the vicinity, will be architecturally and visibly compatible with existing vegetation and rural uses in the area. c) Application Requirements: The Application materials shall include the following written documentation: (1) The Commission finds that a suitability analysis was submitted with the application that included the following: (a) The application materials include an aerial photograph indentifying the proposed tower location along with one and two mile radius circles from the proposed tower location; (b) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; (c) A description of the site and surrounding area is included in the submitted Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report; (d) The topography in the vicinity of the proposed tower was described on multiple drawings included to fulfill the requirements of the Hillside Development Ordinance; and (e) Propagation maps were included with the application that clearly show the need for the proposed facility to be located in the chosen location. (2) A signed lease agreement was submitted with the application, and it does not appear the requirement for the tower owner to remove the tower and associated facilities upon cessation of the use was applicable as no language was included in the agreement; however, the tower will be required to be removed within 60-days of cessation of the use via term of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 523 Page 9 d) Additional Application Requirements For Facilities That Require A Conditional Use Approval: (1) The Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application show that the tower is designed structurally, electrical, and in all other respects to accommodate both the proposed equipment and comparable equipment for at least three other potential users; (2) While a condition of approval will require that a report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer be submitted with the building permit application, the Insite Towers Monopole and Bolt Detail Sheets submitted with the application describes the facility height and design, documents the height above grade for the recommended mounting position for collocated antennas, describes the minimum separation distances between antennas, and describes the facility's capacity; (3) A letter of intent dated September 13, 2012, was submitted with the application that indicates that the facility owner is committed to allowing the shared use of the facility in accord with reasonable terms and conditions of shared use; (4) A review of Ada County Zoning records did not reveal any existing or approved commercial towers within a one mile radius that could be utilized instead of constructing a new tower in the proposed manner and location; and (5) The detailed letter submitted with the application indicates that there are no existing towers in the vicinity, and that the closest existing towers are located in Horseshoe Bend and adjacent to Shadow Valley Golf Course; e. The proposed use complies with all applicable county ordinances; 1) The Commission finds that Ada County Code 8-4A-21 is applicable, and when considering compliance with the identified code section the Commission find the following: a) Ada County Code Section 8-4A-21 requires all new utilities to be installed underground; b) According to the detailed letter submitted with the application, new utilities will be installed to serve the proposed use; c) The applicant also indicates in the detailed letter that the new utilities are proposed to be installed above ground because burying the utilities at the present time is premature due to the fact that the property which must be crossed in order to access the proposed use is undeveloped, and any utilities installed underground at the present time most likely will have to be relocated and altered once development occurs; d) A condition of approval has been added that either requires the installation of utilities underground, or due to the rural setting of the proposed use, requires the applicant, after securing approval from the FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 524 Page 10 PACV Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission during the public hearing, to submit a utility or similar plan demonstrating that all above ground utilities are proposed in a manner that represents minimal visual impact to the Payette Scenic Byway and rural character of the area. 2) The Commission finds that finds that the proposed use complies with all other applicable County ordinances as outlined in Finding of Fact B and as required by Condition of Approval 28. f. The proposed use complies with all applicable state and federal regulations; 1) The Commission finds that all uses are innately required to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations as a matter of law. The proposed use and facilities shall not impede the normal development of surrounding property; and 1) The Commission finds that the proposed improvements will not impede the normal development of surrounding property because of the following: a) Surrounding properties will still be able to be developed even after the proposed use is established as has been seen with other cell towers approved by Ada County; and b) The proposal assists the normal development of surrounding property by potentially providing a needed service for said development. h. Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces, and traffic circulation measures are, or shall be, provided for the proposed use. 1) The Commission finds that the proposed use will be provided with adequate public and private facilities as demonstrated by the following: a) The proposed use will be served by electrical and telephone service as described in the Detailed Letter; b) The subject property has roadway frontage on Highway 55 and will utilize an existing access point; c) Traffic circulation measures have been provided that allow service vehicles to access the site without the need of backing out onto the public right-of-way system; d) Service employees will be able to park their vehicles either within the fenced lease area, or on the access road in front of the fenced equipment area; and e) The Idaho Transportation Department has reviewed the proposal and has not expressed concerns with impacts associated with transportation issues. g• FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 525 Page 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW If any of these Conclusions of Law are deemed to be Findings of into the Findings of Fact section. 1. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD 3H-6 of the Ada County Code. 2. The Commission concludes that File No. 201201173-CU/HD 5B-5 of the Ada County Code. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 526 Fact they are incorporated complies with Section 8- complies with Section 8- Page 12 ORDER Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Commission hereby approves File No. 201201173-CU/HD subject to the Conditions of Approval attached as Exhibit A. DATED this day of .2012. By: ATTEST: Richard Beck, Secretary John Seidl, Chairman Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER File No.201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 527 Page 13 ipAersor.5,11 EXHIBIT A REQUIRED ACTIONS. THE FOLLOWING LIST DETAILS THE TASKS THAT MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF FILE 201201173-CU/HD WILL BE CONSIDERED FINAL. THE APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER HAVE TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE THE COMMISSION APPROVES THE USE TO COMPLETE THE REQUIRED ACTIONS AND TO OBTAIN A ZONING CERTIFICATE UNLESS A TIME EXTENSION IS GRANTED. SEE SECTION 8-7-6 OF THE ADA COUNTY CODE FOR INFORMATION ON TIME EXTENSIONS. IF A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, THE ZONING CERTIFICATE SHALL BE ISSUED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. THIS APPROVAL SHALL BECOME VOID IF A VALID ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEAR TIME LIMITATION. SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNTIL THE ZONING CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN ISSUED. 1. The applicant and/or owner shall obtain written approval of the development (site plan and/or use) from the agencies/entities noted below. The approval may be on agency letterhead referring to the approved use or written/stamped upon a copy of the approved site plan. All site improvements are prohibited prior to approval of these agencies. a) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Chief of the Idaho Bureau of Aeronautics before commencement of operation if applicable; b) The applicant and/or owner shall secure approval from the Boise Airport Director prior to operation if applicable; and c) Since a portion of the access road that will be used to access the facility is located within Boise County, the applicant and/or owner shall submit evidence that all Boise County requirements for access road, grading, and hillside improvements, as may be applicable, have been satisfied. 2. The Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation states that soil exploration at the tower site was not possible due to high fire.danger at the time the field work was completed. The closest test pit was approximately 2,000 ft. from the tower site. The recommendation on page 10 of the Evaluation under Geotechnical Continuity should be followed to verify soil and rock conditions to allow the Geotechnical Engineer to provide consultation regarding potential impacts on the foundation construction. Provide documentation that these recommendations will be implemented. 3. The following plan deficiencies and clarifications shall be 'addressed prior to issuance of a zoning certificate or building permit: a) The Roadway and Drainage plans are missing the typical roadway section for station 62+70-42+37.60; CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No.201201173-CU/H0, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 528 Exhibit A Page 1 ACE; (17 q t( EXHIBIT A b) The typical roadway sections included in the Roadway and Drainage plans do not show the proposed conveyance method for the storm drainage. Culverts are shown, but no information on how the stormwater will reach the culverts. The soils in this area are highly erodible. If a conveyance channel is not constructed as part of the roadway, one will form, and likely result in significant damage to the roadway; c) The Roadway and Drainage plans do not reflect the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation recommendation for grading the final and underlying subgrade at the foundation a minimum of 5% away from the proposed tower; and d) Although Page 3 of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan states that a Public Comment Document is attached, no such document was found. Provide a copy of the Public Comment Document if it exists. 4. The applicant and/or owner shall install all utilities needed to serve the proposed use underground, unless the Ada County Planning and Zoning Commission specifically authorizes aboveground installation. If above ground installation is approved, the applicant and/or owner shall submit and receive approval of a utility or similar plan that shows the location of the utility installation route and describes what efforts were undertaken to be sensitive to the greatest extent possible to visual impacts on the Payette Scenic Byway and the rural character of the area. 5. The applicant and/or owner shall submit an updated site plan or separate exhibit that shows the location of the required fall zone within the lease area as described in Ada County Code 8-5-3-114-B-10-e. The document must indicate that the fall zone will be permanently restricted from future development during the operation of the facility. 6. If required by the Ada County Building Code as set forth in Title 7, Chapter 2, of the Ada County Code, the applicant and/or owner shall obtain a building permit prior to commencing any development. Please contact the County Building Official at 287-7900 for fee and application information. The design and construction of the development shall comply with the approved project and the Ada County Code. A report or equivalent plans that are stamped by a licensed profession engineer shall be submitted with the building permit application. The tower shall be constructed to the Telecommunications Industry Association / Electronic Industries Association 222 Revision F Standard entitled "Structural Standards for Steel Antenna Supporting Structures", or as hereinafter may be amended. 7. The applicant and/or owner shall secure a zoning certificate before any site work commences. A zoning certificate may be issued when all of the above conditions have been met. In the event conditions cannot be met before site work needs to be commenced, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITETOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 529 Exhibit A Page 2 EXHIBIT A 8. The use may commence once a final zoning inspection has been completed by Planning Staff. The applicant and/or owner shall submit a zoning inspection request form and pay the applicable fee. In the event conditions or requirements cannot be met by the desired date of occupancy, the owner and/or applicant may request a surety agreement in lieu of completing the improvements. See Title 8, Chapter 4, Article K of the Ada County Code for the terms and regulations of surety agreements. TERMS OF APPROVAL. THE FOLLOWING TERMS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES OR YOUR APPROVAL WILL BE REVOKED. 9. The applicant and/or facility owner shall obtain all necessary permits as may be required under federal, state or local statues, regulations, or ordinances including but not limited to building permits. 10. A licensed engineer(s) registered with the State of Idaho shall be retained as Engineer of Record and shall monitor all work covered by this approval. After the work is complete and the site has obtained final inspection approval from the Ada County Building Department, the monitoring engineer(s) shall provide Ada County with a report stamped with their seal indicating that all work performed on site was in compliance with the documentation, plans reports and studies submitted with the Hillside Application. 11. The applicant and/or facility owner shall complete and submit sufficient documentation that confirms that the repair, reseeding, remulching, replacement as needed and indentified in the maintenance procedures on Page 7 of the Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report, have taken place and 60% cover has been established by the end of the 2013 growing season. 12. Construction shall be scheduled to minimize soil disturbance between December 1 and April 15. 13. Proposed excavation on the subject property for the establishment of a building pad and access road shall not result in soil erosion, silting of lower slopes, slide damage, flooding, severe scarring, or any other geological instability or fire hazard that would adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare. 14. The applicant and/or owner shall follow and complete the recommendations contained in the technical reports and studies submitted with the application including but not limited to the Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation prepared by Strata, Inc., dated September 17, 2012, the Visual Impact Study prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 28, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Storm Drainage Letter Report prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 28,•2012, the Avmior Cell Tower Road Roadway Plan and Drainage Plan prepared by T-0 Engieners, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Report prepared by Land West Studio, dated August 30, 2012, the Avimor Cell Tower Road Revegetation and Slope Stabilization Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, and the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 530 Exhibit A Page 3 II eau. j, c1L953-/ pAGES53 ❑0; 5-/L/ EXHIBIT A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by T-0 Engineers, dated August 30, 2012, along with any recommended clarifications identified by the Ada County Interim Engineer in a memo dated October 25, 2012. 15. Vegetation shall be removed only when absolutely necessary, such as for the construction of structures, filled areas, roadways, firebreaks. 16. Every effort shall be made to conserve topsoil that is removed during construction for later use on areas requiring revegetation or landscaping, e.g., cut and fill slopes. 17. Curb and gutter, pavement, and appurtenant roadway drainage facilities shall be designed to control roadway runoff to such a point that it is contained within the natural watercourse system. 18. No construction material including soil and other material shall be deposited within any floodway or watercourse. 19. Sediment catchment ponds shall be constructed and maintained by the owner at the downstream property line of each development or at other appropriate locations to protect downstream properties and watercourses from the adverse impacts of sediment generated on -site due to development construction work. 20. All sediment catchment ponds shall be designed to provide a minimum of forty five (45) minutes detention time at a velocity not greater than two feet (2') per second and shall provide for the removal of surface debris and surface contaminants. Stockpiles shall be a maximum of fifteen feet (15') in height. 21. The facility shall be maintained in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations and the construction standards set forth in Section 8-5-3-114 of the Ada County Zoning Ordinance. 22. The commercial tower facility and associated equipment shall continuously be maintained in a manner so as to prevent the creation of a public nuisance. 23. The commercial tower shall be removed within sixty days following cessation of the use. 24. The commercial tower shall accommodate future arrangements of antennas mounted at varying heights. 25. The identified fall zone shall be permanently restricted from further development during the operation of the facility; the restriction does not precluded commercial tower related improvements including equipment shelters from being located within the fall zone. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 531 Exhibit A Page 4 EXHIBIT A 26. The applicant and / or tower owner shall comply with FCC standards regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions. 27. The property must be managed and maintained consistent with the standard regulations in Title 8, Chapter 4, Article A of the Ada County Code. Please note that this Article contains specific regulations regarding the accumulation of junk, atmospheric conditions, construction sites, hazardous material storage, outdoor public address systems, outdoor storage of chemicals and fertilizers, transmission line corridors, and utilities. 28. The use must comply with all applicable County regulations. 29. Any lighting installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-4H. 30. Any signage installed to serve the proposed use must comply with Ada County Code Article 8-4I. 31. The use must comply with the Ada County Noise Ordinance as set forth in Ada County Code Title 5, Chapter 13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL File No. 201201173-CU/HD, INSITE TOWERS 10/26/2012 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 532 Exhibit A Page 5 , ..:U. NO:15y 14953L . PAQ E:33 OF 54/4/ EXHIBIT K-3 CUP-2021-007 DECISION ORIGIN:. Boise County Planning and Zoning Commission CROWFOOT RANGE, INC. - CUP II2021-007 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Conditions of Approval and Order April 21, 2022 The Boise County Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission") held public hearings on October 21, 2021, February 17, 2022, and April 7, 2022 to consider Crowfoot Range, Inc.'s application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), application number CUP 42021-007, pursuant to Boise County Amended Unified Land Use Ordinance 020.16-001 (1.I1..0) Section 2.5 and Avimor Development Ordinance # 2021-02 (ADO) Section 7-4-2. FINDINGS OF FACT Based upon the file, hearing, and evidence received in the above -noted matter, the Commission issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: A. Documents Received Into the Record 1. The Planning and Zoning Department's file and record in Ibis matter: a. Crowfoot Range, Inc.'s Conditional Use Permit Application #2021-007. b. Exhibits 1-137. c. Shooting Range Map. d. Site Plan. e. Planning and Zoning Staff Report dated October 21, 2021. f. Planning and Zoning Staff Report dated April 7, 2022_ B. Procedural History 1. The Commission held a public hearing on October 21, 2021. Crowfoot Range, Inc. ("Applicant") and the public provided testimony regarding the CUP. The Commission tabled the hearing in order to allow the Applicant and the public to provide additional information. 2. The Commission held a special meeting on November 18, 2021, at the shooting range and Webster's Ranch residences. 3. The Commission held a special meeting on November 18, 2021, at the Garden Valley shooting range and nearby residential areas. 4. The Commission held a public hearing on February 17, 2022, and immediately tabled the bearing to a date certain in order to allow the applicant and the public to provide additional information. 5. The Commission held a public hearing on April 7, 2022. The applicant and the public provided testimony regarding the CUP. 6. After hearing all testimony from the applicant and the public, the Commission approved the CUP with site -specific conditions. C. Facts 1. The public had the opportunity to provide testimony at the October 21, 2021 and April 7, 2022 public hearings. No member of the public was prevented from testifying. 2. The property subject to this CUP is located on Pearl Road approximately one tar west of Highway 55, Parcel # RP06NO2E303050. EXHIBIT 0 FCO's For Crowfoot Range, Inc -CUP x 2021-037 Page 1 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 533 3. The property is owned by First American Title Company Trustee, Dual Beneficiary, Trust 8562. 4. The property is part of the Avimor Planned Community. 5. The property consists of 40.8 acres of agricultural and grazing land. 6. The sunounding property uses consist of agricultural and grazing land. 7. The owner of the land is leasing the property to Applicant for use as a shooting range. 8. The property has been designated as a shooting range in the Avimor Planned Community, which has been approved by Boise County. 9. Applicant is seeking a CUP to operate a shooting range at the location previously approved in the Avimor Planned Community. The proposed shooting range will support pistol, rifle, and archery. 10. Use of the shooting range will be restricted to members of the shooting range. 11. Membership will be open to the public with an emphasis on law enforcement training to qualified agencies, 4H sponsored shooting sports competition, and 4H/Idaho State Fish and Game hunter safety training programs. 12. The range will be accessed off of Pearl Road through a locked gate. The gate will have a key code that will be provided to members of the shooting range for access. 13. The proposed shooting range will have four shooting bays at final build out. 14. The first shooting bay will be 90 feet by 300 feet and will have 10-foot high berms on each side of the bay down the entire length of the bay. The bay will also have a 10-foot high berm at the end of the shooting bay to provide a safety backstop. 15. The second shooting bay will be 226 feet by 600 feet and will have 10-foot high berms on each side of the bay down the entire length of the bay. The bay will also have a 10-foot high berm at the end of the shooting bay to provide a safety backstop. 16. The third shooting bay will be 150 feet by 600 feet and will have 10-foot high berms on each side of the bay down the entire length of the bay. The bay will also have a 10-foot high berm at the end of the shooting bay to provide a safety backstop. 17. The fourth shooting bay will be designed for long rifles and will be 600 yards in length and will have a 10-foot high berm on the northeast side of the bay. Due to the length and topography of the bay, Applicant does not intend to construct the berm down the entire length of the bay. The bay will shoot into a large 130-foot hillside that will act as a safety backstop. 18. All shooting bays will be located so that shooting occurs in a southeast direction towards a large 130-foot hillside. 19. The shooting bays will be vegetation free for the life of the shooting range for fire control purposes. 20. The shooting bays will be internally drained. 21. Applicant anticipates that the shooting range will accommodate around 40-50 shooting lanes. 22. The shooting bays will be constructed in three phases. 23. In Phase 1, Applicant will construct the first and third shooting bays and a seventy -car parking lot 24. In Phase 2, Applicant will construct the second shooting bay. 25. In Phase 3, Applicant will construct the fourth shooting bay, which is the long rifle shooting bay. 26. Applicant will construct a wildlife friendly livestock fence around the perimeter of the proPerty- 27. The shooting range will not have power. 28. The shooting range will not have water. 29. The shooting range will be unmanned and will not have an on -site employee to supervise shooting. FCO's for Crowfoot Range, Inc. — CUP M 2021-007 Page 2 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 534 EXHIBIT 140 PAGES 1rj.J-j 30. The shooting range will have portable chemical toilets for guests of the shooting range. 31. The nearest occupied residence is located 9,160 feet, or approximately 1.7 miles, from the shooting range. 32. The nearest residential property boundary is approximately 1 mile from the shooting range. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the facts contained in the record, including the facts identified above, the Commission makes the following conclusions of law: A. The record contains sufficient facts for the Commission to make the following findings and conclusions regarding the Required Findings in ADO 17-4-3. 1. The Commission finds that the proposed use will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as established in Chapter 2 of the ADO for the Land use district involved. Specifically, the proposed use of a shooting range qualifies as a conditional use in Table 2.1 of the ADO. 2. The Commission finds that the proposed use will be harmonious with and in accordance with the general objectives or with any specific objective of the ADO (including any applicable specific use standards described in the Avimor Ordinance, Chapter 4). The proposed use meets the goals and objectives of the Avimor Ordinance. Specifically, as set forth in Section 1-2 of the Avimor Ordinance, this use will help inspire an active lifestyle, provide managed land use and growth (a safe area for shooting rather than on uncontrolled land), provide a mixture of land uses, and bring economic benefit to the County. Furthermore, the following specific use standards (Chapter 4.4.XX. Shooting Ranges/Gun Clubs (Outdoors)) were either met, or do not apply: a. The applicant or owner shall obtain written approval from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). i. The Commission finds that the ATF does not provide such approval. b. Accessory uses such as gun sales, gun repair, and training courses may be allowed when such uses take up no more than 25% of the gross floor area of the building. i. The Commission finds that Applicant is not proposing such use. c. The applicant shall provide written documentation that the proposed target backstops conform to the standards for indoor ranges in "The NRA Range Source Book" published by the National Rifle Association. i. The Commission finds that Applicant has provided written documentation that the proposed target backstops will conform to the standards for outdoor ranges in the NRA Range Source Book. 3. The Commission finds that, with site -specific conditions imposed, the proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area. 4. The Commission finds that, with site -specific conditions imposed, the proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. Current surrounding uses consist of agricultural and grazing uses. Applicant will construct a livestock fence surrounding the shooting range to prevent livestock from entering the range. Other surrounding uses include residential uses, with the nearest residential property boundary approximately 1 mile away and the nearest residential home approximately 1.7 miles away. With site -specific conditions imposed, the shooting range will not be hazardous or disturbing to surrounding residential uses. Specifically, Applicant must comply with the state uniform noise standard articulated in Idaho Code section 67-9102. Idaho law prohibits the Commission from imposing a more restrictive standard than the uniform noise standard The Commission finds that FCO's for Cwwfoot wnge, Inc. — CUP N 2021-007 Page 3 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 535 EXHIBIT / 4 0 I"'". ,-;u ILA` PACE lw sqq compliance with the uniform noise standard will ensure that the shooting range is not hazardous or disturbing by way of noise production. Further, Applicant must construct berms, shelters, and overhead baffles in order to operate shooting lanes. These site -specific conditions will prevent errant shots from leaving the shooting range. Additionally, Applicant must construct and maintain a fire break and comply with all F.agle Fire Department requirements for fire safety. The Commission finds that these site -specific conditions will ensure that the shooting range is not hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 5. The Commission finds that, with site -specific conditions imposed, the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer and schools; or that the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use shall be able to provide adequately any such services. The proposed use will be served by the Eagle Fire Department. Site -specific conditions require Applicant to comply with all recommendations and requirements imposed by the Eagle Fire Department. With these site -specific conditions imposed, the Eagle Fire Department does not object to the proposed use. Further, the proposed use will be served by Ada County Paramedics for emergency services, including ambulance services. The proposed use will also be served by the Boise County Sheriff's Department, which did not object to the proposed use. The proposed use will have chemical toilets for its guests. Central District Health does not object to the use of chemical toilets for this proposed use. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by public facilities and services. 6. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Specifically, the proposed use will not require additional public costs. Further, the record contains no evidence demonstrating that the proposed use will be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Specifically, Applicant must comply with the state uniform noise standard articulated in Idaho Code section 67-9102. Idaho law prohibits the Commission from imposing a more restrictive standard than the uniform noise standard. The Commission finds that compliance with the uniform noise standard will ensure that the shooting range will not be detrimental by reason of excessive production of noise. The Commission also finds that the evidence in the record shows that the proposed shooting range will not produce excessive traffic, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. 8. The Commission finds that the proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Access to the property is accomplished by first turning off of Highway 55 onto Pearl Road and second by turning off of Pearl Road onto the shooting range. Highway 55 is under the jurisdiction and authority of the Idaho Transportation Department ("ITD"). ITD did not object to the proposed use. With site -specific conditions imposed, Pearl Road will be improved and maintained in accordance with the Eagle Fire Department's recommendations and the recommendations of a geotechnical report. With such site specific conditions imposed, the proposed use will have proper vehicular approaches. 9. The Commission finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. SITE -SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Commission approves the CUP with the following site -specific conditions: FCO's for Crowfoot Range, Inc. — CUP a 2021-007 Page 4 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 536 EXHIBIT ! 40 1111s u.f';a 3y. 1. This conditional use permit is non -transferable to another property and is only valid at Pearl Road, Boise, Idaho (RP06NO2E303050) 2. No public use shall be allowed until 10 foot high berms are constructed along the full length of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 shooting bays in use in order to prevent errant bullets from leaving the shooting bays. The Phase 3 shooting bay, which is the long rifle shooting bay, shall not be operable until a 10 foot high berm is constructed on the northeast side of the shooting bay, and such berm shall be 300 feet in length. 3. Applicant shall construct shooting shelters and overhead baffles for each shooting lane in order to prevent errant bullets from leaving the shooting lanes. Applicant may not commence operation of a shooting lane until a shelter and overhead baffle is constructed for that shooting lane. 4. Applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth in the Eagle Fire Department's letters dated October 8, 2020 and February 9, 2022, including any future seasonal restrictions imposed by the fire department or any orders regarding operations regarding to fire danger. 5. The days and hours of operation shall be 6 days a week, with operations commencing at 8:00 a.m. or one hour after sunrise, whichever is later, and operations ceasing at 6:00 p.m. or one hour before sunset, whichever is earlier. 6. Applicant shall comply with the uniform noise standard articulated in Idaho Code section 67-9102 as may be amended from time to time. 7. To prevent errant shots and to reduce the risk of fire, no fully -automatic fire shall be allowed at the range. Additionally, tracers, incendiary, or steel core ammunition, as well as incendiary targets shall be prohibited. Metal targets shall be prohibited unless approved by the Eagle Fire Department for use on the long rifle shooting bay only. Metal targets shall be prohibited on all other shooting bays. 8. Applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth in Idaho Power's letter dated February 4, 2022. 9. Applicant shall apply for a construction general permit from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and produce a SWPPP, which will help mitigate some of Fish and Game's concerns. 10. Per Idaho Fish and Game's comments dated February 7, 2022 and March 31, 2022, applicant shall 1) use best management practices to minimize stream bank erosion, sedimentation, unintended runoff; and destruction of riparian habitat, and 2) work with the Avimor Conservation Director to conduct restoration efforts and identify potential species that may be present and come up with specific mitigation plans for those species as appropriate. 11. Applicant shall keep all structures and grounds in a clean and orderly condition. 12. Applicant shall apply for a sign permit, if a sign(s) is to be installed, with the applicable fees paid; and, any on -site signage shall comply with the Avimor Ordinance. No signs are permitted within any public right-of-way. 13. Applicant shall provide the Planning and Zoning Department with a copy of their current paid insurance policy suitable to this type of business, and maintain insurance each year. 14. Applicant shall obtain and maintain any and all licenses and permits from the necessary authorities to operate such a facility in addition to the Boise County CUP. 15. Applicant shall maintain Pearl Road in conformance with the geotechnical report dated October 7, 2021 and Eagle Fire Department's requirements. 16. Proof of compliance with all conditions shall be provided to the Planning and Zoning Department in order to obtain a Certificate of Completion and may not commence operations until the same is received. 17. Applicant shall submit a full plan of operations to the Planning and Zoning Department which shall include details surrounding the public use of the shooting range. 18. Applicant shall maintain a fire break at the shooting range with a width recommended by the FCO's for Crowfoot Range, Inc. —CUP H 2021-007 Page 5 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 537 EXHIBIT 140 IprhC�.?.1+3�Sri ] ■ / Eagle Fire Department. Applicant shall ensure that the fire break is maintained in accordance with the direction of the Eagle Fire Department. REOUIRED STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, Approval of the CUP is subject to the Required Standard Conditions of Approval identified in ULO Section 4.3.D. In the event a Required Standard Condition of Approval conflicts with a Site- Speci6c Condition of Approval contained herein, the Site -Specific Condition of Approval shall control. The Required Standard Conditions of Approval are: 4.3.D.1 The property must be in compliance, or brought into compliance by this action, with all applicable Idaho State Statutes and Boise County Ordinances prior to commencement of approved conditional use activity. All permits must be secured prior to commencement of work subject to permit approval. 4.3.D.2 Applicant must provide proof of property ownership or valid leasehold from the property owner. 4.3.D3 All property taxes, including current year (prepaid) taxes, shall be paid in full. 4.3.D.4 Prior to commencement of work, applicant must provide proof of legal access and proof of the authority to alter/improve the access to accommodate fire and ambulance services. 43.D.5 Fire Department vehicular access shall meet the standards as set forth in this Ordinance. 4.3.D.6 The applicant shall comply with any required conditions imposed by Central District Health Department. 43.D.7 The applicant shall identify the days and hours of operation of the conditional use permit activity. 4.3.D.8 Building construction shall meet the requirements of the Idaho Building Code Act, Idaho Code Title 39, Chapter 41. 4.3.D.9 Applicant shall prepare and present to the Planning & Zoning Department its Emergency Services Action Plan, specifically, but not limited to, fire and ambulance services. 43.D.10 The conditional use shall be considered null and void if not started within a period of twelve (12) months from the date of approval by the Commission. 4.3.D.11 Prior to the expiration of the conditional use permit, the Administrator may, upon written request by the holder, grant a one (I) year time extension. Any extension request beyond one (1) year shall be subject to the review and approval by the Commission. A review before the Commission shall be scheduled for public hearing and with public notice. The hearing shall be for the purpose of modifying, amending or revoking approval of the Applicant's Conditional Use Permit. A maximum of three (3) extensions may be granted if good cause is shown. The Commission shall make the final decision on the extension request. 4.3.D.12 CUP approval does not include approval of any signage. A separate Sign Permit will be required from the Boise County Planning and Zoning Department prior to installation of a sign(s). 4.3.D.13 The Applicant shall comply with any and all applicable requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 4.3.D.14 No change in the terms and conditions of the conditional use approval shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the applicant or an authorized representative. Any change in the terms and conditions shall be reviewed and approved or denied by the Commission. EXHIBIT 140 FCO's for Crowfoot Range, Inc — CUP N 2021-007 Page 6 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 538 4.3.D.15 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with ail rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the County of its intent to change the planned use of the property; 4.3.D.16 All development authorized by this conditional use approval must be completed within four (4) years from the date of the Commission's approval; and 4.3.D.17 Failure to abide by any condition of this Conditional the Permit shall be grounds for revocation by the Commission. 4.3.D.18 The Applicant shall comply with all local, state and federal rules and regulations. ORDER Based upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Site -Specific Conditions, and Required Standard Conditions of Approval contained herein, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves Crowfoot Range, Inc. CUP #2021-007, a conditional use permit located on Pearl Road approximately one mile west of Highway 55, Parcel # RPO6NO2E303050. ( APPROVED this i`' day of /f I( , 2022. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BOISE CO TY, IDAHO Nathan Greenway, Chair APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING DECISION ULO SECTION 2.10 APPEALS PROCEDURES: Any decision or action may be appealed as set forth in this Ordinance. The appellant shall be an affected person as defined in Idaho Code §67-6521(1) (a). Any request for reconsideration or appeal must be filed on an application as provided by the P&Z Department such request for reconsideration or appeal must identify specific deficiencies in the decision for which reconsideration or appeal is sought, and must otherwise comply with Idaho Code §67-6535(b). 