Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
E2. Ord. 1906, Creekside Zoning
Development Services Department 201 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 758-7940 Fax: (406) 758-7739 www.kalispell.com/planning REPORT TO: Doug Russell, City Manager FROM: PJ Sorensen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Ordinance 1906 – Creekside Subdivision Initial Zoning Second Reading MEETING DATE: April 17, 2023 BACKGROUND: Brent Holdings, LLC, has submitted a request for annexation and initial zoning of R-4 (Residential), along with a request for major preliminary plat approval for Creekside Subdivision, a residential subdivision on approximately 24.51 acres with 66 lots (29 detached single-family and 37 attached single-family parent lots, for a total of 103 dwelling units – 29 single family plus 74 townhouse units), along with streets, parks, and open space. The property is located at 1111 Farm-to-Market Road and is more particularly described as Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. The Kalispell City Council, at their meeting on April 3, 2023, approved the first reading of Ordinance 1906 relating to the initial zoning unanimously. The Council also approved the annexation and preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION: INITIAL ZONING: It is recommended that the Kalispell City Council approve the second reading of Ordinance 1906, an Ordinance to amend Section 27.02.010, official zoning map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance 1677, by zoning certain real property described as Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana, as R-4 (Residential) in accordance with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan- It 2035, and provide an effective date. FISCAL EFFECTS: There are no anticipated fiscal impacts at this time. ALTERNATIVES: Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 1906March 14, 2023, Kalispell Planning Board Minutes Amended Staff Report Application Materials & Maps Public Comments c: Aimee Brunckhorst, Kalispell City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1906 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 27.02.010, OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, CITY OF KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE (ORDINANCE NO. 1677), BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS C AND D OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 8903 IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA (PREVIOUSLY ZONED COUNTY AG-20) TO CITY R-4 (RESIDENTIAL), IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KALISPELL GROWTH POLICY PLAN – IT 2035, AND TO PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Brent Holdings, LLC, the owner of the property described above, petitioned that the zoning classification attached to the above-described tract of land be zoned R-4 on approximately 24.51 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the property is located at 1111 Farm to Market Road; and WHEREAS, Brent Holdings’ petition was the subject of a report compiled by the Kalispell Planning Department, Staff Report #KA-23-02, dated March 8, 2023, in which the Kalispell Planning Department evaluated the petition and recommended that the property as described above be zoned R-4, Residential, as requested by the petition; and WHEREAS, after considering all the evidence submitted on the proposal to zone the property as described R-4, Residential, the City Council finds such initial zoning to be consistent with the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 and adopts, based upon the criterion set forth in Section 76-3-608, M.C.A., and State, Etc. v. Board of County Commissioners, Etc. 590 P2d 602, the findings of fact of KPD as set forth in Staff Report No. KA-23-02. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 27.02.010, of the Official Zoning Map of the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1677) is hereby amended by designating the property described above as R-4, Residential, on approximately 24.51 acres of land. SECTION 2. The balance of Section 27.02.010, Official Zoning Map, City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance not amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its final passage and approval by the Mayor. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2023. ______________________________________ Mark Johnson ATTEST: Mayor __________________________ Aimee Brunckhorst, CMC City Clerk Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page | 1 KALISPELL CITY PLANNING BOARD & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING March 14, 2023 CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Board members present were Chad Graham (chair), Pip Burke, Kevin Aurich, Doug Kauffman, Rory Young, Kurt Vomfell, and Joshua Borgardt. Kari Barnhart, PJ Sorensen, and Jarod Nygren represented the Kalispell Planning Department. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vomfell moved and Burke seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 14, 2023, meeting of the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission. VOTE BY ACCLAMATION The motion passed unanimously on a vote of acclamation. HEAR THE PUBLIC None. KPP-22-07, KZC-22-05 STILLWATER VILLAGE A request from Owl Corporation and Flathead Village Greens, LLC, for a zone change from R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential) covering approximately 182.15 acres, as well as a request for major preliminary plat approval for Stillwater Village, a subdivision with eight (8) phases containing a total of 181 lots (67 detached single-family and 114 attached single-family homes) on approximately 46.78 acres in lots, streets, common areas, and land held for future development. Additionally, the plat contains approximately 20.01 acres as park area and park access (for a total of approximately 66.79 acres) to serve both the initial eight phases and future phases on the overall property that are not part of the initial preliminary plat. The property is located south of Silverbrook Estates, west of Highway 93 and Hagerman Lane, north of Northern Pines Golf Course, and bordering the Stillwater River on the western edge of the property. The property can be described as Tracts 1 and 2 of Certificate of Survey No. 22183, on file and of record in Flathead County, Montana, located in the SW1/4 of the SE ¼ and the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 13 and the N ½ of the NE ¼ and the NE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, P.M.,M., City of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KZC-22-05 and #KPP-22-07. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff reports #KZC-22-05 and #KPP-22-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zone change and preliminary plat for Stillwater Village Phases 1-8 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), wetland setback, pedestrian access, lighting and light pollution, and issues with Highway 93. Sorensen advised that the developer is only responsible for the impact that they create and Haskins advised that the MDT is not required to move forward with the City’s TIS recommendations. PUBLIC COMMENT Susan Bergstrom – 135 W Monture Ct – Owns property adjacent to the proposed subdivision - Expressed concerns about the lack of buffer between the 2 subdivisions, traffic on Hwy 93, the zone change being uncharacteristic of Silverbrook or Northern Pines, and losing her mountain views. She would like for the zoning to remain R-2. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page | 2 Heather McDonald – 304 Fox Hollow Ct – Northern Pines HOA President – Has concerns regarding density, Hwy 93 traffic, and light pollution. She requested a speed study between Reserve Dr. and Church Dr.. Will Warberg – 102 Quail Ct – Supports Ms. McDonald’s comments and requested traffic mitigation recommendations. Rodney Fowler – 115 Grouse Haven Way – Silverbrook HOA President – Is concerned for motorist safety, loss of service, increased traffic on Hwy 93, and density. He requested the Board delay their decision so staff can further evaluate and encourage all parties to collaboratively address the Silverbrook HOA concerns. Dennis Bar – 110 Sage Grouse Way – Expressed concerns for public safety due to increased traffic and stated that there are contradictions between the staff report and the TIS. He requested that this be sent back to the planning department to re-evaluate the TIS. Rob Braig – 210 Wild Pine Ct – Concerned about comments from Fish, Wildlife & Wildlife comments, the lack of detail for the entire 182 acres, lighting, and higher density for R-4 zoning. He requested plans for all 182 acres. Eric Mulcahy – Sands Surveying – Representing the developer – Provided a brief history of the parcel and advised that the developer did not apply for preliminary plat for the entire 180 acres because it would be a massive project and they could not predict the land use. He stated that that the TIS is presently under review with Kalispell Public Works and MDT. MOTION – KZC-22-05 Kauffman moved and Young seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KZC-22-05 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the zoning for the property be changed from R-2 (Residential) to R-4 (Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed comments regarding the zone change and how it fits in the growth policy, the traffic impact study, the buffer between the subdivisions, and street lighting. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. MOTION – KPP-22-07 Young moved and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KPP-22-07 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Stillwater Village Phases 1-8 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION None. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KPP-23-02 BITTERROOT HEIGHTS NO. 2 A request from Michael Sandefer for preliminary plat approval for Bitterroot Heights No. 2, a major subdivision containing approximately 4.2 acres. The subdivision would include 13 single family lots and park area. The property is generally located on the west side of North Riding Road and south of West Northview Loop, and includes property currently addressed as 249 Three Mile Drive. The property can be described as Parcel A and Lot 1A, shown on Certificate of Survey 21303, being situated in the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KPP-23-02. