Loading...
Chapter 3/Feasibility StudyKalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 CHAPTER THREE - FEASIBILITY STUDY The purpose of this chapter is to address the items and issues that have been raised by the FAA and the City of Kalispell regarding the feasibility of leaving the airport at the current location and provide discussion and data related to the issues. The following discussion includes: the through the fence issue, AM towers study, airspace issues, land acquisition and estimated costs of improving the existing site and compare that to the costs of a new generic airport location, and also a discussion of potential environmental issues. THROUGH THE FENCE OPERATIONS A "through the fence" operator" is anyone who is permitted access to the public landing area from adjacent property not owned by the airport. At Kalispell City Airport there are twenty adjacent landowners who could operate "through the fence", and six who presently do operate "through the fence" including two fixed base operators (FBO). The Federal Aviation Administration discourages airport owners from permitting these types of relationships for the reasons stated below: Rights and Duties of Airport Owner. The obligations to make an airport available the use and benefit of the public does not impose any requirement to permit access by aircraft from adjacent property. The existence of such an arrangement could place and encumbrance upon the airport property unless the airport owner retains the legal right to and in fact does, require the off -site property owner or occupant to conform in all respects to the requirements of any existing or proposed grant agreement. 2. Practical Considerations. The owner of an airport is entitled to seek recovery of initial and continuing costs of providing a public use landing area. The development of an aeronautical enterprises on land uncontrolled by the owner of the public airport can result in a competitive advantage for the "through the fence" operator to the detriment of on airport operators. To equalize this imbalance the airport should obtain from any off -base enterprise a fair return for its use of the landing area. Safety Considerations. Arrangements that permit aircraft to gain access to a public landing area from off -site properties complicate the control of vehicular and aircraft traffic. Special safety operational requirements may need to be incorporated in the "through the fence" agreement. 4. Agency Position. As a general principle, the FAA will recommend that airport owners refrain from entering into any agreement which grants access to the public landing area by aircraft normally stored and serviced on adjacent property. Exceptions can be granted on a case -by -case basis where operating restrictions ensure safety and equitable compensation for use of the airport. Examples include: 18 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 A. Where a bonafide airport tenant has already leased a site from the airport owner and has negotiated airfield use privileges, but also desires to move aircraft to and from a hangar or manufacturing plant adjacent, off -airport property. In this case actual access will be gained through the area provided by the airport owner. B. Where an individual or corporation, actually residing or doing business on an adjacent tract of land, proposes to gain access to the landing area solely for aircraft use incidental to such residence or business without offering any aeronautical services to the public. This situation is commonly encountered where an industrial airpark is developed in conjunction with the airport. 5. Determinations. The existence of arrangements granting access to a public landing area from off -site locations contrary to FAA recommendations shall be reported to regional Airports divisions with a full statement ofthe circumstances. If the regional Airports division determines that the existence of such an agreement circumvents the attainment ofthe public benefit for which the airport was developed, the owner ofthe airport will be notified that the airport may be in violation of its agreement with the Government. If the airport sponsor, in this case the City of Kalispell, intends to pursue FAA participation in the future development of Kalispell City Airport, all existing "through the fence" agreements must be reviewed to ensure that they meet the standards outlined above. If no formal agreements exists with adjacent landowners for use of the airfield, then access should be restricted until such agreements (which must be acceptable to the FAA) can be made. Table 1 shows the Iandowners adjacent with known or suspected "through the fence" relationships with Kalispell City Airport. An inventory of based aircraft and airport operations is included in the Forecasts section of this report. AM TOWERS EVALUATION The Feasibility Study must include a study of the KGEZ towers and their impact on the existing site and future development. Issues to be addressed relative to the towers' location include modifying the towers as may be compared to reorienting or relocating the runway. Alternatives affecting the towers' location will be identified and developed in the close consultation with KGEZ radio station. The evaluation of tower alternatives will incorporate the following: Identification of requirements to meet Federal Communications Commission rules for coverage of the area. WE Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Table 1 Actual and Potential Through -the -Fence Operators Tract Operator` Actual Tract Operator Actual 1D Red Eagle Aviation Yes 3AB Diamond Aire Yes 2D Sydney Torgerson Yes 2+ Robert Monk 2E Michael Barrett Yes 2M Jerry and Karen Slack 2G Ron Trippett 2ACA, 2K Wiggen & Torgerson, Partners 2AC Don Torgerson 2AD Robert & Ladonna Monk, et aI 2C Don and Juanita Brevik 7C Robert Monk 7CB Unkown 7CD Don and Juanita Brevik 7CEB Don & Victoria Burton Yes 7CF Don & Victoria Burton Yes 6D Doug and Julie Wise 5BB Doug and Julie