2.10.B APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION: 2.10.B.1 An affected person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission that was made pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance may appeal to the Board. 2.I0.B.2 A request for reconsideration or appeal shall be filed with Planning and Zoning Department within fourteen (14) calendar days alter the date of the Findings, Conclusions and Order were signed by the Commission or the Findings, Conclusions and Order were reconsidered and a final reconsidered decision is made. 2.10.B.3 For an appeal, the Board shall hold a public hearing to consider the decision of the Commission and any additional evidence that may be offered by the public, applicant or Administrator. 2.10.B.4 The Board may afftr7n, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the crn•<r rr.n..rrrwP anon r,...—r!mIA,n11 Nils. nfR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - AVIMOR - Page 539 PYHIRIT 1 rl n EKKU..:: 44(.415 ?/ Commission's decision. EXHIBIT / 40 FCO's for Crowfoot Range. Inc — CUP ft 2021-007 Page 8 of 8 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 540 EXHIBIT L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Exhibit L Development Conditions 1. Master Developer shall adhere to all requirements and conditions of the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). 2. Master Developer will submit such applications regarding floodplain development permit review, design review, preliminary and final plat reviews, and/or any conditional use permits, if applicable, and any other applicable applications as may be required by the Eagle City Code 11B, which shall comply with the Eagle City Code 11 B, as it exists at the time such applications are made except as otherwise provided with this Agreement. 3. Master Developer shall provide a "Heavy Truck Traffic Plan" with each preliminary plat application, to be followed by any vehicle or equipment over 8000 GVWR. The plan shall show all designated routes and hours of operation. The heavy truck traffic routes shall maximize use of highways and major arterials while minimizing use of smaller residential streets. The plan will also cite that compression braking is prohibited. Master Developer is responsible for communicating the approved plan to all sub -contractors and for monitoring compliance. 4. The applicant shall follow all conditions and recommendation of the City Engineer as outlined in their review comments dated 9/23/2022 RE: Avimor Wastewater Study, 9/26/2022 RE: Avimor Master Drainage Report, 12/09/2022 RE: Avimor Development Ordinance - Chapter 12, and 12/09/2022 RE Avimor Development Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards except that Section 11(C)(5)(f) of the Hillside Grading Standards shall be amended to state: "To ensure property will be stabilized and properly revegetated in the event permitted mass grading work is unable to be completed, prior to beginning of mass grading operations the developer shall provide the City with an infrastructure assurance, i.e. a bond or a letter of credit, in the amount one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the project engineer's estimate to carry out the slope stabilization and revegetation plan approved by the City under Section 11(C)(4)(a)(vii) above. The project engineer's estimate will be generated assuming the permitted mass grading work is stopped during the portion of the mass grading work where stabilization and revegetation would be most significant and shall DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 541 PFCEP-h/ C7S7'/ take into account all costs for: (i) earthwork to repair all vertical cuts and abrupt interfaces within the permitted area to make the site slopes safe; (ii) revegetation; (iii) SWPPP compliance; and (iv) temporary piping (if any). Prior to the City's approval of the project engineer's estimate, the City may review the calculations and costs that form the basis of the project engineer's estimate to confirm adequacy and conformance with the approved slope stabilization and revegetation plan and this section". 5. ZOA-01-22 shall be amended to incorporate by reference Eagle City Code Section 9-4-1-6: Trail and Pathway Regulations as the applicable pathway standards within the Avimor Planned Development Zone as recommended by the Parks, Pathways, and Recreation Commission, prior to Ordinance 895 being signed. 6. The Avimor Stewardship Organization (ASO) shall include one representative from Eagle City staff. 7. Master developer shall grant public access easements on all existing trails and pathways within Avimor Phases 4-12 and within the Property. a. If the applicant provides evidence showing any exclusive easement or legal right of any party that would preclude the granting of a public access easement in the same location, then the City requires a separate easement adjacent to the one originally conditioned. b. The City of Eagle may connect or continue pathways or trails stubbed to the boundary of the Property as part of future system expansion, and may authorize staff, contractors, or neighboring developers to facilitate such improvements within public access easements. 8. No amendments related to the type of property or owners exempt from assessments under the Avimor Charter may be made without prior approval by the City. 9. To allow for the future installation of municipal fiber-optic cable, the applicant shall be required to install fiber-optic conduit lines and junction boxes along all new streets in accordance with the City's Fiber Master Plan. Upon completion of the installation of the municipal fiber-optic conduit lines, the applicant shall provide GIS coordinates of the locations of the municipal fiber-optic conduit lines. The municipal fiber-optic conduit lines shall be installed, GIS coordinates provided, and the fiber- optic conduit lines shall be dedicated to the City. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 542 10.The applicant shall provide GIS shape files of the property being annexed to the City for their review and approval prior to the annexation ordinance being signed. 11.Avimor will continue to provide the Library dedicated space within the current and some of the future HOA community centers, as needed, for the Library to perform its customary functions for Avimor and Eagle residents. 12.Upon the Library's written request, Avimor will do one of the following: a. Avimor will donate a site to the Library for the Library to construct a public library facility within Avimor at a location mutually agreed to by Avimor and the Library. Avimor will donate this site to the Library when the Library is prepared and has funds to construct a library facility on the site; or b. Avimor will construct a library facility within Avimor at a location mutually agreed upon by Avimor and the Library and lease the facility to Library at market rent 13.Master Developer shall provide non-residential development (inclusive of existing nonresidential development) in the following target ranges at the build out intervals specified. a. Prior to issuance of the 750th single-family residential building permit by the City, 80,000 to 120,000 square feet of non-residential development shall be constructed. b. Prior to issuance of the 3,500th single-family residential building permit by the City, 260,000 to 340,000 square feet of non- residential development shall be constructed. c. Prior to issuance of the 7,700th single-family residential building permit by the City, 600,000 to 860,000 square feet of non- residential development must be constructed. 14.Title 11B shall be amended to incorporate the revisions implementing a sub -area planning process as proposed by the Applicant. 15.In connection with Applicant's obligation under the Development Agreement to donate a site to the Eagle Fire, Applicant shall provide for and allow the co -location of Eagle Police at such location. If co -location is not feasible, Applicant shall work with the Eagle Police to select a DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 543 INSI'^u. (a 5- `( PAGESIY.30F5 yy mutually agreeable police station site to be donated to the Eagle Police Department. .16. Applicant shall provide public easement access, subject to the same rules governing operations, programming, and closures as are applicable for Avimor residents, to 1-mile of Special Use Trails for every 200 additional residential units. Credit will be given for existing Special Use Trails for which the public is granted access. 17. Master Developer shall provide a one-time payment to City for City's use in connection with contracting for police services to serve the Property between the time the Property is annexed and when the Property is fonnally placed within the City's taxing district. The payment amount is $128,000.00, or a lesser amount if Master Developer can establish that a lesser amount is forecasted to be needed to support police services to the Property prior to City assessments being levied on the Property. The one time in payment shall be made upon City's publication of the annexation/rezone ordinances for the Property. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AVIMOR — Page 544 IM-171.1=0 144D53c/ PACESS`±G OF 5L1`W City Staff Note: End of recorded document. The following pages are documents that are referenced within the recorded document, and have been added for reference. CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 September 23, 2022 William E. Vaughan, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 RE: Avimor Master Wastewater Study HECO Reference No. EG 22-0334.01 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Office of City Engineer The City has received a Master Wastewater Study (WMS) from T-O Engineers, dated April 12, 2022, for the above referenced project. The Master Wastewater Study Report has been reviewed as part of the annexation submittals and is recommended for approval subject to the following comments. 1. T-O Engineers has provided a response memorandum, dated August 16, 2022, to our initial review comments, dated August 3, 2022, which was included as part of this review and is enclosed. 2. The T-O response memo states the existing Avimor wastewater facility and associated system is currently operating the following permits, which are included as appendices to the response memo: a. IDEQ Reuse Permit M-211-04 (Appendix A) b. EPA NPDES Permit No. ID0028371 (Appendix B) 3. The Treatment Capacity Planning Phases Table 5-6 on Page 25 of the Master Wastewater Study provides the planned flow capacity and associated Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) of current and future phases of the WWTP. The WMS indicates that capacity is limited by permitting that is based on an assumed ERU flow of 300 gallons per day. The facility is currently in the process to get DEQ approval to reduce the assumed ERU flow to 160 gallons per day and thereby increasing the available ERU's for development to 2083 ERU's. a. Section 3.6 - Residential Planning on Pages 10-11 of the WMS indicates that DEQ has approved the use of 160 gallons per day for planning with the 2019 Facility Plan. HECO ENGINEERS j 208-642-3304 email: info@hecoengineers.com 1--___/ Avimor Master Wastewater Study September 23, 2022 Page 2 of 2 4. The wastewater system is owned and operated by the Avimor Water Reclamation Company. It is recommended that the City work with the Avimor Water Reclamation Company to establish a development review process and possibly the ability to approve final plats via signature. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, HECO Engineers d, JP7� 1ar 'thad Carter, P.E. Project Manager cc: Sarah Martz — Avimor Kasey Ketterling — T-O Engineers Enclosure: T-O Engineers Response Memorandum ►VIMORN Water Reclamation Company Master Wastewater Study 2022 Prepared by: Tb v ENGIN'Ens 332 N. Broadmore Way Nampa, Idaho 83687 (208) 442-6300 Table of Contents Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Reuse Objective 3 Site Description 4 2.1 Site Geology 4 Flow Projections 6 3.1 Growth 6 3.2 Design Parameters 7 3.3 Groundwater 8 3.4 Residential Density 8 3.5 Land Use 8 3.5.1 Village Center 8 3.5.2 Open Space 9 3.5.3 Foothills Residential 9 3.5.4 Mixed Use / Commercial 9 3.5.4 Village Residential 9 3.5.5 Land Use Profile 10 3.6 Residential Planning 10 3.7 Commercial Planning 14 3.8 Future Flows 15 Collection System 16 4.1 Introduction 16 4.2 Topographic Service Basins 16 4.3 Trunk Mains 17 4.4 Lift Stations 18 4.5 Diversion Structure 18 4.6 Highway Crossings 18 Wastewater Treatment and Reuse 19 5.1 Treatment Facility 19 5.2 Wastewater Treatment 19 5.2.1 Raw Influent Pump Station 19 5.2.2 Headworks 20 5.2.3 Equalization and Process Feed Pumping 20 5.2.4 Phosphorus Removal 20 5.2.5 Activated Sludge System 20 5.2.6 Blowers 22 5.2.7 MBR Modules and Permeate Pumping 22 5.2.8 Disinfection 23 5.2.9 Effluent Pumping 23 5.2.10 Sludge Holding Tank 23 5.2.11 Thickening/Dewatering 24 5.2.12 Backup Power 24 5.2.13 Treatment Facility Capacity 24 ii 5.2.14 Phases 24 5.3 Reuse 26 5.3.1 Rapid Infiltration Basins (Current) 29 5.3.2 Sandy Hill Aquifer 30 5.3.3 Landscape Irrigation (Current) 30 5.3.4 Direct Discharge 30 5.3.4 Modifications to the Reuse Permit 31 5.4 Surface Water Quality - Snake and Boise River TMDLs 33 5.5 Operations Evaluation 33 Conclusion 34 6.1 Considerations 34 List of Tables Table 3-1 Gravity Pipe Design Criteria 8 Table 3-2 Land Use Profile 10 Table 3-3 Commercial Flow Generation Rates 14 Table 3-4 Sewer Service Area Estimated Flows 15 Table 4-1 Lift Station Flow 18 Table 5-1 Basin sizes and hydraulic detention times (HRT) for the AWRF 21 Table 5-2 Process recycle pumping (per train) for the AWRF 21 Table 5-3 Aeration rate requirements for the AWRF 22 Table 5-4 Membrane design criteria for the AWRF 23 Table 5-5 Treatment Facility Capacity 24 Table 5-6 Treatment Capacity Planning Phases 25 Table 5-7 AWRF Class B effluent criteria 27 Table 5-8 AWRF IPDES effluent criteria 28 Table 5-9 Nursery Loading 33 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Avimor Development 1 Figure 1-2 Avimor Location Map 2 Figure 4-1 Sewer Service Areas 17 Figure 5-1 Avimor Water Reclamation Facility 19 Figure 5-2 MBR#2 Facility Expansion 26 Figure 5-3 Effluent Testing Results 27 Figure 5-4 Effluent Turbidity 28 Figure 5-5 Treatment System & Reuse Map 29 Figure 5-6 Pipe Routing 31 Figure 5-7 Proposed Nursery Location 32 iii Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C List of Appendices Collection System Maps Flow Calculations AWRF Flow and Sampling iv Introduction 1.1 Background This Master Wastewater Study was prepared to support the development of the Avimor Planned Community (APC or Avimor) that is being developed by Avimor Development LLC as shown in Figure 1-1. The purpose of this Master Plan is to satisfy the requirements of IDAPA 58.01.16 410.01. Figure 1-1 Avimor Development The APC is located at the intersection of Ada County, Boise County, and Gem County between the City of Eagle and Horseshoe Bend. This area was previously used for dryland grazing prior to being acquired for the planned community. Avimor is being developed to include a mixture of homes, trails, parks, community facilities, commercial businesses, and retail stores. The land owned by Avimor is approximately 19,590 + acres as shown in Figure 1-2. In 2008, Avimor built the Avimor Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF). The AWRF and the associated wastewater collection system and reuse system are owned and operated by the Avimor Water Reclamation Company LLC. The AWRF is able to produce Class B reclamation water and land -apply when permitted by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Reclaimed water is currently being used during the growing season to irrigate landscaping, parks, and vegetation along roadways. During the non -growing season, the reclaimed water is surface -applied at rapid infiltration (RI) basins for final treatment prior to discharging to the groundwater. The current reuse system includes five RI basins, a water storage tank, and the pressure irrigation system. In addition, when permitted by DEQ, the facility may directly discharge to surface water in the Spring Valley Creek through a Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) permit. The facility is currently reapplying for a new discharge permit as the previous permit expired 1 May 2, 2021. The facility does not currently discharge to surface water however this option may be implemented as the community develops. Current residential and commercial development is located at the southeast side of the Avimor property boundary. As of December 2021, there were 664 occupied residential homes, a village community center, commercial offices, a brewery, and a gas station. Expansion and development of the community is an ongoing process based upon consumer demand and planning decisions made by Avimor Development LLC. Figure 1-2 Avimor Location Map The existing topography of the area ranges from relatively flat fields and pasture to moderately steep creek drainage valleys and steep side hills, with some rock outcroppings. Elevation ranges between 3150 and 3520 feet above mean sea level. The 2 portions of the property that will be developed lie generally in the valley bottoms of two separate drainages and their tributaries. 1.2 Reuse Objective The goal of the reclamation and reuse project is to provide cost-effective water reclamation. Reclaimed water is currently being surface -applied to rapid infiltration beds. Future plans include storing water in the underground aquifer, retrieving the filtered water through wells, and using the groundwater for landscape irrigation during the growing season. Operational and maintenance activities at the AWRF require sludge to be removed from the facility periodically. Sludge removal is typically performed annually and is expected to be removed in higher frequencies as the community develops. The sludge is dewatered and transported to a landfill for disposal while the filtrate is reintroduced to the headworks. Avimor plans to land apply the filtrate to a proposed parcel of land on the west side of Highway 55. Plants will provide nutrient uptake from the filtrate and reduce levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the AWRF. 3 Site Description 2.1 Site Geology The APC is being developed on approximately 19,590 + acres in portions of Ada, Gem, and Boise Counties. The APC site is underlain by two principal bedrock units: granite and granite -like rocks of the Cretaceous -age Idaho Batholith and an assemblage of sedimentary and volcanic rocks of the Quaternary/Tertiary-age Idaho Group. The bedrock units are heavily weathered and generally occur as small, inconspicuous outcrops within mapped areas. Rocks of the Idaho Batholith consist of light to medium gray granite, granodiorite, and meta -granite. This unit weathers to grass -covered slopes with occasional gray to dark gray outcrops and residual boulders. Areas underlain by the deeply weathered Idaho Batholith rocks can generally be recognized by the presence of light grayish -brown, sandy soil with isolated residual granite boulders. This condition is most apparent on the crest of the ridge west of Hwy 55 and in the upland areas north of Spring Valley Creek. In areas adjacent to faults, the granitic rocks commonly exhibit pockmarked erosional pits and reddish -brown iron staining. Because of the lack of continuous outcrop, the relationship between the sedimentary and volcanic rocks within the Idaho Group is unclear. In the general area of the APC, the Idaho Group consists of light to medium brown mudstone, claystone, and volcanic ash beds divided by medium to dark brown sandstone beds. The Idaho Group includes one significant mappable subunit, or in geologic nomenclature a "member." This subunit is the Pierce Park Sand member. The Pierce Park Sand is composed of medium to coarse well -sorted sand with silty and clayey sand interbeds. Based on field observation, the majority of the Idaho Group consists of the fine-grained units forming smooth hillslopes. Soil derived from the fine-grained sedimentary units of the Idaho Group is typically medium to dark brown and rich in clay. This soil readily contrasts with the sandy soil developed over the Pierce Park Sand member. This transition is apparent in places along the ridge between Burnt Car Draw and Spring Valley Creek, where the light and dark soil types are clearly exposed adjacent to one another. The mudstones and claystone of the Idaho Group are divided by volcanic rocks consisting of ash and volcanic mudflows. These volcanic deposits are a result of eruptions from nearby volcanoes that rained down hot ash and wet, ash -rich mudflows. Individual ash and mudflow units within this volcanic series range up to approximately 15 feet thick, but they are generally expressed as 3 to 6-foot thick beds within the fine- grained sedimentary units. The volcanic rocks are deeply weathered and generally outcrop as medium brown to dark greenish -brown, soft ledges. Typical exposures of these rocks are the dark -colored, low outcrops along the north side of Burnt Car Draw. The interbedded relationship between the sediments and volcanic rocks of the Idaho 4 Group is best illustrated on the prominent hillslope immediately north of where Spring Valley Creek emerges from the confines of the east -west canyon and turns to the south in Spring Valley. Here, the volcanic beds form resistant ribs in the otherwise smooth - weathering, fine-grained sedimentary units of the Idaho Group. Several hillslopes along the eastern side of Spring Valley are covered with cobbles and gravels rich in quartz, granite, and other resistant bedrock materials. These occur at elevations ranging from approximately 3260 to 3380 feet and rest on Idaho Group sediments. These deposits are believed to be remnants of an ancient river terrace system similar to the prominent better -developed river terraces observed on the south side of the Boise River valley. The relatively flat area in Spring Valley is made up of unconsolidated sediments recently deposited by Spring Valley Creek. These units are predominantly silt and clay, with frequent fine sand layers. The most prominent structural elements in the project area are Spring Valley and the steep, granitic uplands to the northeast and south. Northwest -trending faults probably account for positioning of older granitic rocks with younger Idaho Group sediments along Spring Valley Creek canyon and on the southern end of the property (Figure 2-2). These northwest -trending faults are probably related to the Boise Front fault system, a series of faults that define the prominent mountain front observed in the Boise River valley north of Boise. Less obvious but likely present are north -south trending faults defining the east and west margins of Spring Valley. While the western margin is generally linear, the eastern margin is less distinct, with several prominent, unnamed creeks entering the valley on the east side. Taken together, the high -angle faults define a graben, or down -dropped block, occupied by Spring Valley and surrounded by upthrown blocks forming the highland areas. Idaho Group rocks within the graben generally dip gently to the center of the graben. This tendency is best illustrated in the prominently bedded hillside on the north side of Spring Valley Creek and in the volcanic units outcropping in Burnt Car Draw. In these locations, the beds are gently tipping downward to the west toward the axis of Spring Valley. No indications of active faulting such as fault scarps, flatirons, or recently displaced strata were observed. No active fault zones were shown mapped in the area in statewide fault -zone maps or other sources reviewed for this project. As a result, no mitigation or remedial design will be required for potential fault rupture. 5 LEGEN D Sand Mudst rie Granite • A18 • A13 p3U2g • t �4Lr I f+_ Fault Approximate Exploration Location 0 5 020 0 0.25 OJi APPROXMAATE SCALE IN MP $ REFERENCE: MOB 124.000 kale Quadrangle Maps, Pearl. Idaho 1981. and Cartwright Carom, Idaho 1975 Figure 2-1 Generalized geologic map by Kleinfelder Flow Projections 3.1 Growth For the purpose of wastewater planning, the number of residents contributing wastewater to the treatment system needs to be determined. This factor should be based upon occupied homes, not building permits. Since 2008, Avimor has experienced consistent growth. The number of building permits secured during this time exceeds the 6 number of homes that were occupied by residents. As such, the number of building permits should not be used to determine per home flows and other factors. It was determined that water meter records may provide the best evidence for the number of occupied homes. As of 2021, the total number of residential units is 664 according to Avimor Development LLC. Based on market projections provided by Avimor Development LLC, the planned community is expected to develop at a rate of 200 houses per year therefore, build -out will occur in the year 2059 as shown in Figure 3-1. The number of houses occupied from 2009 to 2021 are based upon the number of houses sold within the community. Dwelling Units 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 Yea r Figure 3-1 Buildout Projection 3.2 Design Parameters Collection system design is based upon material selection, pipe slope, and sewer flow. For the purposes of this master plan, all flow is routed to the treatment facility with the following general system assumptions: Pipe material: SDR 35 PVC / AWWA C900 DR18 Manning's Roughness: 0.010 Hazen Williams C (force mains): 150 Peaking Factor: 2.8 Pipe slope: minimum, per Ten State Standards* The design parameters were used to create Table 3-1 for gravity sewer pipe. Maximum average daily flow and peak flows are provided for each pipe diameter along with their 7 respective velocities. The sewer pipe slope may be adjusted to be equivalent to topography in areas with considerable elevation change. Pipe Diameter Minimum Slope Table 3-1 Gravity Pipe Design Criteria Average Flow Max Ratio (inch) (ft/ft) (d/D) 8 0.00400 0.413 10 0.00280 0.413 12 0.00220 0.413 15 0.00150 0.413 18 0.00120 0.413 21 0.00100 0.413 24 0.00080 0.413 27 0.00067 0.413 30 0.00058 0.413 33 0.00052 0.413 36 0.00046 0.413 Average Flow Design Capacity (gal/day) 229,993 348,891 502,889 752,893 1,095,036 1,507,866 1,925,541 2,412,415 2,972,682 3,629,248 4,304,903 Average Flow Velocity Peak Flow Max Ratio (ft/sec) (d/D) 2.62 0.82 2.54 0.82 2.54 0.82 2.44 0.82 2.46 0.82 2.49 0.82 2.43 0.82 2.41 0.82 2.40 0.82 2.43 0.82 2.42 0.82 Peak Flow Design Capacity (gal/min 447 679 978 1,464 2,130 2,933 3,745 4,692 5,782 7,059 8,373 Peak Flow Velocity (ft/sec) 3.25 3.16 3.16 3.03 3.06 3.10 3.03 3.00 2.99 3.02 3.01 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater in this area is relatively deep and not anticipated to impact or contribute to the sewer collection system. Infiltration and inflow Al) is assumed to be zero based upon an absence of groundwater and all infrastructure is new construction without storm water connections to the sewer collection system. 3.4 Residential Density The community residential density is planned to be approximately 0.5 residential units per acre. The developable land is planned with up to 9,190 dwelling units. Actual residential densities will vary across the community based on each area's land use. The average household density is expected to be 2.5 people per household resulting in a population of approximately 22,975 people in the community. 3.5 Land Use The Avimor community is comprised of various land uses which will vary in the amount of wastewater generated per acre. A general description is provided as well as the anticipated breakdown of residential and commercial business in each land use. 3.5.1 Village Center The Village Center district is the heart of the community and the main activity center for Avimor which is designed to accommodate commercial, community, residential, and cultural activities. This district may include shopping, business and professional offices, research and development, hotel and resorts, vineyards and wineries, cultural, educational, civic, community facilities, and parks and recreational facilities to serve the 8 entire Avimor population. Medium to high density residential areas may be included as a secondary use and residential units may be stacked vertically above business uses. 3.5.2 Open Space Community Open Space is land set aside for recreation, agriculture, habitat, vegetation, scenic, or similar uses and is intended to primarily serve the Avimor residents. Developed Open Space may include public, semi-public, and private recreational facilities, amphitheaters, golf courses, pathways and trails, landscape zones in and adjacent to major roadways including areas outside of a dedicated right-of-way, greenbelts, cultural, community, educational, and quasi -public facilities, equestrian centers, and trailheads, as well as parks, playfields and natural open spaces. Agricultural uses, such as vineyards, wineries and plant nurseries, are also considered Community Open Space. Facilities and tracts of land owned by the Owners' Association are also considered Community Open Space. Regional Open Space is intended to serve both Avimor residents and the general public and may be adjacent to, or provide connection to, large scale regional open space. Regional Open Space may include many of the amenities provided in Community Open Space as well as active regional parks, trail corridors (such as the proposed Eagle Canyon Regional Park, Trail and Open Space Corridor.) Regional Open Space may be owned and maintained by the City, the Owners' Association, private parties, a land trust, or other conservation group or entity. 3.5.3 Foothills Residential Foothills Residential districts are intended to provide residential neighborhoods that are one quarter acre in size on average. Foothills Residential districts may also include farmers' market, schools, vineyards, community centers and other complementary uses. 3.5.4 Mixed Use / Commercial Mixed Use districts are intended to provide a variety and mixture of retail, business, residential and employment opportunities for Avimor and area residents. These districts will accommodate office, flex space, light manufacturing, research and development, shopping, business, lodging, professional and support commercial services, primary, secondary and higher educational facilities, parks and recreation facilities, vineyards and wineries, and residential uses. 3.5.4 Village Residential Village Residential districts are intended to provide residential neighborhoods with a range of lot sizes and housing types depending on location, site conditions, and market influences to create a community that emphasizes housing diversity. Village Residential districts are comprised of Single -Family Detached, Single -Family Attached and Multi - Family at various densities and mixes. These districts may also include schools, day care facilities, worship sites, parks, playfields, and other recreational facilities, resorts, 9 vineyards and wineries, and other complementary uses. Some village residential uses are also permitted in non-residential land use districts. 3.5.5 Land Use Profile Table 3-2 is based upon the descriptions provided and is a general assumption for how the land use areas will develop. Each land use has been subdivided by percent into hotel, office, park, residential, restaurant, retail, and miscellaneous for wastewater planning. Characterizing each land use is necessary to determine flow contributions for the community at buildout. Land Use Table 3-2 Land Use Profile Hotel Office Park Residential Restaurant Retail Misc Storage Community/ Village 10% 20% 10% 5% 20% ° 20% 5% 0% ° Center Developed Open 0% 0% 10% ° Space 0% 0% 0% 90% 0% Foothills Residential 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mixed Use/ 10% 20% 5% 10% 20% ° 20% 5% 0% Commercial Multi -Family 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Special Areas 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% Village Residential 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.6 Residential Planning Residential homes will be developed in areas based upon existing slopes, soils, and planning considerations. Planning densities will vary based upon the land use and market demands at the time of construction. Sewer flow to the treatment facility is available for the Avimor community from January 2009 to August 15, 2018 and is shown in Figure 3-2. Prior to the treatment facility being started up for the first time in June 2013, all flows were hauled away to be treated at a separate facility not owned by Avimor. The community was unable to produce enough wastewater flows to justify operating the ARWF during the hauling period. Flow data during the hauling period is based on the total number of gallons hauled each month and ARWF operation flow data was measured by a flowmeter. Flowmeter data prior to May 2017 is considered unreliable due to statements made various wastewater land application annual reports, noticeable irregularities in flow, and discrepancies between influent and effluent flow data. The influent flow meter was replaced in May 2017 to correct issues with inaccurate flow readings. It is believed that flows after this date are accurate. Flow data from July 1, 2017 through August 15, 2018 was chosen for analysis and is shown graphically in Figure 3-3. These dates were selected for analysis because it is after the influent flow meter was replaced and reliable occupied household data is available. NOAA database rainfall data from Boise, ID is shown to demonstrate an 10 absence of impacts to the system flows from inflow and infiltration. The data used to calculate the equivalent residential unit (ERU) flows for this time period are as follows: Total Flow: 16,907,007 gallons AWRF Average Daily Flow: 41,136 gallons/day Occupied Units in July: 294 units Occupied Units in August: 364 units Calculated Average ERU Flow: 125 gallons/day This ERU flow is lower than typical values seen within the Treasure Valley and is due to several factors including home sizes in the community, water conservation measures implemented during construction, hot water recirculation pumps, and the number of people residing in each household. The flow per ERU is assumed to be 160 gpd for planning purposes based upon the historical flow data. Figure 3-3 illustrates the daily flow for the calculated and proposed ERU flows when multiplied by the historical number of occupied households. The assumed value of 160 gpd is larger than the calculated average of 125 gpd. Avimor received approval from DEQ in the 2019 Facility Plan to reduce the current planning figure of 300 gpd/ERU to 160 gpd/ERU based upon record data. The two peaks in flow from September 2017 to October 2017 and March 2018 to May 2018, as shown in Figure 3-3, are due to construction dewatering activities. Avimor staff no longer allows contractors to dewater into the sewer collection system. 11 Jw '70 0 = o 0 Flow (gallons) yy y N O N ❑ N C Ln O Ln V C 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 A 0 g 0 0 0 0▪ 0 ▪ O W 01 Ca0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Occupied Units O 0 Figure 3-2 AWRF Influent Flow (1-1-2009 to 8-15-2018) 12 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 c 0 m 35,000 0 LL 30,000 25,000 —Daily Flow —Average Flow —125 Gallons Per Residence —160 Gallons Per Residence —Precipitation 20,000 I[ _ ` 15,000 ti ti h Y Y h 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 u 1 0.1 0.0 4, 4� 49 Date (Month -Year) Precipitation (inch) Figure 3-3 AWRF Flow (7-1-2017 to 8-15-2018) A diurnal curve was developed, using plant influent data, from July 1, 2017 through August 15, 2018 as shown in Figure 3-4. Plant influent data for this time period is nearly exclusively made up of residential units except for the Avimor community center and the Avimor planning office. This diurnal curve shows that a peaking factor of 2.8, as provided in the the design parameters, is a conservative assumption. 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Instantaneous Flow / Average Flow —Weekday —Weekend 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time of Day (hours) Figure 3-4 Diurnal Curve (7-1-2017 to 8-15-2018) 13 3.7 Commercial Planning Commercial development will be located throughout the development and primarily concentrated around the village centers. The only commercial facilities that are currently in operation is a gas station, brewery, the Avimor Community Center, and Avimor planning offices. It is assumed that most of the commercial uses within Avimor will be hotels, offices, restaurants, and retail. Some commercial uses such as a brewery or restaurants will tend to have a larger water usage and associated impacts to the sewer collection system. Without specific information about the commercial uses at this time, broad planning figures were used for this report to estimate future demands as shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 Commercial Flow Generation Rates Flow Generation Rates (gal/acre/day) Hotel Office Park Restaurant Retail Misc Storage 2400 750 150 10000 200 800 100 The flows in Table 3-3 are based on the following assumptions: • Hotel IDAPA 58.01.03 - 60 gallons/bed space Assumed 40 rooms/acre • Office IDAPA 58.01.03 - 20 gallons/employee Assumed 37.5 employees/acre • Park IDAPA 58.01.03 — 5 gallons/person Assumed 30 people/acre • Restaurant Maryland Department of the Environment (Rev. June 2011) - 50 gallons/seat Assumed 200 seats/acre • Retail Metcalf & Eddy - 1.5 gallons/parking space, 8 gallons/employee Assumed 80 parking spaces and 10 employees • Miscellaneous Flow generation rate assumed • Storage Units Flow generation rate assumed 14 3.8 Future Flows Three flow conditions are significant to the design of the treatment facility: average daily flow, peak daily flow, and peak hour flow. The average daily flow, an indicator of the typical daily flow rate, is useful in estimating normal operating conditions for the treatment system. The peak daily flow is used as the critical process design condition, and the peak hour flow is used to define the hydraulic capacities of certain elements of the system, including lift stations, screening, and equalization basins. Future flow will be dependent on the land use flow generation rates for the development key numbered regions that are provided in Appendix B. The commercial flow generation rates and land use flows are also provided in Appendix B of this report. Commercial flow generation rates are used in conjunction with the Table 3-2 (Land Use Profile) to develop non-residential flows in Table 3-5. The collection and conveyance system has been designed to have 8" to 21" gravity collection lines as shown in the collection system maps provided in Appendix A of this report. The collection lines have been designed using minimum slopes however, they may be downsized if sufficient slope is used during the design to convey all anticipated flows. Estimated flows for each sewer area are shown in Table 3-5 and the extents of each sewer service area are shown in Figure 4-1. Table 3-4 Sewer Service Area Estimated Flows Average Daily Flow (gal/day) Peak Hour Flow (gal/min) Area Historical Flow Historical 160 gal/du Flow 160 gal/du 125 gal/du 125 gal/du 1 665672 852061 1294.4 1656.8 21 81146 103866 157.8 202.0 3 306281 392039 595.5 762.3 42 366698 469373 708.6 907.0 5 168899 216191 303.5 388.5 Total 1,588,696 2,033,531 3059.8 3916.5 'Estimated flow collected and produced in Area 2 not including the total flow produced in Areas 3, 4, & 5. 'Estimated flow collected and produced in Area 4, not including the total flow produced in area 5. 15 Collection System 4.1 Introduction The proposed collection system is comprised of gravity sewer pipe that will be generally located within roadways and lift stations where it becomes impractical convey sewer with gravity sewer pipe across the existing terrain. The collection system will terminate at a treatment facility located at the southeast part of the development. 4.2 Topographic Service Basins The sewer service basins within the Avimor planned community will be governed primarily by the natural topography. As the system is expanded across terrain or over the top of topographic features, consideration is given to how these areas will be routed to the sewer system. There are 5 primary sewer service basins that will serve the Avimor Planned Community as shown in Figure 4-1. The majority of Areas 1 through 3 are able to flow by gravity into the existing trunk mains and eventually into the wastewater treatment facility. Areas 4 and 5 require that the sewer be lifted and pumped to the gravity system. Because of the varying terrain, there will be small areas, such as the outlying reaches of Area 2 and 3, which must be lifted over the ridge into the gravity system. Collection system maps are provided in the Appendix A of this report. 16 7500 0 7500 15000 SERVICE AREA 1 SERWGE AREA 2 5€RVIC€ AREA 3 SERVICE AREA SERVICE AREA 5 Figure 4-1 Sewer Service Areas 4.3 Trunk Mains Most of the planned roadways within Avimor will follow the natural topography and will be located along the bottom of draws, especially in high slope areas. These same alignments will typically represent the best location for sewer trunk mains. As the community is developed, priority shall be given to maintaining sewer corridors within the right of way. Sewer trunk mains have been planned to serve the Avimor Planned Community. The trunk main sizes have been sized based upon anticipated flow for the development areas using minimum slopes. Because the site is relatively hilly with most natural grades in excess of minimum pipe slopes, it is not anticipated that sewer trunk main depths will exceed typical minimum bury depths. The sewer mains may be downsized during design if the proposed slopes are greater than the minimum allowable and there is adequate capacity for all proposed flows using both diversion structure scenarios discussed in Section 4.5. In general, gravity trunk mains are planned to be bell and spigot gasketed SDR-35 PVC or PS46 for large diameter PVC piping. Welded HDPE may be considered when advantageous for force mains or in areas with considerable depth. Final pipe material decisions will be determined by the design engineer. 