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page | 3 Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Bitterroot Height No. 2 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed subdivision regulations and acceptance of third- party sound study reports. PUBLIC COMMENT Eric Mulcahy – Sands Surveying – Representing the developer – Provided a brief summary of the project. Renae Solum – 33 W. Northview Loop – Expressed concerns with the location of the mailboxes and traffic on 3 Mile Drive. MOTION – KPP-23-02 Vomfell moved and Aurich seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Bitterroot Height No. 2 be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Kauffman, Graham, and Young stated that this is a good infill project. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. KA-23-02, KPP-23-03 CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION A request from Brent Holdings, LLC, for annexation and initial zoning of R-4 (Residential), along with a request for major preliminary plat approval for Creekside Subdivision, a residential subdivision on approximately 24.51 acres with 71 lots (35 detached single-family and 36 attached single-family), along with streets, parks, and open space. The property is located at 1111 Farm-to-Market Road and is more particularly described as Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT PJ Sorensen representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KA-23-02 and KPP-23-03. Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Reports #KA-23-02 and KPP-23-03 as amended as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the annexation and preliminary plat be approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed sewer conditions, geotech, subdivision regulations related to buildable lots and use of alleys as the primary means of access. Young felt that the proposed subdivision did not meet the subdivision regulations. Sorensen advised that the interpretation of the regulation is consistent with to how the city has applied the standard in the last 20 or more years. PUBLIC COMMENT Nick Venturini – 1145 Farm to Market Rd – Lives directly north of the property. Has concerns for wildlife impact, land use, livestock, and trespassing. Cindy Verzalik – 951 N Camas Ln – Lives directly across from the property. Concerned about cars going in and out, traffic sounds, and losing her mountain views. Tina Venturini – 1145 Farm to Market Rd – Lives directly north of the property. Concerned about trespassing, increased traffic, and impact additional students will Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page | 4 have to West Valley School District. She also is concerned that a 20ft alley is not wide enough for fire trucks. Francisco Carbajal – 456 Mountain Vista Way – Concerned about water supply, increased traffic, and speed limits. Jordyn Mallet– Morrison-Maierle – representing the developer – Advised that the developer is collaborating with other developers nearby on water and sewer with the City. Andi Kitzmiller – 487 Mountain Vista Way – Has electrical grid concerns and will lose his mountain views. MOTION – KA-23-02 Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded recommended that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-4 (Residential). BOARD DISCUSSION Young could not support the application due to his interpretation of the subdivision regulations and because he is concerned that the alley width may not meet the International Fire Code width requirement. ROLL CALL Motion passed 6-1 on a roll call vote. MOTION – KPP-23-03 Vomfell moved and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the preliminary plat for Creekside Subdivision be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed site distances, access to the subdivision, and comments regarding infrastructure, taxes, the nearby shooting range, water supply, and visualization. MOTION – KPP-23-03 AMENDMENT Kauffman moved and Vomfell seconded to amend the conditions of KPP-23-03 to include condition 36 the westernmost alley located between lots 30A/B through 34A/B and Lots 35A/B through 39A/B shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a minimum paved width of 20 feet to provide for fire access. As a private alley, the covenants shall require that the alley be free of parked vehicles and other obstacles. ROLL CALL – KPP-23-03 AMENDMENT Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. ROLL CALL – KPP-23-03 Motion passed 5-2 on a roll call vote. KCU-23-01 – A RAY OF HOPE A request from Dave McLean as director of A Ray of Hope for the expansion of its facility at 46 Fifth Avenue West, which is located in the B-3 (Core Area Business) zone. The expansion involves the construction of an approximately 1280 square foot garage on the rear of the lot. The garage would include an apartment in the second story. The property was granted a conditional use permit for a private shelter in March 2005 and this conditional use permit would be considered an expansion of the prior approval. The property can be more particularly described as Lot 6 of Block 159 of Kalispell Addition No. 1, Kalispell, Montana, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. STAFF REPORT Kari Barnhart representing the Kalispell Planning Department reviewed Staff Report #KCU-23-01. Kalispell City Planning Board Minutes of the meeting of March 14, 2023 Page | 5 Staff recommends that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-23-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members and staff discussed the CUP conditions. PUBLIC COMMENT Dave McLean -200 Harris Ranch Rd – Director of A Ray of Hope – provided a brief summary of the program which includes multiple tests, goal setting, and counseling. He also advised that there would not be an increase in density. Rudy Kessner – 134 Garden Dr – Supports the CUP because it serves the community. MOTION – KCU-23-01 Vomfell motioned and Kauffman seconded that the Kalispell Planning Board adopt staff report #KCU-23-01 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the conditional use permit be approved subject to the conditions listed on the staff report. BOARD DISCUSSION Board members discussed the conditions of the CUP and the benefits it would provide to the community. ROLL CALL Motion passed unanimously on a roll call vote. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Sorensen advised the board that there will be no Planning Board Meeting in April. Nygren advised the board that there are 30+ bills in Helena that may affect the Planning Department function and encouraged board members to reapply if their term is up to maintain experience on the board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:53pm. __________________ ___________________ Chad Graham Kirstin Robinson President Recording Secretary APPROVED as submitted/amended: 1 CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION (AMENDED) ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-4 – STAFF REPORT #KA-23-02 MAJOR SUBDIVISION - STAFF REPORT #KPP-23-03 KALISPELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT MARCH 8, 2023 A report to the Kalispell City Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council regarding a request from Brent Holdings, LLC, for annexation and initial zoning of R-4 (Residential), along with a major preliminary plat on approximately 24.51 acres. A public hearing has been scheduled before the Planning Board for March 14, 2023, beginning at 6:00 PM in the Kalispell City Council Chambers. The Planning Board will forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council for final action. BACKGROUND INFORMATION This report regards a request from Brent Holdings, LLC, for annexation and initial zoning of R-4 (Residential), along with a request for major preliminary plat approval for Creekside Subdivision, a residential subdivision on approximately 24.51 acres with 66 lots (29 detached single-family and 37 attached single-family parent lots, for a total of 103 dwelling units – 29 single family plus 74 townhouse units), along with streets, parks, and open space. A: Applicant: Brent Holdings, LLC 270 N Jeff Davis Dr Fayettesville, GA 30214 B: Location: The property is located at 1111 Farm-to-Market Road and is more particularly described as Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. 2 C. Size: The subject property is approximately 49.6 acres. D: Adjacent Zoning: North: County AG-20 East: County SAG-5 South: City R-2/PUD West: City R-3/PUD E: Adjacent Land Uses: North: Single-family residential (large tracts) East: Single-family residential (large tracts) South: Single-family residential (urban) West: Single-family residential (urban) F: Existing Land Use and Zoning: The subject property is currently vacant, but has a history of use as a single-family residence and as a gravel pit which has now been filled. The current zoning for the property is county AG-20 (Agricultural), which is “a district to protect and preserve agricultural land for the performance of a wide range of agricultural functions. It is intended to control the scattered intrusion of uses not compatible with an agricultural environment, including, but not limited to, residential development.” G: Proposed Zoning: The proposed zoning is city R-4 (Residential). The Kalispell Zoning Regulations state that the intent of the district is a district “comprised of primarily single-family and duplex dwellings. Development within the district will require all public utilities, and all community facilities. This zoning district would typically be found in areas designated as suburban residential and urban residential on the Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map." H: General Land Use Character: The subject property is located on the east side of Farm- to-Market Road just north of Three Mile Drive. It is in a transitional area between increasingly urban residential development and larger tract single-family homes before transitioning to agricultural areas to the north. The general area has included significant residential growth over the past 20 years, as well as the addition of the bypass to the east 3 that includes an interchange with Three Mile Drive. Also, to the south, there was the addition of a roundabout at the intersection of Highway 2 and Dern Road that improved safety at the intersection and helps support growth in the area. I: Relation to the Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential. The City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035, Chapter 