Wise Qretana 1 Unknown Oretana 2 Big R Ranch and Home supply • Lowering the towers. The option of lowering the height of the towers will be investigated. • Relocation of the towers. The tower site requires sufficient area to accommodate the ground system which could be approximately 15 acres or more. The location and orientation of the site is important in meeting coverage requirements. The general location and land area requirements are to be identified. • Share a site with the other towers in the area. • Benefits to KGEZ operation will be explored with the station owners to determine if there are any potential benefits to the station which may be considered as part of any modification to their operation resulting from the proposed airport improvements. Vir James P.C. Broadcast Engineer Consultants was consulted in May 1998, to analyze the alternatives listed above. The full report is include in Appendix A. 20 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Vir James, after their visit to the site, considered three possible solutions: 1) reconfiguring the existing antenna array, from two 300'+ standard towers to eight 100' "Par&' towers; 2) relocating the existing radio operation to another site (this would entail keeping the existing facility in operation during this relocation); 3) using another radio station's towers to broadcast. The costs associated with each of these alternatives are summarized in Table 1 below. Of the three options, reconfiguring the antenna array is the preferred alternative because: 1) it removes the obstruction from the approach surface and the penetration from the horizontal surface; 2) it preserves the radio stations broadcast footprint; 3) it has the least impact on the operations of the radio station; 4) it is the apparent least cost alternative. This alternative has one significant drawback: it has never been done before. Vir James, in their report, states that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has indicated that they would license any tower that could be proven to work. They further state that the FCC permit application will require a full derivation of antenna characteristics. Vir James estimates that the costs associated with this alternative may be as high as $290,000, including engineering costs the sum would be approximately $400,000. Relocating the antennas outside the FAR Part 77 approach surface is the second alternative because: 1) it removes the antennas from the approach surface; 2) it may preserve the radio stations broadcast footprint; 3) licensing and construction are likely to be far easier than with alternative one. The aspects that make it less desirable than reconfiguring the antenna array are: 1) while the antennas would be out of the approach surface, it would still penetrate the FAR Part 77 Horizontal Surface, adversely impacting approach minimums; 2) the cost of land acquisition is very high, since the land required has similar features to the present site, to include reasonably level ground (tower bases must be within 10' elevation), have three-phase power available, have a lot shape which is conducive a tower configuration shown in Exhibit E-7, and be located within the allowable site area as illustrated in Exhibit E-6B in Appendix A; 3) it would require construction of a new radio broadcast facility to completion before reduction of the existing facility. Vir James estimates that the cost of this alternative could be as high as $245,000 plus the cost of land acquisition of ±34.35 acres, and the construction or purchase of a suitable building. 21 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Table 1- Tower Cost Summary J PARAN STYLE RELOCATION _ SITE 8 x 100,ft:Tawers, _ 2 x 320 ft Towers ; BETAKING 5kw Transmitter $42,000 $42,000 No cost computed Antenna Phasing System $35,000 $24,000 No cost computed Towers with lighting $120,000 $86,000 $43,000.00 (installed) (installed) Buried Radial Ground System with $23,000 $23,000 No cost Installation Approx 98,000 ft of computed Wire Control, Lighting, RF & $45,000 $45,000 No cost Monitoring Cables Comparable to computed Match Present Layout RF Monitoring & Audio Processing $25,000 $25,000 No cost Equipment computed Land Acquisition (34.35 acres) -0- $2,992,572.00 -0- TOTAL COST $290,000.00 $3,237,572.00 *$58,000- $143,000 *The diplexing equipment costs alone might vary from $15,000 for the simplest low power station as the host to over $I00,000 for a higher power multitower host station. Sharing the broadcast towers with another radio station is theoretically possible; howeverthe requirements to match the existing broadcast footprint exactly make this option the least practical of the three. Advantages of site sharing are: 1) it may remove the towers from the approach surface; 2) it reduces the required investment in real estate and hardware. The disadvantages are: 1) requires a host radio station, located in an acceptable location to provide the same broadcast footprint, who is willing to rent to a competing radio station; 2) towers needs to be the same height (320') thus it would still have the potential adverse impact on approach minimums; 3) the host towers must meet the same siting requirements as outlined above. Vir James estimated the costs associated with this option were between $15, 000 and $100,000 for j ust the equipment, this estimate did not include the cost of getting the signal from the station to the tower, nor the rent/lease/access fee Iikely to be charged by the owner of a shared tower. 