17 4.4 Lift Stations The natural grade of the site does not allow for all sewer service areas to grade by gravity to the treatment facility. Lift stations have been strategically located to minimize the amount of pumping necessary while allowing service to the full development area. Installation of sewer lift stations will result in increased power consumption, increased maintenance, and operational costs. The plan includes two primary regional lift stations and up to seven smaller lift stations. Table 4-1 represents the anticipated flows that will be pumped by the proposed lift stations. Table 4-1 Lift Station Flow Lift Station Sewer Area Avg. Daily Flow Peak Hour Flow (gpd) (gpm) 1 5 13,802 26.8 2 5 216,191 388.5 3 5 15,932 31.0 4 4 12,264 23.8 5 4 423,382 791.3 6 4 685,564 1295.5 7 4 685,564 1295.5 8 3 62,536 121.2 9 2 101,712 197.8 10 2 34,692 67.5 11 2 85,904 167.0 12 2 1,181,470 2259.7 4.5 Diversion Structure A diversion structure is planned at the south end of sewer area 3 to allow for flows to be routed to lift station 1. Buildout of the sewer infrastructure will reroute flows to sewer area 1 as shown in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of the diversion structure is to allow flexibility in sewer operations depending upon the timing of the north and south highway crossings. The necessity for this structure will be entirely dependent upon the order of development within the planned development areas. 4.6 Highway Crossings The central wastewater treatment facility is located on the east side of Highway 55 and the majority of the property within Avimor is located on the west side of the highway. Currently there are two planned crossings of the highway. One is near the WWTP and the other is North of the community center and gas station just off Highway 55. The timing of these crossings will depend upon the construction of future development. It is anticipated that an open cut of Highway 55 will not be permitted and that crossings will need to be bored. This effort will require coordination with and approval from the Idaho Transportation Department. 18 Wastewater Treatment and Reuse 5.1 Treatment Facility Avimor is served by a central wastewater treatment system, Avimor Water Reclamation Facility (AWRF), as shown in Figure 5-1. The facility is owned and operated by the Avimor Water Reclamation Company LLC. The AWRF is planned to serve the entire planned development at final build out and will be upgraded as necessary to keep up with demand. All sewer generated within the planned community will be routed by gravity or force main to this location. The wastewater treatment facility is generally located at a lower elevation than most of the surrounding areas. The existing treatment system is a membrane bioreactor (MBR) which utilizes biological treatment in combination with in -basin membrane filtration. Plant effluent is discharged as Class B recycled water and pumped up to a water storage tank where it is utilized for reuse. Figure 5-1 Avimor Water Reclamation Facility 5.2 Wastewater Treatment A process flow diagram for the AWRF is shown in O&M Manual which is available in Appendix E of this report. The existing wastewater treatment facility is discussed below. 5.2.1 Raw Influent Pump Station Raw sewage flows by gravity to the raw influent pump station where it is lifted to the wastewater treatment facility. The 1.0 MGD condition for the pump station includes three submersible pumps, each designed to deliver 1,400 gpm and operate in a two (duty) + one (standby) arrangement. The current setup includes two pumps with a one (duty) + one (standby) arrangement. The third pump will be added as part of the Phase 2 expansion The pumps have variable speed motors that cycle based on liquid level set points. Pump run times and alarm features are monitored in the programable logic controller (PLC) 19 and reported to the SCADA system. The pump station consists of a precast concrete pump vault and precast concrete valve vault. 5.2.2 Headworks The headworks screening facility is sized to accommodate three fine screens which can handle peak instantaneous flow from the raw influent pump station. There are currently two fine screens with an integral washer and compacter that removes debris larger than 3 mm, washes it to minimize organic components, and compacts it to remove the water and reduce volume. As material accumulates on the screen, the upstream water surface will increase and initiate a cleaning cycle. Two duty screens will be required at 1.0 MGD capacity, with one standby unit for backup. The third screen will be added as part of the Phase 2 expansion. The current capacity of the AWRF headworks is 1.0 MGD. 5.2.3 Equalization and Process Feed Pumping The equalization tank provides peak flow attenuation at the AWRF. The equalization tank is mixed with a pump and set of mixing nozzles. Two submersible process feed pumps in the equalization basin deliver flow to the activated sludge system. The third pump will be added as part of the Phase 2 expansion. The pumps run on variable frequency drives and are controlled based on the equalization tank level. The equalization tank is constructed with cast -in -place concrete and has a concrete deck designed to support the weight of a membrane module weighing up to 3 tons. 5.2.4 Phosphorus Removal The influent wastewater is expected to contain a phosphorus concentration of 8 mg/L since testing data is not available at this time. Phosphorus is an environmental concern because it is a nutrient that helps support algae growth in surface waters. The facilities IPDES permit has an effluent limit of 1.2 lb/day limit average monthly limit on phosphorous. The expected facility influent phosphorus loads are as follows: • Phase 1 - Plant Flow - 0.33 MGD • Phase 2 - Plant Flow - 0.66 MGD • Phase 3 - Plant Flow - 1.0 MGD 22.0 Ibs/d of P 44.0 Ibs/d of P 66.7 Ibs/d of P To remove phosphorus, alum is dosed into the MBR train as a chemical coagulant and is removed with the solids. 5.2.5 Activated Sludge System The activated sludge system and filtration system are designed to continuously treat the design average daily flow and meet the peak daily flow. The anoxic basins are un- aerated and mixed with deck -mounted mixers. Flows are discharge from the anoxic basin to the aeration basin where the mixed liquor is aerated with fine bubble diffusers. A submersible anoxic recycle pump delivers flow back to the anoxic basins to enhance denitrification. A submersible MBR recycle pump delivers flows to the end of the MBR 20 basins to reduce solids accumulation in that tank. Instrumentation for the activated sludge system includes an online suspended solids analyzer to control overall system sludge ages and a dissolved oxygen meter for aeration basin blower control. Table 5-1 provides physical descriptions for the system, Table 5-2 provides recycle pump criteria, and Table 5-3 provides air system requirements. Table 5-1 Basin sizes and hydraulic detention times (HRT) for the AWRF Basin L (ft) W (ft) H (ft) Nominal SWD (ft) Nominal Volume (gal) No. Nominal Volume (gal) HRT (hours) Anoxic 16 44.5 17 14.00 74,560 1 74,560 5.4 Aeration MBR 14 14 17 13.75 20,159 3 60,475 3.3 14 14 17 14.00 20,525 3 61,575 3.9 Table 5-2 Process recycle pumping (per train) for the AWRF Service Recycle Rate' Capacity2 (gpm) No. Total Flow (gpm) Anoxic recycle MBR recycle 10x 5x (forward) 875 525 3 3 2310 1386 ' Max pump sizing based on maximum forward flux rate with all MBR modules in-service. These values represent a 12.9% additional flow capacity and provide for robustness if a single pump fails. 2 Pumps are equipped with variable frequency drives and flow meters. Flow capacities shown are maximums. The aeration basins are equipped with 9-inch disc fine bubble rubber membrane diffusers in a dedicated grid supplied by a 4-inch drop pipe. Each grid contains 80 diffusers. Average day conditions are estimated to require 115 scfm airflow to each aeration basin. Aeration basin blowers are sized for 500 scfm so the maximum aeration capacity is 167 scfm per basin. Any aeration demand peaking factors beyond these requirements will be absorbed by the aeration capacity in the MBR basins. 21 Table 5-3 Aeration rate requirements for the AWRF Service Aeration basins' MBR basins2 Sludge holding tank3 Air Per Train (scfm) 167 330 620 No. Trains 3 3 1 Air Total (scfm) 500 990 620 65% oxygen demand in aeration basin, assumed 0.4 a factor, 23% SOTE for aged diffuser elements (26% original) and 2 mg/L dissolved oxygen concentration. Air rates above provide sufficient air for average daily loadings at a 2.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen concentration. Peak daily loadings will depress oxygen concentration in the aeration basin down to 0.75 mg/L, driving some of the nitrification reaction to the MBR tank. 2 100 scfm per EK400 plus 10% additional safety factor Based on AOR of 31 Ibs/hr average decay over 5-day storage. Minimum air for mixing at 20 to 40 scfm/1,000 cf is 340 to 640 scfm. 5.2.6 Blowers Five blowers provide air to the treatment facility. One set provides air for the aeration basins and the other set of blowers provides air for the membrane modules as well as for the sludge holding tank. One blower is installed as a redundancy for the system. In the aeration basins, air provides oxygen for biological reactions. These blowers are equipped with variable frequency drives and controlled based on a dissolved oxygen meter reading and dissolved oxygen setpoint in the PLC. Membrane modules use air to scour solids away from the membrane surfaces to maintain flux rates through the membranes. When operating, each module needs a minimum 100 scfm and a minimum of 900 scfm is required for the membranes. Because air scour is critical to the operation of these membranes, an additional 10% air flow is provided in the blowers for 1,000 scfm total. Aeration requirements for the sludge holding tank are greater than for the aeration basin but smaller than for the membranes. The sludge holding tank supply blower is identical to the membrane blowers and discharge into the same header so that the two have a common standby unit. The membrane/sludge holding tank blowers are positive displacement tri-lobe blowers equipped with variable frequency drives. The sludge holding tank blower is maintained between a minimum setpoint for mixing requirements and what is needed to maintain a dissolved oxygen setpoint. The membrane blowers are controlled to provide sufficient airflow and are positioned in the control building. 5.2.7 MBR Modules and Permeate Pumping Membrane modules separate the mixed liquor solids from the clear water. The modules lie submerged in the MBR basin, with permeate piping conveying clean water. Air is used to scour solids off the individual membrane faces. The MBR recycle pump ensures that solids do not accumulate in the MBR basin. 22 The mechanical frame of the module is bolted to the basin floor, with hard -piped air supply for air scour. Each module has two membrane cases that can be removed on a rail system. Permeate water is piped to the side of the MBR basin with 2" pressure/vacuum hoses, where it is hard -piped. An isolation valve for each membrane case is positioned in the pipe chase adjacent to the MBR basin. A monorail mounted on the deck allows the membrane cases to be pulled for inspection and servicing. Permeate pumps pull water through the membranes. Each suction line is equipped with a vacuum pressure transmitter so that trans -membrane pressure can be monitored for each set. The pumps discharge into a single train discharge header that routes to the plant discharge. The common train discharge header pipe is equipped with a turbidity - monitoring device. Table 5-4 Membrane design criteria for the AWRF Element Units Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Effective membrane area per sheet sf 8.6 8.6 8.6 No. sheets per EK400 No. 400 400 400 Total membrane area per EK400 sf 3,440 3,440 3,440 Average allowable flux rate, per Enviroquip gfd 12.3 12.3 12.3 Design average allowable flux rate gfd 12.11 12.11 12.11 Average flow capacity per EK400 gpd/EK400 41,796 41,796 41,796 No. EK400s in project phase No. 9 18 27 Total flow capacity per design flux rate at 12.3 gfd gpd 380,808 761,616 1,142,424 Firm capacity, one EK400 out of service each phase at 12.11 gfd gpd 333,333 666,667 1,000,000 5.2.8 Disinfection Each membrane permeate header is combined to a common effluent pipeline that discharges into the chlorine contact tank. The contact tank provides 30 minutes of contact time at peak daily conditions. A sodium hypochlorite feed system adds chlorine to the permeate. 5.2.9 Effluent Pumping Vertical turbine -type effluent pumps deliver disinfected water to a water storage tank which can be routed to the rapid infiltration basins or used in the landscape PI system. In addition to effluent pumping, a smaller duty pump is provided for plant utility water that is used at the influent screens, as spray -down water in the process, for polymer makeup water, or for clean -in -place of the membranes. 5.2.10 Sludge Holding Tank Waste sludge is pumped to the sludge holding tank where it is aerated and stored until it can be thickened or dewatered. Solids in the activated sludge basins are measured with an online suspended solids analyzer. The sludge holding tank is 46'-6"L x 27'W x 23 17'H with a nominal maximum water surface of 14', yielding 131,000 gallons. At the plant capacity of 1.0 mgd, there will be just over 5 days of storage for thin (1.5%) sludge. 5.2.11 Thickening/Dewatering A 1-m gravity belt thickener was initially provided for waste sludge thickening. The feed pump for the thickener, a submersible centrifugal pump with a variable frequency drive, is flow controlled with a magnetic flow meter. This thickener reduces sludge volumes by 60% to 75%. Current operations at the AWRF include the use of a Flo Trend roll -off container for dewatering. Waste sludge can be hauled off for disposal at larger publicly owned treatment works, disposed of at Idaho Waste Systems' Simco Road Landfill, or Ada County Landfill. Future liquid that is dewatered will be reused at a proposed nursery as discussed in the Reuse section of this report. 5.2.12 Backup Power Backup power is provided with a generator. Two generators will be used at 1.0 MGD capacity however, only one is currently installed. With both generators, adequate backup power will be available for the plant to operate at 1.0 MGD. 5.2.13 Treatment Facility Capacity The constructed facilities include the following primary components and associated treatment capacities shown in Table 5-5. The existing infrastructure is configured to allow three projects (initial construction and two expansions) equivalent to approximately 0.33 MGD per phase for a total capacity of 1.0 MGD. Current permitting through DEQ limits RI bed capacity based upon an assumed per ERU flow of 300 gallons per day. Avimor's historic water usage shows an ERU flow of 125 gallons per day. A planning ERU of 160 gallons per day has been used in this report to size the collection system and show the buildout capacity of the treatment facility. Avimor is in the process of collecting actual RI capacity data that will be used to expand the number of ERU's that can be permitted within Avimor. A new land application permit is planned to be issued to account for the actual capacity of the RI beds. Table 5-5 Treatment Facility Capacity Component Headworks Mechanical Treatment Rapid Infiltration Beds Current Capacity Proposed Capacity 1.00 MGD 0.33 MGD 0.19 MGD 1.00 MGD 0.33 MGD 0.30 MGD 5.2.14 Phases Buildout of the existing facility includes three phases of construction however a total of 6 phases of treatment capacity upgrades are planned. The existing building was constructed to have adequate space for all instrumentation needed for the treatment plant expansion up to three (3) mechanical treatment trains. MBR expansions include the construction of reinforced concrete tanks, installation of the MBR, and additional 24 equipment in the treatment building as necessary. Phase 4 will introduce a second treatment facility to the site and it will be upgraded in similar fashion as what is planned for the existing facility with space for additional MBR tanks and equipment. The new facility will be similar to the current treatment plant. Treatment capacity upgrades and expected phase implementation are as shown in Table 5-6. The expected construction dates are based on the expected population growth. Phase Phase 1 Phase la Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Table 5-6 Treatment Capacity Planning Phases Description Existing Facility RI Basin Permitting MBR #1 Expansion #1 MBR #1 Expansion #2 Headworks / MBR #2 MBR #2 Expansion #1 MBR #2 Expansion #2 ERU's ERU's Capacity (160 gpd) (125 gpd) 0.19 MGD1 1,188 1,520 0.33 MGD 2,083 2,667 0.67 MGD 4,167 5,333 1.00 MGD 6,250 8,000 1.33 MGD 8,333 10,667 1.67 MGD 10,417 13,333 2.00 MGD 12,500 16,000 'Capacity limited by RI basin permitted flow. Expected Construction Complete May 2021 January 2024 January 2033 January 2041 January 2050 January 2058 As the AWRF reaches the existing infrastructure capacity of 1.0 MGD, future expansion of the treatment facility will be necessary to sustained development of the community. Avimor controls all property adjacent to the treatment facility which will allow for future expansion as shown in Figure 5-2 in red. Necessary treatment system expansions will be possible adjacent to the existing facility without any anticipated site area limitations. Future locations for facility expansion will need to take access and grading into account, as much of the area is encumbered with hills. 25 SOLIDS RKSI SOLIDS BUILDING SLUDGE STORAGE CONTROL BUILDING CONTROL BUILDING ADDITION FUTURE ADDITION ANOXIC TANK AERATION TANK 55'-0 DIA 3A-0 H Figure 5-2 MBR#2 Facility Expansion 5.3 Reuse Avimor has evaluated long-term options for reuse, recharge, discharge, and storage of wastewater effluent. The AWRF currently treats wastewater to a Class B reuse level (IDAPA 50.01.17). This is a high level of treatment and allows for landscape irrigation of parks and roadside areas during the growing season when not in use by the public. Current reuse options for Class B effluent include: • Rapid Infiltration • Sandy Hill Aquifer • Landscape Irrigation • Direct Discharge to Spring Valley Creek (IPDES Permit) The method used for effluent reuse varies seasonally between landscape irrigation and RI bed infiltration under the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) permit M-211-03 which expired on May 2, 2021. Avimor Water Reclamation Company is currently reapplying for the IPDES permit and will not be performing any surface water discharge until permitted to. Discharge to surface water will be required to meet 26 effluent limits in the new IPDES Permit. Average monthly effluent requirements for Class B reuse are shown in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 AWRF Class B effluent criteria Parameter Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) Total Chlorine Residual Total nitrogen (TN) Total phosphorus (TP) Turbidity Total coliform tco= total coliform organisms Permit Limit < 5.0 mg/L (monthly arithmetic mean) > 1 mg/L (after 30-minute contact time at peak flow) < 8.0 mg/L (monthly arithmetic mean) < 0.35 mg/L (monthly arithmetic mean) < 2.0 NTU (daily arithmetic mean) < 5.0 NTU (at any time) <2.2 tco/100 ml (median number of tco) < 23.0 tco/100 ml (at any time) Results from effluent testing are available in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. Total coliform is not shown in either figure because it has not been detected above the lower detection limit. Gaps in the lines shown in Figure 5-3 indicates levels of each constituent below the lower detection limit. Monthly sampling data is available in Appendix C of this report. 16 15 14 13 12 11 c. 6 0 1� • tit~ �a ti C3 (Cr Date (Month -Year) • BOD{mg/L) - Residual Chlorine (mg/L) - Nitrogen (mg/L) - Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Figure 5-3 Effluent Testing Results 27 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 ✓ 1.8 z 4, 1.6 75 1.4 I— • 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 ti� ti� ti� Date (Month -Year) Daily Turbidity —Average Turbidity Figure 5-4 Effluent Turbidity The average monthly effluent requirements for direct discharge to Spring Valley Creek are shown in Table 5-8 as defined in the previous IPDES permit, number ID0028371 that expired on May 2, 2021. The AWRF can meet these limits however the facility is not currently discharging directly to surface water at this time. Parameter Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) pH E. Coli Bacteria Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) Total Ammonia (as N) Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus (as P) Table 5-8 AWRF IPDES effluent criteria Effluent Limits Units mg/L lb/day % removal mg/L lb/day % removal s.0 #/100m1 µg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day mg/L lb/day Average Monthly Limits 15 52 - 85 min - 10 17 - 35 59 - 85 min - Between 6.5 - 9 at all times 126 406 9 18 0.03 0.06 2.4 4.7 8 17 15 - 1.2 - Average Weekly Limit 25 87 Maximum Day Limit 28 5.3.1 Rapid Infiltration Basins (Current) The rapid infiltration (RI) beds are located northeast of the AWRF in a dry drainage referred to as Broken Horn Draw, as shown in Figure 5-5. Soil and subsoils in this area are coarse sand with high infiltration rates (i.e., over 50 in/hr). Reuse water is surface - applied to a series of flat basins at rates that are below infiltration capacity. This area is designed as dry basins due to the relatively high infiltration rates for Pierce Park Sands. Figure 5-5 Treatment System & Reuse Map During non -irrigation seasons, recycled water is pumped to the RI beds where it infiltrates into the aquifer. RI Basins are then discharged into an isolated aquifer that allows in -ground storage of treated wastewater as permitted through DEQ. During the nongrowing season, all effluent is sent to the RI beds. The current permitted capacity of the RI basin is 0.19 MGD. This rate represents the daily treatment capacity for the planned community. The technical report for Avimor Water Reclamation Company's Reuse Permit M-211-03, produced by Mountain Waterworks dated January 2021 includes an updated analysis of the system's RI basin. The report includes a new RI basin capacity of 0.3 MGD. At this time, the new reuse permit has not been issued by DEQ, but is anticipated to be in 2022. The report states that infiltration testing was performed in the two largest basins in October of 2020 by a materials testing specialist. Based on the testing results, the report proposes an 29 allowance in the new permit for 36 inches of infiltration per day in the largest basin, and 60 inches per day in remaining basins. The report also proposes a bed rotation schedule utilizing all 5 RI beds. The rotation occurs by alternating between operational zones A and B. Operational zone A utilizes basins 1 and 2 with a total basin area of 0.37 acres, allowing for a daily infiltration capacity of 0.36 MGD. Operational zone B utilizes basins 3, 4, and 5 with a total basin area of 0.31 acres, allowing for a daily infiltration capacity of 0.3MGD. The lower of the two operational zones' capacity is 0.3MGD in zone A, which will be the limiting factor for the daily inflow rate to RI basins at all times. 5.3.2 Sandy Hill Aquifer The concept of routing treated effluent from the wastewater treatment plant to the top of Sandy Hill (located West of Highway 55) is being examined. The treated effluent would be injected into the aquifer in effort to recharge the aquifer. The aquifer would then be utilized for collecting water that can be purchased for irrigation purposes. At this time, the concept and process is entering the preliminary design phase. If this option is utilized, Avimor Water Reclamation Company will submit an addendum to this report. 5.3.3 Landscape Irrigation (Current) Class B reclamation water is being land -applied throughout the community during the growing season to maximizing water use efficiency of fresh water. Fresh and recycled water are blended for irrigation purposes. The primary reuse areas include lawn, landscaped parks, and parkways along roads. The Class B water is pumped from the ARWF to the reuse water storage tank that is approximately 3,000-feet east of the treatment facility. The water storage tank is connected to a pressure irrigation system that is used throughout the community. During the irrigation season, the effluent is reused to the maximum extent possible for landscaping from the storage tank. Excess reuse water that cannot be used by the landscape irrigation system overflows the storage tank and is diverted to the RI beds. 5.3.4 Direct Discharge An Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) permit was granted from Region 10 of the EPA for direct discharged to Spring Valley Creek. Discharge was authorized from October 1 through March 31 to Spring Valley Creek and prohibited between April 1 through September 30. The permit expired on May 2, 2021, though Avimor Water Reclamation Company is in the process of applying for a new IPDES permit through DEQ. If granted a new permit, this discharge may be utilized as Avimor's flows increase. There will be no limit on flow however, maximum limits have been established on nutrient loadings including the time of year that discharge is permitted, October 1st through March 31st. 30 5.3.4 Modifications to the Reuse Permit Various reuse options were proposed in the October 16, 2006 Master Plan as reuse alternatives that are not planned for the future reuse permit. These reuse alternatives are riparian restoration and agricultural reuse. The riparian rehabilitation area was established and future use of recycled water for this area has been deemed unnecessary. Agricultural reuse was proposed for approximately 137 acres that would was used for grass hay and sod production but changes in land use planning has resulted in its removal. Landscape irrigation with recycled water will eventually be replaced by water pumped from the confined aquifer beneath the RI beds. Landscape irrigation is currently conducted with a mixture of potable water and reuse water during the irrigation season. The landscape reuse areas are shown in Appendix J of this report. The plan for future reuse is to discharge treated effluent to the RI beds where it will contribute to the underground aquifer. The treated water will be pumped from the aquifer and used for irrigation. Water will be pumped from the wells adjacent to the RI beds and supply the current recycled water tank. New pipe routing from the AWRF to the RI beds will be necessary to allow for this operational change. The proposed routing is shown in Figure 5-6. CONNECT TO EXISTING PIPING IONNECT TO EXISTING PIPING PIPE ROUTING AVIMOR WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY WATER STORAGE TANK Figure 5-6 Pipe Routing Liquid that is dewatered from the treatment plant sludge, also known as filtrate, is proposed to be land applied at a proposed tree nursery at the location shown in Figure 5-7. Solids from the AWRF are removed from the MBR tanks and stored in an aerated 31 storage vault. The solids are pumped to the solids handling facility where it is dewatered using a Flo Trend roll -off container. The facility possesses a 1-m gravity belt thickener on site that can be used for dewatering however it is currently non -operational. The current operation at the treatment facility is to reintroduce the filtrate at the AWRF headworks to be reprocessed. Development of this project requires additional information including the type of trees or plants at the nursery, sampling analysis of the filtrate, and the expected size of the nursery which will be further explored in the project PER and coordination with DEQ. AVIMOR WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY Figure 5-7 Proposed Nursery Location Nutrient uptake of trees and plants is based upon type and density. The nursery is currently in the planning stage and this information is currently unknown. For planning purposes, nutrient application rates for non -grazed privately -owned woodlands was used based upon the USDA document titled "Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop Growth Requirements." The application rates for nitrogen and phosphorus are 100 Ibs/acre and 20 Ibs/acre respectively, as presented in the USDA document, and was multiplied by 4 since the density of the nursery will be higher than what is observed in woodlands. Table 5-10 provides the acreage necessary to comply with loading rates of nitrogen and phosphorus in the nursery. Filtrate will be trucked over to the nursery as necessary to be applied to the trees and plants. The filtrate will be classified as Class E recycled water which will require buffer zones and fencing to protect the public. Recycled water application at the nursery will only occur during the growing season and reintroduced into the plant headworks in the non -growing season. 32 Plant Influent Filtrate MGD MGD 0.19 0.33 0.67 1.00 1.33 1.67 2.00 0.0029 0.0050 0.0100 0.0150 0.0200 0.0250 0.0300 Table 5-9 Nursery Loading Phosphorus Nitrogen from Filtrate from Filtrate lb/day lb/day 3.0 13.5 5.2 23.8 10.4 47.5 15.6 71.3 20.9 95.1 26.1 118.8 31.3 142.6 Acres for Acres for Phosphorusl' Nitrogen1�1 (1) For growing season only - approximately 185 days Filtrate: 0.015 of Plant Influent, Metcalf & Eddy Phosphorus - Filtrate Concentration: 125 mg/L, Metcalf & Eddy Nitrogen - Filtrate Concentration: 570 mg/L, Metcalf & Eddy Phosphorus - Application Limit: 80 lb/acre/year Nitrogen - Application Limit: 400 lb/acre/year 6.9 12.1 24.1 36.2 48.2 60.3 72.3 6.3 11.0 22.0 33.0 44.0 55.0 66.0 5.4 Surface Water Quality - Snake and Boise River TMDLs Spring Valley Creek eventually drains into Dry Creek which drains into the Boise River. The Lower Boise River Subbasin, hydraulic unit code 17050114, has a total daily maximum load (TMDL) for concentration -based total phosphorus of < 0.07 mg/L. This limit is set for the mouth of the Boise River near the City of Parma prior to discharge into the Snake River. Load reductions are required during the critical period established as May 1 through September 30 when dissolved oxygen levels are low. 5.5 Operations Evaluation Avimor's wastewater treatment plant is fully operational and functional at this time. There are no known issues that need to be addressed with a capital improvement project. An issue regarding inflow and infiltration into the wastewater system that occurred in 2017 and 2018, but has since been resolved. This issue and corrective action by Avimor is discussed in Section 3.6 of this report. The plant will continue to resolve any minor issues with pumps, valves and consumables related to the MBR with routine maintenance practices. Avimor Water Reclamation Company continues to inspect and maintain operations on the plant to ensure everything remains in compliance. 33 Conclusion 6.1 Considerations Master planning for a community of this scale is a dynamic process. The assumptions for planned development patterns, density of development, commercial users, and other similar planning figures have been assumed with the understanding that there are a considerable number of unknowns at this time. This master plan is intended to provide guidance to the planning goals of Avimor. The master plan is a general planning tool intended to highlight planning objectives for the development of Avimor. As demonstrated herein, there is adequate capacity to provide for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal for the Avimor community. It is the goal of the development team for Avimor to provide adequate planning and construction of infrastructure to serve the community, protect the natural environment, and public health and safety. 34 Appendix A - Collection System Maps A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 L \210371\3_Acaddwg\Model\210371 - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DWG dwg, 4/6/2022 12 47 08 AM, Zack Schaumburg, DWG To PDF pc3 02022 T-0 ENGINEERS THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED PIPE SECTION SEWER i- PIPE ID 4-A3-8" SEWER AREA Jf JUNCTION 1-,_ PIPE SIZE CONNECTION PIPE ID (1) 3-C 1 /D 1 SEWER AREA J 9 GEM COUNTY ADA COUNTY I CONNECTION PIPE ID (2) \ \ COVER - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM LEGEND AMAJOR LIFT STATION A MINOR LIFT STATION WWTP WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE GRAVITY SEWER SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER ROADWAY - - COUNTY LINE SEWER AREA 1 SEWER AREA 2 SEWER AREA 3 SEWER AREA 4 SEWER AREA 5 VILLAGE CENTER -VC MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL -MUC FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL - FR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR OPEN SPACE - OS 70 14ki 0 2500 5000 10000 15000 DATE.416/22 JOB. 220063 T-O ENGINEERS 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-323-2288 I WWW.TO-ENGINEERS.COM A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 L \210371\3_Acaddwg\Model\210371 - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DWG dwg, 4/6/2022 12 47 27 AM, Zack Schaumburg, DWG To PDF pc3 02022 T-0 ENGINEERS THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED GEM COUNTY ADA COUNTY EXHIBIT A - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION LEGEND A e WWTP MAJOR LIFT STATION MINOR LIFT STATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE GRAVITY SEWER SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER ROADWAY - - COUNTY LINE VILLAGE CENTER -VC MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL -MUC FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL - FR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR OPEN SPACE - OS 14ki 0 900 1800 3600 5400 DATE.416122 JOB. 220063 T-O ENGINEERS 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-323-2288 I WWW.TO-ENGINEERS.COM A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 L \210371\3_Acaddwg\Model\210371 - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DWG dwg, 4/6/2022 12 47 44 AM, Zack Schaumburg, DWG To PDF pc3 02022 T-0 ENGINEERS THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED 4-L1/L2 4-L3/L4 - 3-F3/F4 3-F1/F2 4-L5/L6 4-L7/L8 4-L9/L10 } EXHIBIT B - SEWER o ° COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION 00 A 1 3-B1/B2 3-E/F5 IC I ip-, J - -J P d Nc3 DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE - 1 3'Ng, 4-V_8 4 -V/4_ A.B" _J p �A 4-L11/L12 • 00 3-G/H 1-A1 /A2 IF-- 1-A2-8" LEGEND MAJOR LIFT STATION © MINOR LIFT STATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE GRAVITY SEWER SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER ROADWAY — — COUNTY LINE VILLAGE CENTER -VC MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL -MUC FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL - FR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR OPEN SPACE - OS WWTP 14ki 0 900 1800 3600 5400 DATE.416/22 JOB. 220063 T-O ENGINEERS 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-323-2288 I WWW.TO-ENGINEERS.COM A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 L \210371\3_Acaddwg\Model\210371 - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DWG dwg, 4/6/2022 12 48 07 AM, Zack Schaumburg, DWG To PDF pc3 02022 T-0 ENGINEERS THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED GEM COUNTY ADA COUNTY tp m 11( mfrk 6-G-�O., 5-A/B 4- 5 EXHIBIT C - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION LEGEND A WWTP MAJOR LIFT STATION MINOR LIFT STATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE GRAVITY SEWER SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER ROADWAY - - COUNTY LINE VILLAGE CENTER -VC MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL -MUC FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL - FR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR OPEN SPACE - OS 0 900 1800 3600 5400 DATE.416/22 JOB. 220063 T-O ENGINEERS 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-323-2288 I WWW.TO-ENGINEERS.COM A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 L \210371\3_Acaddwg\Model\210371 - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM DWG dwg, 4/6/2022 12 48 23 AM, Zack Schaumburg, DWG To PDF pc3 02022 T-0 ENGINEERS THIS INSTRUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF T-0 ENGINEERS ANY REPRODUCTION, REUSE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS INSTRUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS WITHOUT SPECIFIC WRITTEN PERMISSION OF T-0 ENGINEERS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED 6" AERIE LANE 4-M/L-13 /4-N/LS-5 4-L11/L12 2-13/14 ' 2-11/12 4-S1/S2 4-S2-8" DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE - 2-LS7/2-B 2-LS6/LS7 1-A1/A2 1-C3/C4 1-B/C6 1N -7I i9 CV 2-L1/L2 2-G/M 1-H/I3/N 2-J 1 /J2 111/112 1-E1/E2 EXHIBIT D - SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM WITH DIVERSION LEGEND A WWTP MAJOR LIFT STATION MINOR LIFT STATION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT DIVERSION STRUCTURE PIPELINE GRAVITY SEWER SEWER FORCE MAIN EXISTING GRAVITY SEWER ROADWAY - - COUNTY LINE VILLAGE CENTER -VC MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL -MUC FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL - FR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL - VR OPEN SPACE - OS 14ki 0 900 1800 3600 5400 DATE.416122 JOB. 220063 T-O ENGINEERS 2471 S. TITANIUM PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 208-323-2288 I WWW.TO-ENGINEERS.COM A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 Appendix B - Flow Calculations HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-Al 1B.3 & 1B.4 20147 39 Upstream Flow = 20147 39.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 91.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-A2 1B.4, 1B.5, & 3B.1 28972 56 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 28972 87.4% 56.3 Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-A1/A2 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 49119 95.5 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 1-B 1B.5 1284 2 Upstream Flow = 50403 98.0 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 78.1% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-C1 1-Al 7318 14 Upstream Flow = 7318 14.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 96.8% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-C2 1-Al 10163 20 Upstream Flow = 10163 19.8 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 95.6% 1 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-C1/C2 (gal/day) (gal/min) IUpstream Flow = 17481 34.0 Sewer Line 1-C3 Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 17481 34.0 92.4% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-C4 1B-6 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 48540 440579 41.5% 94 856.7 Junction ADF Peak Flow 1C3-4 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 458060 890.7 Sewer Line 1-05 Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 458060 890.7 Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 39.2% Sewer Line 1-C6 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 458060 39.2% 890.7 Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-B/C5 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 508463 988.7 2 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line 1-D Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 508463 988.7 Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 32.5% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-E1 1B.2 & 1B.3 16290 32 Upstream Flow = 16290 31.7 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 92.9% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-E2 1-B1, 1B.1a, & 1A.1a 52755 103 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 52755 77.1% 102.6 Junction ADF Peak Flow 1E1-2 (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow = 69045 134.3 Sewer Line 1-E3 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 69045 134.3 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 70.0% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-E4 1B.2 11922 23 Upstream Flow = 11922 23.