4A on Housing, encourages a variety of residential development that provides housing for all sectors and income levels within the community. City services including sewer, water and streets are in the vicinity and available to the subject property. The property also falls within the Kalispell West Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2009. The plan anticipates this portion of the plan area to be developed to accommodate growth in the short-to-medium term from the plan’s adoption (within 15-20 years), and the area was also included within the annexation boundary established in the growth policy. It was anticipated that development would utilize the existing and proposed road arterial system. J: Availability of Public Services and Extension of Services: Water and sewer services are available to the property. There is an existing water line in Farm-to-Market that will extend through the property. Sewer mains are located nearby, and the developer will construct a lift station with a force main to connect to an existing gravity sewer main at Mountain Vista Way. However, there is a lack of capacity in the mains at that point which will be corrected once a connection from Meadows Edge to the Westside Interceptor in Spring Creek Park is completed. There is an easement in place through Spring Creek Park to allow for the connection. Until that connection is made, there is not adequate capacity in the sewer collection system to support the subdivision and a condition of approval would not allow final plat until the connection is completed. Sewer: City of Kalispell Water: City of Kalispell Refuse: City of Kalispell Electricity: Flathead Electric Cooperative 4 Gas: NorthWestern Energy Telephone: CenturyTel Schools: School District #1 (West Valley)/Glacier High School Fire: City of Kalispell Police: City of Kalispell I. ANNEXATION EVALUATION A. Compliance with the growth policy: Two primary means for managing growth in the City of Kalispell are redevelopment/infill within the current city limits or annexation of outlying areas. A goal of the growth policy is to provide a comprehensive, effective growth management plan that provides for all the needs of the community, is adaptable to changing trends and is attuned to the overall public welfare. Chapter 9, Public Infrastructure and Services, includes a goal to “make public water and sewer available to areas that are in close proximity to services,” and annexation allows for such extensions to happen. In addition, the city council adopted an annexation policy in 2011, with a corresponding map, as an addendum to the city’s growth policy document. The purpose of the annexation policy is to give the Planning Board, the Council, and the development community direction when property owners outside of the city limits are requesting 5 annexation. The property proposed for annexation falls inside the city’s direct annexation boundary and is immediately adjacent to the current city limits. B. Municipal Services: The City of Kalispell has an extension of services plan that details how services would be extended to the annexed property. Both sanitary sewer and water services are available to the property. Any additional extensions necessary to provide service would be designed and installed by the property owner subject to review and approval by the Kalispell Public Works Department under the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. The site is currently protected by the West Valley Rural Fire District and the Flathead County Sheriff’s office. The applicant has submitted a Notice of Withdrawal from the Rural Fire District. At the time of annexation, the property will be served by the Kalispell Police and Fire Departments. The site lies approximately 1.8 miles from fire station 62 and is readily serviceable by the city fire, police, and ambulance services. Given the level of existing services available to the property, annexation will not overburden the municipal services in place. C. Distance from current city limits: The subject property is immediately adjacent to the existing city limits line. D. Cost of services: The property is located within the annexation boundary, which was established based in part on the ability to efficiently serve the property. Once annexed to the city, full city services will be made available to the property owner. Any necessary infrastructure associated with this development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Design and Construction Standards and any other development policies, regulations or ordinances that may apply. As undeveloped land, any cost of servicing the property would be minimal, but there would be assessments and tax revenue that would be collected. Once developed, it is anticipated that the revenue generated would exceed the cost of servicing the property. II. INITIAL ZONING EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-303, M.C.A. Findings of fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria described by 76-2-304, M.C.A. and Section 27.29.020, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance. The site is currently zoned county AG-20 (Agricultural). The applicants are requesting city R-4 (Residential). 1. Does the requested zone comply with the growth policy? The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential. The zoning ordinance contemplates R-4 as an appropriate zone within that land use designation. The requested zone complies with the growth policy. 6 2. Will the requested zone have an effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems? The access for the property is onto Farm-to-Market Road. Annexation and zoning of the additional area would not directly change the impact on the transportation systems. Any development of the property would be reviewed and approved according to city design criteria that would account for access to the site. Along with this application, the applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval that includes a traffic impact study. 3. Will the requested zone secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? Adequate access and public facilities are available to the site in the case of an emergency. There are no features related to the property which would compromise the safety of the public. All municipal services including police/fire protection will be available upon annexation. 4. Will the requested zone promote the public health, safety and general welfare? The general health, safety, and welfare of the public will be promoted through general city regulations designed to regulate allowable uses. In this case, the requested zoning classification of R-4 will promote the health and general welfare by restricting land uses to those that would be compatible with the adjoining properties and those in the vicinity. 5. Will the requested zone provide for adequate light and air? Setback, height, and lot coverage standards for any development occurring on this site are established in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance to ensure adequate light and air is provided. 6. Will the requested zone facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements? All public services and facilities are available to the property. Any development of the property would be reviewed and approved pursuant to city design criteria. Along with this application, the applicant has submitted a request for preliminary plat approval that would address those issues. 7. Will the requested zone promote compatible urban growth? The requested zoning is consistent with the type of growth projected for this area and is consistent with the current zoning in the vicinity. The proposed district maintains and is compatible with the established land use pattern in this area. 8. Does the requested zone give consideration to the character of the district and its particular suitability for particular uses? 7 The proposed R-4 zoning district is consistent with the surrounding residential development in the immediate and general area. The proposed zone fits into that overall pattern and gives due consideration of the suitability of this property for the allowed uses in the zoning district, such as proximity of city services. 9. Will the proposed zone conserve the value of buildings? Value of the buildings in the area will be conserved because the R-4 zoning district will promote compatible and like uses on this property as are found on other properties in the area. Any potential future development on the property will be reviewed for compliance with zoning dimensional standards and design review criteria to ensure its appropriateness for the area and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. 10. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throughout the municipality? Urban scale development should be encouraged in areas where services and facilities are available, and it serves to support appropriate use of land throughout the city by further developing city infrastructure. The proposed zoning is consistent with the growth policy and is compatible with current zoning in the immediate area. III. REVIEW AND FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE MAJOR PRELIMINARY PLAT 8 A. Effects on Health and Safety: Fire: The property would be considered to be at low risk of fire because any building constructed within the subdivision would be built in accordance with the International Fire Code and have access which meets city standards. The area to be built upon does not have steep slopes or woody fuels. Hydrants will be required to be placed in compliance with the requirements of the fire code and approved by the Fire Chief. Access: The access to the subdivision would be from Farm-to-Market Road. The proposal includes two access points onto the road. There are potential issues with two accesses due to access separation requirements from both Mountain Vista Way and between the two new accesses. Those requirements may necessitate one of the accesses be limited movement. As a state highway, the Montana Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the accesses in addition to the City. If not approved with two accesses (or potentially with one being a limited access), the maximum number of units allowed would be less than 50, provided that the access road is less than 1000 feet in length pursuant to Section 28.3.13 of the subdivision regulations. In that event, the number of lots would have to be reduced to comply with the access