22 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 AIRSPACE ANALYSIS In addition to the issues of marking and lighting the towers as an acceptable alternative to relocation of the towers, and analysis will be made of the effect of the towers on landing or takeoff minimums should non -precision instrument approaches (NDB/GPS) be a future consideration. Marking and lighting of the towers is not an acceptable alternative to lowering or removing the obstruction from the runway approach surface if federal funds are to be used for airport development. Any potential conflict with Glacier Park International Airport instrument procedures will also be evaluated. The Kalispell City Airport (KCA) is 9 nautical miles south west of Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA) and is within the 700 foot floor, Class E airspace of GPIA. KCA lies just outside the extended Class E designation and approximately 2.5 nautical miles from the precision approach of Runway 2 at GPIA, and 6.2 miles west of the Kalispell VOR-DME. KCA lies virtually underneath Victor 448 and just north of Victor 536. It appears that an approach from the north and a departure to the north from KCA could have a potential conflict with an aircraft on precision approach to GPIA, although there would probably be a significant amount of elevation difference since the approaching aircraft to GPIA would be approximately at elevation 6000' MSL and an approaching aircraft to KCA would be approximately at 4000' MSL. This situation has been this way since the inception of the approach to GPIA and is apparently working satisfactorily. However, currently, during IFR conditions, pilots will utilize the ILS approach to GPIA to clear minimums, then exit the approach when Kalispell City Airport is visible. As a possibility, this approach could be developed into an approach plate and could provide a good approach and if the AM towers were lowered, there could be favorable missed approach conditions also. Other factors influencing the airspace in the vicinity of KCA are structures and ground identified by FAR Part 77 as obstructions. There are two radio towers just east of extended runway centerline approximately 3200 feet down wind of Runway 31 threshold. The towers penetrate the existing and proposed visual approach surface of 20:1 approximately 108 feet and 173 feet. The towers would penetrate the ultimate approach of 34:1 approximately 225 feet and 290 feet. These towers and proposed depositions, are the subject of further discussion within this study. Ground obstructions exist approximately 6000 feet to the west of the airport and rise about 850 - 900 feet above the airport elevation. These ground obstructions penetrate the Horizontal surface about 700 feet and the Transitional surface to a lesser amount. 23 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 The ultimate approach to the Kalispell City Airport would be a straight -in approach utilizing GPS navigation or the Kalispell VOR-DME, which would require a 34:1 approach surface for both runway approaches. The need for the 34:1 would be left to the City of Kalispell, as to when these approaches would be applied for. However, the planning study investigates the potential of obtaining this type of approach. A full TERPS analysis would need to be conducted by the FAA to identify the potential approach minimums. However, the best guess for approach minimums possible for this airport, under the ultimate scenario, would be approximately 600 foot ceiling with 1 mile visibility. However, this could be discounted due to the ground obstructions to the west, potential conflict with GPIA approaches, and would also assume the radio towers on the 31 approach were either lowered or relocated. LAND ACQUISITION Land acquisition costs associated with both the expansion of the existing facility to B-II standards and the acquisition of a "generic B-II Airport" in the vicinity of Kalispell will be estimated. The fair market value of properties evaluated will be established using comparable sales information, zoning or tax valuation. In February 1997, Dave Gabbert, Manger of the Helena Airports District Office of the Federal Aviation Administration indicated that future FAA participation in development at Kalispell City Airport depended on acquisition of enough land to protect B-II dimensions in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (PI 91-646, as amended); henceforward, referred to as the Uniform Act. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5100-17 Land Acquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects provides guidance to sponsors of airport projects developed under airport improvement program (AIP) to meet the requirements of the Uniform Act and the Regulations of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 49 CFR Part 24. Figure 1(which is reproduced from FAA AC 150/5100-17 LandAcquisition and Relocation Assistance for Airport Improvement Program Assisted Projects) illustrates the process required in order to acquire land in accordance with the Uniform Act. In short, in order to comply with the Uniform Act, land purchases must have documented plats and surveys, an appraisal, a review appraisal, and records of negotiation. The appraisal and the review appraisal are used to establish Fair Market Value, which is the maximum to which the FAA will participate. Replacement Housing Payments and Relocation Payments may be required. In the case of an unwilling seller the sponsor may attempt to condemn the property. When a person or business is displaced as part of an airport improvement, that person or business maybe entitled to relocation and reestablishment assistance that is exclusive of the value of the real property under the Uniform Act. Moving and related expenses may be eligible for reimbursement, provided they are actual, reasonable and necessary. Expenses which are eligible and ineligible for reimbursement are shown in Table 5. 24 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 A property map illustrating the parcels which must be acquired in order to develop the airport to and ultimate B41 airport. The assumptions made in the develop this drawing include: 1. The Runway Protection Zone for Runway 13 is 500' x 700' x 1,000' and is located so that no part of it lies inside the right-of-way of Airport Road, and both thresholds of Runway 13-31 are relocated accordingly. 