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 94.8% 3 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction 1-E3/E4 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) IUpstream Flow = 80966 157.4 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-E5 1 B.1 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 49707 130673 43.2% 96.7 254.1 Junction 1-D/E5 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 639136 1242.8 Sewer Line Land Use Symbol ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 1-F 1-F 1-F 1-F 1-F 1-F 1-F Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Existing Slope = 0.0015 Remaining Pipe Capacity = FR MF CVC DOS SD 202 Homes 1727 3.4 16627 32.3 22982 44.7 4337 8.4 10800 21.0 32320 62.8 88793 172.7 727929 1415.4 3.3% Sewer Line Existing Infrastrure ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-G 96 Homes 15360 29.9 1-G 15360 29.9 Upstream Flow = 15360 29.9 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Existing Slope = 0.0050 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 93.3% 4 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-F/G (gal/day) (gal/min) IUpstream Flow = 743289 1445.3 Sewer Line Land Use Symbol ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-H 1-H 1-H Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 18 Existing Slope = 0.0050 Remaining Pipe Capacity = CVC 47 Homes 28191 54.8 7520 14.6 35711 69.4 779001 1514.7 28.9% Sewer Line Existing Infrastrure ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 1-11 1-11 169 Homes 27040 52.6 27040 52.6 Upstream Flow = 27040 52.6 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 88.2% Sewer Line Existing Infrastrure ADF Peak Flow 1 (gal/day) (gal/min) J 1-12 136 Homes 21760 42.3 1-12 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Existing Slope = 0.0060 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 21760 42.3 21760 42.3 90.5% Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-11/12 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 48800 94.9 5 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 1 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line 1-13 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 48800 78.8% 94.9 Junction ADF Peak Flow 1-H/I3 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 827801 1609.6 Sewer Line Land Use Symbol ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 1-J 1-J 1-J 1-J Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 18 Existing Slope = 0.0050 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 144 Homes CVC Gas Station 23040 44.8 160 0.3 1060 2.1 24260 47.2 852061 1656.8 22.2% 6 of 6 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-A 1A.6 18469 35.9 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 18469 92.0% 35.9 Junction ADF Peak Flow 2-LS7/2-B (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 685564 1295.5 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 2-B 1A.5 & 1A.6 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 18 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 16886 702451 37.6% 32.8 1328 Junction 2-A/B ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 720920 1364.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-C 1A.7 20429 Upstream Flow = 741349 Pipe Size (in) = 18 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 34.1% 40 1403.9 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-D1 1A.10 28205 54.8 Upstream Flow = 28205 54.8 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 87.7% 1 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-D2 1A.11 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 23522 45.7 23522 89.8% 45.7 Junction ADF Peak Flow 2-D1/D2 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 51727 100.6 Sewer Line 2-D3 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 77.5% 51727 100.6 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-D4 1A.11 23522 45.7 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 89.8% 23522 45.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-D5 1A.11 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 26463 51.5 26463 88.5% 51.5 Lift Station ADF Peak Flow 9 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 101712 197.8 2 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-E 1A.9 & 1A.10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 34692 67 34692 84.9% 67.5 Lift Station 10 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 34692 67.5 Junction 2-LS9/LS10 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 136404 265.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 2-F 1A.6 & 1A.9 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 12 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 17788 154192 69.3% 35 299.8 Junction 2-C/F ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 895541 1703.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-G 1A.7 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 21 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 19627 915169 40.6% 38 1741.9 3 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-H 1A.8 32877 64 Upstream Flow = 32877 63.9 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 85.7% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-11 1A.9 26964 52.4 Upstream Flow = 26964 52.4 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 88.3% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-12 1A.9 10786 21.0 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 10786 95.3% 21.0 Junction ADF Peak Flow 2-11/12 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 37750 73.4 Sewer Line 2-13 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 83.6% 37750 73.4 4 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-13 1A.10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 15278 30 15278 93.4% 29.7 Junction 2-13/14 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 53028 103.1 Sewer Line 2-15 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 53028 103.1 76.9% Lift Station 11 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 85904 167.0 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-J 1 1A.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 21918 107822 53.1% 43 209.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-J2 1A.9 107857 Upstream Flow = 107857 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 53.1% 209.7 209.7 5 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 2-J1/J2 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 215679 419.4 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2-K 1A.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 12 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 10959 226638 54.9% 21.3 440.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2L-1 1A.9 18336 35.7 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 92.0% 18336 35.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 2L-2 1A.9 14021 27.3 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 14021 93.9% 27.3 Junction 2-L1/L2 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 32357 62.9 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 2L-3 1A.8 7306 14 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 39663 82.8% 77.1 Junction 2-K/L ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 266301 517.8 6 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 2 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line 2-M ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 266301 517.8 64.6% Junction 2-G/M ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 1181470 2259.7 Sewer Line 2-N ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 21 Remaining Pipe Capacity = 1181470 2259.7 22.9% Lift Station 12 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 1181470 2259.7 7 of 7 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 3 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Lift Station 8 Land Use Symbol ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) LS8 Upstream Flow = NOS 62356 62356 121.2 121.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-A 3B.4 14108 27.4 Upstream Flow = 76464 148.7 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 66.8% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-B1 3B.4 4709 9.2 Upstream Flow = 4709 9.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 98.0% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-B2 3G.2 40022 77.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 40022 82.6% 77.8 Junction ADF Peak Flow 3-B1/B2 (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 44732 87.0 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 3-B3 3B.4 26522 51.6 Upstream Flow = 71254 138.5 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 69.0% 1 of 5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 3 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-B4 3B.3 9024 17.5 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 9024 96.1% 17.5 Junction ADF Peak Flow 3-B3/B4 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 80278 156.1 Sewer Line 3-B5 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 80278 156.1 65.1% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-B6 3B.2 9132 17.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 1 9132 96.0% 17.8 Junction 3-B5/B6 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 89410 173.9 Sewer Line 3-B7 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 1 89410 173.9 74.4% Junction 3-A/B7 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 165873 322.5 2 of 5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 3 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-C 3B.2 13697 Upstream Flow = 179571 Pipe Size (in) = 12 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 64.3% 26.6 349.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-D 1B.7 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 56686 110.2 56686 110.2 75.4% Junction ADF Peak Flow 3-C/D (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 236257 459.4 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-E 1G.1 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 32981 269238 64.2% 64.1 523.5 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-F1 3G.4 6396 12.4 Upstream Flow = 6396 12.4 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 97.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-F2 3G.3 & 3G.7 18030 35 Upstream Flow = 18030 35.1 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 92.2% 3 of 5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 3 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 3-F1/F2 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 24426 47.5 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-F3 3G.3 18136 35.3 Upstream Flow = 42562 82.8 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 81.5% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-F4 3G.1 & 3G.3 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 36571 71 36571 84.1% 71.1 Junction 3-F3/F4 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 79133 153.9 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 3-F5 3G.3 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 5850 11.4 84983 165.2 63.1% Junction 3-E/F5 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 354221 688.8 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-G 1A.2 & 1G.1 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 15 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 21976 376197 50.0% 43 731.5 4 of 5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 3 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 3-H 1A.2 15842 31 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 15842 93.1% 30.8 Junction ADF Peak Flow 3-G/H (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 392039 762.3 5 of 5 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-Al 2A.7 2109 4.1 Upstream Flow = 2109 4.1 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 99.1% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-A2 2A.7 7910 15.4 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 7910 96.6% 15.4 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-A1/A2 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 10020 19.5 Sewer Line 4-A3 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 10020 19.5 95.6% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-B 2A.7 2244 4.4 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 2244 99.0% 4.4 Lift Station ADF Peak Flow 4 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 12264 23.8 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4-C1 2A.12 7423 14.4 Upstream Flow = 19687 38.3 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 91.4% 1 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction 4-C1/4-C2/LS4/LS2 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 423382 791.3 Lift Station 5 Upstream Flow = ADF (gal/day) 423382 Peak Flow (gal/min) 791.3 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4-J 2A.11 & 3G.6 13633 26.5 Upstream Flow = 13633 26.5 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 94.1% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-H 2A.8 87133 169.4 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 87133 62.1% 169.4 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-H/J (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 100766 195.9 Sewer Line 4-G ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 100766 195.9 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 71.1% Sewer Line Devleopment Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-F 3G.6 & 3G.8 5940 11.6 Upstream Flow = 5940 11.6 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 97.4% 2 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-G/F (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 106707 207.5 Sewer Line 4-E ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 106707 207.5 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 69.4% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-D1 3G.8 & 3G.9 23090 44.9 Upstream Flow = 23090 44.9 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 90.0% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-D2 3G.10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 5376 10.5 5376 97.7% 10.5 Junction 4-D1/D2 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 28466 55.3 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4-D3 3G.10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 25569 49.7 54034 76.5% 105.1 Junction 4-E/D3 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 160741 312.6 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4-C2 2A.6 & 2A.8A Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 14499 175240 49.8% 28.2 340.7 3 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L1 3G.5, 3G.7, & 3G.8 16374 32 Upstream Flow = 16374 31.8 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 92.9% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L2 3G.5 5880 11.4 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 5880 97.4% 11.4 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-L1/L2 (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 22254 43.3 Sewer Line 4-L3 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 22254 43.3 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 90.3% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L4 3G.5 2572 5.0 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 2572 98.9% 5.0 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-L3/L4 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow= 24826 48.3 Sewer Line 4-L5 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 24826 48.3 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 89.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L6 3G.3 11115 21.6 Upstream Flow = 11115 21.6 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 95.2% 4 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-L5/L6 (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 35941 69.9 Sewer Line 4-L7 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 35941 69.9 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 84.4% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L8 3G.5 1654 3.2 Upstream Flow = 1654 3.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 99.3% Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-L7/L8 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 37595 73.1 Sewer Line 4-L9 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 37595 73.1 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 83.7% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L10 3G.6 & 3G.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 8875 17.3 8875 96.1% 17.3 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-L9/L10 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 46470 90.4 5 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line 4-L11 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 46470 90.4 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 79.8% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-L12 3G.6 & 2A.11 6075 11.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 6075 97.4% 11.8 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-1.11/L12 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 52545 102.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4L-13 2A.9 & 2A.9a 20605 40.1 Upstream Flow = 73150 142.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 68.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-M 2A.9, 2A.9a, & 2A.10 64222 125 Upstream Flow = 64222 124.9 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 72.1% 6 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-U 1A.3 13330 20.2 Upstream Flow = 13330 20.2 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 94.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-V 1A.2 9505 18.5 Upstream Flow = 9505 18.5 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 95.9% 4-V/4-U (gal/day) (Upstream Flow= 22835 (gal/min) 38.7 Sewer Line ADF Peak Flow 4-T (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 22835 38.7 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 91.3% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-S1 1A.3 & 1A.4 67359 131 Upstream Flow = 67359 131.0 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 70.7% 7 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-S2 1A.3 22603 43.9 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 22603 90.2% 43.9 Junction 4-51/S2 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 89962 174.9 Sewer Line 4-S3 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 89962 60.9% 174.9 Junction 4-S3/T ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 112797 213.7 Sewer Line 4-R ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 112797 213.7 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 52.2% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-Q 2A.10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 1651 3.2 1651 99.3% 3.2 Junction ADF Peak Flow 4-Q/R (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 114448 216.9 8 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 4 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-P 2A.9a 3109 Upstream Flow = 117557 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 50.2% 6.0 222.9 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 4-0 2A-10 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 1297 2.5 1297 99.4% 2.5 Junction 4-O/P ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 118854 225.4 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 4-N 2A.9 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 5956 124810 65.1% 11.6 237.0 Junction 4-M/L-13/4-N/LS-5 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 685564 1295.5 Lift Station 6 4-M/L-13/4-N/LS-5 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 685564 1295.5 Lift Station 7 ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 'Upstream Flow= 685564 1295.5 9 OF 9 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 5 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-A 2A.5 52316 101.7 Upstream Flow = 52316 101.7 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 77.3% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-B 2A.6 7276 14.1 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 7276 96.8% 14.1 Junction Node ADF Peak Flow 5-A/B (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 59592 115.9 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 5-C 2A.2 97248 Upstream Flow = 156839 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 55.1% 189.1 305.0 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-D 2A.2 18060 3.2 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 18060 99.3% 3.2 Junction Node ADF Peak Flow 5-C/D (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 174900 308.2 1 of 4 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 5 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-E 2A.2 6946 Upstream Flow = 181846 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 52.6% 13.5 321.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-L 2A.4 15932 31.0 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 15932 93.1% 31.0 Lift Station ADF Peak Flow 3 (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 15932 31.0 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 5-I 2A.3 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 3939 7.7 3939 7.7 98.3% Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-H 2A.3 4829 9.4 Upstream Flow = 4829 9.4 Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 97.9% 2 of 4 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 5 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Junction Node 5-H/I ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 8769 17.0 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 2A.2 8769 96.2% 17.0 Junction Node 5-G/E ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 190614 338.7 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF (gal/day) Peak Flow (gal/min) 5-F 2A.2 6946 Upstream Flow = 197561 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 48.1% 13.5 352.2 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-J 2A.3 3939 7.7 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 3939 98.3% 7.7 Junction ADF Peak Flow 5-F/J (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 201500 359.9 3 of 4 HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS - AREA 5 WITH DIVERSION STRUCTURE Sewer Line Development Key Nnumber ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-K 2A.3 890 Upstream Flow = 202390 Pipe Size (in) = 10 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 46.7% 1.7 361.6 Sewer Line Development Key Number ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) 5-M 2A.1 13802 26.8 Upstream Flow = Pipe Size (in) = 8 Remaining Design Capacity Using Minimum Slope = 13802 94.0% 26.8 Lift Station 1 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 13802 26.8 Lift Station 2 ADF Peak Flow (gal/day) (gal/min) Upstream Flow = 216191 388.5 4 of 4 Appendix C - AWRF Flow and Sampling A AV I M 014' Wastewater Facility Plan 2019 AWRF Influent Flow Month - Year Average Monthly Flow Maximum Monthly Flow Total Monthly Flow (gal/day) (gal/day) (gal/day) Jan-13 - - - Feb-13 - - - Mar-13 - - - Apr-13 - - - May-13 - - - Jun-13 4699 8130 32895 Jul-13 4517 9584 140035 Aug-13 4650 6922 144136 Sep-13 4982 9374 149463 Oct-13 3863 7142 119744 Nov-13 4784 7941 143527 Dec-13 4853 7941 150437 Jan-14 3354 10528 103968 Feb-14 5496 21183 153887 Mar-14 8553 20649 265149 Apr-14 12296 21140 368869 May-14 10694 21909 331518 Jun-14 7708 15875 231247 Jul-14 7533 15512 225986 Aug-14 7112 14583 220469 Sep-14 7487 15808 224619 Oct-14 8969 20295 278027 Nov-14 8518 18786 255546 Dec-14 11837 32231 331424 Jan-15 14911 24733 447334 Feb-15 16439 29960 443866 Mar-15 12775 24066 396029 Apr-15 14008 21949 420239 May-15 18550 23876 575055 Jun-15 15505 22534 465149 Jul-15 12566 20109 376978 Aug-15 12612 16168 378360 Sep-15 13724 17439 411734 Oct-15 21311 30758 660648 Nov-15 20640 32848 619186 Dec-15 21579 36393 668945 Jan-16 20057 42923 621756 Feb-16 26532 42292 769433 Mar-16 28759 49117 891525 Apr-16 31493 60833 944792 May-16 30138 47815 934272 Jun-16 30075 38348 902237 Jul-16 19353 33561 599940 Aug-16 18145 28627 562505 Sep-16 18420 31644 552604 Oct-16 18190 29982 563901 Nov-16 19457 38021 583721 Dec-16 15394 39018 477226 Jan-17 9757 52538 273193 Feb-17 8341 34462 225199 Mar-17 6843 37198 205281 Apr-17 22260 47571 267117 May-17 0 0 0 Jun-17 81460 163037 1629194 Jul-17 37880 45094 1174286 Aug-17 33708 38927 1044943 Sep-17 39629 48402 1188859 Oct-17 34237 43187 1061345 Nov-17 37307 47200 1119196 Dec-17 40516 47806 1256005 Jan-18 39462 48099 1223335 Feb-18 40607 49459 1136986 Mar-18 46491 37198 205281 Apr-18 50502 58412 1515072 May-18 43892 53741 1360640 Jun-18 41386 47759 1241593 Jul-18 45980 53746 1425395 Aug-18 47051 56122 705762 AWRF Effluent Flow Average Monthly Maximum Monthly Total Monthly Month Year Flow (gal/day) Flow (gal/day) Flow (gal/day) Jan-13 - - Feb-13 - - Mar-13 - - Apr-13 - - May-13 - - Jun-13 1919 2449 3838 Jul-13 13617 25885 149783 Aug-13 11569 17721 231387 Sep-13 12091 19736 229722 Oct-13 9923 18726 218314 Nov-13 13220 22853 264391 Dec-13 11765 26829 282369 Jan-14 10148 21894 314591 Feb-14 12115 31023 339212 Mar-14 13486 38899 350628 Apr-14 17055 29763 392261 May-14 16961 28125 373149 Jun-14 16055 24359 305042 Jul-14 15576 29700 342681 Aug-14 16633 29008 299401 Sep-14 20575 47270 349781 Oct-14 19489 30882 370293 Nov-14 19469 34826 330966 Dec-14 29198 44017 554757 Jan-15 27031 52594 540612 Feb-15 30967 62387 588365 Mar-15 25946 41435 544868 Apr-15 24920 43538 548230 May-15 23024 56696 575591 Jun-15 20169 32973 524383 Jul-15 23844 33094 548407 Aug-15 22768 33772 500901 Sep-15 25506 33295 561125 Oct-15 24997 42335 599921 Nov-15 28044 59541 588930 Dec-15 32077 70010 737774 Jan-16 28713 78453 660407 Feb-16 34950 82584 733942 Mar-16 32104 79646 770496 Apr-16 35718 82866 714363 May-16 30571 46740 825406 Jun-16 30671 43906 705429 Jul-16 25970 42246 649247 Aug-16 28473 42909 768772 Sep-16 27894 45129 725243 Oct-16 32630 49337 848387 Nov-16 40439 93229 849219 Dec-16 36387 90041 909686 Jan-17 42093 63211 1262791 Feb-17 54627 77560 1529551 Mar-17 57592 68322 1785352 Apr-17 70154 106616 2104621 May-17 63528 81707 1969356 Jun-17 55509 75278 1665273 Jul-17 41225 53062 1277979 Aug-17 36668 47903 1136696 Sep-17 42646 53570 1279383 Oct-17 37498 52618 1162452 Nov-17 38011 48708 1140328 Dec-17 40277 51085 1248596 AWRF Influent BOD5 Month - Year BOD5 (mg/L) Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 - Jun-13 - Jul-13 139 Aug-13 <61 Sep-13 198 Oct-13 353 & 417 Nov-13 - Dec-13 158 Jan-14 73 Feb-14 398 Mar-14 257 Apr-14 259 May-14 91 Jun-14 - Jul-14 93 Aug-14 126 Sep-14 226 Oct-14 254 Nov-14 227 Dec-14 290 Jan-15 136 Feb-15 116 Mar-15 159 Apr-15 176 May-15 167 Jun-15 273 Jul-15 264 Aug-15 200 Sep-15 218 Oct-15 266 Nov-15 286 Dec-15 375 Jan-16 862 Feb-16 279 Mar-16 328 Apr-16 275 May-16 186 Jun-16 218 Jul-16 202 Aug-16 198 Sep-16 168 Oct-16 156 Nov-16 104 Dec-16 233 Jan-17 810 Feb-17 359 Mar-17 667 Apr-17 183 May-17 164 Jun-17 182 Jul-17 179 Aug-17 296 Sep-17 264 Oct-17 242 Nov-17 227 Dec-17 169 (MPN/100 mL) J Oq E Q J 0 v •J 0 00 m E Month - Year 0l O M lD N 0 O m (V N c-1 0 01 N. fV c-I m 01 N. rV d- 0 0 rrn I. 0 Ill CO CO CO dr V 0 01 Ql CO CO (0 01 01 0 N Lfl a --I a --I %-1 a --I %-1 a --I M lD M lD 00 N a --I ati m M a --I 1- Lfl Lf1 Lfl O o O N M 0 ati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M lD M N. 01 m M LO l0 Lf1 CO CO 01 a --I 01 a --I LO Ill 00 m 01 N. r1 N CO 01 01 N. O N fV N Q1 0 M i M m ati 0 0 0 N a --I c-I O c-I 0 0 a --I O a --I c-I N V d- c-I N N c-I c-I 0 0 a --I N c-I N N N V ati O O o Or.; c-I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V N (V v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v N u1 a-1 l0 cr M 00 C r1 N. 00 0 r1 Ql l0 N 0 M 1.0 l0 01 1.0 01 Ql L!1 l0 1.0 I. 0 r1 0 0 0 Ol l0 Cr N u'1 l0 M M Cr N 00 M 0 00 M I. M N u'1 M LO Cr Lf1 N LID CO u1 Ol a --I N l0 N O O O O O a--1 N Ni u1 M N O c-I N N N N Ni N o 0 m N Lfl Q ti ti a-1 (V V V lD 0 N. 01 N LO Q1 M 00 (V 0 0 l0 0 LO V 0 N N 0 00 Ill Q1 fV 00 a-1 N N V a--1 O • 0 01 Lf1 N V V l0 ay 1 • 0 a--1 ay m 1� a --I 1� O ay N O ay N ai 00 O O O O° O O m V Ill V m 0 O O 0 0 a--1 N (V N. iO Ill 0 0 0 O O O a --I 4 4 4 4 p 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 O O O O c-i OM `"'1 cco o• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ov v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v 0 0 0 LO O1 lD LID m Lo 0 ri m V V N (V Q1 00 m Np Q1 V 00 V 0 M N Q1 Ill O m Q1 h• 0 01 l0 0 01 CO 0 LO N M N Ql 1• M O • 0 CO lD V m a--1 l0 COO Ill a--1 V Q1 V N 00 a--1 co m N l0 h• O CO (V 0 0 0 0 (V N M m M N V a --I a --I (V N M m (V V M ay Ill N l0 m V m lD 0 Lf1 N^ Q1 m 0 a --I 0 LO LO Ill (4 Lf) Q1 V V a--1 0 00 m M ati Ill 0 m N M V V m lD Cr) N 0 V 0 m 1--1 0 lD N 00 111 m 111 c0 V V 1h• 1• CO CO LID CO V1 V m 0 0 a-1 a--i O l0 (Yi Ili a--i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O N Ni N 0 v v v 00 u1 N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 66 66 66 66 66 0 U7 00 M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v M M M M M LO t0 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 01010101 V V V V V v- V V V V V V V V V V V V v V V V V V V V V V V V V M m M M m m ryl M M m m m V V V V V u'1 Ill L/1 L!1 LO LO L1 Vl LO u1 LO lD lO a� ati `� c-I c-I a-1 ati a --I a� ati `� c-I `"'1 a --I c-I `"'1 a --I c-I c-I a-1 ati a"'1 a --I a� ati 10 0. > u O S i >' O 00 Q >' O 00 Q > u C (o v 2¢ 2 3¢ cn O Z o `6 1i a, ro2¢ 0 3¢ cn 0 Z o (6 1i a, ro2.< 3¢ V) 0 Z o `° 1i LL L0 ay ro LO L0 ro r1 v N o CO LO ul 0 CO ul CO N o v r v M f4 N M N M 01 01 c-I 1� fV %-1 M CO dr fV . . O O O O O O O O O r1 c-I O c-I O c-I O O O O L l N vl Ill CO rl v 1 01 CO Ql c-I N c-I LO 01 01 ul LO %-1 c-I %-1 c-I %-1 N N N ul M M M M N N �--I fV N %-1 . . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O f4 N f4 N f4 N f4 N fV N N N f4 N f4 N f4 N f4 V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V n O 00 M co LO c-I 00 N lD u1 d n O L.') O O c O 01 N M 00 d M 00 u1 Li" N N N O LO O N O> N M N N N M � vl M 4 4 vl c-I N Ol 00 Ol LO 0 CO CO M %-1 Q1 1p Lfl Lfl Lfl 01 Lfl 1� O c-I CO N c-1 c-I O O O O O LD 01 LD lD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N•0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 O• o 0 0 0 0• 0• 0 0•• 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v v v v v v v v Ill 0 M 01 M fV ul V %-1 O N c-I CO LO 01 M ul M fV n vl I.f1 N O CO V M 01 M LO O LO LO 01 01 O CO fV . . M V V Lfl Lfl 1p M V M M N Lfl Lfl M 1p Lfl 1p Lfl Lfl N N 01 N c-I 00 O Lfl f'fl n ul Ill 01 LO %-1 Q1 ul Ill ul CO 01 ul lD n LO n ul lD LD V V lD LD V V vl vl vl O O O O O O O c-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Ni N Ni N Ni N Ni N Ni N Ni N v v v v v v v v v v v v M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v v LO lD LD lD l0 lD n N ^ n N ^ ^ n n ^ N iy c-I c-I ci c-I c-I rl ci c-I ci cy c-I c-I c-1 ci > u T Cq fl. > 6 7 v L! O Ol N f0 7 N u O Ol Q Vl O Z O L.L 2.22 Q vl 0 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M Q Q o ci 0 0 0 a N Q Q 0 N O u. u1 0 0 0 0 V i 34 0 O 4 O 6 m O Z Z N 0 c-I O • O Z Z 0 E 0 0 lD N to m Q Q m o v rn m Lc). Q Q o of ai 0 0 z z of of of rn to z z u1 ul LO m o o M M d- 0 00 ci 0 M N ci = 0 lD h lD N Ql CO lD lD CM CO M Ql N O Ql N L(1 lD N N N N N N N M N lD lD N lD N OO N OO N v 0_ N M CO d' o M N Lc)O o N r N LD N E N O M M M ^ CT)00 O 0 O Lc; O 0) H U1 J O 00 H E H J 0 E cn cn 0 ^ 0 N V V Z ci ci to M ✓ Z Z N V 0) 'O 0 0 0 0Lt1 al 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,—I 0 0 0 0 'O O 0 0 0c-I c-I0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci i 0 0 0 co i lD N O O N. n m lD cI I� O N 01 , i 01 U 0 O\ M u1 u1 00 cn V V N 00 L1) N 0 01 ci 0 00 M N 01 t OA c-I ci ci ci N M ci N c-I N O N O N N i O N ci ci i • E O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O — Nitrate -nitrite n CO CT) lD ▪ lD Ol M • O a> c-I M • I� N al rl c-I c-I N O O c-I M N ▪ rl c-I rl N O 0 N c-I c-I 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6v O O O O to N c-I O O 0 0 ul 0 al 00 ul I� 0 0 N ci N M N M M M O i M M • N i O O O cMi N O O O O O O O O N O O O O J In GT N 0 GT M 0 N In N l!1 V1 N M N Ql to O Ln N • c-I d'O O M ci ci l0 M 00 c-▪ I O O O M . E O O O O O O O O O O 0 N O ci O O N O M w ce c J V V V V m O Cr Cr Ct C N Ct Ct Ct Ct O \ 0 0 O O O N O O 0 ▪ 0 ▪ 0 ▪ 0 0 0 V i 0 0 0 0 >- >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >- >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >. 1n E • CS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L.0.0.0000000000000000000000 'In E _-v v v v v v v v >. Q fC C Q rn Trti ti ti -1 -1 % tica co Y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪ 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o a o a o a o Q o p u a o a o a o Q o Q u a o a o a o Q o p u a o a o a n 'o a z a z a z a z a o a z a z a z a z a a z a z a z a z a o a z a z a z a z •E N cNi c^-I N N Ql N N N cNi c-I NO N N lD 0 N N N cNi ci N N 0 N N N cN-I c^-I N V lD aE' SW-021101 2 3 SW-021102 2 3 M 0 SW-021103 0' SW-021104 2 N 0 N 0 N 25-Oct-2017 713 T-O ENGINEERS MEMORANDUM TO: Chad Carter, PE - City of Eagle (HECO Engineers) FROM: Levi Howell, PE CC: Morgan Bessaw - City of Eagle Sarah Martz - Avimor Kasey Ketterling - T-O Engineers DATE: August 16, 2022 SUBJECT: Avimor Master Wastewater Study 2022 Thank you for the review and comments of the Avimor Wastewater Study 2022. The Current Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) design has three discharge options: 1) Rapid Infiltration Basins (Permit M-211-04) 2) Land Application (Permit M-211-04) 3) Spring Valley Creek (Expired Permit ID0028371) The Spring Valley Creek discharge was permitted under EPA NPDES Permit No. ID0028371, which is not in use and expired on April 30, 2021. Currently, the facility discharges to land within the Avimor development; being the rapid infiltration basins (January 1 through December 31) and land application to common space (April 1 through October 31). These discharges are permitted under IDEQ Reuse Permit No. M-211-04, expires July 31 ,2027. In your August 3, 2022 email you requested additional information regarding the Water Reclamation Facility permitting structure. Below are responses to your questions: 1. Provide a list of current permits thatA WRF is operating under. a) Base documents for those permits. b) Declining Balance worksheet. IDEQ Reuse Permit M-211-04, refer to Attachment A. EPA NPDES Permit No. ID0028371, refer to Attachment B. WRF capacity and expansion from pg. 25 of the study document, refer to Attachment C. 2. Provide a list of proposed permits that A WRF is planning to operate under. a) New. b) Updates. c) Base documents for the application. Refer to Attachment D. 3. IPDES permit reapplication. a) Currently applying? b) When is the expected approval date? The application has been reviewed and accepted by IDEQ. Permit is anticipated to be issued before the end of this year. AVIATION I TRANSPORTATION I LAND DEVELOPMENT I INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER I MUNICIPAL I WATER RESOURCES I ENVIRONMENTAL I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I SURVEYING I GEOSPATIAL 4. Include the permit information when referencing permitted activities for clarification of which permit /s being refenced. Refer to Attachment D. 5 Pg 1- Land application permit. a) "When allowed under the permit" or when permitted by DEQ in the future? b) Appears to be under IPDES which /s being applied for currently? Land application is allowed under IDEQ Reuse Permit M-211-04. The IPDES discharge permit, which is anticipated to be issued later this year, will allow for discharge to Spring Valley Creek. 6. Pg 3 - Is the future planned underground water currently permitted? a) If not, what are the permitting requirements? There are no current permits for this discharge. A feasibility study will need to be completed, including permitting requirements. 7 Pg 3- Is land application of the filtrate permitted currently? a) if not, what are the permitting requirements? b) Where is the planned location? In relation to the future city well sites. There is not any land application of filtrate permitted. Future planning and permitting with IDEQ is needed. 8. Pg 18 - Diversion Structure. a) Clarify what the Diversion Structure is. b) If constructed, will it be permanent? The diversion structure is a concept that will be developed and designed in the future. The flow control mechanism, likely in a manhole, directs flow to the gravity sewer main. The structure will likely be permanent but the flow will be redirected within the structure. 9. Pg 24 - 52.13 - When /s the new land application permit proposed to be updated for RI bed capacity? The rapid infiltration basin and land application of Class B Recycled Water is currently allowed under IDEQ Reuse Permit M-211-04. The permit will need to be renewed in 2027. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (208) 442-6300. 2 AVIATION I TRANSPORTATION I LAND DEVELOPMENT I INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER I MUNICIPAL I WATER RESOURCES I ENVIRONMENTAL I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I SURVEYING I GEOSPATIAL Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company (hereafter "permittee") is hereby authorized to construct, install, and operate a reuse facility in accordance with (1) this permit; (2) IDAPA 58.01.17 "Recycled Water Rules"; (3) an approved plan of operation; and (4) all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and rules. This permit is effective from the date of signature and expires on July 31, 2027. 07/29/2022 Signature Date Aaron Scheff Regional Administrator Boise Regional Office Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Boise Regional Office 1445 North Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 373-0550 1 of 35 This page intentionally left blank for correct double -sided printing. 2of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Table of Contents 1. Common Acronyms/Abbreviations and Definitions 5 2. Facility Information 7 3. Compliance Schedule for Required Activities 8 4. Permit Limits and Conditions 11 4.1 Management Unit Descriptions 11 4.2 Hydraulic Loading Limits 12 4.3 Constituent Loading Limits 12 4.4 Management Unit Buffer Zones 13 4.5 Other Permit Limits and Conditions 14 5. Monitoring Requirements 16 5.1 Recycled Water and Supplemental Irrigation Water Sampling and Analyses 16 5.1.1 Constituent Monitoring 16 5.1.2 Management Unit and Other Flow Monitoring 17 5.2 Ground Water Monitoring 17 5.2.1 Ground Water Monitoring Point Descriptions 17 5.2.2 Ground Water Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses 18 5.3 Surface Water Monitoring 18 5.3.1 Surface Water Monitoring Unit Descriptions 18 5.3.2 Surface Water Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses 19 5.4 Soil Monitoring 19 5.4.1 Soil Monitoring Unit Descriptions 19 5.4.2 Soil Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses 20 5.5 Crop Monitoring 20 5.5.1 Crop Harvest Monitoring 20 5.5.2 Plant Tissue Monitoring 21 6. Reporting Requirements 22 6.1 Annual Report Requirements 22 6.1.1 Due Date 22 6.1.2 Required Contents 22 6.1.3 Submittals 24 6.2 Emergency and Noncompliance Reporting 25 7. Reserved 26 8. Standard Permit Conditions 26 9. General Permit Conditions 28 9.1 Operations 28 9.1.1 Backflow Prevention 28 9.1.2 Restricted to Premises 28 9.1.3 Health Hazards, Nuisances, and Odors Prohibited 28 9.1.4 Solids Management 29 9.1.5 Temporary Cessation of Operations and Closure (IDAPA 58.01.17.801) 30 9.1.6 Plan of Operation (IDAPA 58.01.17.300.05) 30 9.1.7 Seepage Testing Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.16.493.02.c) 30 9.1.8 Ground Water Quality Rule (IDAPA 58.01.11) 30 3of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 9.2 Administrative 31 9.2.1 Permit Modification (IDAPA 58.01.17.700) 31 9.2.2 Permit Transferable (IDAPA 58.01.17.800) 31 9.2.3 Permit Revocation (IDAPA 58.01.17.920) 31 9.2.4 Violations (IDAPA 58.01.17.930) 32 9.2.5 Severability 32 10. Other Applicable Laws 33 10.1 Owner Responsibilities for Well Use and Maintenance 33 10.1.1 Well Use 33 10.1.2 Well Maintenance 33 10.1.3 Wells Posing a Threat to Human Health and Safety or Causing Contamination of the Ground Water Resource 33 11. Site Maps 34 11.1 Regional Map 34 11.2 Facility Map 35 4of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 1. Common Acronyms/Abbreviations and Definitions amsl above mean sea level bgs below ground surface CA compliance activity COD chemical oxygen demand crop uptake those constituents assimilated by the crop from the soil, and those from applied fertilizer, biosolids and other soil amendments, recycled water, irrigation water, and other sources. Crop uptake excludes those constituents assimilated from the atmosphere, such as gaseous nitrogen fixed by legumes. Crop uptake plus atmospheric assimilated constituents equals crop content. cwt a unit of weight measurement equal to 100 pounds DEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality DEQ Guidance Guidance for Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater, latest revision director DEQ director or designee unless otherwise specified Ei irrigation efficiency EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FM prefix for flow measurement/monitoring location, device, or method reporting serial number GW prefix for groundwater reporting serial number IDAPA Numbering designation for all administrative rules in Idaho promulgated according to the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act IDWR Idaho Department of Water Resources IPDES Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System IWR irrigation water requirement — any combination of wastewater and supplemental irrigation water applied at rates commensurate to the moisture requirements of the crop, and calculated monthly during the growing season. lb pound LG prefix for lagoon reporting serial number material change a change in a document required by this permit that would impact DEQ's ability to ensure compliance and protect human health and the environment µmhos/cm micromhos per centimeter MBR membrane bioreactor MG million gallons 5of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 MGD million gallons per day mg/kg milligram per kilogram mg/L milligram per liter mL milliliter MU management unit, prefix for management unit reporting environmental serial number NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NTU nephelometric turbidity unit N nitrogen ppm parts per million P phosphorus PO plan of operation QAPP quality assurance project plan responsible official facility contact person authorized by the permittee to communicate with DEQ on behalf of the permittee on any matter related to the permit, including without limitation, the authority to communicate with and receive notices from DEQ regarding notices of violation or non- compliance, permit violations, permit enforcement, and permit revocation. The responsible official provides written certification of permit application materials, annual report submittals, and other information submitted to DEQ as required by the permit. Any notice to or communication with the responsible official is considered a notice to or communication with the permittee. The responsible official may designate an authorized representative to act as the facility contact person for any of the activities or duties related to the permit, except signing and certifying the permit application, which must be done by the responsible official. The authorized representative shall act as the responsible official and shall bind the permittee as described in this definition. Designation of the authorized representative shall follow the requirements specified in section 6.1.3 of the permit. SU prefix for soil monitoring unit reporting serial number SW prefix for supplemental irrigation water reporting serial number WW prefix for wastewater reporting serial number yr year 6of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 2. Facility Information Information Type Class of recycled water Method of treatment Method of reuse Collection and treatment system classification Facility location Facility mailing address Facility responsible official and authorized representative Groundwater Surface water Information Specific to This Permit Municipal Class B Recycled Water Primary screening; conventional activated sludge with biological nutrient removal, chemical phosphorus reduction, and membrane solids separation (MBR); and chlorination. Aerated sludge tank for storage and treatment of sludge. Slow rate land application during the growing season only. Recycled water is permitted to be beneficially used to irrigate common areas during periods of non-use and agricultural crops. Rapid infiltration during the growing season and nongrowing season. Class I collection system; Class IV treatment system 17819 N. Streams Edge Way Boise, Idaho 83714 (208) 939-0343 Lat/Long (Treatment Plant Building) 43.764407°N 116.264466°W 620 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 Responsible Official: Thomas Puttman, Manager Avimor Water Reclamation Company 620 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: (503) 224-3454 Email: thomas.puttman(ftuttman.com Authorized Representative: Development Manager; address and phone same as above (Position currently held by Joe Payne) Notify DEQ within 30 days if a change in personnel occurs for any of the facility contacts. DEQ will issue a minor permit modification to confirm the change. Spring Valley Creek Aquifer: groundwater is generally found from 6 to 90 feet bgs depending on location, and flow is generally to the south and west Spring Valley Creek flows southward past the development. Beneficial uses: Presumed use protections for cold water aquatic life and secondary contact recreation apply (IDAPA 58.01.02.101.01.a). Also agricultural water supply, industrial water supply, wildlife habitats, and aesthetics (IDAPA 58.01.02.100.03, 04, and 05). 