standard. Additionally, more than 30 lots with a single access would require fire sprinkling in all of the homes. Without the second access, the subsequent redesign would require a resubmittal of the subdivision for a new review and approval. Geology: The property overall is bounded on the north by a low-lying wetland area which is not buildable. The upper area planned for development sits approximately 10-30 feet above the wetland area. The elevation difference is created with a steep bank, which also is not buildable. The submitted plat indicates the topography of the site and locates building lots away from those areas, although the proximity to the bank may require additional information and foundation requirements for building construction that would be determined by the Kalispell Building Department. It is important to recognize that the site was formerly a gravel pit and has been filled over time. The applicant submitted a Geotech report from Alpine Geotechnical dated January 2023. The report concluded that “Based on the information obtained from our subsurface, the site can be properly developed for the proposed project with implementation of the recommendations contained” in the report. The report noted a number of existing conditions which would be of some concern, but would be considered as part of the report’s conclusions. It noted that “surface conditions include boulders, construction debris, wood, and previously place fill.” It also noted that “subsurface conditions across the site are variable but generally consists of previously placed fill materials along the west side of the project,” while “the east side of the project site is relatively undisturbed.” The report found groundwater varying from about 14.8 feet deep to 20.3 feet deep at the site. The google earth images below from 2009 and 2012 shows the excavated area on the western portion of the site. Later aerial images do not show any significant expansion of the excavated area past 2012. 9 2009 2012 Prior to the field study for the report, ALLWEST Testing and Engineering performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site. Per the Environmental Assessment, during that investigation, they “encountered a petroleum odor from one of the test holes. Soil samples were analyzed by Energy Labratories, Inc for hydrocarbons in the soils. They did not detect any hydrocarbons from the four soil samples” that were taken from near the test hole. Alpine Geotechnical did not encounter any petroleum odors in the 10 course of their review. The odor was near a parked scraper and indications are that it was an issue limited in scope and likely tied to the scraper. The report contained a number of recommendations relating to the development of the site. Again, based on those recommendations, the report concludes that the site is suitable for development and a condition of approval should include development of the site according to those recommendations. However, it should be noted that the report does not directly address building construction and foundations. Supplemental information from the applicant and Alpine Geotechnical indicates that, due to the variable conditions across the subdivision, individual building sites should each have a separate, site-specific geotechnical evaluation prior to issuance of a building permit. That requirement should be included as a condition and as a note on the face of the plat. The subdivision would also involve a certain amount of cutting and filling on the site as shown on the submitted grading plan. The final grading plan is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. While the 100 foot required setback from the wetlands to lot lines, it is possible that site grading may potentially impact wetland areas. Any such impact would require the appropriate permitting from the Corps of Engineers, the Conservation District, and any other applicable agency. BPA Easement: BPA power transmission lines are located along the eastern edge of the subdivision. The subdivision is designed around the easement area without any development occurring within the easement. 11 B. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat: There is a creek and associated wetlands along the northern side of the property which would provide some aquatic and riparian habitat. There does not appear to be any significant wildlife impacts. The Resources and Analysis Section of the Kalispell Growth Policy includes information from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks relating to deer, elk and moose habitat. As with the majority of the Kalispell area outside of the core downtown, the maps show a whitetail deer density of 5 to 30 per square mile, but no significant elk or moose habitat. The creek and wetlands would be protected with a 100-foot required setback to any property lines from the wetlands, and a 50-foot setback from the creek that allows only limited uses. Prior to construction, the developer will need to submit an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval which will help protect the habitat during construction. C. Effects on the Natural Environment: Surface and groundwater: The subdivision will be served by public water and sewer thereby minimizing any potential impacts to groundwater. Per the Geotech report, the static groundwater is generally from 15-20 feet below the surface. Floodplain: There does not appear to be any floodplain associated with the property (DFIRM Map 30029C1805J, effective date November 4, 2015). Drainage: Roadways will be paved and curb/gutter will channel runoff to designed low points, where storm water will be collected and routed to storm water ponds. Any open storm water facilities should have an elevated aesthetic design to be reviewed and approved by the Parks and Public Works Departments. Storm water runoff from the site shall be managed and constructed per the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction and storm water management program. Final design will be approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to development. Access to the storm water facility will need to be provided for maintenance purposes. The access would need to be at least a 12-foot all-weather surface. This access could potentially be shared with the access to the lift station. A condition of approval requires that a property owners’ association be created for the maintenance of the common area which would include the common area drainage easements or parcels. As part of the drainage areas, the association will be required to mow the area to reduce fire hazard and reduce spread of noxious weeds. In order to help ensure the continued maintenance of the storm water facilities, a note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. Lastly, the developer is required to submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval. These plans provide for managing 12 storm water on the site and include stabilizing the construction site through an approved revegetation plan after site grading is completed. Wetland and Watercourse Setbacks: Under Section 28.3.06 of the subdivision regulations, a minimum 100-foot setback is required from wetlands to any proposed lot boundaries. Under Section 28.3.07, a minimum 50-foot setback from the intermittent stream which allows only limited uses. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation report dated August 2022. A supplemental memo dated December 12, 2022, addresses the horseshoe area shown as Wetland 3, which is about 0.04 acres. That area was used as a soil or gravel borrow area around 2009. It is isolated from other delineated wetlands and there does not appear to be any surface connection. The assumption of the report is that it was “at least in part created by the earth moving and stockpiling activities that occurred on this property.” Section 28.3.06(A)(c) states that, for purposes of the setback, man-made wetlands would not be included. As that area appears to be man-made based on the delineation report, the 100-foot setback would not be applied to Wetland 3, but is applied to the other identified wetlands as shown on the mapping and the preliminary plat. 13 D. Effects on Local Services: Water: Water to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. The developer will tie into an existing water main that runs within the Farm-to-Market right-of-way across the full frontage of the property. The water system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. There is adequate capacity within the city’s water system to accommodate this subdivision. Proportionate water rights shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell per Section 28.3.08 of the subdivision regulations. Sewer: Sewer to the subdivision will be provided by the City of Kalispell. Sewer mains are located nearby, and the developer will construct a lift station with a force main to connect to an existing gravity sewer main at Mountain Vista Way, with mains extending throughout the subdivision. However, there is a lack of capacity in the mains downstream from the subdivision which will be corrected once a connection from Meadows Edge to the Westside Interceptor in Spring Creek Park is completed. There is an easement in place through Spring Creek Park to allow for the connection. Until that connection is made, there is not adequate capacity in the sewer collection system to support the subdivision and a condition of approval would not allow final plat until the connection is completed. There is adequate capacity within the city’s sewer system to accommodate this subdivision with the connection. The sewer system for the subdivision will be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department as part of the development of the subdivision under the Standards for Design and Construction. As with the water mains, city standards would generally require that the sewer mains be extended to the far property line within the adjacent frontage. However, due to topography of adjacent properties, an extension would not be required in this case. The lift station shown on the plat will need to be located within a designated utility lot. The access to the lot needs to be a paved width of 12 feet within a minimum 15-foot access and utility easement (within common area or as an extension of the utility lot connecting to the street). Access and Roads: The access to the subdivision would be from Farm-to-Market Road. The proposal includes two access points onto the road. There are potential