2. The ultimate airport property line on the east side should be located 250' east of, and parallel to the runway centerline and 390' west of, and parallel to the runway centerline. 3. The Runway Protection Zone for Runway 31 is 500' x 700' x 1,000'. 4. That the ultimate runway length wold be sufficient for 95% of the B-II fleet, which is 4,300 feet rather than the length required by 100% o the B-II fleet, which would be 4,700 feet. This decision was made to limit the use of this airport by the largest and noisiest aircraft by limiting the length of the Runway. Land acquisition costs were estimated using information from this property map and land value information provided by Roger D. Jacobsen, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser and Consultant. Anticipated land values are based on purchase prices paid for six land sales since June, 1995. The land acquisition cost estimates are in Appendix B of this report. A Level 1 Due Diligence Audit should be conducted on all real property to be acquired for airport expansion, in order to protect the sponsor from acquiring property which may require an environmental cleanup. Environmental clean-up expenses are not eligible for FAA participation. Furthermore, the FAA will not participate in the acquisition of property which an environmental clean-up would be required. COST ESTIMATES Although the estimates are titled "Initial Development Costs", not all items listed therein need to be built initially (or at all). Construction may be phased over many years to facilitate financing of local match. The FAA requires airport sponsors to provide a Capital Improvement Plan which outlines the sponsor's priorities and financing capabilities. Development phasing and financing will be addressed in the final chapter of the Phase II report. Initial development costs are summarized below in Table 6. Detailed cost estimates are in Appendix C and illustrate local share versus FAA participation. 25 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Table 5 - Eligible and Ineligible Moving and Related Expenses ELIGIBLE EXPENSE INELIGIBLE EXPENSE Professional services in connection with the purchase or Cost of moving any structures in which the lease of a replacement site; displaced person reserves ownership; or Other items that the sponsor considers essential to the Interest on loans to cover moving expense; or reestablishment of the business. Construction & Installation costs for exterior signing to Loss of good will; or advertise the business; Advertisement of replacement location Loss of trained employees; or Redecoration or replacement of soiled or warn surfaces, Additional operating expenses incurred because of at the replacement site, such as paint, paneling or operating in a new location, except for those carpeting relocation expenses expressly allowed; or Feasibility surveys, soil testing & marketing studies Personal injury; or Licenses, fees, & permits not paid as part of moving Legal fees or other cost for preparing a claim for a expense relocation payment or for representing the claimant before the sponsor; or Provisions of utilities from right-of-way to improvements Expenses for searching for replacement dwelling; or y on replacement; Repairs or improvements to the replacement real Physical changes to real property at the replacement property as required by Federal, State, or local law, code, location of a business or farm operation except for or ordinance; reestablishment expenses expressly allowed; or Estimated increased costs of operation during the first Cost for storage of personal property on real two years at replacement site, excluding impact fees; property already owned or leased by the displaced person; or Modifications to the replacement property to Moving costs when the displaced person is a public accommodate the business or make replacement agency, structures suitable for conducting business; 26 n�1 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 The Cost Estimate for B-II Development in the Existing Location indicates that there will be no FAA participation in land acquisition, this is assumption was based on Dave Gabbert's letter dated 21 February 1998 (see Appendix F), stated "...The land acquisition by the city is a necessary item to be accomplished without our participation and will require following Uniform Act provisions...We do not intend on funding the land under our program." Subsequent correspondence indicates that if the land were acquired following the provisions of the Uniform Act, these expenses may possibly be reimbursed in the future. This means that if the airport sponsor spends the $2,791,277 in 1999-2000 to purchase the all the land required to protect the airport object -free -area (OFA) and the Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), in accordance with the Uniform Act, the possibility exists that the FAA will reimburse the airport sponsor $2,512,149 in the future. See Dave Gabbert's letter dated 8 October 1998 in Appendix F. The generic site, for which the development cost estimate was generated, had to meet certain criteria: It had to be a reasonably flat, contiguous, parcel that was neither underwater, nor crossed by a river or large creek; it could not be in the flood plain and wetland; finally it had to be with in 8 road miles of town. No specific site was investigated (that would constitute a site selection, which is not part of this phase of the study); however, an appraiser was consulted to determine and average land value, based on recent comparable land sales. See Roger Jacobsons' report dated 31 August 1998 in Appendix B. Although the estimates indicate that development of an airport at a "generic" location will cost less than continued development at the present location, the City of Kalispell and the local pilots are united in opposition to this alternative. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW The environmental overview is a cursory investigation of environmental consequences in twenty specific impact categories listed in FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook. The purpose of this overview is to establish whether further investigation may be required and "identify environmental issues associated with the continued development..." . It is not an Environmental Assessment which would require coordination with a wide variety of Federal and State entities. 1. Noise A noise analysis is not required per FAA Order 5050.4A. The Airport Environmental Handbook requires noise analysis for Airplane Design Group I and II airplanes using utility type airports whose forecast operations exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations or 700 jet operations. Since the annual propeller operations are not forecast to exceed 45,000 total operations during the planning period no noise analysis is recommended. 28 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Table 7 - Summary of Development Costs .. TOTAL COST GENERIC TOTAL COST EXISTING SITE BIL Land Acquisition Miscellaneous Fees (Engineering, Admin, Appraisals, Negotiations, Legal) $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Fee Simple Land Acquisition $640,000.00 $2,398,832.85 Earthwork, Drainage & Pavement Section Runway (75' x 3,600') $450,000.00 $450,000.00 Parallel Taxiway (60' x 3,600') $360,000.00 $360,000.00 Connecting Taxiway 3 x (60' x 172.5') $48,300.00 $48,300.00 Apron $383,642.00 $383,642.00 Electrical and Lighting Medium Intensity Runway Lighting $148,000.00 $148,000.00 Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) $10,000.00 $10,000.00 Beacon, Windcone, Segmented Circle $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Lighted Hold Signs $9,000.00 $6,000.00 Apron Lights $13,500,00 $13,500,00 Obstruction Removal KGEZ Tower Reconfiguration $400,000.00 Red Eagle Aviation Hangar & FBO $664,290.00 Fence Removal (East Side) $1,950.00 Non -Air side Costs Perimeter Fence $68,000.00 $68,000.00 Utilities (Electrical, Sewer, Water, Phone) $25,000.00 $12,500.00 FBO Relocation $750,000.00 Additional Cost Considerations Tee Hangar Development (2,000 SF Units) $1,100,000.00 $572,000.00 Pilots Lounge (20' x 20') $50,000.00 $50,000.00 TOTAL $4,125,442.00 $5,657,014.85 W Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 The FAA regards the 65 LDN contour as the critical area with regard to noise. The 65 LDN contour is the line inside which a person would be exposed to noise with a time -weighted average level of 65 decibels. To put this into perspective, the average sound pressure level of conversational speech at three feet is around 60 decibels, and the average sound pressure level of a freight train at 100 feet is around 70 decibels. The size of this contour is determined by the noise output of an individual airplane and the number of times that airplane uses the airport. Nighttime operations are weighted heavier than daytime operations to reflect increased irritation caused by loud noise at night. In general, the 65 LDN for general aviation airports used exclusively by small aircraft is confined to airport property, and Kalispell City Airport is not expected to be an exception. This is not to say local residents near the airport will not find the noise of individual aircraft on approach or take -off irritating. Impacts at the "generic" site are expected to be the same. 2. Compatible Land Use Compatible land use is generally evaluated in terms of noise impacts on noise sensitive areas. In this case, no noise sensitive areas are affected. Figure 2 Zoning and Land Use Adjacent to Airport illustrates current zoning of land surrounding Kalispell City Airport. The airport is located on the southern edge of the Kalispell Zoning District, and adjacent Iands lay inside the Kalispell Zoning District, the Lower Side Zoning District, the West Side Zoning District, and the Willow Glen Zoning District. The Airport landing field is presently zoned P-1 for Public Use. The land immediately west of the runway is zoned I-1 for Light Industrial and P-1 for Public Use and is used by the Fixed Base Operators (FBO), by soccer fields, and by the Kalispell Waste Water Treatment Plant. The land to the immediate east of the landing field is zoned B-2 for General Business, I-1 for Light Industrial, and P-1 for Public Use, and is used by several retail businesses, motels, restaurants, a state office, and a Montana Army National Guard Armory. The land in the northern approach is zoned B-2 for General Business, RA-1 for Low Density Residential Apartment, RA-3 for Residential Apartment/Office, P-1 for Public Use, R=4 and R-5 for Residential, and the land is used for single- and multi -family residences, City maintenance shops, Rawson Field track and stadium, the Elks Club, and several retail businesses and restaurants. The land in the south approach is zoned B-2 for General Business, I-1 and I-1h for Light Industrial, R-1 for Suburban Residential, R-5 for Residential, and SAG-10 for Suburban Agricultural 10-acre minimum, and is used by several retail businesses, an auto salvage yard, some residences, a radio station, and agriculture. Generally, land uses around the landing field are compatible with the airport; however, there are some weaknesses with the existing zoning that, if permitted to continue, may lead to incompatible land uses. The primary weakness is that current zoning regulations permit building heights of up to forty feet (40') within 530 feet of the runway centerline and within 1,000 feet of the 30 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 runway threshold in the approach. Structures of this height located this close to an active runway would conflict with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 protected surfaces. FAR Part 77 will be discussed in greater detail later in the study. There exists one specific instance of land use which is incompatible with the airport in its present and proposed configuration: the KGEZ radio transmission towers penetrate the FAR Part 77 Conical Surface of the runway in its present configuration and penetrates the FAR Part 77 Approach Surface of Runway 31 in the location proposed by Robert Peccia & Associates on the 1996 Airport Layout Plan. This situation is address elsewhere in this report and will not be addressed further here. Zoning and land use impacts are expected to be low for a "generic" site. This is based on the assumption that the an alternate site may be found during a formal site selection process where zoning and land use impacts would be minimal. 