7of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 3. Compliance Schedule for Required Activities Compliance Activity (CA) Number and Completion Due Date CA-211-01 Six (6) months after permit issuance Compliance Activity Description Plan of Operation (PO): The permittee shall submit to DEQ for review and approval an updated PO that reflects current operations and incorporates the requirements of this permit. The PO shall comply with the applicable requirements stated in IDAPA 58.01.17.300.05 and shall address applicable items in the most current PO Checklist available. The PO shall include the following site management plans, or the permittee may submit the site management plans individually: 1. Updated Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Manual 2. Crop Management Plan for Agricultural Management Units (prior to application of recycled water on these areas) 3. Buffer Zone Plan 4. Irrigation Management and Scheduling Plan 5. Emergency Operating Plan 6. Nuisance and Odor Management Plan 7. Runoff Management Plan The PO shall be updated as needed to reflect current operations. The permittee shall notify DEQ of material changes to the PO and copies shall be kept on site and made available to DEQ upon request. 8of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Compliance Activity (CA) Number and Completion Due Date CA-211-02 Six (6) months after permit issuance CA-211- 03 As specified Compliance Activity Description Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP): The permittee shall prepare and implement a QAPP that incorporates all monitoring and reporting required by this permit. A copy of the QAPP along with written notice that the permittee has implemented the QAPP shall be provided to DEQ. The permittee must follow the QAPP when collecting, analyzing, and reporting monitoring data submitted to DEQ. The QAPP shall be designed to assist in planning for collecting, analyzing, and reporting all monitoring in support of this permit and in explaining data anomalies when they occur. At a minimum, the QAPP must include the following: 1. Details on the number of measurements, number of samples, type of sample containers, preservation of samples, holding times, analytical methods, analytical detection and quantitation limits for each target compound, type and number of quality assurance field samples, precision and accuracy requirements, sample preparation requirements, sample shipping methods, and laboratory data delivery requirements 2. Maps indicating the location of each monitoring and sampling point 3. Qualification and training of personnel 4. Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the laboratories used by or proposed to be used by the permittee 5. Example formats and tables that will be used by the permittee to summarize and present all data in the annual report The format and content of the QAPP should adhere to the recommendations and references in the Quality Assurance and Data Processing sections of the DEQ Guidance. The permittee shall amend the QAPP whenever there is a modification in sample collection, sample analysis, or other procedure addressed by the QAPP. The permittee shall notify DEQ of material changes to the QAPP and copies shall be kept on site and made available to DEQ upon request. Agricultural Management Unit Reuse Plans and Specifications: The permittee shall submit reuse plans and specifications for the Agricultural Management Units (MU-21101 through MU-21113) for DEQ review and approval prior to construction and application of any recycled water. The plans for the reuse facilities shall clearly delineate the locations of all potable water lines, existing and proposed wells, existing or proposed residences, and surface waters, sufficient to assess/establish compliance with the buffer zone and fencing requirements of this permit. 9of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Compliance Activity (CA) Number and Completion Due Date CA-211-04 Six (6) months prior to construction of slow rate land application facilities for any of the Agricultural Areas (MU-21101 through MU- 21113) CA-211-05 As Specified in Compliance Activity Description CA-211-06 Eighteen (18) months before permit expiration CA-211-07 Twelve (12) months before permit expiration Compliance Activity Description Groundwater Monitoring Plan for the Agricultural Areas: Prior to construction of slow rate land application facilities for any of the Agricultural Area (MU-21101 through MU-21113), the permittee shall submit a Groundwater Monitoring Plan. The Groundwater Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by a qualified, registered professional in the State of Idaho, and shall address how groundwater will be monitored to assure compliance with IDAPA 58.01.11, Ground Water Quality Rule, for these MUs. The plan must include at least an assessment of groundwater monitoring needs; plans for a monitoring well network; and construction plans and specifications for the existing wells, and any proposed wells, including top -of -casing elevations for the monitoring wells. The plan must be implemented prior to construction of any of these land application facilities to collect baseline data. This must include obtaining any necessary permits from the Department of Water Resources (IDWR). Rapid Infiltration Basin Phosphorus Attenuation Study: The permittee shall prepare and submit a study modeling the attenuation of phosphorus in the soils at the rapid infiltration basins (MU-21114) prior to requesting DEQ to modify the recycled water phosphorus concentration limit specified in Section 4.5 of this permit. The study shall include modeling of the fate and transport of phosphorus based on site -specific soil and groundwater parameters using methods approved by DEQ. The results of the study shall recommend a revised phosphorus limit based on such modeling, and shall be reviewed and accepted by DEQ in writing prior to any change in the phosphorus limit. Pre -application Conference: If the permittee intends to continue operating the reuse facility beyond the expiration date of this permit, the permittee shall contact DEQ and schedule a pre -application conference to discuss the compliance status of the facility and the content required for the reuse permit application package. Permit Renewal Application: The permittee shall submit to DEQ a complete permit renewal application package that fulfills the requirements specified in CA- 211-06 and identified at the pre -application conference. 10of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 4. Permit Limits and Conditions 4.1 Management Unit Descriptions Serial Number MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 MU-21114 MU-21115 a. Description Agricultural Area 1 Agricultural Area 2 Agricultural Area 3 Agricultural Area 4 Agricultural Area 5 Agricultural Area 6 Agricultural Area 7 Agricultural Area 8 Agricultural Area 9 Agricultural Area 10 Agricultural Area 11 Agricultural Area 12 Agricultural Area 13 Rapid Infiltration Basins Landscape Irrigation Areas Irrigation System Type and Irrigation Efficiency (E) Irrigation System Type and Irrigation Efficiency shall be specified in the Irrigation Management and Scheduling Plan in the PO approved by DEQ (See CA-211-01) Not Applicable Irrigation System Type and Irrigation Efficiency shall be specified in the Irrigation Management and Scheduling Plan in the PO approved by DEQ (See CA-211-01) Total irrigation acreage (excludes RI Basin area) Maximum Acresa Allowed 23.4 27.9 28.9 6.8 10.2 6.5 2.9 1.6 1.9 3.3 7.1 16.2 11.4 0.68 22.5 170.6 Maximum acres represent the total permitted acreage of the MU as provided by the permittee. If the permittee uses less acreage in any season or year, then loading rates shall be presented and compliance shall be determined based on the actual acreage used during each season or year. 11 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 4.2 Hydraulic Loading Limits Serial Number Growing Season Hydraulic Loading MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 MU-21115 MU-21114 Nongrowing Season Maximum Hydraulic Loadinga Substantially at the IWRb Not allowed 0.30 MGD Maximum Daily a. Record daily, as necessary, abnormal conditions as a result of nongrowing season application including ponding, excessive ice buildup, or runoff from the permitted site. b. For compliance purposes, the method for calculating the IWR shall be specified in the Crop Management Plan in the PO approved by DEQ. 4.3 Constituent Loading Limits Serial Number MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 M U-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21115 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 Constituent Loading from All Sources Nitrogen (lb/acre) 150% of typical crop uptakea 220 + 110 x (fraction of times clippings are removed from the site) a. Typical crop uptake is the median constituent crop uptake from the three most recent years the crop has been grown. For crops having fewer than three years of on -site crop uptake data, other crop yield data or nutrient content values may only be used if DEQ provides written approval before growing season. 12 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 4.4 Management Unit Buffer Zones Serial Number MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 MU-21114 MU-21115 Public Water Supplies Site Specific (requires DEQ plan and specification review and approval prior to construction of irrigation system) Buffer Distances (feet) from Management Units Private Water Supplies Inhabited Dwellings Permanent and Intermittent Surface Watera Areas Accessible to the Public 500 100 10 (mitigation 0 measures to prevent runoff to surface waters shall be employed) Site Specific 500 (requires DEQ plan and specification review and approval prior to construction) As specified in the Buffer Zone Plan included in CA-211-01b 10 (mitigation measures to prevent runoff to surface waters shall be employed) 0 a. No Class B recycled water may enter surface waters unless an IPDES discharge permit authorizing the discharge is in place. A buffer zone may be necessary for a Class B system utilizing sprinkler application near surface waters. b. The Buffer Zone Plan shall be updated as needed to reflect current site characteristics at each irrigated area within MU-21115. 13 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 4.5 Other Permit Limits and Conditions Category Growing season Nongrowing season Reporting year for annual loading rates Operator certification and endorsement Turbidity limits of the filtered wastewater effluent, prior to disinfection Disinfection limits in recycled water 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) limit in recycled water when discharging to MU-21114 (Rapid Infiltration Basins) Total nitrogen limit in recycled water when discharging to MU-21114 (Rapid Infiltration Basins) Total phosphorus limit in recycled water when discharging to MU-21114 (Rapid Infiltration Basins) Nuisance and odor management Crop or vegetation allowed Irrigation of MU-21115 Permit Limits and Conditions April 1 through October 31 (214 days) November 1 through March 31 (151 days) January 1 through December 31 The wastewater treatment facility and reuse system shall be operated by personnel certified and licensed in the State of Idaho wastewater operator training program at the operator class level specified in IDAPA 58.01.16.203 and properly trained to operate and maintain the system. • Daily arithmetic mean of all measurements of turbidity shall not exceed 2 NTU • Turbidity shall not exceed 5 NTU at any time Class B: The median number of total coliform organisms shall not exceed 2.2 total coliform organisms/100 mL, as determined from the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed. No sample shall exceed 23 total coliform organisms/100 mL in any confirmed sample. A chlorine disinfection process that provides a total chlorine at the point of compliance of not less than one (1) mg/I after a minimum contact time of thirty (30) minutes at peak flow. BOD5 shall not exceed 5.0 mg/L, as determined from monthly 24-hour composite samples. Total nitrogen shall not exceed 8.0 mg/L, as determined from monthly 24- hour composite samples. Total phosphorus shall not exceed 0.35 mg/L, as determined from monthly 24-hour composite samples. Phosphorus limit may be modified by completing CA-211-05. The wastewater treatment and reuse facilities shall not create a public health hazard or nuisance conditions, including odors. The permittee shall be required to prepare a Nuisance and Odor Management Plan and incorporate it into the PO. Refer to the Crop Management Plan in the PO approved by DEQ (see CA-211-01) Irrigation shall occur only during periods of non-use by the public. These irrigation periods shall be described in the Irrigation Management and Scheduling Plan in the PO. 14of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Category Permit Limits and Conditions Grazing Prior to grazing, the permittee shall submit a Grazing Management Plan and receive written approval from DEQ. The Grazing Management Plan shall be included in the PO. Grazing is not allowed on MU-21114 or MU-21115. Posting Signs shall read "Caution: Recycled Water —Do Not Drink," or equivalent signage both in English and Spanish. Signs to be posted every 500 feet and at each corner of the outer perimeter of the irrigated site. Signs are required where MU border areas are accessible to the public. Fencing MU-21101, MU-21102, MU-21103, MU-21104, MU-21105, MU-21106, MU-21107, MU-21108, MU-21109, MU-21110, MU-21111, MU-21112, MU-21113 (Agricultural Areas): Three wire fencing shall be required around the perimeter of each management unit prior to the application of recycled water if the management unit is near any residence. The fencing requirement will be determined during review of plans and specifications by DEQ (see CA-211-03). MU-21114: Three wire fencing is required around the perimeter of the rapid infiltration basins site. MU-21115: No fencing required. Construction plans Pursuant to Idaho Code §39-118, IDAPA 58.01.16, and IDAPA 58.01.17, detailed plans and specifications shall be submitted to DEQ for review and approval before construction, modification, or expansion of any wastewater treatment, storage, conveyance structures, groundwater monitoring wells, or reuse facility. Inspection requirements shall be satisfied, and within 30 days of completion of construction, the permittee shall submit as -built plans or a letter from an Idaho professional engineer certifying the facilities or structures were constructed in substantial accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Flow measurement Flow measurement devices used to directly or indirectly measure calibration/verification wastewater, recycled water, and supplemental irrigation water flows applied to each management unit shall be calibrated or verified in accordance with the device manufacturer's specifications and with the permittee's QAPP and/or PO. Backflow prevention and Backflow prevention is required to protect surface water and groundwater testing requirements from an unauthorized discharge of recycled water or wastewater. Refer to Section 9.1.1 of this permit. Records retention Keep records generated to meet the requirements of this permit for the requirements duration of the permit, including administrative extensions, plus two years. 15 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5. Monitoring Requirements 5.1 Recycled Water and Supplemental Irrigation Water Sampling and Analyses 5.1.1 Constituent Monitoring Monitoring Point Serial Number and Location WW-21102 Equalization Basin effluent WW-21103 MBR Permeate Pumps discharge prior to disinfection WW-21104 Reuse Pump Station Discharge WW-21104 Reuse Pump Station Discharge WW-21104 Reuse Pump Station Discharge WW-21105 Town Lake Pressurized Irrigation Pump Station discharge piping Sample Description Influent wastewater MBR effluent prior to disinfection Sample Type and Frequency 24-hr Composite/Monthly Continuously reading turbidimeter Constituents (mg/L unless otherwise specified) BOD5 Turbidity Recycled Water 24-hr Composite/Monthly Total phosphorus, as P Recycled Water 24-hr Composite/Monthly Recycled Water Daily grab sample Supplemental irrigation water Annually during July - BOD5 - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, as N - Nitrate+Nitrite-nitrogen, as N - Ammonia -nitrogen, as N - Total coliform (total coliform organisms/100mL) - Total chlorine residual - pH (standard units) - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, as N - Nitrate -nitrogen, as N - Total phosphorus, as P 16of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5.1.2 Management Unit and Other Flow Monitoring Management Unit or Flow Measurement Serial Number and Location FM-21101 Raw Influent Pump Station flow meter FM-21104 Reuse Pump Station flowmeter FM-21105 Town Lake Pressurized Irrigation Pump Station pump run time meter or flow meter FM-21106 Potable water system pipe discharge into Town Lake flowmeter Sample Description Influent wastewater flow Recycled water flow Supplemental irrigation water flow from Town Lake (potable water system) and Spring Valley Creek Water Supplemental irrigation water from potable water system 5.2 Groundwater Monitoring Sample Type and Frequency Continuously reading flowmeter (Daily composition of data) Continuously reading flowmeter (Daily composition of data) Pump run times or continuously reading flowmeter, when irrigating MU-21115 (Daily composition of data, when irrigating MU-21115) Continuously reading flowmeter, when irrigating MU-21115 (Daily composition of data, when irrigating MU-21115) 5.2.1 Groundwater Monitoring Point Descriptions Monitoring Point Serial Number GW-21101 GW-21102 GW-21103 GW-21104 GW-21105 GW-21106 GW-21107 Common Designation MW-1 MW-6r RAMW-7 RAMW-8a RAMW-9 RAMW-10 RAMW-11 Well Type Monitoring well Monitoring well Monitoring well Monitoring well Monitoring well Monitoring well Monitoring well Parameters, each MU or FM Volume (MGD, MG/month, MG/yr) Volume (MGD, MG/month, MG/yr) Volume (MGD, MG/month, MG/yr) Volume (MGD, MG/month, MG/yr) Gradient Location Downgradient Downgradient Downgradient of MU-21114 Upgradient of MU-21114 Crossgradient of MU-21114 Downgradient of MU-21114 Downgradient of MU-21114 17 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5.2.2 Groundwater Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses Monitoring Point Serial Number GW-21101 GW-21102 GW-21103 GW-21104 GW-21105 GW-21106 GW-21107 Sampling Point Description Sample Type and Frequency Monitoring Unfiltered grab sample/twice wells annually: April and October 5.3 Surface Water Monitoring 5.3.1 Surface Water Monitoring Unit Descriptions Monitoring Point Common Serial Number Designation SW-21101 SW-21102 SW-21103 SW-21104 WQ-1 WQ-2 WQ-3 WQ-4 Location Spring Valley Creek below Highway 55, downstream of Avimor Planned Community Spring Valley Creek upstream of Avimor Planned Community Phase 1, below weir upstream of McLeod Way Ephemeral drainage along Burnt Car Draw, downstream of Broken Horn Draw east of intersection of Avimor Drive and McQuarrie Way Intermittent spring west of MU- 21114 (rapid infiltration basins) Constituents (mg/L unless otherwise specified) Water table elevation (feet amsl) Water table depth (feet) pH (Standard Units) Specific conductance/electrical conductivity (pmhos/cm) Temperature (°C) Nitrate -nitrogen, as N Total phosphorus, as P Total dissolved solids (TDS) Approximate Latitude/Longitude N43° 45' 50" / W116° 15' 56" N43° 46' 38" / W116° 15' 41" N43° 46' 24" / W116° 15' 36" N43° 46' 05" / W116° 15' 32" 18of35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5.3.2 Surface Water Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses Monitoring Point Serial Number SW-21101 SW-21102 SW-21103 SW-21104 Sample Type Grab Sample 5.4 Soil Monitoring Sample Frequency Twice annually: April & October 5.4.1 Soil Monitoring Unit Descriptions Monitoring Point Serial Numbera SU-21101 SU-21102 SU-21103 SU-21104 SU-21105 SU-21106 SU-21107 SU-21108 SU-21109 SU-21110 SU-21111 SU-21112 SU-21113 SU-21115 a. Description Constituents (mg/L unless otherwise specified) - Total Kjeldahl nitrogen, as N - Nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen, as N - Ammonia -nitrogen, as N - Total phosphorus, as P - Dissolved orthophosphorus - Chloride - pH (Standard Units) - Temperature (°C) - Dissolved oxygen Associated Management Unit MU-21101 M U-21102 M U-21103 M U-21104 M U-21105 M U-21106 M U-21107 M U-21108 M U-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 MU-21115 SU-21101 through SU-21113 shall be monitored when recycled water is applied to the associated MUs. Agricultural Area 1 Agricultural Area 2 Agricultural Area 3 Agricultural Area 4 Agricultural Area 5 Agricultural Area 6 Agricultural Area 7 Agricultural Area 8 Agricultural Area 9 Agricultural Area 10 Agricultural Area 11 Agricultural Area 12 Agricultural Area 13 Irrigation Areas 19 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5.4.2 Soil Monitoring, Sampling, and Analyses Monitoring Point Serial Number SU-21101 SU-21102 SU-21103 SU-21104 SU-21105 SU-21106 S U-21107 S U-21108 SU-21109 SU-21110 SU-21111 SU-21112 SU-21113 SU-21115 Sample Type Sample Frequency Composite samplesa Once annually, March Prior to commencement of irrigation for MUs, March Constituents (Units in mg/kg Soil Unless Otherwise Specified) - Electrical conductivity (pmhos/cm in saturated paste extract) - Nitrate, as N - Ammonium, as N - Plant available phosphorus - pH (standard units) - DTPA extractable iron - DTPA manganese - Sodium Adsorption Ratio or Exchangeable Sodium Percentage - % organic matter - Cation exchange capacity a. The number of sample locations specified in the PO or QAPP for each SU shall be sampled when recycled water is applied to the associated MUs. At each location, samples shall be obtained from three depths: 0-12 inches; 12-24 inches; and 24-36 inches or refusal. The samples obtained from each depth shall be composited by depth to yield three composite samples for each soil monitoring unit (one composite sample for each depth). 5.5 Crop Monitoring 5.5.1 Crop Harvest Monitoring Associated Management Units MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 Sample Type Harvested portion, each crop, each MU Sample Frequency Each harvest Parametersa - Crop type - Harvest date - Sample collection date - Harvested acreage (acres) - As -harvested ('wet') yield in customary harvested units (tons, bushels, cwt, etc.) - As -harvested (field) moisture content (%)b - Dry yield (lb) a. Documentation of reported yields shall be provided for each harvest from each MU. b. The field moisture shall be monitored at the time the harvested crop is weighed. 20 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 5.5.2 Plant Tissue Monitoring Associated Management Units MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 Sample Type Sample Frequency Harvested portion, Each harvest each crop, each MU Parametersa - Lab moisture content (%)b - Total nitrogen (%) - Phosphorus as P (ppm) a. Report dry -basis results for all parameters except laboratory moisture content. b. The plant tissue sample shall be taken from the harvested portion of each crop at the time the crop is harvested or just prior to harvesting. 21 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 6. Reporting Requirements 6.1 Annual Report Requirements The permittee shall submit to DEQ an annual report prepared by a competent environmental professional covering the previous reporting year. 6.1.1 Due Date The annual report is due no later than March 1 of each year, which shall cover the previous reporting year. 6.1.2 Required Contents The annual report shall include the following: 1. Detailed results of the required monitoring as described in section 5 of this permit. The report shall present all monitoring data in summary tables to expedite review. If the permittee monitors any parameter for compliance purposes more frequently than required by this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the annual report. 2. A brief interpretive discussion of the results of all required monitoring data as specified by section 5. The discussion shall address data quality objectives, validation, and verification; explain what the data say about permit compliance; and reuse facility environmental impacts. The reporting year for this permit is specified in section 4.5. 3. Status of all work described in section 3 of this permit. 4. Results of all backflow testing, repairs, and replacements required by section 9.1.1 of this permit. 5. Discussion of major maintenance activities such as major equipment replacement, lagoon liner maintenance, and wastewater treatment and reuse facility maintenance. 6. A summary of all noncompliance events that occurred during the reporting year. Examples of noncompliance events that must be discussed include, but are not limited to: exceedance of permit limits, complaints, missed monitoring events, incorrect monitoring dates or frequencies, dry monitoring wells, uncontained spills causing runoff, construction without DEQ engineering plan approval, construction without engineering inspection, and reporting incorrect acreage. 7. Laboratory analytical reports that show results, analytical methods, and practical quantitation limits for monitoring specified in section 5 of the permit. Chain of custody forms, supporting information for laboratory analytical reports, and quality assurance documentation shall be available for review upon request by DEQ. 8. The calculations and results for the parameters in the following table: 22 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Monitoring Point Serial Number MU-21101 MU-21102 MU-21103 MU-21104 MU-21105 MU-21106 MU-21107 MU-21108 MU-21109 MU-21110 MU-21111 MU-21112 MU-21113 MU-21115 MU-21114 Parameter (Calculate for each MU) Recycled water loading rate Supplemental irrigation water loading rate IWR for each crop grown Recycled water nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates Supplemental irrigation water nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates Fertilizer nitrogen and phosphorus application rates, reported as elemental N and P Crop harvest and yield Report for each harvest and the annual totals for each MU (excluding MU-21115) Crop nitrogen and phosphorus removal rates (dry -basis) Report each harvest and the annual totals for each MU (excluding MU-21115) Recycled water loading rate Recycled water nitrogen and phosphorus loading rates Units MG/month MG/yr Inches/month Inches/growing season MG/month MG/yr Inches/month Inches/growing season Inches/month Inches/growing season Ib/month Ib/yr Ib/(acre•month) Ib/(acre•yr) Ib/month Ib/yr Ib/(acre•month) Ib/(acre•yr) Ib/month Ib/yr Ib/(acre• month) Ib/(acre•yr) Crop types harvested Total harvested area (acres) Total wet yield (Ib/yr, Ib/(acre•yr)) Total dry yield (Ib/yr, Ib/(acre•yr)) Ib N/yr Ib P/yr Ib N/(acre•yr) Ib P/(acre•yr) MG/month MG/yr MGD Ib/month Ib/yr Ib/(acre•month) Ib/(acre•yr) 23 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 6.1.3 Submittals All applications, annual reports, or other information submitted to DEQ as required by this permit shall be signed and certified as follows: • Permit applications shall be signed by the responsible official as described below: • For a corporation by a responsible corporate officer. • For a partnership or sole proprietorship by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. • For a municipality, state, federal, Indian tribe, or other public agency by either the principal executive officer, ranking elected official, or a person of decision -making authority who can legally bind the permittee with respect to the permit. • Annual reports and other information required by this permit shall be signed by the responsible official or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if all of the following are true: • The authorization is made in writing by the responsible official. • The authorization specifies either an individual or position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. • The written authorization is submitted to DEQ. Submit all applications, annual reports, and other information required by this permit to the following DEQ regional office at this address: Engineering Manager Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Boise Regional Office 1445 N Orchard St Boise, Idaho 83706 The annual report, or any other data or monitoring information submitted to DEQ, shall include the following certification statement and be signed, dated, and certified by the permittee's Responsible Official or duly Authorized Representative: "I certify that the information provided in this submittal was prepared in conformance with the current Quality Assurance Project Plan and is to the best of my knowledge, true, accurate and complete and I acknowledge that knowing submission of false or incomplete information may result in permit revocation as provided for in IDAPA 58.01.17.920.01 or other enforcement action as provided for under Idaho law." Permit applications shall include the following certification statement and be signed, dated, and certified by the permittee's Responsible Official: "I certify that the information provided in this submittal is, to the best of my knowledge, true, accurate and complete and I acknowledge that knowing submission of false or incomplete information may result in permit revocation as provided for in IDAPA 58.01.17.920.01, non - issuance of the permit, or other enforcement action as provided for under Idaho law." 24 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Other information submitted to DEQ as required by the permit shall include the above certification statement and be signed, dated, and certified by the permittee's Responsible Official or duly Authorized Representative. 6.2 Emergency and Noncompliance Reporting The permittee shall report noncompliance incidents to DEQ's regional office at (208) 373-0550 or toll free (888) 800-3480. The permittee may also be required to report unauthorized discharges to surface waters to DEQ's Idaho Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (IPDES) program. The DEQ IPDES hotline is (833) IPDES24 or (833) 473-3724. In case of public health emergencies, the permittee should call the 24-hour Idaho Emergency Medical Services Communications Center number at (800) 632-8000. Section 8 of this permit and IDAPA 58.01.17.500.06 provide the reporting requirements for facilities. The permittee shall report all instances of permit non-compliance that may endanger public health or the environment and unauthorized discharges to surface waters of the State of Idaho to DEQ's regional office by telephone (phone numbers provided in this section) within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of these events at the phone numbers provided in this section. The permittee shall provide a written follow-up to the DEQ regional office within five days from the time the permittee became aware of the permit non-compliance or unauthorized discharge. 25 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 7. Reserved 8. Standard Permit Conditions The following standard permit conditions are included as terms of this permit as required by the "Recycled Water Rules," (IDAPA 58.01.17.500). 500. STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS. The following conditions shall apply to and be included in all permits. (4-1-88) 01. Compliance Required. The permittee shall comply with all conditions of the permit. (4-1-88) 02. Renewal Responsibilities. If the permittee intends to continue operation of the permitted facility after the expiration of an existing permit, the permittee shall apply for a new permit in accordance with these rules. (4-1-88) 03. Operation of Facilities. The permittee shall at all times properly maintain and operate all structures, systems, and equipment for treatment, control and monitoring, which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the permit or these rules. (4-1-88) 04. Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the Director within a reasonable time, any information including copies of records, which may be requested by the Director to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking, re -issuing, or terminating the permit, or to determine compliance with the permit or these rules. (4-1-88) 05. Entry and Access. The permittee shall allow the Director, consistent with Title 39, Chapter 1, Idaho Code, to: (4-1-88) a. Enter the permitted facility. (4-1-88) b. Inspect any records that must be kept under the conditions of the permit. (4-1-88) c. Inspect any facility, equipment, practice, or operation permitted or required by the permit. (4-1-88) d. Sample or monitor for the purpose of assuring permit compliance, any substance or any parameter at the facility. (4-1-88) 06. Reporting. The permittee shall report to the Director under the circumstances and in the manner specified in this section: (4-1-88) a. In writing at least thirty (30) days before any planned physical alteration or addition to the permitted facility or activity if that alteration or addition would result in any significant change in information that was submitted during the permit application process. When the alteration or addition results in a need for a major modification, such alteration or addition shall not be made prior to Department approval issued in accordance with these rules. (4-7-11) b. In writing thirty (30) days before any anticipated change which would result in noncompliance with any permit condition or these rules. (4-1-88) c. Orally within twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee became aware of any noncompliance which may endanger the public health or the environment at telephone numbers provided in the permit by the Director. (4-1-88) d. In writing as soon as possible but within five (5) days of the date the permittee knows or should know of any noncompliance unless extended by the Department. This report shall contain: (4-1-88) 26 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 A description of the noncompliance and its cause; (4-1-88) ii. The period of noncompliance including to the extent possible, times and dates and, if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated length of time it is expected to continue; and (4-7-11) iii. Steps taken or planned, including timelines, to reduce or eliminate the continuance or reoccurrence of the noncompliance. (4-7-11) e. In writing as soon as possible after the permittee becomes aware of relevant facts not submitted or incorrect information submitted, in a permit application or any report to the Director. Those facts or the correct information shall be included as a part of this report. (4-1-88) 07. Minimize Impacts. The permittee shall take all necessary actions to eliminate and correct any adverse impact on the public health or the environment resulting from permit noncompliance. (4-1-88) 08. Compliance with "Ground Water Quality Rule." Permits issued pursuant to these rules shall require compliance with IDAPA 58.01.11, "Ground Water Quality Rule." (4-7-11) 27 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 9. General Permit Conditions The following general permit conditions are based on the cited rules at the time of issuance and are enforceable as part of this permit. Note that the rules cited in this section, and elsewhere in this permit, are supplemented by the rules themselves. Rules applicable to your facility are enforceable whether or not they appear in this permit. 9.1 Operations 9.1.1 Backflow Prevention Reuse facilities with existing or planned cross -connections or interconnections between the recycled water system and any water supply (potable or nonpotable) or surface water, shall have backflow prevention assemblies, devices, or methods as required by applicable rule or as specified in this permit and approved by DEQ. For public water systems, backflow assemblies shall meet the requirements of IDAPA 58.01.08.543. Assemblies shall be adequately maintained and shall be tested annually by a certified backflow assembly tester, and repaired or replaced as necessary to maintain operational status. For domestic water supply wells, backflow prevention devices shall meet the requirements of IDAPA 07.02.04 and shall be adequately operated and maintained. Irrigation water supply wells shall meet the requirements of IDAPA 37.03.09.36 for preventing any waste or contamination of the groundwater resource. Backflow prevention assemblies or devices used to protect the groundwater shall be adequately operated and maintained. Discharge of recycled water to surface water is regulated by the DEQ or EPA. An IPDES permit is required for any discharge to surface water and backflow prevention shall be implemented to prevent any unauthorized discharge. Backflow prevention assemblies or devices used to protect surface water shall be adequately operated and maintained. Records of all testable backflow assembly test results, repairs, and replacements shall be kept at the reuse facility along with other operational records, and shall be discussed in the annual report and made available for inspection by DEQ. Other approved means of backflow prevention, such as siphons and air -gap structures that cannot be tested, shall be maintained in operable order. 9.1.2 Restricted to Premises Wastewaters or recharge waters applied to the land surface must be restricted to the premises of the application site. Wastewater discharges to surface water require an IPDES or NPDES permit (IDAPA 58.01.16.600.02). 9.1.3 Health Hazards, Nuisances, and Odors Prohibited Health hazards, nuisances, and odors are prohibited as follows: 28 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Wastewater must not create a public health hazard or nuisance condition (IDAPA 58.01.16.600.03). No person shall allow, suffer, cause, or permit the emission of odorous gases, liquids, or solids into the atmosphere in such quantities as to cause air pollution (IDAPA 58.01.01.776.01). Air Pollution defined as the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of any air pollutant or combination thereof in such quantity of such nature and duration and under such conditions as would be injurious to human health or welfare, to animal or plant life, or to property, or to interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of life or property (IDAPA 58.01.01.006.06). 