issues with two accesses due to access separation requirements from both Mountain Vista Way and between the two new accesses. Those requirements may necessitate one of the accesses be limited movement. As a state highway, the Montana Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the accesses in addition to the City. If not approved with two accesses (or potentially with one being a limited access), the maximum number of units allowed would be less than 50, provided that the access road is less than 1000 feet in length pursuant to Section 28.3.13 of the subdivision regulations. In that event, the number of lots would have to be reduced to comply with the access standard. Additionally, more than 30 lots with a single access would require fire sprinkling in all of 14 the homes. Without the second access, the subsequent redesign would require a resubmittal of the subdivision for a new review and approval. Farm-to-Market is designated as a minor arterial in the Transportation Plan and the frontage of the property would need to be improved to that standard. Improvements may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, widening travel lanes, pedestrian paths, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. Dedication of additional right-of-way may be required for the improvements. As a minor arterial, city standards (Sec. 9.1.14 of the Standards for Design and Construction) would not allow individual driveway accesses onto Farm-to-Market. A note should be placed on the face of the final plat indicating that those driveways would not be allowed. While that means Lots 30A/B – 34A/B would only have vehicular access from the alley, having frontage on a public street with access from the alley is compliant with city standards. Internal streets would include streets built to local design standards pursuant to the Standards for Design and Construction including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. Alleys will be private with public utility easements. Under Sec 28.3.15, the townhomes cannot have access onto the street due to their width and the access shall only be from the alley. Also, the subdivision regulations (Sec 28.3.25) require that the final plat include a note stating that “The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision.” E5 Engineering prepared a traffic impact study (“TIS”) in December 2022. The traffic impact study analyzed the full buildout of the proposed development. The traffic study was prepared using standard techniques to forecast traffic volumes and operations at the approaches and nearby intersections. Under the city Standards for Design and Construction, the development shall maintain or improve the existing level of service for the affected roadways rather than simply maintaining an acceptable level of service. The TIS concluded that there was not a decrease in service and no capacity improvements are required to accommodate this development. However, while indications are that may be the case, there are several updates to the TIS which should be completed to confirm that conclusion. If upon further review by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department any mitigation is necessary to maintain levels of service, that mitigation will be required. Schools: The property is within the boundaries of School District #1 (West Valley) and Glacier High School. On average, it would be anticipated that there would be about 52 students (K-12) from the neighborhood at full build-out. Section 76-3-608(1) of the Montana Code Annotated states that the governing body may not deny approval of a proposed subdivision based solely on the subdivision’s impacts on educational services. Police: Police services will be provided by the Kalispell Police Department. The department can adequately provide service to this subdivision. 15 Fire Protection: Fire protection services will be provided by the Kalispell Fire Department. The department can adequately provide service to this development. Additionally, the road network to the subdivision provides adequate access for fire protection. As part of subdivision review and site review for the multi-family/ neighborhood commercial area, fire protection, including fire flow and hydrant location, will be reviewed. Fire station 62 is located approximately 1.8 miles away providing good response time. Parks and Recreation: Subdivision regulations require a minimum of 0.03 acres of parkland per dwelling unit for single-family lots, or 3.09 acres for the 103 single-family/townhome lots (or the equivalent value in land with improvements). The plat identifies 3.2 acres of park area, although some of the area may not be included as park area depending upon the impact of storm drainage facilities, a lift station, and other features which could impact the land as usable area. The parks may include amenities that will be determined during the course of the detailed subdivision design review in conjunction with the Parks Department. The proposal includes covenants and a management plan providing for maintenance of the shared facilities. A connection from the east end of the 10-foot-wide multiuse path to the sidewalk on Fayette Loop shall be added. It is imperative that these areas be well maintained for the visual aspects of the project and the functionality of the parks, open space, and storm drainage areas. Therefore, staff recommends that a note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners’ association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The taxes levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. Solid Waste: Solid waste collection can be provided throughout the subdivision by the City of Kalispell, although the application indicates that they may choose to utilize a private service. There is sufficient capacity within the landfill to accommodate this additional solid waste generated from this subdivision. Medical Services: Ambulance service is available from the fire department and ALERT helicopter service. Kalispell Regional Medical Center is approximately 2.0 miles from the site. E. Effects on Agriculture and agricultural water user facilities: The site was used as a gravel pit and has been vacant since those operations ceased. According to the Kalispell Growth Policy Resources and Analysis Section, “Important Farmlands” map, the property may include some area designated as prime farmland if irrigated, although the history of use and fill of the site may have negated any agricultural potential. 16 Current policies in the Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035, Chapter 5, Land Use: Natural Environment, state the following: Policy – Encourage urban growth only on agriculture lands entirely within the city’s annexation policy boundary. The subject property is entirely within the annexation policy boundary. By allowing higher density development within the city’s growth policy area, it can reasonably be expected that more farmland could be conserved because the availability of residential and commercial lots within the Kalispell Growth Policy boundary, limiting sprawl/leapfrog development. F. Relation to the Kalispell Growth Policy: The Kalispell Growth Policy Future Land Use Map designates the subject property as Suburban Residential. The City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035, Chapter 4A on Housing, encourages a variety of residential development that provides housing for all sectors and income levels within the community. City services including sewer, water and streets are in the vicinity and available to the subject property. The property also falls within the Kalispell West Neighborhood Plan, which was adopted in 2009. The plan anticipates this portion of the plan area to be developed to accommodate growth in the short-to-medium term from the plan’s adoption (within 15- 20 years), and the area was also included within the annexation boundary established in the growth policy (the subject property was annexed in 2018). It was anticipated that development would utilize the existing and proposed road arterial system. G. Compliance with Zoning: The request is in compliance with the R-4 zoning regulations applicable to the development. H. Compliance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations: This request complies with provisions of the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations applicable to the development. RECOMMENDATION (1) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt Staff Report #KA-23-02 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council that the property be annexed and the zoning for the property be city R-4 (Residential). (2) Staff recommends that the Kalispell City Planning Board and Zoning Commission adopt staff report #KPP-23-03 as findings of fact and recommend to the Kalispell City Council 17 that the preliminary plat for Creekside Subdivision be approved subject to the conditions listed below: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with the application submitted, the site plan, materials and other specifications as well as any additional conditions associated with the preliminary plat as approved by the city council. 2. The preliminary plat approval shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of approval. 3. The storm water ponds shall be designed in a way that they become a visual interest to the development. Chain link fencing surrounding the retention pond as the dominant fixture shall not be allowed without mitigation. The developer shall work closely with the Parks Department and Public Works to develop a design that is both visually appealing and meets the required safety guidelines. It is intended that when the project is developed the ponds will act as features, particularly along the roadways, rather than a private maintenance utility facility. Access to the storm water facility shall be provided for maintenance purposes. The access shall be at least a 12-foot all-weather surface. 4. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval a storm water report and an engineered drainage plan that meets the requirements of the current city standards for design and construction. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the public works department stating that the drainage plan for the subdivision has been installed as designed and approved. 