3. Social Impacts See the airport layout drawings in Appendix D. There are two residences, located approximately 480 feet west and 600 feet northwest of the ultimate Runway 31 threshold, which must be relocated as part of an airport expansion at the present location. One fixed base operator (Red Eagle Aviation) should be relocated in order to protect the runway safety area (RSA) or the FAR Part 77 Transitional (7:1) Surface, and to consolidate aircraft storage/parking on one side of the airport. Two other hangars and one Tee -Hangar will require relocation to remove them from the path of the future parallel taxiway. S & S Campers and Schwarzenberger Wrecking, which are located south of the existing airport, may require a partial relocation of their operations if the runway is extended to its ultimate Iength. Finally there is a storage shed located near the Montana State Department of Health and Human Services which will require relocation. It is assumed that during a formal site selection process, a site may be found which will minimize social impacts. 4. Induced Socio-Economic Impacts There are no induced secondary impacts anticipated as a result of development in either locations. Secondary socio-economic impacts are defined as shifts in patterns of population movement, growth, public service demands, and changes in business and economic activity to the extent they are influenced by airport development. 32 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 5. Air Quality FAA Order 5050.4AAirport Environmental Handbook requires an air quality analysis only if a general aviation airport has more than 180,000 annual air operations. Since Kalispell City Airport in either variant is not expected to exceed 55,000 annual operations, a formal air quality analysis is not needed. However, Montana Department of Environmental Quality must be consulted as part of an environmental assessment to determine overall impact. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality has indicated that the intersection of U.S. Highway 2 and U.S. Highway 93 is a non -attainment zone for Carbon Monoxide (CO). They have further indicated that they expect to be consulted during a formal environmental assessment, prior to any expansion. 6. Water Quality The impact on water quality of expansion at the present location and at the generic site is expected to be low, however, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality must be consulted during the Environmental Assessment phase. It is assumed that during a formal site selection study, a site could be selected to minimize water quality impacts. 7. Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Land Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act provides that the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly -owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use. Expansion of the airport at its present location would necessarily and negatively impact the soccer fields to the immediate west of the airport. A statement of insignificance from the City of Kalispell may be required by the FAA prior to any FAA participation. Since these soccer fields are being replaced at a location north of the city Kalispell, it is assumed that such a statement would be sufficient. It is assumed that after a formal site selection study, a site will be recommended which minimizes Section 4(f) lands impacts. 33 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 8. Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources It is assumed that any cultural resources located in the vicinity of the present location have already been impacted about as much as they can be, due to their proximity to town. However, during a formal environmental assessment, a cultural resource survey will be conducted to ensure these impacts are minimized. One important cultural resource which may require special interest is the historic Demersville Cemetery, which is located in the ultimate Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) of Runway 31(the south end). There are some possibly historic trees located in the cemetery which may be impacted by the relocation of the threshold of Runway 31. Specifically, if the runway is relocated 900 feet south along its centerline, and the runway is extended to an ultimate length of 4,300 feet, then these trees may penetrate the FAR Part 77 approach surface of Runway 31. It is impossible to determine cultural resource impacts of a site at a "generic" location, however, after a site selection study, a cultural resource survey will be conducted during a formal environmental assessment. 9. Biotic Communities Biotic communities are publicly -owned wildlife or waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance. There are no biotic communities that would be impacted by expansion of Kalispell City Airport at its present location. It is assumed that the site recommended in a formal site selection study would have minimal impact on biotic communities. 10. Endangered and Threatened Species It is unlikely that expansion of Kalispell City Airport will impact endangered or threatened species directly; however, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks must be consulted as part of a formal environmental assessment. Development at a generic location may impact nesting osprey located north of Flathead Lake. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks must be consulted as part of a formal environmental assessment. 