9.1.4 Solids Management Biosolids are the nutrient -rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of sewage sludge. When treated and processed, sewage sludge becomes biosolids that can be safely recycled and applied as fertilizer to sustainably improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. Biosolids generated from sewage sludge are regulated by DEQ or EPA under 40 CFR Part 503 and require a DEQ-approved sludge disposal plan as outlined in IDAPA 58.01.16.650. Contact DEQ before to applying biosolids at any permitted reuse facility. Sludge is the semi -liquid mass produced and removed by wastewater treatment processes. This does not include grit, garbage, and large solids. Sludge may be generated by wastewater treatment processes at municipal and industrial facilities. A DEQ-approved sludge disposal plan, as outlined in IDAPA 58.01.16.650, may be required. Solid waste is any garbage or refuse, sludge from a waste water treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material including solid, liquid, semi -solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities, but does not include solid or dissolved materials in domestic sewage, or solid or dissolved material in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges that are point sources subject to permits under Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended or source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Solid waste does not include inert wastes, manures and crop residues ultimately returned to the soils at agronomic rates, and any agricultural solid waste that is managed and regulated pursuant to rules adopted by the Idaho Department of Agriculture. DEQ reserves the right to use existing authorities to regulate agricultural waste that impacts human health or the environment. Solid waste is regulated under the "Solid Waste Management Rules" (IDAPA 58.01.06). Wastes otherwise regulated by DEQ (i.e., this permit) are not regulated under IDAPA 58.01.06. Waste solids include sludge and wastes otherwise regulated by DEQ according with IDAPA 58.01.06.001.03.a.xii. Waste solids may include vegetative waste, silt and mud containing organic matter, and other non -inert solid wastes. 29 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 Inert wastes are defined as non-combustible, nonhazardous, and non-putrescible solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical and chemical structure and have a de minimis potential to generate leachate under expected conditions of disposal, which includes resistance to biological attack. Waste solids require a DEQ approved sludge disposal plan as outlined in IDAPA 58.01.16.650. 9.1.5 Temporary Cessation of Operations and Closure (IDAPA 58.01.17.801) Temporary cessation of operations and closure must be addressed as follows: 01. Temporary Cessation. A permittee shall implement any applicable conditions specified in the permit for temporary cessation of operations. When the permit does not specify applicable temporary cessation conditions, the permittee shall notify the Director prior to a temporary cessation of operations at the facility greater than sixty (60) days in duration and any cessation not for regular maintenance or repair. Cessation of operations necessary for regular maintenance or repair of a duration of sixty (60) days or less are not required to notify the Department under this section. All notifications required under this section shall include a proposed temporary cessation plan that will ensure the cessation of operations will not pose a threat to human health or the environment. (4-7-11) 02. Closure. A closure plan shall be required when a facility is closed voluntarily and when a permit is revoked or expires. A permittee shall implement any applicable conditions specified in the permit for closure of the facility. Unless otherwise directed by the terms of the permit or by the Director, the permittee shall submit a closure plan to the Director for approval at least ninety (90) days prior to ceasing operations. The closure plan shall ensure that the closed facility will not pose a threat to human health and the environment. Closure plan approval may be conditioned upon a permittee's agreement to complete such site investigations, monitoring, and any necessary remediation activities that may be required. (4-7-11) 9.1.6 Plan of Operation (IDAPA 58.01.17.300.05) The PO must comply with the following: 05. Reuse Facility Operation and Maintenance Manual or Plan of Operations. A facility's operation and maintenance manual must contain all system components relating to the reuse facility in order to comply with IDAPA 58.01.16 "Wastewater Rules," Section 425. Manuals and manual amendments are subject to the review and approval provision therein. In addition to the content required by IDAPA 58.01.16.425, manuals for reuse facilities shall include, if applicable: operation and management responsibility, permits and standards, general plant description, operation and control of unit operations, land application site maps, wastewater characterization, cropping plan, hydraulic loading rate, constituent loading rates, compliance activities, seepage rate testing, site management plans, monitoring, site operations and maintenance, solids handling and processing, laboratory testing, general maintenance, records and reports, store room and inventory, personnel, an emergency operating plan, and any other information required by the Department. (4-7-11) 9.1.7 Seepage Testing Requirements (IDAPA 58.01.16.493.02.c) Subsequent Tests. All lagoons covered under these rules must be seepage tested by an Idaho licensed professional engineer, an Idaho licensed professional geologist, or by individuals under their supervision every ten (10) years after the initial testing. (5-8-09) 9.1.8 Groundwater Quality Rule (IDAPA 58.01.11) The permittee shall comply with the requirements of the "Ground Water Quality Rule" (IDAPA 58.01.11). 30 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 9.2 Administrative Requirements for administration of the permit are defined as follows. 9.2.1 Permit Modification (IDAPA 58.01.17.700) 01. Modification of Permits. A permit modification may be initiated by the receipt of a request for modification from the permittee, or may be initiated by the Department if one (1) or more of the following causes for modification exist: (4-7-11) a. Alterations. There are material and substantial alterations or additions to the permitted facility or activity which occurred after permit issuance which justify the application of permit conditions that are different or absent in the existing permit. (4-7-11) b. New standards or regulations. The standards or regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by promulgation of amended standards or regulations or by judicial decision after the permit was issued. (4-7-11) c. Compliance schedules. The Department determines good cause exists for modification of a compliance schedule or terms and conditions of a permit. (4-7-11) d. Non -limited pollutants. When the level of discharge of any pollutant which is not limited in the permit exceeds the level which may cause an adverse impact to surface or ground waters. (4-7-11) e. To correct technical mistakes, such as errors in calculation, or mistaken interpretations of law made in determining permit conditions. (4-7-11) f. When a treatment technology proposed, installed, and properly operated and maintained by the permittee fails to achieve the requirements of the permit. (4-7-11) 9.2.2 Permit Transferable (IDAPA 58.01.17.800) 01. General. A permit may be transferred only upon approval of the Department. No transfer is required for a corporate name change as long as the secretary of state can verify that a change in name alone has occurred. An attempted transfer is not effective for any purpose until approved in writing by the Department. (4-7-11) 9.2.3 Permit Revocation (IDAPA 58.01.17.920) 01. Conditions for Revocation. The Director may revoke a permit if the permittee violates any permit condition or these rules, or the Director becomes aware of any omission or misrepresentation of condition or information relied upon when issuing the permit. (4-7-11) 02. Notice of Revocation. Except in cases of emergency, the Director shall issue a written notice of intent to revoke to the permittee prior to final revocation. Revocation shall become final within thirty-five (35) days of receipt of the notice by the permittee, unless within that time the permittee requests an administrative hearing in writing. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.23, Rules of Administrative Procedure before the Board of Environmental Quality." (5-3-03) 03. Emergency Action. If the Director finds the public health, safety or welfare requires emergency action, the Director shall incorporate findings in support of such action in a written notice of emergency revocation issued to the permittee. Emergency revocation shall be effective upon receipt by the permittee. Thereafter, if requested by the permittee in writing, the Director shall provide the permittee a revocation hearing and prior notice thereof. Such 31 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 hearings shall be conducted in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.23, "Rules of Administrative Procedure Before the Board of Environmental Quality." (3-15-02) 04. Revocation and Closure. A permittee shall perform the closure requirements in a permit, the closure requirements of these rules, and complete all closure plan activities notwithstanding the revocation of the permit. (4-7-11) 9.2.4 Violations (IDAPA 58.01.17.930) Any person violating any provision of these rules or any permit or order issued thereunder shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of a continuing violation, whichever is greater. In addition, pursuant to Title 39, Chapter 1, Idaho Code, any willful or negligent violation may constitute a misdemeanor. (4-1-88) 9.2.5 Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if a provision or its application is declared invalid or unenforceable for any reason, that declaration will not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions. 32 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 10. Other Applicable Laws DEQ may refer enforcement of the following provisions to the state agency authorized to enforce that rule. The permittee shall comply with all applicable provisions identified in this section. Compliance with this permit does not relieve the permittee from applicable requirements in other federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and rules. 10.1 Owner Responsibilities for Well Use and Maintenance 10.1.1 Well Use The well owner must not operate any well in a manner that causes waste or contamination of the groundwater resource. Failure to operate, maintain, knowingly allow the construction of any well in a manner that violates these rules, or failure to repair or properly decommission (abandon) any well as herein required will subject the well owner to civil penalties as provided by statute. See IDAPA 37.03.09.036.01 and consult the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) for more information. 10.1.2 Well Maintenance The well owner must maintain the well to prevent waste or contamination of groundwater through leaky casings, pipes, fittings, valves, pumps, seals, or through leakage around the outside of the casings, whether the leakage is above or below the land surface. Any person owning or controlling a noncompliant well must have the well repaired by a licensed well driller under a permit issued by the IDWR director according to the applicable rules. See IDAPA 37.03.09.036.02 and consult IDWR for more information. 10.1.3 Wells Posing a Threat to Human Health and Safety or Causing Contamination of the Groundwater Resource The well owner must have any well shown to pose a threat to human health and safety or cause contamination of the groundwater resource immediately repaired or decommissioned (abandoned) by a licensed well driller under a permit issued by the IDWR director according to the applicable rules. See IDAPA 37.03.09.036.06 and consult IDWR for more information. 33 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 11. Site Maps 11.1 Regional Map Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 34 of 35 Reuse Permit M-211-04 Avimor Water Reclamation Company Permit Issuance: July 29, 2022 11.2 Facility Map Permit Expiration: July 31, 2027 b co Reuse [ 35 of 35 United States Environmental nvir o1 Protection Agency Sixth Avenue n1000 Seattle, Washingto98l1 Nat'u al pn r1eat. to nde plianoe Dis charge Elit Un er ti ater Quality A t of 98 , prhe 1 ge he A na tiont the ,s Avlmor 108� P L n� q� Water Act, 3 System authorized Avi �'at "Act", 3 U.S.C. following /o atldischarge frO mor Water Reclamation � Reclamation Com �1251 el' ' s se as n(s): m the mation nanY Outral7 wasteware he'll 001 SpringReceiving Water r treatment plant located in Eagle, Idaho,conditions at the ns set forth herein. discharge Points) e 43 4S' 49�, This per effluent limitations, i Longitude an mitati°ns 6 15' 52 This permit mit shall become effective' monitoring rmit Ma requirements The and the authorization Y 1, 2pl6. and other days aeha before � er spire shall reapply ea t0 discharge s discharges hall expireatthefacilitybeyondthis permit midnight,at this % '� f the per canoe on s April an day of nd the term of this per �ttee intends before November, 2p2 j. �f �,��� mar, tO oontinue e atio 0, 2020, 1 g operations and 0 OfficelD or Water Opals floe palnd Watersheds ' erector Perm . No.; Page OQ o83,1 26 Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 2 of 26 Schedule of Submissions The following is a summary of some of the items the permittee must complete and/or submit to EPA during the term of this permit: Item 1. Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) 2. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) 3. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan 4. NPDES Application Renewal 5. Surface Water Monitoring Report 6. Twenty -Four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting 7. Emergency Response and Public Notification Plan Due Date DMRs are due monthly and must be postmarked on or before the 20th day of the month following the monitoring month (see III.B). The permittee must provide EPA and IDEQ with written notification that the Plan has been developed and implemented by the effective date of the final permit (see II.B). The Plan must be kept on site and made available to EPA and IDEQ upon request. The permittee must provide EPA and IDEQ with written notification that the Plan has been developed and implemented by the effective date of the final permit (see II.A). The Plan must be kept on site and made available to EPA and IDEQ upon request. The application must be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of the permit (see V.B). The Report must be submitted with the next permit application. Additionally, the permittee must submit annual certification that monitoring has been conducted in accordance with all conditions in this Permit (see I.C). The permittee must report certain occurrences of noncompliance by telephone within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances (see I.B.2 and III.G). The permittee must submit written notice to EPA and IDEQ that the plan has been developed and implemented within 180 days of the effective date of this permit (see II.C). Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 3 of 26 Table of Contents Schedule of Submissions 2 I. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements 5 A. Discharge Authorization 5 B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring 5 C. Surface Water Monitoring 9 II. Special Conditions 10 A. Operation and Maintenance Plan 10 B. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) 10 C. Emergency Response and Public Notification Plan 11 III. Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Requirements 12 A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non -Routine Discharges) 12 B. Reporting of Monitoring Results 12 C. Monitoring Procedures 12 D. Additional Monitoring by Permittee 13 E. Records Contents 13 F. Retention of Records 14 G. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting 14 H. Other Noncompliance Reporting 15 I. Public Notification 15 J. Notice of New Introduction of Toxic Pollutants 15 IV. Compliance Responsibilities 16 A. Duty to Comply 16 B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions 16 C. Need To Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense 18 D. Duty to Mitigate 18 E. Proper Operation and Maintenance 18 F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities 18 G. Upset Conditions 19 H. Toxic Pollutants 19 I. Planned Changes 20 J. Anticipated Noncompliance 20 K. Reopener 20 V. General Provisions 20 A. Permit Actions 20 B. Duty to Reapply 21 C. Duty to Provide Information 21 D. Other Information 21 E. Signatory Requirements 21 F. Availability of Reports 22 Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 4 of 26 G. Inspection and Entry 22 H. Property Rights 23 I. Transfers 23 J. State Laws 23 VI. Definitions 23 Appendix A: Minimum Levels Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 5 of 26 I. Limitations and Monitoring Requirements A. Discharge Authorization 1. Discharge authorized October 1 through March 31: During the effective period of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge pollutants from outfall 001 to Spring Valley Creek, within the limits and subject to the conditions set forth herein. This permit authorizes the discharge of only those pollutants resulting from facility processes, waste streams, and operations that have been clearly identified in the permit application process. 2. April 1 through September 30: No discharge to Spring Valley Creek is allowed. B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring 1. The permittee must limit and monitor discharges from outfall 001 as specified in Table 1, below. All figures represent maximum effluent limits unless otherwise indicated. The permittee must comply with the effluent limits at all times unless otherwise indicated, regardless of the frequency of monitoring or reporting required by other provisions of this permit. 2. The permittee must report within 24 hours any violation of the maximum daily limits or instantaneous maximum limitations for the following pollutants: total residual chlorine, total ammonia as N, and Escherichia coli (E. coli). Violations of all other effluent limits are to be reported at the time that Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) are submitted (See III.B and III.H). 3. The permittee must not discharge floating, suspended, or submerged matter of any kind in amounts causing nuisance or objectionable conditions or that may impair designated beneficial uses of the receiving water. 4. 85% Removal Requirements for BOD5 and TSS: The monthly average effluent concentration must not exceed 15 percent of the monthly average influent concentration. Percent removal of BOD5 and TSS must be reported on the Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs). For each parameter, the monthly average percent removal must be calculated from the arithmetic mean of the influent values and the arithmetic mean of the effluent values for that month. Influent and effluent samples must be taken over approximately the same time period. 5. The pH must not be less than 6.5 standard units (s.u.) nor greater than 9.0 standard units (s.u.). 6. The permittee must collect effluent samples from the effluent stream after the last treatment unit prior to discharge into the receiving waters. 7. Minimum Levels. For all effluent monitoring, the permittee must use methods that can achieve a minimum level (ML) less than the effluent limitation unless otherwise specified in this permit. For parameters that do not have effluent limitations, the permittee must use methods that can achieve MLs less than or equal to those specified in Appendix A. If no minimum level is listed in Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 6 of 26 Appendix A and the pollutant is not subject to an effluent limit, the permittee may use any test procedure approved under 40 CFR Part 136. 8. This permit authorizes the discharge of effluent from the AWRF to Spring Valley Creek October 1— March 31. Discharge to Spring Valley Creek is prohibited April 1- September 30. 9. If no discharge to surface waters occurs during the reporting period, "no discharge" shall be reported on the DMR. 10. Temperature data must be recorded using a micro -recording temperature device known as a thermistor. For effluent temperature monitoring, set the recording device to record at one -hour intervals. Report the following temperature monitoring data on the DMR: monthly instantaneous maximum, maximum daily average, seven-day running average of the daily instantaneous maximum. Use the temperature device manufacturer's software to generate (export) an Excel text or electronic ASCII text file. The file must be submitted annually to IDEQ by January 31 for the previous monitoring year along with the placement log. The placement logs should include the following information for both thermistor deployment and retrieval: date, time, temperature device manufacturer ID, location, depth, whether it measured air or water temperature, and any other details that may explain data anomalies. 11. For all effluent monitoring, the permittee must use sufficiently sensitive analytical methods which meet the following: a) Parameters with an effluent limit. The method must achieve a minimum level (ML) less than the effluent limitation unless otherwise specified in Table 1 Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements. b) Parameters that do not have effluent limitations: (i) The permittee must use a method that detects and quantifies the level of the pollutant, or (ii) The permittee must use a method that can achieve a maximum ML less than or equal to those specified in Appendix A; c) For parameters that do not have an effluent limit, the permittee may request different MLs. The request must be in writing and must be approved by EPA. d) See also Part III.0 Monitoring Procedures. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 7 of 26 Table 1: Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements See footnotes below Effluent Limitations Parameter Flow Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)1 Total Suspended Solids1 pH E. Coli Bacteria' Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)5.6 Total Ammonia (as N)1 Total Nitrogen1 Total Phosphorus (as p)1 Temperature' Dissolved Oxygen Alkalinity Total Hardness Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Nitrate Plus Nitrite Nitrogen Oil and Grease Total Dissolved Solids Units MGD mg/L lb/day2 removal3 mg/L lb/day2 Average Average Monthly Weekly Limit Limit Report 15 25 52 87 85 (minimum) 10 17 35 59 Maximum Daily Limit Report 85 removal3 (minimum) s.0 Between 6.5-9.0 at all times #/100 ml 126 — 4065 µg/L 9 18 lb/day2 0.03 0.06 mg/L 2.4 4.7 lb/day2 8 17 mg/L 15 mg/L Report Report Report lb/day2 °C mg/L mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L as CaCO3 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L 1.2 Report Report Report — Report Report minimum and average Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Report Monitorin„ Requirements Sample Sample Location Frequency Effluent Continuous Influent and 2/week Effluent 1 /month Influent and 2/week' Effluent 1/month Effluent 5/week7 Effluent 5/month Effluent 5/week7 Effluent 2/week' Effluent 1/week Effluent 1/week Effluent Continuous Effluent 2/month7 Effluent 1/quarter$ Effluent 1/quarter$ Effluent 1/quarter$ Effluent 1/quarter$ Effluent 1/quarter$ Effluent 1/quarter8 Sample Type Recording 24-Hour Composite Calculation 24-Hour Composite Calculation Grab Grab Grab 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite Calculation Meter Grab 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite 24-Hour Composite Grab 24-Hour Composite Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 8 of 26 Table 1: Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements See footnotes below Effluent Limitations Monitoring Requirements Parameter Units Average Average Monthly Weekly Limit Limit Maximum Sample Sample Daily Limit Location Frequency Sample Type Notes: ***Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements are in accordance with IDEQ 's February 12, 2016 Final Section 401 Certification. 1. For months where there is no discharge to Spring Valley Creek, a monthly sampling frequency will apply. 2. Loading (in lbs/day) is calculated by multiplying the concentration (in mg/L) by the corresponding flow (in mgd) for the day of sampling and a conversion factor of 8.34. For more information on calculating, averaging, and reporting loads and concentrations see the NPDES Self -Monitoring System User Guide (EPA 833-B-85-100, March 1985). 3. Percent Removal. The monthly average percent removal must be calculated from the arithmetic mean of the influent values and the arithmetic mean of the effluent values for that month using the following equation: (average monthly influent concentration — average monthly effluent concentration) ± average monthly influent concentration x 100. Influent and effluent samples must be taken over approximately the same time period. 4. The average monthly E. coli bacteria counts must not exceed a geometric mean of 126/100 ml based on a minimum of five samples taken every 3 - 7 days within a calendar month. See Part VI of this permit for a definition of geometric mean. 5. Reporting is required within 24 hours of a maximum daily limit or instantaneous maximum limit violation. 6. The limits for chlorine are not quantifiable using EPA -approved analytical methods. The minimum level (ML) for chlorine is 50 µg/L for this parameter. The EPA will use 50 µg/L as the compliance evaluation level for this parameter. The permittee will be compliance with the total residual chlorine limitations if the average monthly and maximum daily concentrations are less than 50 µg/L and the average monthly and maximum daily mass loadings are less than insert lbs/day. For purposes of calculating the monthly averages, see Paragraph I.B.13 of this permit. 7. Samples must be taken on different days. 8. Quarters are defined as: January 1 to March 31; April 1 to June 30; July 1 to September 30; and, October 1 to December 31. Monitoring results for pollutants with a sample frequency of quarterly must be reported on the March and December DMRs. 12. For purposes of reporting on the DMR for a single sample, if a value is less than the MDL, the permittee must report "less than {numeric value of the MDL}" and if a value is less than the ML, the permittee must report "less than {numeric value of the ML}." 13. For purposes of calculating monthly and weekly averages, zero may be assigned for values less than the MDL, and the {numeric value of the MDL} may be assigned for values between the MDL and the ML. If the average value is less than the MDL, the permittee must report "less than {numeric value of the MDL}" and if the average value is less than the ML, the permittee must report "less than {numeric value of the ML}." If a value is equal to or greater than the ML, the permittee must report and use the actual value. The resulting average value must be compared to the compliance level, the ML, in assessing compliance. 14. The permittee must perform the effluent testing required by Part D of NPDES application Form 2A (EPA Form 3510-2A, revised 1-99). The permittee must submit the results of this testing with its application for renewal of this NPDES Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 9 of 26 permit. To the extent that effluent monitoring required by other conditions of this permit satisfies this requirement, these samples may be used to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph. C. Surface Water Monitoring The permittee must conduct surface water monitoring once per month from October to March. Surface water monitoring must begin in the first calendar month in which the permittee discharges pollutants to the receiving water and must continue as long as the permit remains in force. The program must meet the following requirements: 1. A monitoring station must be established in Spring Valley Creek above the influence of the facility's discharge. 2. To the extent practicable, surface water sample collection must occur on the same day as effluent sample collection. 3. All ambient samples must be grab samples. 4. Samples must be analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 3, and must achieve minimum levels (MLs) that are equivalent to or less than those listed in Table 3. If no ML is listed in Table 3, the permittee may use any EPA -approved method for analysis. The permittee may request different MDLs. The request must be in writing and must be approved by EPA. 5. Temperature data must be recorded using a micro -recording temperature device known as a thermistor. Report the following temperature monitoring data on the DMR: monthly instantaneous maximum, maximum daily average, seven-day running average of the daily instantaneous maximum. Use the temperature device manufacturer's software to generate (export) an Excel text or electronic ASCII text file. The file must be submitted annually to IDEQ by January 31 for the previous monitoring year along with the placement log. The placement logs should include the following information for both thermistor deployment and retrieval: date, time, temperature device manufacturer ID, location, depth, whether it measured air or water temperature, and any other details that may explain data anomalies. Surface water temperature values must be generated from a recording device with a minimum of forty-eight (48) evenly spaced measurements in a twenty-four (24) hour period. Table 3: Parameter (units) Flow (CFS) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) Total Suspended Solids Total Nitrogen Total Ammonia as N (mg/L) pH (s.u) Temperature (°C) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Surface Water Monitoring Requirements Sample Locations Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Upstream Sample Sample Frequency Type Monthly Measure Monthly Grab Monthly Grab Monthly Grab Monthly Grab Monthly Grab Continuous Meter Monthly Grab Maximum ML 0.1 Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 10 of 26 6. Quality assurance/quality control plans for surface water monitoring must be documented in the Quality Assurance Plan required under Part II.B, "Quality Assurance Plan". 7. Surface water monitoring results must be submitted to EPA and IDEQ with the application for renewal of this permit (see V.B). At a minimum, the report must include the following: a) Dates of sample collection and analyses. b) Results of sample analysis. c) Relevant quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information. 8. Annual written certification specifying that the Permittee has collected and analyzed surface water samples in accordance with all applicable conditions in this permit must be submitted to EPA and IDEQ with the December DMR. II. Special Conditions A. Operation and Maintenance Plan In addition to the requirements specified in Section IV.E of this permit (Proper Operation and Maintenance), the permittee must develop and implement an operation and maintenance plan for the wastewater treatment facility by the effective date of the permit. The permittee must provide written notice to EPA and IDEQ that the operation and maintenance plan has been implemented by the effective date of this permit. The plan shall be retained on site and made available upon request to EPA and IDEQ. B. Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) The permittee must develop a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) for all monitoring required by this permit. The permittee must submit written notice to EPA and IDEQ that the Plan has been developed by the effective date of this permit. The permittee must provide written notification that the plan has been implemented by the effective date of this permit. 1 The QAP must be designed to assist in planning for the collection and analysis of effluent and receiving water samples in support of the permit and in explaining data anomalies when they occur. 2. Throughout all sample collection and analysis activities, the permittee must use the EPA -approved QA/QC and chain -of -custody procedures described in Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/QA/R-5) and Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA/QA/G-5). The QAP must be prepared in the format that is specified in these documents. 3. At a minimum, the QAP must include the following: Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 11 of 26 a) Details on the number of samples, type of sample containers, preservation of samples, holding times, analytical methods, analytical detection and quantitation limits for each target compound, type and number of quality assurance field samples, precision and accuracy requirements, sample preparation requirements, sample shipping methods, and laboratory data delivery requirements. b) Map(s) indicating the location of each sampling point. c) Qualification and training of personnel. d) Name(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the laboratories used by or proposed to be used by the permittee. 4. The permittee must amend the QAP whenever there is a modification in sample collection, sample analysis, or other procedure addressed by the QAP. 5. Copies of the QAP must be kept on site and made available to EPA and/or IDEQ upon request. C. Emergency Response and Public Notification Plan 1. The permittee must develop and implement an overflow emergency response and public notification plan that identifies measures to protect public health from overflows that may endanger health and unanticipated bypasses or upsets that exceed any effluent limitation in the permit. At a minimum the plan must include mechanisms to: a) Ensure that the permittee is aware (to the greatest extent possible) of all overflows from portions of the collection system over which the permittee has ownership or operational control and unanticipated bypass or upset that exceed any effluent limitation in the permit; b) Ensure appropriate responses including assurance that reports of an overflow or of an unanticipated bypass or upset that exceed any effluent limitation in the permit are immediately dispatched to appropriate personnel for investigation and response; c) Ensure immediate notification to the public, health agencies, and other affected public entities (including public water systems). The overflow response plan must identify the public health and other officials who will receive immediate notification; d) Ensure that appropriate personnel are aware of and follow the plan and are appropriately trained; and e) Provide emergency operations. 2. The permittee must submit written notice to EPA and IDEQ that the plan has been developed and implemented within 180 days of the effective date of this permit. Any existing emergency response and public notification plan may be modified for compliance with this section. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 12 of 26 III. Monitoring, Recording and Reporting Requirements A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non -Routine Discharges) Samples and measurements must be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge. In order to ensure that the effluent limits set forth in this permit are not violated at times other than when routine samples are taken, the permittee must collect additional samples at the appropriate outfall whenever any discharge occurs that may reasonably be expected to cause or contribute to a violation that is unlikely to be detected by a routine sample. The permittee must analyze the additional samples for those parameters limited in Part I.B of this permit that are likely to be affected by the discharge. The permittee must collect such additional samples as soon as the spill, discharge, or bypassed effluent reaches the outfall. The samples must be analyzed in accordance with Part III.0 ("Monitoring Procedures"). The permittee must report all additional monitoring in accordance with Part III.D ("Additional Monitoring by Permittee"). B. Reporting of Monitoring Results During the period between the effective date of the permit and the submission of the October 2016 DMR, the permittee must either submit monitoring data and other reports in paper form, or must report electronically using NetDMR, a web -based tool that allows permittees to electronically submit DMRs and other required reports via a secure internet connection. Beginning with the submission of the November DMR (due December 20, 2016), the permittee must submit monitoring data and other reports electronically using NetDMR. Specific requirements regarding submittal of data and reports in paper form and submittal using NetDMR are described below. 1. Paper Copy Submissions. Monitoring data must be submitted using the DMR form (EPA No. 3320-1) or equivalent and must be postmarked by the 20th day of the month following the completed reporting period. The permittee must sign and certify all DMRs, and all other reports, in accordance with the requirements of Part V.E ("Signatory Requirement") of this permit. The permittee must submit the legible originals of these documents to the Director, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, with copies to IDEQ at the following addresses: US EPA Region 10 Attn: ICIS Data Entry Team 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 OCE-101 Seattle, Washington 98101-3140 Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 13 of 26 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1445 North Orchard Boise, ID 83706 2. Electronic Copy Submissions Monitoring data must be submitted electronically to EPA no later than the 20th of the month following the completed reporting period. All reports required under this permit must be submitted to EPA as a legible electronic attachment to the DMR. The permittee must sign and certify all DMRs, and all other reports, in accordance with the requirements of Part V.E ("Signatory Requirement") of this permit. Once a permittee begins submitting reports using NetDMR, it will no longer be required to submit paper copies of DMRs or other reports to EPA and IDEQ. The permittee may use NetDMR after requesting and receiving permission from US EPA Region 10. NetDMR is accessed from httos://netdmr.epa.govrnetdmr/hublic/home.htm. C. Monitoring Procedures Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit or approved by EPA as an alternate test procedure under 40 CFR 136.5. D. Additional Monitoring by Permittee If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136 or as specified in this permit, the permittee must include the results of this monitoring in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted in the DMR. Upon request by EPA, the permittee must submit results of any other sampling, regardless of the test method used. E. Records Contents Records of monitoring information must include: 1. the date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; 2. the name(s) of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; 3. the date(s) analyses were performed; 4. the names of the individual(s) who performed the analyses; 5. the analytical techniques or methods used; and 6. the results of such analyses. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 14 of 26 F. Retention of Records The permittee must retain records of all monitoring information, including, all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, copies of DMRs, a copy of the NPDES permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of EPA or IDEQ at any time. G. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting 1. The permittee must report the following occurrences of noncompliance by telephone within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances: a) any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment; b) any unanticipated bypass that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part IV.F, "Bypass of Treatment Facilities"); c) any upset that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part IV.G, "Upset Conditions"); or d) any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for applicable pollutants identified by Part I.B. e) any overflow prior to the treatment works over which the permittee has ownership or has operational control. An overflow is any spill, release or diversion of municipal sewage including: (i) an overflow that results in a discharge to waters of the United States; and (ii) an overflow of wastewater, including a wastewater backup into a building (other than a backup caused solely by a blockage or other malfunction in a privately owned sewer or building lateral) that does not reach waters of the United States. 2. The permittee must also provide a written submission within five days of the time that the permittee becomes aware of any event required to be reported under subpart 1 above. The written submission must contain: a) a description of the noncompliance and its cause; b) the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; c) the estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and d) steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. e) if the noncompliance involves an overflow, the written submission must contain: Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 15 of 26 (i) The location of the overflow; (ii) The receiving water (if there is one); (iii) An estimate of the volume of the overflow; (iv) A description of the sewer system component from which the release occurred (e g , manhole, constructed overflow pipe, crack in pipe); (v) The estimated date and time when the overflow began and stopped or will be stopped; (vi) The cause or suspected cause of the overflow; (vii) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the overflow and a schedule of major milestones for those steps; (viii) An estimate of the number of persons who came into contact with wastewater from the overflow; and (ix) Steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact(s) of the overflow and a schedule of major milestones for those steps. 