5. The developer shall submit to the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction an erosion/sediment control plan for review and approval and a copy of all documents submitted to Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the General Permit for Storm Water Discharge Associated with Construction Activities. 6. The developer shall submit water and sanitary sewer plans, applicable specifications, and design reports to the Kalispell Public Works Department and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for concurrent review, with approval of both required prior to construction. 7. New infrastructure required to serve the subdivision shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Standards for Design and Construction. All design work shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Kalispell Public Works Department prior to construction. This infrastructure shall include but not be limited to streets, street lighting, street signage, curb, gutter, boulevard and sidewalks. 8. Water and sewer main extensions shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Kalispell’s Standards for Design and Construction and in compliance with the city’s facilities update and extensions of services plans. The water and sewer main 18 extension plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department. Prior to final plat, a certification shall be submitted to the Public Works Department stating that the water and sewer mains have been built and tested as designed and approved. 9. Any water rights associated with the property shall be transferred to the City of Kalispell. The water rights shall be allocated proportionally for each phase of the development prior to final plat. 10. There is a lack of capacity in the mains downstream from the subdivision which will be corrected once a connection from Meadows Edge to the Westside Interceptor in Spring Creek Park is completed. Until that connection is made, there is not adequate capacity in the sewer collection system to support the subdivision. Final plat shall not be allowed until the connection is completed. The connection cannot be bonded for under Section 28.8.01(C) of the subdivision regulations. 11. The lift station shown on the plat shall be located within a designated utility lot. The access to the lot needs to be a paved width of 12 feet within a minimum 15-foot access and utility easement (within common area or as an extension of the utility lot connecting to the street). 12. The developer shall submit the street designs to the Kalispell Public Works Department for review and approval prior to construction. Street designs shall meet the city standards for design and construction. Internal streets shall be built to local street design standards including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. 13. The two accesses from Farm-to-Market Road have potential issues due to access separation requirements from both Mountain Vista Way and between the two new accesses. Those requirements may necessitate one of the accesses be limited movement. As a state highway, the Montana Department of Transportation will need to review and approve the accesses in addition to the City. If not approved with two accesses (or potentially with one being a limited access), the maximum number of units allowed would be less than 50, provided that the access road is less than 1000 feet in length pursuant to Section 28.3.13 of the subdivision regulations. In that event, the number of lots would have to be reduced to comply with the access standard. Without the second access, the subsequent redesign would require a resubmittal of the subdivision for a new review and approval. 14. Farm-to-Market is designated as a minor arterial in the Transportation Plan and the frontage of the property shall be improved to that standard. Improvements may include, but would not necessarily be limited to, widening travel lanes, pedestrian paths, landscape boulevard, streetlights, and curb/gutter. Dedication of additional right-of-way may be required for the improvements. 19 15. As a minor arterial, city standards (Sec. 9.1.14 of the Standards for Design and Construction) would not allow individual driveway accesses onto Farm-to-Market. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat indicating that those driveways would not be allowed. 16. Alleys included within the plat shall be maintained as private alleys with public utility easements. Under Sec 28.3.15, the townhomes cannot have access onto the street due to their width and the access shall only be from the alley. A note shall be placed on the face of the final plat to that effect. 17. Pursuant to Sec 28.3.25 of the subdivision regulations, the final plat shall include a note stating that “The owners hereby waive the right to protest the creation of an SID for the purpose of financing improvements to area roads which specifically benefit this subdivision.” 18. While the Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) concluded that there was not a decrease in service and no capacity improvements are required to accommodate this development, there are several updates to the TIS which should be completed to confirm that conclusion. An updated TIS shall be submitted to the City. If upon further review by the City of Kalispell Public Works Department any mitigation is necessary to maintain levels of service, that mitigation will be required prior to final plat. 19. The recommendations in the Geotech report shall be followed. In addition, individual building sites should each have a separate, site-specific geotechnical evaluation prior to issuance of a building permit. A note to that effect shall be placed on the face of the plat. 20. The final grading plan is subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department. 21. The developer shall secure the appropriate permitting from the Corps of Engineers, the Conservation District, and any other applicable agency for any work that may impact the wetlands or stream on the northern portion of the property. 22. Under Section 28.3.06 of the subdivision regulations, the development shall maintain a minimum 100-foot setback from wetlands to any proposed lot boundaries. Under Section 28.3.07, the development shall limit uses within the 50-foot setback from the stream. 23. Prior to final plat, a letter from the Kalispell Public Works Department shall be submitted stating that all new infrastructure has been accepted by the City of Kalispell, any private infrastructure has been constructed per city standards, and a proper bond has been accepted for unfinished work. 24. All existing and proposed easements shall be indicated on the face of the final plat. Utility easements for city water and sewer shall be provided to allow for the logical extension of utilities from this subdivision to adjoining properties. A letter from the Kalispell Public 20 Works Department shall be obtained stating that the required easements are being shown on the final plat. 25. The following statement shall appear on the final plat: "The undersigned hereby grants unto each and every person, firm or corporation, whether public or private, providing or offering to provide telephone, telegraph, electric power, gas, cable television, water or sewer service to the public, the right to the joint use of an easement for the construction, maintenance, repair, and removal of their lines and other facilities, in, over, under, and across each area designated on this plat as "Utility Easement" to have and to hold forever." _____________________ Developer's Signature 26. Prior to filing the final plat, a letter from the US Postal Service shall be included stating the Service has reviewed and approved of the design and location of the mail delivery site. The mail delivery site shall be installed or bonded for prior to final plat. In addition, the mail delivery site and improvements shall also be included in the preliminary and final engineering plans to be reviewed by the Public Works Department. The mail delivery site shall not impact a sidewalk or proposed boulevard area. 27. A homeowner’s association (HOA) shall be formed and established to provide for the maintenance of the common areas, including, but not necessarily limited to, roads, parks and open space. Maintenance of any private roads and alleys shall include both short term and long-term maintenance including, but not necessarily limited to, snow plowing, landscaping, sidewalks, street repairs, overlays, and rebuilds of the street. 28. A letter from the Kalispell Fire Department approving the access, placement of the fire hydrants and fire flows within the subdivision shall be submitted prior to final plat. 29. A letter shall be obtained from the Parks and Recreation Director approving a landscape plan for the placement of trees and landscaping materials within the landscape boulevards of the streets serving the subdivision, common area, and adjoining rights-of-way. The approved landscape plan shall be implemented or a cash-in-lieu payment for installation of the street trees and groundcover be provided to the Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department. 30. A park plan shall be created and approved by the Parks and Recreation Director prior to final plat. A connection from the east end of the 10-foot-wide multiuse path to the sidewalk on Fayette Loop shall be added. 31. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a park maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owners’ association defaults on their park and open space amenity conditions. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Parks and Recreation Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 21 32. A note shall be placed on the final plat indicating a waiver of the right to protest creation of a stormwater maintenance district. This district shall only be activated in the event that the property owner(s) default on the maintenance of the approved stormwater facilities. The assessments levied within the maintenance district shall be determined by the Public Works Department with approvals by the Kalispell City Council. 33. A minimum of two-thirds of the necessary infrastructure for the subdivision shall be completed prior to final plat submittal. 34. All utilities shall be installed underground and in locations that are approved by the Kalispell Public Works Department in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. 35. All areas disturbed during development shall be re-vegetated with a weed-free mix immediately after development. 