11. Wetlands Wetlands are defined as " those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as 34 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds."" Wetlands also include estuarine areas, tidal overflows, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation. Furthermore, the wetlands ecosystem includes those areas which affect or are affected by the wetland itself, e.g., adjacent uplands or regions upstream and downstream. Areas covered with water for such a short time that there is no effect on moist soil vegetation are not included within: the definition of wetlands nor are permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and deep Iakes.14 There may be wetlands inside the expansion footprint of the airport in its present location; however, it is likely that the total area of these wetlands is less than one acre in size. A Section 26 Nationwide Permit may be required. A survey of flora and fauna inside the expansion footprint should be conducted during the Environmental Assessment phase of this study. If an airport is developed at an alternate location, a full wetlands inventory should be part of any site selection study. It is presumed that a site could be selected which would minimize adverse impacts on wetlands. 12. Flood Plains Flood Plains are defined as "the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including flood -prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding "15 ' the area that would be p g gin any given year; �.e., inundated by a 100-year flood16 The elevation of Kalispell City Airport's airport reference point (ARP) is 2,932 feet above mean sea level (MSL). According to the Kalispell Quadrangle (1994 edition), Ashley Creek flows southeast approximately 800 feet from centerline of the extended runway. The elevation of Ashley Creek at this point is between 2,915 feet MSL and 2,920 feet MSL. The elevation of the ground along the runway centerline at the point closest to Ashley Creek is between 2,925 feet MSL and 2,930 feet MSL. It is possible that Kalispell City Airport is in the 100-year flood plain of Ashley Creek; however, there is no record of past flooding problems at either the airport or the upper areas of the Kalispell Waste Water Treatment Plant which is located between the airport and Ashley Creek. Further investigation is required during the Environmental Assessment. It is assumed that a site could be located during a formal site selection study which would minimize adverse impacts on flood plains. 13Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 14FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook. Page 44. 15Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management. 16FAA Order 5050AA Airport Environmental Handbook. Page 49. Obi Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 13. Coastal Zone Management Program This impact category is not affected by either development alternative. 14. Coastal Barriers This impact category is not affected by either development alternative. 15. Wild and Scenic Rivers The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (PL90-542, as amended) describes those river areas eligible to be included in a system afforded protection under the Act as free flowing and possessing "... outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values."" The Flathead River is designated a Wild and Scenic River; however, this designation ends in the vicinity of Bad Rock Canyon east of Columbia Falls. It is currently managed by .the U.S. Forest Service, who would have to be consulted in the event an environmental assessment is conducted. Under the law, introduction of visual, audible, or other sensory intrusions which are out of character with the river or alter its setting is considered an adverse impact. An increase of use of the airport as a result of an expansion of facilities may adversely impact the scenic quality of the river due to the introduction of audible intrusions. Further investigation may be required as part of an environmental assessment for development at either location. 16. Farmland The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), P.L. 97-98 authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop criteria for identifying the effects of federal programs on the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. If the soil is determined to be "prime", "unique", of state-wide or local importance, then close coordination with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service is required to mitigate the loss of these farmlands under FPPA. Prime farmland is defined as "...land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber... without intolerable soil erosion as determined by the Secretary [of Agriculture]. Prime farmland includes land that produces livestock and timber. It does not include land already being used or committed to urban development or water storage."`$ Unique farmland is "...land other than prime farmland that is used for production of specific high "FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, Page 53. $Farmland Protection Policy Act, 1984 W" Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 value food and fiber crops, as determined by the Secretary. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high quality or high yields specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Examples of such crops include citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits, and vegetables."" Land that is of statewide or local importance is "farmland, other than prime or unique farmland, that is of statewide or Iocal importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, or oilseed crops, as determined by the appropriate State or unit of local government agency or agencies, and that the Secretary determines should be considered as farmland for purposes of this subtitle."20 There should be no adverse impacts on farmland if Kalispell City Airport is expanded in its present location, since the land that is inside the expansion footprint is currently used primarily for an auto salvage yard. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service should be consulted during a site selection study prior to any development at any site other than the present Kalispell City Airport. 17. Energy Supply and Natural Resources Energy requirements fall into two categories: 1) those related to increased demands for stationary facilities; 2) those related to increased demands from ground and air vehicles. In general, no general aviation airport has significant impacts on energy supply and natural resources. In Kalispell, neither the original site or the generic location is expected to produce any impacts in this category. 18. Light Emissions The extent to which lighting improvements will result in annoyance to homeowners and others in the vicinity must be considered prior to their installation. Normally, at general aviation airports, light impacts are not significant. Installation of runway end identifier lights (REILS) at either end of the runway in the present location may adversely impact neighbors. It is expected that these effects may be mitigated with appropriate design. It is assumed that during the formal site selection process, a site could be selected which would minimize light impacts. 19. Solid Waste Impacts 19Ibid. 20Ibid. 37 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 The primary concern regarding solid waste impacts for general aviation airports is the location of landfills and bird attractants relative to the runway threshold. Landfills located or planned within 1,500 meters of the threshold of an active runway are considered an incompatible land use. The Kalispell City Airport is not located within 1,500 meters of any landfills, and is not expected to generate significantly more solid wastes than it currently produces. However, it is presently located adjacent to the Kalispell City Waste Water Treatment Plant and directly north of Swartzenberger Wrecking. Neither of these facilities are apparent bird attractants: the Waste Water Treatment Plant has no lagoons, and the wrecking yard has nothing to attract seagulls or waterfowl. Development of a new airport at another location is not expected to generate significantly more solid wastes than the existing facility. It is expected that a site selected during a formal site selection study would not be within 1,500 meters of any actual or planned landfills. 20. Construction Impacts Specific construction impact are expected to be limited in scope and short in duration, regardless of the location selected. Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 Table 7 - Summary of Environmental Impacts Environmental Impact Category:..:.Existing Site "Generic" Site . Noise Low Low Compatible Land Use Low Low Social Impacts Low Low Induced Socio-Economic Impacts Low Medium Air Quality Low Low Water Quality Low Low DOT Section 4(f) Land Low Low Historic, Architectural, Archeological and Cultural Resources Low Unable to Assess Biotic Communities (Flora -Fauna) Low Low Endangered and Threatened Species Low Low Wetlands Low Low Flood plains Low Low Coastal Zone Management Program N/A N/A Coastal Barriers NIA NIA Wild and Scenic Rivers Low Low Farmland Low Low Energy Supply and Natural Resources Low Low Light Emissions Low Low Solid Waste Impacts Low Low Construction Impacts Low Low 39 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The information provided within the first phase of this study addresses the initial information requested by the FAA in order to determine if it is feasible to improve the Kalispell City Airport at the current location or if it would be more prudent to move the airport. The significant issues are the KGEZ towers, dimensional limitations, land acquisition costs, and overall costs. Data has been provided for each of these items. The following items have become apparent during the first phase of the study: 1. There is an alternative to lower the height of the KGEZ towers. The recommended system would have to meet or exceed existing coverage area, KGEZ would have to accept the system and it would need approval by the FCC. The City of Kalispell has indicated that they would absorb the cost of the tower revisions at 100% City cost. 2. The current airport site could be expanded to meet the requirements of an airport with and ARC B-1I with a Non Precision Approach. 3. There is significant user support to keep the airport at the current location, from the aviation community in Kalispell, through out the State of Montana and the surrounding region including Canada. 4. The Montana Division of Aeronautics supports the development of the airport at the current location. The cost of the land acquisition to meet the above requirements are significant. 6. The City of Kalispell has committed $1,000,000 to the development of the airport at the current location. The City has also indicated that the FAA should participate in the costs of land acquisition at the current site. The second phase of the Master Plan Study would provide additional information regarding the airport, such as: 1. Public input and reaction to expanding the airport at the current site through public meetings. 2. Detailed site assessment, which would review an alternate alignment, which may provide an improved layout, approaches or a reduction to the land acquisition costs. 3. FuIl set of Airport Layout Drawings, which would be required to obtain any FAA A1P funding. 40 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility Study January 1999 4. Detailed financial report to aid in the planning or City funds and FAA funds to accomplish the planned developments. 5. The FAA will conduct and Airspace Study of the proposed airport configuration. Preliminary indications have been given that the study should continue to address the issues in more detail. The FAA has indicated that review of Phase 1 wilI be conducted prior to authorization to proceed with Phase 11 of the Master Plan Study. G.T.AL-C1TY10I O8STUD. WPD 41