3. The Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement may waive the written report on a case -by -case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours by the NPDES Compliance Hotline in Seattle, Washington, by telephone, (206) 553-1846. 4. Reports must be submitted to the addresses in Part III.B ("Reporting of Monitoring Results"). H. Other Noncompliance Reporting The permittee must report all instances of noncompliance, not required to be reported within 24 hours, at the time that monitoring reports for Part III.B ("Reporting of Monitoring Results") are submitted. The reports must contain the information listed in Part III.G of this permit ("Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting"). I. Public Notification The permittee must immediately notify the public, health agencies and other affected entities (e.g., public water systems) of any overflow which the permittee owns or has operational control; or any unanticipated bypass or upset that exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit in accordance with the notification procedures developed in accordance with Part II.C. J. Notice of New Introduction of Toxic Pollutants The permittee must notify the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds and IDEQ in writing of: Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 16 of 26 1. Any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to Sections 301 or 306 of the Act if it were directly discharging those pollutants; and 2. Any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the POTW by a source introducing pollutants into the POTW at the time of issuance of the permit. 3. For the purposes of this section, adequate notice must include information on: a) The quality and quantity of effluent to be introduced into the POTW, and b) Any anticipated impact of the change on the quantity or quality of effluent to be discharged from the POTW. 4. The permittee must notify the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds at the following address: US EPA Region 10 Attn: NPDES Permits Unit Manager 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW-191 Seattle, WA 98101 IV. Compliance Responsibilities A. Duty to Comply The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification, or for denial of a permit renewal application. B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions 5. Civil and Administrative Penalties. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section 309(d) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 U.S.C. § 3701 note) (currently $32,500 per day for each violation). 6. Administrative Penalties. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, administrative penalties for Class I violations are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(A) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 USC § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 USC § 3701 note) (currently $16,000 per Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 17 of 26 violation, with the maximum amount of any Class I penalty assessed not to exceed $37,500). Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 19 and the Act, penalties for Class II violations are not to exceed the maximum amounts authorized by Section 309(g)(2)(B) of the Act and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act (28 USC § 2461 note) as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act (31 USC § 3701 note) (currently $16,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, with the maximum amount of any Class II penalty not to exceed $187,500). 7. Criminal Penalties: a) Negligent Violations. The Act provides that any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both. b) Knowing Violations. Any person who knowingly violates such sections, or such conditions or limitations is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than 6 years, or both. c) Knowing Endangerment. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the Act, and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more than 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to $2,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. d) False Statements. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 18 of 26 after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or both. The Act further provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non- compliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both. C. Need To Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense It shall not be a defense for the permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with this permit. D. Duty to Mitigate The permittee must take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this permit that has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. E. Proper Operation and Maintenance The permittee must at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by the permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the permit. F. Bypass of Treatment Facilities 1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Part. 2. Notice. a) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it must submit prior written notice, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. b) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee must submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required under Part III.G ("Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting"). 3. Prohibition of bypass. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 19 of 26 a) Bypass is prohibited, and the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement may take enforcement action against the permittee for a bypass, unless: (i) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; (ii) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (iii) The permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2 of this Part. b) The Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a. of this Part. G. Upset Conditions 1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology -based permit effluent limitations if the permittee meets the requirements of paragraph 2 of this Part. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review. 2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. To establish the affirmative defense of upset, the permittee must demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: a) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; b) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; c) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under Part III.G, "Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting;" and d) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part IV.D, "Duty to Mitigate." 3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. H. Toxic Pollutants The permittee must comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) and with standards for sewage sludge or disposal established under Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 20 of 26 section 405(d) of the Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. I. Planned Changes The permittee must give written notice to the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds as specified in part III.J.4 and IDEQ as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility whenever: 1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or 2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants that are not subject to effluent limitations in this permit. 3. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the permittee's sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the application of permit conditions that are different from or absent in the existing permit, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application site. J. Anticipated Noncompliance The permittee must give written advance notice to the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement and IDEQ of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with this permit. K. Reopener This permit may be reopened to include any applicable standard for sewage sludge use or disposal promulgated under section 405(d) of the Act. The Director may modify or revoke and reissue the permit if the standard for sewage sludge use or disposal is more stringent than any requirements for sludge use or disposal in the permit, or controls a pollutant or practice not limited in the permit. V. General Provisions A. Permit Actions This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause as specified in 40 CFR 122.62, 122.64, or 124.5. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 21 of 26 B. Duty to Reapply If the permittee intends to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. In accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d), and unless permission for the application to be submitted at a later date has been granted by the Regional Administrator, the permittee must submit a new application at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit. C. Duty to Provide Information The permittee must furnish to EPA and IDEQ, within the time specified in the request, any information that EPA or IDEQ may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee must also furnish to EPA or IDEQ, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit. D. Other Information When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or that it submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any report to EPA or IDEQ, it must promptly submit the omitted facts or corrected information in writing. E. Signatory Requirements All applications, reports or information submitted to EPA and IDEQ must be signed and certified as follows. 1. All permit applications must be signed as follows: a) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. c) For a municipality, state, federal, Indian tribe, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. 2. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by EPA or IDEQ must be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above; b) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company; and Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 22 of 26 c) The written authorization is submitted to the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement and IDEQ. 3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part V.E.2 is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part V.E.2 must be submitted to the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement and IDEQ prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. 4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Part must make the following certification: "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." F. Availability of Reports In accordance with 40 CFR 2, information submitted to EPA pursuant to this permit may be claimed as confidential by the permittee. In accordance with the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data are not considered confidential. Any confidentiality claim must be asserted at the time of submission by stamping the words "confidential business information" on each page containing such information. If no claim is made at the time of submission, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice to the permittee. If a claim is asserted, the information will be treated in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 2, Subpart B (Public Information) and 41 Fed. Reg. 36902 through 36924 (September 1, 1976), as amended. G. Inspection and Entry The permittee must allow the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, EPA Region 10; IDEQ; or an authorized representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to: 1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit; 2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this permit; Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 23 of 26 3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and 4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location. H. Property Rights The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to persons or property or invasion of other private rights, nor any infringement of federal, tribal, state or local laws or regulations. I. Transfers This permit is not transferable to any person except after written notice to the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds as specified in part III.J.4. The Director may require modification or revocation and reissuance of the permit to change the name of the permittee and incorporate such other requirements as may be necessary under the Act. (See 40 CFR 122.61; in some cases, modification or revocation and reissuance is mandatory). J. State Laws Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the Act. VI. Definitions 1. "Act" means the Clean Water Act. 2. "Administrator" means the Administrator of the EPA, or an authorized representative. 3. "Average monthly discharge limitation" means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar month divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that month. 4. "Average weekly discharge limitation" means the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calendar week, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar week divided by the number of "daily discharges" measured during that week. 5. "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 24 of 26 treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage areas. 6. "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. 7. "Composite" - see "24-hour composite". 8. "Daily discharge" means the discharge of a pollutant measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with limitations expressed in units of mass, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement, the "daily discharge" is calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the day. 9. "Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement" means the Director of the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, EPA Region 10, or an authorized representative. 10. "Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds" means the Director of the Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10, or an authorized representative. 11. "DMR" means discharge monitoring report. 12. "EPA" means the United States Environmental Protection Agency. 13. "Geometric Mean" means the nth root of a product of n factors, or the antilogarithm of the arithmetic mean of the logarithms of the individual sample values. 14. "Grab" sample is an individual sample collected over a period of time not exceeding 15 minutes. 15. "IDEQ" means the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 16. "Indirect Discharge" means the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from any non -domestic source regulated under section 307(b), (c) or (d) of the Act. 17. "Industrial User" means a source of "Indirect Discharge." 18. "Interference" is defined in 40 CFR 403.3. 19. "LC50" means the concentration of toxicant (e.g., effluent) which is lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms exposed in the time period prescribed by the test. 20. "Maximum daily discharge limitation" means the highest allowable "daily discharge." 21. "Method Detection Limit (MDL)" means the minimum concentration of a substance (analyte) that can be measured and reported with 99 percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 25 of 26 22. "Minimum Level (ML)" means either the sample concentration equivalent to the lowest calibration point in a method or a multiple of the method detection limit (MDL). Minimum levels may be obtained in several ways: They may be published in a method; they may be sample concentrations equivalent to the lowest acceptable calibration point used by a laboratory; or they may be calculated by multiplying the MDL in a method, or the MDL determined by a lab, by a factor. 23. "NOEC" means no observed effect concentration. The NOEC is the highest concentration of toxicant (e.g., effluent) to which organisms are exposed in a chronic toxicity test [full life -cycle or partial life -cycle (short term) test], that causes no observable adverse effects on the test organisms (i.e., the highest concentration of effluent in which the values for the observed responses are not statistically significantly different from the controls). 24. "NPDES" means National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits ... under sections 307, 402, 318, and 405 of the CWA. 25. "Pass Through" means a Discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation). 26. "QA/QC" means quality assurance/quality control. 27. "Regional Administrator" means the Regional Administrator of Region 10 of the EPA, or the authorized representative of the Regional Administrator. 28. "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. 29. "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology -based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. 30. "24-hour composite" sample means a combination of at least 8 discrete sample aliquots of at least 100 milliliters, collected over periodic intervals from the same location, during the operating hours of a facility over a 24 hour period. The composite must be flow proportional. The sample aliquots must be collected and stored in accordance with procedures prescribed in the most recent edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Permit No.: ID0028371 Page 26 of 26 Appendix A Minimum Levels The Table below lists the maximum Minimum Level (ML) for pollutants not subject to concentration effluent limits in the permit. The permittee may request different MLs. The request must be in writing and must be approved by EPA. If the Permittee is unable to obtain the required ML in its effluent due to matrix effects, the Permittee must submit a matrix -specific detection limit (MDL) and a ML to EPA with appropriate laboratory documentation. Pollutant & CAS No. (if available) Minimum Level (ML) µg/L unless specified Biochemical oxygen demand 2 mg/L Chlorine, total residual (7782-50-5) 50.0 Dissolved oxygen +/- 0.2 mg/L Mercury, total (7439-97-6) 0.0005 Nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (as N) 100 Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl (as N) (7727-37-9) 300 Oil and grease (HEM) (hexane extractable material) 5,000 pH N/A Phosphorus, total (as P) 10 Soluble reactive phosphorus (as P) 10 Temperature +/- 0.2° C Total ammonia (as N) (7664-41-7) 50 Total dissolved solids 20 mg/L Total suspended solids 5 mg/L equipment in the treatment building as necessary. Phase 4 will introduce a second treatment facility to the site and it will be upgraded in similar fashion as what is planned for the existing facility with space for additional MBR tanks and equipment. The new facility will be similar to the current treatment plant. Treatment capacity upgrades and expected phase implementation are as shown in Table 5-6. The expected construction dates are based on the expected population growth. Phase Phase 1 Phase la Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Table 5-6 Treatment Capacity Planning Phases Description Existing Facility RI Basin Permitting MBR #1 Expansion #1 MBR #1 Expansion #2 Headworks / MBR #2 MBR #2 Expansion #1 MBR #2 Expansion #2 ERU's ERU's Capacity (160 gpd) (125 gpd) 0.19 MGD1 1,188 1,520 0.33 MGD 2,083 2,667 0.67 MGD 4,167 5,333 1.00 MGD 6,250 8,000 1.33 MGD 8,333 10,667 1.67 MGD 10,417 13,333 2.00 MGD 12,500 16,000 'Capacity limited by RI basin permitted flow. Expected Construction Complete May 2021 January 2024 January 2033 January 2041 January 2050 January 2058 As the AWRF reaches the existing infrastructure capacity of 1.0 MGD, future expansion of the treatment facility will be necessary to sustained development of the community. Avimor controls all property adjacent to the treatment facility which will allow for future expansion as shown in Figure 5-2 in red. Necessary treatment system expansions will be possible adjacent to the existing facility without any anticipated site area limitations. Future locations for facility expansion will need to take access and grading into account, as much of the area is encumbered with hills. 25 PERMIT No. PERMIT STATUS AVIMOR WASTEWATER PERMITTING ACTIVITY EFFECTIVE EXPIRED Description Notes Land IDEQ Reuse M-211004 ACTIVE Application July 29, 2022 July 31, 2027 Discharge from April 1 through October 31 Rapid Discharge from January 1 through December IDEQ Reuse M-211004 ACTIVE Infiltration July 29, 2022 July 31, 2027 31 Direct Not currently discharging to Spring Valley EPA NPDES ID0028371 EXPIRED Discharge May 1, 2016 April 30, 2021 Creek Direct IDEQ to issue permit for discharge to Spring NA PENDING Discharge Valley Creek in 2022 Aquifer Future permit, Feasibility Study needs to be NA NA Storage & completed CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 September 26, 2022 William E. Vaughan, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 RE: Avimor Master Drainage Report HECO Reference No. EG 22-0334.01 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Office of City Engineer The City has received an updated Master Drainage Report from JUB Engineers, dated August 23, 2022, for the above referenced project. The Master Drainage Report has been reviewed as part of the annexation process and is recommended for approval subject to the following comments. 1. The Master Drainage Report provides calculations for predevelopment stormwater runoff flows. With each phase of development, the applicant shall provide a drainage report that includes calculations to show that post development runoff will not exceed predevelopment runoff as calculated in the Master Drainage Report. 2. The Master Drainage Report includes calculations for sizing of storm drainage along Highway 55. Culvert sizing, type, locations, and invert elevations located within future public rights -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by ACHD and/or ITD. 3. The Master Drainage Report indicates that there is currently no FEMA Floodplain located within the project boundaries. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, HECO Engineers B /��Lt ��vI Ifrtt y � ` had Carter, P.E. Project Manager cc: Keith Morse, PE - JUB Engineers Sarah Martz - Avimor HECO ENGINEERS j 208-642-3304 email: info@hecoengineers.com 1--___/ AVIMOR MASTER DRAINAGE REPORT J-U-B #55-17-113 Prepared by: (J-U.13 J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. THE LANGDGN GROUP GATEWAY MAPPING INC. OTHER 1-U-B COMPANIES 1 23 Aug 2022 AVIMOR MASTER DRAINAGE REPORT Revised Date: August 2022 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Project Description 3 3.0 Areas of Special Flood Hazard 4 4.0 Storm Water Management 4 5.0 Methodology 6 6.0 Results 7 Appendix A — Drainage Basin Summary Appendix B — Hydrology Drainage Basin Results Appendix C - Figures 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION The vision of Avimor is a community centered around natural features which will help promote and allow for residents to engage in a healthy, active lifestyle. The land itself will be the framework for development with significant natural open spaces, defining the boundaries of the village, neighborhood and recreation. The Planning Areas will be developed to maintain the integrity of this landscape and will maintain a delicate balance between site grading and respect for the natural surroundings. Natural open space will serve as the boundary of the development and will also provide trail connections to a larger foothills regional trail system as it develops in the future. The Master Drainage Study for this development will utilize Ada County Highway District and City of Eagle Drainage Design Standards where applicable to properly design for flooding hazard mitigation and storm water handling facilities. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Avimor project is located in Ada, Gem and Boise County, Idaho. The project is bounded on the west by Willow Creek Road and extends to the east past Highway 55 into the Boise foothills. The Developer is requesting annexation into the City of Eagle. Figure 6-1 "Existing Conditions Drainage Map" in Appendix C shows that the project is situated in three planning areas. Within each of these planning areas are several sub -drainages that define storm water flows. As development occurs in these areas a more detailed hydraulic analysis will be required. 3 3.0 AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD — FLOOD CONTROL Background Based on the current FEMA Special Flood Hazard maps there are no flood zones established within the project boundaries. 4.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT General The primary purpose for the stormwater management is to maintain post -development off -site discharge of stormwater flows to not exceed predevelopment flows, minimize on -site erosion, maintain runoff water quality, and to minimize destruction of life and property from potential flood flows. The permanent stormwater system will consist of various components designed to achieve the primary purposes. They may include manufactured components such as street curb and gutters, underground piping, catch basins and manholes, culverts, geotextile fabrics, concrete control structures, and other miscellaneous stormwater runoff control facilities. Earth structures such as drainage swales, berms, detention and retention ponds, and regrading of development areas will be utilized and designed to imitate natural features as much as possible. In accordance with the Low Impact Development approach to stormwater management, landscaping and vegetated areas will be utilized for percolation into subsoils to reduce runoff coefficients. This report analyses the runoff impacts of the 100 year 24 hour, 25 year 24 hour and 2 year 24 hour storm events. All facilities will be designed to conform with county, state and federal agencies and utilize DEQ Best Management Practices (BMP's). Runoff from impervious surfaces such as building roofs will be collected in gutters and down spouts, either dispersed over grass and landscaped areas or directed to subsurface underdrains. Grading around buildings will be sloped to direct runoff to swales allowing percolation into subsurface soils. Detention/Retention facilities will be incorporated throughout the development as a means to reduce runoff rates. Due to the steep foothill terrain throughout the Avimor development, the peak runoff rates generally occur within a short time duration and have lower overall volumes attributed to the basins. Based on this characteristic and as development occurs, the use of detention facilities should be utilized to reduce peak runoff rates within the larger basins. With the construction of detention facilities, the peak runoff rates can be greatly reduced allowing for smaller storm drainage conveyance infrastructure and less potential for erosion and damage caused by storm runoff. Swales along rural type streets will be provided to allow percolation into subsurface soils. Stormwater runoff from urban type streets will be collected by curb and gutters and directed to swales adjacent to streets as much as possible. Where this is not possible, runoff will be collected by inlets and catch basins which are designed to provide some contaminate retention such as oils and sediments. 4 Inlets and Catch Basins will be designed and constructed in accordance with the Ada County Highway District and City of Eagle standards and specifications to collect runoff from a 10-year storm, ensure unobstructed traffic travel during a 25-year storm and protect life and property during a 100-year storm. Inlets and basins will be located in drainage swales and street gutters. Underground piping will carry runoff flows from inlets and catch basins to various stormwater facilities designed to detain and/or retain flows. Distribution main and lateral lines will be located underground in street sections as much as possible and practicable. Pipe lines shall be laid in straight alignment between manholes. Consideration shall be given to over -sizing main lines for future phase additions. Pipe line sizing shall be based on minimum velocity of two (2) feet per second (fps) when flowing full with appropriate Manning coefficients. Special provisions shall be made for velocities greater than twelve (12) fps to protect against displacement by erosion and impact. Pipes with greater than ten (10) percent slopes shall be anchored with concrete at thirty-six (36) feet on centers. Manholes shall be placed at the end of each line, at all grade, size, intersections, or alignment change and/or not to exceed four hundred (400) feet spacing for line sizes less than fifteen (15) inches in diameter, five hundred (500) feet for eighteen (18) to thirty (30) inches diameter, and six hundred (600) feet for thirty six (36) inch diameter and larger. Forty-eight (48) inch diameter manholes shall be used for pipe line sizes of twenty-four (24) inch or smaller. Sixty (60) inch diameter manholes shall be used for twenty-seven (27) to thirty-six (36) inch diameter pipes. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan will be submitted for approval prior to any earth moving construction activities. The application for permit will provide the following: - project description - proposed construction work - sequence of major events - temporary and permanent pollution and erosion control measures - stormwater management - hazardous waste disposal, if any - timing of control measures - maintenance and inspection plan - non-stormwater discharges - record retention - certification of compliance 5 5.0 METHODOLOGY A hydrology model of the Avimor development was built in Innovyse's software infoswmm. The infoswmm model used the NRCS Unit Hydrograph methodology. This methodology uses curve numbers to calculate runoff amounts. The higher the curve number the larger the amount of runoff. Land coverages were assigned from the USGS national landuse coverage and each landuse coverage type was assigned a curve number. Table 5.0 lists the land coverages and the corresponding curve number assigned in the model. Table 5.0 Curve Number Based on Hydrologic Soil Group and Land Coverages* Landuse Type Residential- Low Density Cropland and Pasture Confined Feeding Operations Other Agricultural Land Herbaceous Rangeland Mixed Rangeland Evergreen Forest Land Strip Mines & Quarries and Gravel Pits Transitional Areas * TR-55 Values Soil Type ABCD 57 72 81 86 49 69 79 84 68 79 86 89 59 74 82 86 49 69 79 84 48 67 77 83 45 66 77 83 77 86 91 94 77 86 91 94 The model calculates the percentage of each land coverage type and calculates a composite curve number for each drainage basin. One hundred drainage basins were delineated to calculate the runoff that is discharged into the various existing waterways. Soil data was analyzed to determine what hydrologic soil group to assume for each basin. These basins are described in Appendix A. Rainfall depths used in the model were taken from the Ada County highway drainage manual. The results are show in table 5.1. Table 5.1 Rainfall depths Storm Return Precipitation Interval (inches) 2yr24hr 0.9 25 yr 24 hr 1.9 100 yr 24 hr 2.4 6 The time of concentration for each subcatchment was calculated using the following equation. Tc=10.8(s+1)°.7 1,140Yo.s Tc=Time of Concentration (hr) L=flow length (ft) Y=Average watershed land slope (%) S=Maximum potential retention (in) 1,000 S _ 10 CN CN=The retardance factor 6.0 RESULTS Runoff results from each subcatchment are presented in Appendix B. Figure 6-1 "Existing Conditions Drainage Map" shows the peak runoff flows as well as peak flows at major confluences and are in Appendix C. Culverts for road crossings along HWY 55 were sized according to the 100 year 24 hour runoff flows that were calculated in the infoswmm model. The Federal Highways HY8 program was used to size the culverts. The culvert sizes and flows are reported in table 6.1 and the calculations are located in Appendix D. Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3 "Culvert Size Map" in Appendix C shows the location of the culverts. Table 6.1 Culvert Sizes Culvert Flow Culvert Size Box Culvert Culvert ID (cfs) Culvert Type (in) Size (ftxft) SUB-600 SUB-616 SUB-624 SUB-634 SUB-638 SUB-646 SUB-648 SUB-652 SUB-658 SUB-660 SUB-664 SUB-666 SUB-674 1,129 137 1,005 840 168 21 30 582 20 17 8 15 9 Box Box Box Box Box Circular 24 Circular 24 Box Circular 24 Circular 24 Circular 18 Circular 24 Circular 18 7 6x24 4x6 6x24 6x18 4x6 5x16 Culvert Flow Culvert Size Box Culvert Culvert ID (cfs) Culvert Type (in) Size (ftxft) SUB-678 SUB-680 SUB-688 SUB-692 SUB-698 4 Circular 292 Box 2 Circular 15 18 Circular 24 2 Circular 15 15 4x12 APPENDIX A Drainage Basin Summary Drainage Basin Area (ac) Slope (%) Flow Length (ft) TC (min) SUB-590 SUB-592 SUB-594 SUB-596 SUB-598 SUB-600 SUB-604 SUB-606 SUB-608 SUB-610 SUB-612 SUB-616 SUB-620 SUB-622 SUB-624 SUB-628 SUB-630 SUB-632 SUB-634 SUB-636 SUB-638 SUB-642 SUB-644 SUB-646 SUB-648 SUB-652 SUB-654 SUB-658 SUB-660 SUB-662 SUB-664 SUB-666 SUB-668 SUB-670 SUB-674 SUB-678 SUB-680 SUB-682 SUB-684 SUB-686 SUB-688 SUB-690 SUB-692 SUB-696 1,084.43 1,968.93 720.02 286.55 2,133.96 1,448.95 301.72 278.14 640.60 170.20 1,257.00 318.22 14.47 275.27 188.11 114.90 293.68 479.51 891.48 118.44 811.93 100.03 121.23 199.81 180.59 3,443.39 735.04 58.69 36.07 276.11 11.80 25.36 6.95 451.40 26.89 10.39 79.52 410.38 403.90 80.46 17.02 73.68 64.20 727.54 22.69 12,505.31 23.08 23,070.14 22.76 13,714.96 30.29 7,355.10 20.12 21,472.13 19.57 13,446.72 18.10 8,076.18 16.01 7,202.49 17.42 15,174.16 15.23 6,008.76 28.06 16,697.73 14.97 6,641.48 14.35 1,919.22 20.49 7,101.99 24.29 4,824.44 13.67 3,887.42 15.98 7,639.75 15.07 11,742.40 14.75 13,591.05 16.96 3,786.33 15.80 8,987.53 18.36 4,368.84 15.50 7,251.63 24.34 6,449.10 19.16 5,630.33 28.97 21,570.24 21.33 9,545.36 19.74 3,463.66 19.17 2,497.08 17.99 5,259.39 22.79 1,505.80 22.24 1,922.85 22.85 1,137.43 18.02 10,443.90 14.64 2,943.61 26.98 2,152.92 12.65 4,143.27 29.33 9,103.50 20.99 10,431.47 19.52 4,394.38 28.29 1,952.79 17.92 4,463.22 25.51 3,650.18 28.00 15,051.76 145.85 177.70 137.28 82.56 194.78 119.74 76.43 72.24 141.98 64.92 153.94 79.16 27.48 79.63 47.07 51.74 88.95 114.20 151.53 63.99 89.51 59.03 75.61 63.37 55.11 137.83 69.66 35.69 24.54 54.68 17.05 22.00 14.04 106.23 24.18 21.42 36.85 74.55 126.57 68.11 25.61 36.61 36.25 106.43 40.00 50.85 44.98 40.00 47.69 52.65 55.82 56.86 52.03 56.34 42.64 51.99 55.40 47.70 52.87 53.66 50.53 55.40 49.27 40.50 55.64 46.37 55.91 50.26 56.21 54.28 61.53 57.45 62.46 55.62 57.47 55.59 56.22 51.02 73.04 56.40 70.33 51.04 41.32 40.00 45.39 66.27 53.40 53.79 Drainage Basin Area (ac) Slope (%) Flow Length (ft) TC (min) CN SUB-698 SUB-700 SUB-702 SUB-712 SUB-714 SUB-718 SUB-720 SUB-722 SUB-724 SUB-726 SUB-728 SUB-730 SUB-732 SUB-734 SUB-736 SUB-738 5.37 456.82 547.75 6,118.12 83.80 1,107.11 988.29 2,244.84 699.66 227.04 380.20 549.96 196.18 673.53 109.56 447.59 24.21 1,350.52 33.13 11,555.63 35.51 12,765.24 33.44 29,114.34 33.95 3,753.61 31.35 10,207.31 22.26 8,525.56 29.48 12,493.84 17.87 6,978.71 20.02 5,445.87 22.39 6,566.04 19.26 7,309.23 30.43 4,789.92 23.54 8,343.62 22.52 3,559.05 22.08 28,952.71 16.82 77.17 82.96 182.13 31.98 67.72 60.76 87.87 61.67 42.61 63.29 54.65 38.32 87.68 48.26 220.75 53.36 54.82 53.73 49.91 53.59 57.16 62.50 54.46 59.94 64.41 52.52 64.65 56.33 46.28 43.90 50.33 APPENDIX B Hydrology Drainage Basin Results 25 Year 24 100 Year 25 Year 24 100 Year Drainage Drainage 2 Year 24 Hour 24 Hour 2 Year 24 Hour 24 Hour Basin Basin Hour (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) Hour (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) SUB-590 SUB-592 SUB-594 SUB-596 SUB-598 SUB-600 SUB-604 SUB-606 SUB-608 SUB-610 SUB-612 SUB-616 SUB-620 SUB-622 SUB-624 SUB-628 SUB-630 SUB-632 SUB-634 SUB-636 SUB-638 SUB-642 SUB-644 SUB-646 SUB-648 SUB-652 SUB-654 SUB-658 SUB-660 SUB-662 SUB-664 SUB-666 SUB-668 SUB-670 SUB-674 SUB-678 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.39 0.50 0.02 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.19 2.40 3.12 0.10 0.32 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 1.80 0.01 2.33 57.55 6.46 0.55 32.37 71.90 32.88 36.90 26.02 22.17 6.02 17.55 2.71 5.87 15.88 10.76 11.43 38.36 20.86 0.32 78.27 1.63 13.50 8.04 19.02 203.62 108.96 11.06 12.84 26.52 3.90 5.39 2.12 13.75 12.47 2.11 11.31 SUB-680 143.35 SUB-682 24.78 SUB-684 3.04 SUB-686 95.09 SUB-688 171.55 SUB-690 70.58 SUB-692 76.39 SUB-696 62.79 SUB-698 47.11 SUB-700 25.56 SUB-702 45.00 SUB-712 6.08 SUB-714 20.42 SUB-684 41.06 SUB-686 26.31 SUB-688 31.61 SUB-690 81.71 SUB-692 57.94 SUB-696 1.90 SUB-698 167.63 SUB-700 6.80 SUB-702 28.89 SUB-712 23.71 SUB-714 42.08 SUB-718 448.13 SUB-720 205.93 SUB-722 23.17 SUB-724 22.81 SUB-726 60.17 SUB-728 7.61 SUB-730 11.81 SUB-732 4.28 SUB-734 36.76 SUB-736 19.55 SUB-738 4.52 2.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.39 0.31 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.39 0.31 0.00 0.05 0.65 2.77 0.61 0.91 1.21 0.03 2.92 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.33 19.32 1.37 0.17 0.25 23.32 6.96 45.51 0.91 39.11 40.34 148.66 10.17 1.37 0.17 0.25 23.32 6.96 45.51 0.91 39.11 40.34 148.66 10.17 54.49 92.02 67.34 49.99 31.37 10.10 66.43 12.09 4.30 0.40 4.47 41.57 52.78 6.58 0.97 1.42 39.81 17.75 104.38 2.23 88.00 94.23 387.65 25.66 6.58 0.97 1.42 39.81 17.75 104.38 2.23 88.00 94.23 387.65 25.66 120.51 177.92 160.98 102.51 58.31 27.01 123.23 28.17 17.01 2.25 11.63 APPENDIX C Figures 161 cfs 58.3 cfs 18.9 cfs 123.2 cfs 120.5 cfs 177.9 cfs 141.4 cfs 102.5 cfs 846.4 cfs 1298.8 cfs SUB-712387.6 cfs SUB-652448.1 cfs SUB-722161 cfs SUB-59895.1 cfs SUB-592143.4 cfs SUB-600171.5 cfs SUB-61225.6 cfs SUB-59011.3 cfs SUB-718120.5 cfs SUB-720177.9 cfs SUB-63457.9 cfs SUB-638167.6 cfs SUB-59424.8 cfs SUB-654205.9 cfs SUB-696104.4 cfs SUB-724102.5 cfs SUB-73417 cfs SUB-60862.8 cfs SUB-70294.2 cfs SUB-730123.2 cfs SUB-63281.7 cfs SUB-70088 cfs SUB-67036.8 cfs SUB-73811.6 cfs SUB-68252.8 cfs SUB-6846.6 cfs SUB-72827 cfs SUB-61645 cfs SUB-60470.6 cfs SUB-63031.6 cfs SUB-5963 cfs SUB-60676.4 cfs SUB-66260.2 cfs SUB-62220.4 cfsSUB-72658.3 cfs SUB-64623.7 cfs SUB-73228.2 cfs SUB-62441.1 cfs SUB-64842.1 cfs SUB-61047.1 cfs SUB-6361.9 cfs SUB-7362.2 cfs SUB-64428.9 cfs SUB-62826.3 cfs SUB-6426.8 cfs SUB-71425.7 cfs SUB-6861 cfs SUB-68041.6 cfs SUB-69039.8 cfs SUB-69217.8 cfs SUB-65823.2 cfs SUB-66022.8 cfs SUB-67419.5 cfs SUB-66611.8 cfs SUB-6881.4 cfs SUB-6206.1 cfs SUB-6647.6 cfs SUB-6784.5 cfs SUB-6982.2 cfs 483 cfs 6.8 cfs 15.7 cfs 7.47 cfs 47.1 cfs 4.52 cfs 43.95 cfs 42.08 cfs 70.58 cfs 28.89 cfs 793.4 cfs 850.8 cfs 76.39 cfs 40.77 cfs 391.26 cfs 801.76 cfs 391.42 cfs 490.99 cfs 482.82 cfs 801.56 cfs 391.53 cfs 533.83 cfs 120.15 cfs 137.48 cfs 184.06 cfs 211.78 cfs 136.63 cfs 167.63 cfs 837.58 cfs 181.66 cfs 771.31 cfs 1017.3 cfs 145.06 cfs 591.34 cfs 136.92 cfs 1286.76 cfs 1018.08 cfs 1148.95 cfs 1147.32 cfs 0 4,0002,000 Feet Avimor Hydrol ogy Study ® Legend c Concentr ation Poin ts Sub -B asins Avimor Project Area Stream Centerlin e FL OO DWAY AE, 1 % C hanc e Floo d A, 1% C hanc e Fl oo d 0.2% C ha nce Fl ood Ex isting Conditions Draina ge M ap Figure 6-1 SUB-600 171.E cfs SUB-612 25.1 cfs SUB-624 41.1 cfs SUB-634 58 cfs SUB-658 19.8 cfs SUB-648 30.2 cfs SUB-612 25.1 cfs 419.38 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-674 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 18-Inch I Culvert ID: SUB-646 Culvert Type: Circular LCI Culvert Size: 24-Inch SUB-660 517.cfs Culvert ID: SUB-660 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 24-Inch Culvert ID: SUB-658� Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 24-Inch Culvert ID: SUB-664 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 18-Inch rCulvert ID: SUB-666 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 24-Inch SUB-664 19.81 cfs 7.5 cfs 7.5 cfs 1 1 1 1 9.09 cfs rCulvert ID: SUB-648 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 24-Inch J 1 667.25673 30.22 cfs 35.82 cfs 762.94 cfs 785.86 cfs SUB-690 22.4 cfs SUB-680 17 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-680 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 4'x12' SUB-678 3.6 cfs 291.79 'cfs 413.09 cfs 449.86 cfs 469.63 cfs 732.761cfs 741.51 cfs 763.19 cfs rCulvert ID: SUB-678 Culvert Type: Circular I Culvert Size: 15-Inch 1625.6143 1707.72 1518,73167 391.42 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-698 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 15-Inch SUB-698 2.2 cfs"' 2.23 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-692 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 24-Inch Culvert ID: SUB-688 Culvert Type: Circular Culvert Size: 15-Inch SUB-686 1 cfs 391.06 cfs 391.26 cfs SUB-692 17.8 cfs SUB 682 52.8 cfs 391.39 cfs SUB-684 6.6 cfs SUB-714 25.7 cfs SUB-696 101 cfs SUB-702 94.2 cfs Avimor Hydrology Study Culvert Size Map Figure 6-2 Legend Concentration Points ^�/-^- HWY 55 --• HWY 55 Realignment Proposed Collector Sub -Basins --x\-/- Stream Centerline J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. SUB-712 387.5 cfs Feet 600 1,200 ry GATEWAY MAPPING INC. a J- J-B Company THE LANGDON GROUP a J•UB Company OTHER J-U-B COMPANIES SUB-596 3 cfs SUB-590 11.3 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-600 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 6'x24' 1004.72 cfs SUB-598 95.1 cfs SUB-606 76.4 cfs - SUB 604 70.6 cfs SUB-610 47.1 cfs 76.38 cfs ( SUB-608 62.8 cfs 70.58 cfs 144.58 cfs SUB-620 6.1 cfs SUB-628 26.3 cfs 47.08 cfs SUB-616 45 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-616 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 4'x6' SUB-630 31.6 cfs SUB-624 41.1 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-624 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 6'x24' 20.42 cfs 40.66 cfs 87.06 cfs 136.37 cfs 840.02 cfs' SUB-636 1.9 cfs SUB-642 6.8 cfs 6.81 cfs 136.71 cfs SUB-632 81.8 cfs 761.25 cfs •781.57 cfs SUB-644 ' 28.9 cfs SUB-634 58 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-634 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 6'x18' 167.62 cfs 581.98 cfs 28.89 cfs SUB-646 21.2 cfs SUB-654 123.1 cfs Culvert ID: SUB-638 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 4'x6' Culvert ID: SUB-652 Culvert Type: Box Culvert Size: 5'x16' 291.79 cfs 413.09 cfs SUB-662 42.4 cfs 3.61 cfs w, 281.3 cfs SUB-678 3.6 cfs SUB-698 2.2 cfs 175.19 SUB-692 17.8 cfs SUB-6521 '442.8 cfs Avimor Hydrology Study Culvert Size Map Figure 6-3 Legend Concentration Points ^�/-^- HWY 55 --• HWY 55 Realignment Proposed Collector Sub -Basins --x\-f^ Stream Centerline Feet 0 1,200 2,400 6J.U-B J.U•B ENGINEERS, INC. SUB-700 81.1 cfs SUB-702 94.2 cfs THE LANGDON GROUP a J.U.B Company OTHER J-U-B COMPANIES SUB-712 387.5 cfs GATEWAY MAPPING INC. a J U B Company CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 December 9, 2022 William E. Vaughan, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 RE: Avimor Development Ordinance — Chapter 12 HECO Reference No. EG22-0334.01 Dear Mr. Vaughan: Office of City Engineer HECO Engineers received a revised draft of the Ordinance on November 23, 2022, for the above referenced project. The Subdivision Ordinance of Avimor (Chapter 12) has been reviewed as part of the annexation process and is recommended for approval subject to the following comments. 