36. The westernmost alley located between Lots 30A/B through 34A/B and Lots 35A/b through 39A/B shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a minimum paved width of 20 feet to provide for fire access. As a private alley, the covenants shall require that the alley be free of parked vehicles and other obstacles. Creekside Subdivision 1111 Farm to Market Road Annexation and Initial Zoning Application & Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Application City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations PREPARED BY: 172 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, Montana MMI # 6893.001 January 2023 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 1 of 394 Contents ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING APPLICATION............................................................................2 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION ...............................................................................................................5 ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING NARRATIVE...............................................................................7 PETITION TO ANNEX AND WIDTHDRAW FROM RURAL FIRE DISTRICT .......................................11 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................14 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION .............................................................16 PRE- APPLICATION MEETING FORM .................................................................................................19 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION...........................................25 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY PLAT......................................................................................................28 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT................................................................................31 APPENDIX C EXHIBITS.........................................................................................................................96 APPENDIX D DRAFT CONDITIONS, CONVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS....................................102 APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT...........................................................................................126 APPENDIX F TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ............................................................................................170 APPENDIX G DELINEATED WETLAND REPORT.............................................................................343 APPENDIX H CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY..........................................................................................393 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 2 of 394 ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING APPLICATION Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 5 of 394 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 7 of 394 ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING NARRATIVE Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 8 of 394 HOW WILL THE PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF: A. Promoting the Growth Policy? The proposed development is within the City of Kalispell’s annexation boundary. The Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035 identifies the proposed development within the Suburban Residential Future Land Use. The proposed R-4 zoning is considered a Suburban Residential land use. The proposed development will be designed in accordance with the Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction and incorporate policies and recommendations described in the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding development and includes bicycle-safe and pedestrian-friendly paths, mixed housing types for all sectors and income levels with single-family homes and townhomes, convenient access to the transportation, parks and schools with sidewalks and multi-use paths, open-space and parks to preserve natural vegetation and promote community activities, and an 100-foot setback to protect the existing wetland and riparian area. B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access? The proposed development will have an internal road that connects to Farm to Market Road. The proposed road is within a 60-foot right-of-way and will be designed in accordance with Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) design standards and City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. The proposed development includes sidewalks and multi-use paths for bicycle-safe and pedestrian-friendly access to City of Kalispell transportation system, parks, and schools. C. Promoting safety from fire, panic, and other dangers? The proposed development will include an extension to the City of Kalispell’s Public Water Supply system. The extension will be designed to include fire hydrants to provide fire protection. The Engineer will coordinate with the City of Kalispell Fire Department for the location of fire hydrants. The proposed development will include adequate lighting designed to Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction to promote safety from panic and other dangers. The proposed subdivision access will meet City Standards to allow for adequate emergency services. D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare? The proposed development is located within the growth boundary and is adjacent to similar suburban developed properties. The proposed development will be designed to meet the City Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 9 of 394 of Kalispell’s Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, and Public Works Engineering Standards to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. E. Preventing the overcrowding of land? The proposed development will be designed in accordance with the City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance and R-4 Residential Property Development Standards. The minimum setbacks will prevent overcrowding of land. The total developable land area for the proposed development is 18.34 acres. The proposed development includes 103 units for a total density of 5.62 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is less than the max density of 10 dwelling units/developable acre for the R-4 zoning to prevent overcrowding of land. F. Avoiding undue concentration of population? The proposed development will be designed in accordance with City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance for the lot configuration to be spread out and avoid undue concentration of population. G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, and other public facilities? The proposed development will include roads that connect to Farm to Market Road to provide adequate access to the existing transportation system and extend the city’s water supply system and connect to the city’s wastewater collection system to provide water and sewer services to the individual lots. The proposed development is within the West Valley Elementary School District and Kalispell School District #5. The proposed development includes two Parks, multi-use path within the development, and an extension of the bike path on Farm to Market Road are proposed with this development. H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district? The surrounding residential areas consist of both single-family residential and multi-family developments. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with its neighbors by providing similar sized single family and duplex lots. I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses? The neighboring properties consist of single and multi-family subdivisions. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding areas and the City of Kalispell Growth Policy Plan-It 2035. The proposed R-4 zoning complies with the future Suburban Residential future land use identified in the Growth Policy. The subject property is suitable for the proposed residential development. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 10 of 394 J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings? The single-family homes and townhomes within the proposed subdivision will be designed and constructed in accordance with the 2018 International Building, Mechanical, Fuel Gas, and Fire Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 Uniform Plumbing Code, 2018 Energy Code, 2017 National Electric Code. The proposed homes will be required to be reviewed by the Plan Design Review to protect and conserve the value of buildings. K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth? The proposed development is within the Suburban Residential Growth Policy Future Land Use. The proposed R-4 Residential zoning is typical for suburban residential uses. The proposed development will be designed in accordance with City of Kalispell Zoning Regulations to encourage the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 11 of 394 PETITION TO ANNEX AND WIDTHDRAW FROM RURAL FIRE DISTRICT Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 14 of 394 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 15 of 394 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL C, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 8903, IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. - AND - PARCEL D, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY NO. 8903, IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, P.M.M., FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 16 of 394 MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 19 of 394 PRE- APPLICATION MEETING FORM Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 25 of 394 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 26 of 394 A. VICINITY MAP(S): One or more vicinity map(s) 1. Ingress and egress to the subdivision from the adjoining nearest public roads; A vicinity map showing the ingress and egress to the proposed subdivision from Farm to Market Road is included in Appendix C of this report. 2. Any rivers, streams, creeks or wetlands adjoining or in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision; A vicinity map showing Spring Creek and delineated Wetland is included in Appendix C of this report. 