1. Section 11B-12C-2-3-B contains a typographical error: revise "shoud" to "should." 2. Section 11B-12C-2-5-D: The language is recommended to be modified as follows: "The City Council may waive or modify any of the enumerated standards or requirements of this section for private strccts and when the private street or private alley has been determined to be an integral element..." If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, HECO Engineers By: 417,ad Gii, ISlaefrb Michael W. Davis, PE cc: Morgan Bessaw Brad Pfanmuller — Avimor Development Sarah Martz — Avimor Development HECO ENGINEERS 208-642-3304 info@hecoengineers.com te CITY OF EAGLE 660 E. Civic Lane Eagle, ID 83616 December 9, 2022 William E. Vaughan, AICP Zoning Administrator City of Eagle P.O. Box 1520 Eagle, ID 83616 Office of City Engineer RE: Avimor Development Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards HECO Reference No. EG22-0334.01 Dear Mr. Vaughan: HECO Engineers received a revised draft of the Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards (Grading Standards) on November 21, 2022, for the above referenced project. The Grading Standards have been reviewed as part of the annexation process and is recommended for approval subject to the following comment. 1. As part of the mass grading permit, Avimor Development has proposed that the Grading Standards only require a financial assurance for slope stabilization and revegetation. The City shall determine if the financial assurance shall cover other portions of the work including grading, storm water pollution prevention, temporary piping, etc. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact our office. Sincerely, HECO Engineers By: k. , bae,b Michael W. Davis, PE cc: Morgan Bessaw Brad Pfanmuller — Avimor Development Sarah Martz — Avimor Development HECO ENGINEERS 208-642-3304 info@hecoengineers.com te AVI M OftV GRADING GUIDELINES AND HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOVEMEBER 21, 2022 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION Page 3 GRADING ANDDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Page 3 GENERAL GRADING PRICIPALS AND GUIDELILNES Page 4 SPECIFIC GRADING AND SITING GUIDELINES Page 6 WASHES AND DRAINGAES Page 8 RETAINING WALLS Page 9 OPEN SPACE Page 10 DEVELOPMENT PADS/LOTS Page 10 FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL Page 15 VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL Page 17 VILLAGE CENTER/MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL Page 17 GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL Page 18 2 INTRODUCTION Due to the unique size, intensity, nature and unique conditions of the Avimor property the Ordinance requires thesubmission and approval of "grading guidelines and hillside development standards" prior to development on suchlands in order to establish the appropriate grading techniques and mitigation actions that will help minimize development impacts on existing topography. Once these standards are adopted, they will serve as the guide for preparing and reviewing engineering reports, development proposals, and grading plans for the property. This document replaces the City of Eagle Code on Hillside Subdivisions and establishes a set of principles and specific techniques that will guide grading, improvement design, and site development on hillsides and other areas within the Avimor Development. It also describes the reports and plans that will be required of the developer for review and approval by the City prior to grading. These criteria include and exceed the standards from existing City of Eagle Code and provide more site- specific restrictions and additional grading criteria. Ultimately, they will reduce the impact of development on the land and provide for a harmonious blending of development with landform while establishing clear and measurable standards for the developer and the City to work from. 1. GRADING AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA A. The following site development guidelines deal with issues of siting, grading, excavation, retaining walls, and drainage. Each lot has unique features of topography, slope, views, drainage, vegetation, and access, and it is important that each Owner be sensitive to the natural characteristics of his or her own lot. Given this requirement tobe site -specific, it is important to realize that designs that are suitable for one lot may not be suitable for another lot. The natural landscape is fragile and may take years to naturally mitigate impacts of disturbance; therefore, Avimor has developed these guidelines to provide protection for some of the natural areas. Special attention should be given to the following considerations: i. View orientation ii. Natural vegetation iii. Natural drainage patterns Additionally, grading will vary in scope and intensity depending on location, existing topography and development patterns. Each area will be reviewed for, limited, moderate or standard grading as described below. 3 ROUNDED CUI EDGES CONFORM TO INE EXISTING TERRAIN 2. GENERAL GRADING PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES A. General shapes of landforms in nature are fairly consistent. Ridges erode creating a "U" like form. Valleys anddrainage courses are cut in the land and create a steeper "V" like form. This understanding and incorporation intograding design naturalizes and blends graded areas into existing ground. Mass grading, like detailed grading, should be an artful process. Planning and design should consider both vertical and horizontal movement. Existinglandforms and site characteristics should drive grading concepts and placement of built elements. Landform grading should be used instead of conventional grading whenever possible. i. The basic landforms of the site should be maintained, if possible. Existing landforms may be re- graded as necessary for development so long as the overall site character is retained. ii. Manufactured slopes should resemble natural landforms and blend in with the existing topography. Harsh angular lines should be avoided, where practicable, in favor of slope rounding techniques to create aseamless transition between existing and altered terrain. Exhibit C - Slope Rounding Cut SLOPT EDGE APPEARS UNNATURAL } � II, 'It/ //1'T I// //COry S]t fA4T.2'I•GRAtpIFNi a ,A11F OR ROARDIOGELN CUI NTQ1� E \f f IOS Conventional Grading VARIETY IN UNDULATION AND Ii) GRADIENTS CREATE A NATURA. APPEARANCE AND PLEASING LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT Landform Grading 4 iii. Variation and combination of slopes, i.e. 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1 (50%, 33%, 25%), etc. should be used to create a more natural character, within graded areas, where soil conditions and ability to Iandscapeallow. Large, graded slopes with a constant gradient are discouraged. ExhibitD - Slope Variation 111 7i1' ii, " N I c, N'Al (14,t,N N. N ..„, -N, N, 1 N, 1 1 u i<1, STRAkiH1hETOlH23„...,AHD CONSTANT GRADIENTSAPPEAR ENGINEE�AND —�- % UNhTURAT �I111� Ili_I1 RUUNDED coffro JRi EMULATE EkEsnNG1ERRAN Conventional Grading vARIE r IN UNDULATION AND GRADIENTS CREATE A NATURAL APPEARANCE AND PLEESrNG LANDSCAPE ENVIRONMENT OIL • I r.11 ! ` I i Landform Grading 5 iv. The maximum gradient of any manufactured slope should not exceed 2:1 (50%). Slopes as steep as 1:1(100%) and as high as ten feet without offsets or benches may be permitted under certain circumstances and on a case -by -case basis; where geologic or aesthetic conditions allow or best management practices warrant and is certified by a professional geotechnical engineer in the applicable geotechnical report. v. Grading necessary for roadways, public facilities, drainage improvements, open space recreationalfacilities and their supportive uses should be sensitive to the existing topography. Grading techniquesshould restore these areas to a natural appearing state as much as possible. vi. Significant natural features such as visually sensitive ridgelines should be preserved or reinforced tothe greatest extent possible and incorporated into the development design. vii. Grading on sites next to regional open space and property boundaries adjacent to undeveloped landsshould blend with the characteristics of the existing landforms as much as possible. viii. Grading for agricultural uses such as ranch roads, fire access roads, private pathways and nature trails, and pump houses do not require a grading permit and shall be allowed. 3. SPECIFIC GRADING AND SITING GUIDELINES A. Streets and Roadways i. Street alignments should be designed to relate to natural or manufactured topography. Roads runningperpendicular to existing contours on steeper slopes should be avoided, when possible, as determined by the City and Developer engineer. Exhibit E - Ro.4 Grading IINCULAIWGILIN. OR. n n Fear Rn..OfCAN Conventional Road Grading Landform Road Grading 6 ii. Streets should move creatively on and around ridge forms. Ridgelines and ridge tops should be visibleoccasionally above adjacent roadways. Exhibit F illustrates how roads should integrate into the existingtopography. I-xhibit F - Road Integration PROPOSED ROUNDED '{ `~� CONTOURS EMtU).ATiE -- • THE EXISTING TERRAIN - ~ _- LSHOUW RESTORE THESE AREAS TO A NATURAL APPEARANCE 'STREETS ARE LOCATED ALONG RIDGES S. VALLEYS, iF POSSIBLE TFLAT AREA CREATED AT INTERSECTIONS PROPOSED ROADWAY CONTOURS FOLLOW EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY TOMINfmr2EDISPUR ANCE B. All grading within roadway prisms shall be built to the local highway departments standards unless alternatestreet standards are approved by the City. Variations from dimensional standards, alternative cross sections, alternative intersection spacing, multi -tiered divided streets with sloping medians, reduced radius criteria, and increased street gradients, and other alternative designs may be used to preserve existing topography and minimize impacts of grading if approved by the local highway department, the city, and the applicable emergency service districts. C. The width of the graded section shall extend three feet (3') beyond the back of curb or edge of pavement on both the cut and fill sides of the roadway to provide an adequate shoulder for health and safety. If a sidewalk is attached to the curb, the graded section shall be increased by the width of the sidewalk plus one foot (1') beyondthe back of curb. Detached sidewalks may be grade- separated from curbs so long as a three-foot (3') shoulder ismaintained, otherwise, approval from the City Engineer will be required. 7 D.AII asphalt roads shall include an edge treatment such as, but not limited to, vertical curb, modified verticalcurb, rolled curb or ribbon curb or compacted gravel shoulder. 4. WASHES AND DRAINAGES A. Natural and constructed drainage channels occur frequently throughout Avimor and should not be obstructed. These channels may present themselves as obvious incised channels or constructed drainage ways. Additionally, less obvious natural drainage ways exist, and they may flow water only during the Spring or intermittently in years of heavy precipitation. All structures and improvements should be properly set back from natural and constructed drainage ways. Provisions for drainage away from structures and improvements shall be incorporated into all site designs. Improvements within a drainage way should be designed and constructed to convey the 1 % annual chance flow event. Such cases may be subject to review and approval by the City. i. Site Drainage in Rural Residential areas only: The lot Owner is responsible for developing and presenting a grading and drainage plan, if it is amended from the originally approved grading and drainage plan that has been approved by City. Site drainage and grading must be done with minimum disruption to the lot. Structures, roads, driveways and any other Improvement should be designed to fit the existing contours of the site, thereby minimizing excavation and avoiding alterations. Surface drainage shall not flow to adjacent lots or open spaces except as historically established by natural drainage patterns. In other words, no change in natural or existing drainage patterns for surface waters shall be made upon any lot that could adversely affect another lot or adjacent property. Additionally, surface drainage should not cause or contribute to off -site soil erosion. Designs should carefully evaluate the erosion potential and safety of the site drainage based upon the percentage and direction of slope, soil type, and vegetation cover. When a change in the natural drainage within a given lot is absolutely necessary, avoid right angle diversions and create positive drainage in a logical and natural manner. Minimize soil erosion in disturbedareas through the use of native rock and plant materials. Any changes in drainage shall require contour grading and mature landscape to return the drainage to a natural looking appearance. If rip rap or other rock -type erosion control is proposed for significant drainages, it should be naturally contoured. This method may provide the necessary engineered erosion control and create a more natural looking drainage area. In cases of rip rap or other rock- type erosion control for minor surface drainage, the rip rap should be hand -placed with flat faces placed to create a surface plane. Spaces or voids between rocks should be provided to accommodate small plants and shrubs. 8 ii. Grading should not be done outside the Building Envelope unless such grading is proven to be the only means ofproviding necessary flood protection. Properly engineered piping and physical barriers are considered available means of flood protection. 5. RETAINING WALLLS A. Retaining walls shall include any wall that retain or hold back earth more than four feet (4') in depth. If the wall must be broken into multiple walls, they must be set apart by a minimum of one (1') foot horizontally for every one (1') foot vertically. Materials used to build the retaining wall is subject to review and approval by the Avimor Design Review Committee. The material must be complementary to the style of the home and other improvements on the lot. Open railings up to an additional four -foot (4') height may be allowed on top of a maximum six foot (6') tall retaining wall, subject to approval by the Avimor Design Review Committee and the City Design Review, where applicable. The design of these walls must be in compliance with Chapter 3 of Title 11 B. B. Avimor encourages methods to soften the appearance of retaining walls. Such methods are landscaping with mature trees or large shrub and/or utilizing a different texture and/or material such as stone for a portion of the wall. 9 6. OPEN SPACE A. Restricted grading operations are planned for regional open space east of highway 55. Grading will be mainly limited to roadways, trails and public facilities related to any park improvements or trailheads to preserve existing habitat and open space values. Restricted grading operations will complywith the following criteria: i. Grading necessary for roadways, trails, public facilities, drainage improvements, open space, recreational amenities, and their supportive uses is permitted. Grading will be minimized and sensitive to the existing topography and landscape. Areas disturbed by grading will be restored to a natural appearing state as much as possible. ii. Grading associated with habitat restoration and enhancement is permitted. iii. Retaining walls may be used to limit grading. 7. DEVELOPMENT PADS/LOTS A. Lot lines shall be set at the top of a slope unless the down slope is a common lot in which case the lot line may be set at the bottom or along the slope when a drainage easement is in place on the down slopecommon lot. B. When set at the top of a slope, property lines should generally be set back a minimum of two feet (2') from the rounded hinge point at the top of any manufactured slope unless grade- adaptivedesign techniques are incorporated. See Exhibit G for an illustration of this concept. Exhibit G - Lot Line at Top of Slope TYP. HINGE POJNT ,. PAD 10 C. Sloping Site -Terraced Floor Levels - In cases where the building envelope slopes generally in one direction and the residence and improvements are on multiple floor levels that step down or up with theterrain, the cut and fill conditions shall generally be as shown below: II 2 HOUR F.F. E? I5TING 6RAI7E STrNi 1+401-1- FF. J+ ALL ,JR5 D. Sloping Site - Single Floor Level - In cases where the building envelope slopes generally in one direction and the residence and improvements are primarily on a single floor level, the cut and fill conditions shall generally be as shown below: GIJT� HOUSE 4\ --- . --- - . -F.F, - _- EXISTING GRADEY RETAINING YtiALL 11 E. Low Center - Terraced Floor Levels - In cases where the building envelope is generally located in the low area of a lot, in a low minor drainage, or in other similar depressed areas, and the residence and improvements are on multiple floor levels that step with the terrain, the cut and fill conditions shall generally be as shown below: CUT F.F. HOUSE RETAINING WALL � ---- - EXISTING GRADE STEM WALL F. Low Center - Single Floor Level - In cases where the building envelope is generally located in the low area of the lot, in a low minor drainage, or in other similar depressed areas and the residence and improvements are primarily on a single floor level, the cut and fill conditions shall generally be as shown below: HOUSE F.F. F.F - �—FILL' - "' GUR3 RETAINING WALL `EXI�aTI1vG GRACE G. Cut and fill Slopes may not remain exposed following completion of construction. Cut slopes may be re -graded and naturally contoured to match existing terrain if all grading is contained within the building envelope and if, in the opinion of the Avimor Design Review Committee, the re -graded slope will have a natural appearance upon completion. As shown below: 12 N HOUSE F.F. = LL SLOPE TO BE 1 R£VE5ETATEI7 AND EXIST INS GRADE REGONTOUREa FILL 51-OPE TO BE REVE6ETATED AND SEGONTOURE2 GUss H. Structures shall be set back a minimum of five feet (5') from any property line adjacent to a slope or as set forth in section 1805.3 of the International Building Code, whichever is greater. Alternate setbacks are permitted as determined by the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer in an approved soils report and with approval of the City Engineer. The designated building envelopes may dictate greater setbacks than the minimum standards required by Title 11 B. Any submitted design must comply with the building envelope indicated unless the Avimor Design Review Committee and the City has approved a modification or variance. For an illustration of this concept, see Exhibit I. The IBC states that the setback of a structure at the top of a slope should be at least H/3, where H=the height of the slope, and the setback at the toe of the slope should be H/2. In the example shown below the height of the slope is thirty feet (H=30'), thus, the setback at the top of the slope is ten feet (H/3) and the setback at the bottom of the slope is fifteen feet (H/2). exilihlt 1 - minimum Slope 5elback Example I. Lot design should provide a pad with contoured transitional edges that blend into existing topography Exhibits J, K and L show examples of landform grading for lots with flat pads, grade adaptive pads, and a building envelope 13 Exhibit K - Flat Pad Design Ye PROPOSED ROUNDED CONTOURS EMULATE THE EXISTING TERRAIN SITE WALLS IF NEEDED '-0 2:1 MAXIMUM SIDE YARD SLOPES Exhibit J — Building Envelope Example NATURAL AREA TRANSISTION AREA BUILDING ENVELOPE UNE ROPERTY LINE V I I L `=yam EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY FLAT BUILDING PAD WITH EDGES THAT TRANSITION INTO EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY 14 Exhibit L - Grade Adaptive Pad Design PROPOSED POUNDED GONsO RS EMUN1E — FTHE E SIE•H 1 KO+ SCE WALLS IF NEEDED - • 21 MA%fMUM SIDE TARO. SLOPES EKISTING TOPOGRApyr SITE PM FAXES lJP GRADE THROUGH THE S1RUCft/REhHG PRESHrvEs AND.&LIBNO$ THE HOME RJTO EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY The following land use designations will be designed with additional grading principles to ensure to retain the unique nature of this development. 8. FOOTHILLS RESIDENTIAL A. Grading necessary for roadways, trails, public facilities, drainage improvements,open space, recreational amenities and their supportive uses is permitted. Grading will be minimized and sensitive to the existing topography and landscape. Areas disturbed by grading will be restored to a natural appearing state as much as possible. B. The Building Envelope is the portion of each lot within which the residence must be constructed, and the area outside the building envelope must remain undisturbed and in a natural state. A building envelope will be identified for each Lot based on the natural features of the lot, views, relationship to building envelopes on adjacent lots, drainage, and topography. Modifications to building envelopes are discouraged, although modifications may be allowed upon an owner's application to the Avimor Design Review Committee and theCity. The Avimor Design Review Committee may, in their sole discretion, approve modifications of the building envelope when considerations such as views, privacy, and the overall character of the development justify the modification. Actual increases in the size of a building envelope are discouraged and may only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. C. Rural Residential is limited grading operations are planned for neighborhoods, many of which may be comprised of custom lots, on which limits of development will be defined by building envelopes and building pad elevations. Homes will generally, be located along flat to moderate slopes while steeper, non -graded slopes will remain as open space. i. Grading associated with public utilities, lakes, storage ponds, and detention basins are allowed. Grading associated with agricultural uses is also allowed, this may include hillside terraced grading for vineyards. 15 See Exhibit M for examples of a building envelope within Rural Residential Areas Exhibit M — Rural Residential JNDISTURBED AREA GRADED AREA LOT LINE 9. VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENVELOPE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE A. Moderate grading operations will generally occur on gentle to steep slopes that will undergo a moderate amount of landform alteration to accommodate development. Homes will be clustered and located on flat areasmoderate slopes, and ridge tops with many steeper, nongraded slopes left as open space B. Grading operations will comply with the following criteria: i. All grading criteria associated with limited grading operations will apply. ii. Grading associated with all land uses is allowed. iii. Some existing landforms will be modified and re -contoured, but the overall effect will be to emulatethe general character of the planning area. iv. Retaining walls may be used to minimize grading. 10. VILLAGE CENTER/MIXED USE/ COMMERCIAL A. These areas are planned to undergo grading and may include; community center sites with retail, office and business park uses as well as potential residential lots. The following grading operations will comply with the following criteria: 16 i. There shall be no restricted grading associated with all land uses. ii. Retaining walls may be used to minimize grading. iii. Section 11 shall apply. 11.GRADING PLAN REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, and APPROVAL A. This section 11, Reports and Plans, shall apply to all slopes over 10% grade. B. A grading plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to grading on the site. This plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer in the State of Idaho and shall include: C. Engineering Reports i. The following reports and plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval with or prior to the grading plan and approval prior to commencing any grading activities: ii. The developer shall retain a professional engineer(s) to provide the following information 1. Geotechnical Report For any proposed hillside development, a soils engineering report shall be submitted with the grading plan or preliminary plat, whichever comes first. This report shall include data regarding the nature, distribution and strength of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures and requirements for cut and fill slopes, slope stability analysis, design criteria for corrective measures and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. If areas are found to have soils hazards, the soils report shall make a recommendation to mitigate those hazards. If no mitigation is recommended, that area should be deemed unbuildable. The report will also contain a recommendation that a geotechnical engineer shall review the grading plans, with reference to the specific plans being reviewed and certification that the cut and fill slopes shown on the plans are stable, and to minimize any conflicts between the plans and recommendations presented in the report. A geotechnical engineer shall conduct periodic inspections, or as recommended in the geotechnical report, during and after construction in order to verify actual conditions and substantiate initial recommendations. The final graded conditions shall then be certified by a professional engineer. If conditions during construction are found to be substantially different from those stated in the report, the geotechnical engineer shall provide a summary of findings to the City along with appropriate remediation measures and timing of such measures. 2. Geology Report For any proposed hillside development, a geology report shall be submitted with the grading plan or preliminary plat, whichever comes first. This report shall include an adequate description of site geology and an evaluation of the relationship between the proposed development and the underlying geology 17 and recommendations for remedial measures. If areas are found to have geologic hazards, the geology report shall make a recommendation to mitigate those hazards. If no mitigation is recommended, that area should be deemed unbuildable. The report will also contain a recommendation that a geotechnical engineer will review the final grading plan in order to minimize any conflicts between the plans and recommendations presented in the report. A geotechnical professional shall conduct periodic inspections, or as recommended in the geotechnical report, during and after construction in order to verify actual conditions and substantiate initial recommendations. The final graded conditions shall then be certified by a professional engineer. If conditions during construction are found to be substantially different from those stated in the report, the project engineer shall provide a summary of findings to the City along with appropriate remediation measures and timing of such measures. 3. Drainage Report For any proposed hillside development, a hydrology report shall be submitted with the grading plan or preliminary plat, whichever comes first. This report shall include an adequate description of the hydrology, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of hydrologic conditions on the proposed development, and opinions and recommendations covering the adequacy of sites to be developed. If areas are found to have hydrology hazards, the hydrology report shall make a recommendation to mitigate those hazards. If no mitigation is recommended, that area should be deemed unbuildable. 4. Grading Plans Mass Grading Plan A. The purpose of the mass grading plan is to allow mass grading to occur prior to preparation of detailed plans and submittal of a preliminary plat. Due to the topography of the site and scale of the project, there will be significant grading operations that involve moving large volumes of material. Although these plans are generated with the best soil and design information available, there can be many factors during grading operations that can significantly alter the final grades. This initial step allows for adjustments such as earthwork balancing, pad grade refinements and retaining wall locations, to the final plans without significant redesign after detailed plan approvals. i. A mass grading plan may be submitted and approved prior to submittal of a preliminary plat and shall include the following information: ii. Contour lines, shown at five-foot (5') intervals where land slope is greater than ten percent (10%), referenced to an established benchmark, including location and elevation. iii. Proposed elevations and contours to be achieved by the grading, identification of cut and fill slopes and overall earthwork quantities. iv. Approximate locations of all roads, surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, sediment basins, storage reservoirs and other pertinent structures to be constructed if sufficient detail is available at the time of submittal. v. Approximate grading of lots intended to be further subdivided, otherwise known as superpads. 18 vi. An erosion and sediment control plan which meets the minimum requirements of the State and Federal Permit. vii. A slope stabilization and revegetation plan to be approved by City viii. Phasing and estimated timing of each construction phase, if applicable. 5. Mass Grading Permit A. A mass grading permit is an approval given by the City of Eagle of the mass grading plan application and shall serve as consent to begin mass grading. A mass grading permit shall be in the form of a letter. The following criteria shall apply to the mass grading permit: i. A mass grading permit is required prior to any on -or off -site grading activity associated with the development prior to preliminary plat, except for uses called out in section 2 in this report. ii. Mass grading permits shall be issued by City staff only after the City Engineer has approved a mass grading plan. iii. There are no size or quantity restrictions that would limit the applicability of a mass grading permit, however, the City will have the right to limit development based on compliance with the phasing and estimated timing described in the mass grading plan application. iv. No plat or improvement plan approvals are necessary prior to issuance of Mass Grading permit. v. An approved mass grading plan application or a finished mass grading operation does not constitute and is independent of plat approval and improvement plan approvals. vi. Mass grading permit will include a requirement that inspection by the PE for compliance with plans take place at the time of completion and a letter be submitted to the City of Eagle confirming that improvements were constructed in substantial conformance with approved plans. vii. After receipt of a confirmation letter from the professional engineer and if necessary, an additional inspection by the City, the City will then issue a letter of compliance stating that the grading work has been completed in substantial conformance with approved plan. B. Wasting of excess material on open spaces and common areas, as identified on the final plan, and the associated grading shall not be considered a substantial modification requiring a resubmittal of the grading plans provided that the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical report are followed and there are no significant modifications to the cut and fill slopes as determined by the geotechnical engineer. These modifications shall be shown on the record drawings and certified by the project engineer. 19 C. In the event that the City determines that the developer is in violation of the provisions of the mass grading permit, or the improvements shown in the grading plan, including but not limited to: grading beyond a permitted phase, expiration of the financial assurances, grading outside of the limits of permitted construction, or is in violation of the provisions of its state or federal permit relating to the grading operation, the City shall notify the developer in writing of the specific violations. The City and the developer shall meet as soon as practicable after the notice of violation is given to the developer to discuss a remedy and to determine a timeline within which to effectuate such a remedy. In the event the noticed violation cannot reasonably be remediated within ten (10) business days, and is an imminent threat to public health and safety, or as otherwise required by state law, the City may: (i) suspend grading activities until such time as a written agreement for remediation is reached with the developer or a new grading plan and permit are approved, and/or (ii) notify the state or federal agencies that have issued a permit related to such grading activity of such violations. Upon reaching an agreement on the correction of the violation with the City, or obtaining approval from the applicable state and federal agencies if required, the developer may resume grading activities. D. If the City believes that the developer is in violation of its permit(s) related to the grading operation or its grading plan for a portion of the work, or a substantial modification to approved plans is necessary for that portion of work, grading operations may continue on the remainder of the work so long as such operations are still in compliance with the approved grading plan and permit(s), unless the City determines continued grading may jeopardize public health and safety i.e. slope instability. E. A violation of an approved grading permit/plan will not have an effect on other existing grading permits/plans being conducted by the developer in violation. Violations of an approved grading permit/plan will not have an effect on existing or future grading permit/plans of other developers operating within Avimor Development. F. Prior to beginning of mass grading operations, the developer shall provide an infrastructure assurance, i.e. a bond or a letter of credit for one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the engineers estimate of the approved slope stabilization and revegetation plan, the property will be stabilized in the event that the work is unable to be completed. G. The developer shall deliver a confirmation letter from the project engineer stating that all construction is complete. The City may conduct an additional inspection to verify the project engineer's findings. The developer shall also submit record drawings of the mass grading plans to the City that comply with the standards listed below. Record drawings shall be submitted within two (2) weeks of the submittal of the confirmation letter. After review of the confirmation letter and record drawings by the City, the City Engineer shall issue a letter describing whether the grading work is substantially complete in accordance with the approved plan(s) and the balance of the slope stabilization and revegetation monetary assurance shall be released. H. The record drawings package, certified by the project engineer, should consist of the following items: a copy of the inspection logs, a copy of the digital photographs, three (3) copies of readable record drawings in hard copy, one digital copy in AutoCAD format and one digital copy in pdf format, and all test results certified by the testing company. 6. Final Grading Plan 20 A. A final grading plan shall be submitted after submittal of a preliminary plat and prior to or concurrently with improvement plans. A mass grading plan is not required prior to final grading plan approval. A final grading plan shall contain the following information: i. Limiting dimensions, residential and commercial building lot pad elevations (if applicable), proposed street and slope grades, retaining wall details and cross sections, finished contours for open space areas, pathways, etc, if applicable. ii. Detailed plans and locations of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, including walls, dams, sediment basins, storage reservoirs and other protective devices to be constructed. iii. Phasing, if applicable, and a schedule showing when each phase of the work will be completed, including a plan that indicates areas to be disturbed during each stage together with estimated starting and completion dates. In no event shall the existing natural vegetative ground cover be destroyed, removed or disturbed more than fifteen (15) days prior to grading iv. An erosion and sediment control plan which meets the minimum requirements of State and Federal Permit. v. A slope stabilization and re -vegetation plan. 7. Final Grading Permit A. A final grading permit is an approval of the final grading plan application by the City and serves as consent to begin final grading. A final grading permit shall be in the form of a letter. Final grading operations are subject to the following criteria: i. A grading permit is required prior to any on or off -site grading activity associated with development of the property except for exception called out in Section 2 A viii of this plan. ii. A final grading permit may be issued any time after preliminary plat submittal. iii. A final grading plan approval is required prior to recordation of a final plat for individual buildable lots regardless of whether a mass grading plan has been approved. A final grading plan approval is not required prior to recordation of a final plat for a lot or parcel that is intended to be further subdivided. iv. Final grading plan approval is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. v. If a substantial modification to approved plans is necessary the plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Grading operations may continue on the remainder of the work so long as such operations are in compliance with the approved grading plan and permit, unless the City determines continued grading operations may jeopardize public health and safety or otherwise violates existing state law. vi. A final grading permit shall include a requirement that the project engineer inspect the completed work for compliance with the final grading plan and submit a confirmation letter to the City stating that all construction is complete. The City may conduct an additional inspection to verify the project engineer's findings. The developer shall also submit record drawings of the final grading plans to 21 the City. Record Drawings of grading plans shall be submitted to the City within two (2) weeks of the submittal of the letter of compliance. vii. The record drawings package, certified by the project engineer, should consist of the following items: a copy of the inspection log, a copy of the digital photographs, three (3) copies of readable record drawings in hard copy, one digital copy in AutoCAD format and one digital copy in pdf format, and all test results certified by the testing company. 8. Grading Plan Review Process A. Developer shall file with the city zoning administrator an application and grading plan for review that includes the following: i. A written application requesting the approval of the grading plan. ii. Three (3) copies of the grading plan drawn in accordance with the requirements herein. Each copy of the grading plan shall be on good quality paper, shall have the dimensions of not less than twenty-four inches by thirty-six inches (24" x 36"), shall be drawn to a scale of not less than one inch to one hundred feet (1" = 100'), shall show the drafting date, and shall indicate thereon, by arrow, the generally northerly direction. iii. An electronic copy (pdf) of the grading plan. B The administrator shall notify the developer within thirty (30) days after initial review from the date of receipt of the application as to the general conformance of the grading plan to these standards and if necessary, supply comments describing any concerns and desired modifications. C. In the event that comments are provided by the administrator, upon request by the City or developer, a meeting with the city, city engineer, and developer will be held within fourteen (14) days in order to discuss comments and possible modifications. D. Developer agrees to resubmit an updated grading plan within sixty (60) days after the receipt of comments or the comment review meeting, whichever comes later. E. Timing of subsequent submittals and reviews shall follow the timing outlined above or as otherwise agreed to by both the City and the developer. F. Upon approval, the city will send a letter of approval that will serve as the grading permit. 22