3. All tracts, lots or land parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision together with the name and address of the owner of each tract, lot or land parcel verified by the County Clerk and Recorder or a title company. Where the subdivision abuts a public right-of- way, or water course less than 150 feet in width, the properties across such right-of- way or water course shall be considered adjacent; A vicinity map showing all tracts, lots, and land parcels adjoining the proposed subdivision is included in Appendix C of this report. 4. Names of any adjoining platted subdivision and/or numbers of adjoining Certificates of Survey on recorded in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder; A vicinity map showing the adjoining platted subdivision and adjoining Certificates of Survey is included in Appendix C of this report. 5. Location of buildings, railroads, power lines, towers, roads, and other land uses; A vicinity map showing location of buildings, power lines, towers, and roads is included in Appendix C of this report. There are no railroads near the proposed subdivision. 6. Any existing or proposed zoning; A vicinity map showing the existing and proposed zoning are included in Appendix C of this report. B. COMMON AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN: If any common area is proposed to be part of the subdivision, the subdivider shall submit a plan for long term management of these areas. If common property and/or facilities within the subdivision are to be maintained by an association of the property owners, the Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 27 of 394 subdivider shall submit a draft of the restrictions which will govern the association. These restrictions shall, at a minimum, provide that: 1. The property owners association will be formed prior to sale of any lots within the subdivision; 2. Membership is mandatory for all property owners in the subdivision; 3. The association is responsible for any liability insurance, payment of taxes on common property and maintenance of common; A draft conditions, covenants, and restrictions are included in Appendix D of this report. The restrictions stated above are included in the draft conditions, covenants, and restrictions. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Environmental Assessment prepared in accordance with the Kalispell Subdivision Regulations is included in Appendix B of this report. D. PHASED PROJECTS The applicant, as part of the preliminary plat approval, may propose to delineate on the preliminary plat two or more final plat filing phases and establish the schedules of the preliminary plat review and approval. The proposed subdivision will not be phased. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 28 of 394 APPENDIX A PRELIMINARY PLAT X XX X X X 38.56' X XX X X X 3 0 5 6 3 0 5 4 3 0 5 2 30 4 8 30 4 4 30 4 0 30 3 6 30 3 8 30 4 2 3030 3026 3026 3022 302 6 3 0 2 8 30 3 0 30 3 2 30 3 4 3 0 3 6 30 3 8 303 4 30 3 8 3038 3 0 3 6 3 0 3 2 30 2 8 30 2 4 3 0 2 0 30 1 6 30 1 2 3 0 1 0 3 0 0 8 300630 0 6 3008 3 0 3 0 3 0 2 8 3024 3018 3014 301 0 30 4 4 3042 3040 3038 3034 3044 3044 3042 3044 3042 30 4 6 3050 3044 304 4 3042 3042 304 4 3040303 8 3036 303 23030 3028 3024 3044 3 0 4 2 304 0 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 92 . 0 0 ' 92 . 5 0 ' 92 . 5 0 ' 93 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 63 . 4 0 ' 72 . 0 6 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 2 3 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 69 . 7 7 ' 79 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 1 ' 70 . 0 1 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 39 . 1 2 ' 30.52' N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N4 ° 2 2 ' 2 6 " E 80 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 0 ' S60° 4 3 ' 0 2 " E 58.9 8 ' 249. 3 3 ' 23.26' 82.25'82.40'82.35' 32.40'82.25'82.40'82.35'82.50'82.50'83.00'83.00'83.00'83.00'83.00' 83.00'83.00'83.00'83.00'83.00'82.50'82.50'S86°42'53"E S86°40'44"E S86°40'44"E S86°40'44"E 66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01' 66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'66.01'65.01'56.01'76.01'60.36' S86°41'41"E S86°40'43"E S86°42'52"E 1254.13' N4 ° 1 6 ' 1 5 " E 42 5 . 1 1 ' S4 ° 1 6 ' 1 5 " W 43 1 . 5 0 ' N4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " E 39 0 . 8 9 ' N85°37'37"W19.99' N4°22'23"E39.45' N4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " E 42 5 . 1 5 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' N4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " E 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 91 . 3 6 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 98 . 4 5 ' S4 ° 2 2 ' 2 3 " W 11 9 . 8 2 ' S4 ° 5 7 ' 4 5 " E 15 7 . 8 5 ' S 1 6 ° 3 1 ' 3 3 " E 1 4 9 . 6 3 ' S86°40'44"E 100.00'S86°40'44"E 100.00'S86°40'44"E 100.00'S86°40'44"E 100.00'S86°40'44"E 100.00' N86° 40' 44"W 103.29 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 117.96 S86° 32' 43"E 99.26 S86° 32' 49"E 100.55 S86° 40' 44"E 101.82 S86° 40' 44"E 116.49 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 70 . 0 0 ' 80 . 0 1 ' S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S86° 40' 44"E 100.00 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 72 . 4 8 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 72 . 4 8 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 72 . 4 8 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 72 . 4 8 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 72 . 7 4 S3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " W 73 . 0 0 N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E 72 . 4 8 N1 0 ° 1 2 ' 2 9 " E 63 . 3 5 N1 0 ° 1 2 ' 2 9 " E 16 4 . 1 1 N86° 40' 44"W 110.00 S86° 40' 44"E 110.00 S86° 40' 44"E 110.00 S86° 40' 44"E 28.88 S86° 40' 44"E 28.32 S86° 40' 44"E 98.94 S86° 40' 44"E 98.94 73 . 9 9 ' 54 . 1 7 ' 40 . 4 9 ' 39 . 5 1 ' 52 . 9 9 ' 73 . 0 1 ' N3 ° 1 9 ' 1 6 " E N29 ° 1 6 ' 5 8 " E 43. 5 5 885.53'885.53' N3° 17' 08"E16.41 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C 6 C7 C8 C 9 C1 0 C11 C12 PARCEL CURVE DATA SEGMENT C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 LENGTH 59.15 60.54 62.77 62.15 50.08 410.89 64.11 84.60 165.69 80.64 165.68 84.03 RADIUS 244.98 245.00 245.00 245.00 245.00 245.00 245.00 185.00 185.00 185.00 185.07 185.30 DELTA 13.83 14.16 14.68 14.54 11.71 96.09 14.99 26.20 51.31 24.97 51.29 25.98 LOT AREA (SF) AREA (AC) 1 6030 0.14 2 6030 0.14 3 6030 0.14 4 6030 0.14 5 6030 0.14 6 6030 0.14 7 6030 0.14 8 6030 0.14 9 6030 0.14 10 6030 0.14 11 6030 0.14 12 6030 0.14 13 6030 0.14 14 6076 0.14 15 6043 0.14 16 8877 0.20 17 11852 0.27 18 6800 0.16 19 6412 0.15 20 6002 0.14 21 6009 0.14 22 6001 0.14 23 6007 0.14 24 6003 0.14 25 6034 0.14 26 6031 0.14 27 6026 0.14 28 6022 0.14 29 6018 0.14 30A 5261 0.12 30B 4117 0.09 31A 4054 0.09 31B 3462 0.08 32A 3485 0.08 32B 3507 0.08 33A 3530 0.08 33B 3552 0.08 34A 3574 0.08 34B 4629 0.11 35A 4500 0.10 35B 3500 0.08 36A 3500 0.08 36B 3500 0.08 37A 3500 0.08 37B 3500 0.08 38A 3500 0.08 38B 3500 0.08 39A 3500 0.08 39B 4500 0.10 40A 4500 0.10 40B 3500 0.08 41A 3500 0.08 41B 3500 0.08 42A 3500 0.08 42B 3500 0.08 43A 3500 0.08 43B 3500 0.08 44A 3500 0.08 44B 4500 0.10 45A 4500 0.10 45B 3500 0.08 46A 3500 0.08 46B 3500 0.08 47A 3500 0.08 47B 3500 0.08 48A 3500 0.08 48B 3500 0.08 49A 3500 0.08 49B 4500 0.10 50A 4500 0.10 50B 3500 0.08 51A 3500 0.08 51B 3500 0.08 52A 3500 0.08 52B 3500 0.08 53A 3500 0.08 53B 3500 0.08 54A 3500 0.08 54B 4500 0.10 55A 4500 0.10 55B 3500 0.08 56A 3500 0.08 56B 3500 0.08 57A 3500 0.08 57B 3500 0.08 58A 3500 0.08 58B 3500 0.08 59A 3500 0.08 59B 4500 0.10 60A 5159 0.12 60B 4565 0.10 61A 5088 0.12 61B 5088 0.12 62A 5088 0.12 62B 5088 0.12 63A 4768 0.11 63B 4846 0.11 64A 4917 0.11 64B 3284 0.08 65A 4075 0.09 65B 4075 0.09 66A 3284 0.08 66B 4916 0.11 ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2023 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/22/2023 PLOTTED BY: dom goble DRAWING NAME: U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\ACAD\Planning\PRELIMINARY_PLAT.dwg 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:31BRENT HOLDINGS LLC FLATHEAD 10214.001 1"=60' 1/14/23 JEM DDG LRJ 22 W 28 N 2SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA PRELIMINARY PLATCREEKSIDE SUBDVISION PARCEL C AND D OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 8903, LOCATED IN THE SW 14 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, FLATHEAD COUNTY 1111 FARM TO MARKET ROAD, KALISPELL, MONTANA engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net 60 12030600 SCALE IN FEET 10 ' U T I L I T Y EA S E M E N T (T Y P ) BASIS OF BEARINGBEARINGS ARE STATE PLANE GRID, DERIVED FROM GPSOBSERVATIONS WITH SURVEY-GRADE RECEIVERS ANDREFERENCED TO THE MONTANA COORDINATE SYSTEM,SINGLE ZONE, NAD 83 (CORS). COORDINATES AND DISTANCES ARE TRANSFORMED TO GROUND AT CONTROLPOINT NO. 1. HORIZONTAL UNITS ARE INTERNATIONALFEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS0.99947036. VERTICAL DATUM ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD88, BASED ON MSOL ANDCOMPUTED USING GEOID 18. VERTICAL UNITS ARE USSURVEY FEET. FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY EXISTING WETLAND 100' WETLANDBUFFER LINE SPRING CREEK 250' BPATRANSMISSI O N EASEMENT PROPOSED PARK 28587 SF 0.66 AC PROPOSED PARK 110683 SF 2.54 AC LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 19 PARC E L B O F COS 8 9 0 3 MOUN T A I N V I S T A SUBD I V I S I O N FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) 20 ' A L L E Y 16 ' A L L E Y 16 ' A L L E Y QUART E R H O R S E ESTAT E S MEAD O W S E D G E SUBDI V I S I O N RESIDENTIAL LOTS - 10.89 ACRIGHT-OF-WAY - 4.86 ACPARK - 3.20 ACOPEN SPACE - 3.37 ACEASEMENT - 2.19 ACTOTAL - 24.51 ac AREA SUMMARY LEGEND PROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENTLOT LINESUBLOT LINEZONING SETBACKS BR O O K S S T R E E T ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) NE W N A N W A Y ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) TY R O N E L A N E ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING WETLAND100-FOOT WETLAND SETBACK OPEN SPACE PARKLAND PROPOSED LIFTSTATION PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITY LOT 8 LOT 30A LOT 30B LOT 18 LOT 20LOT 21LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26LOT 27LOT 28LOT 29 LOT 31A LOT 31B LOT 32A LOT 32B LOT 33A LOT 33B LOT 34A LOT 34B FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) LOT 35A LOT 35B LOT 36A LOT 36B LOT 37A LOT 37B LOT 38A LOT 38B LOT 39A LOT 39B LOT 40A LOT 40B LOT 41A LOT 41B LOT 42A LOT 42B LOT 43A LOT 43B LOT 44A LOT 44B LOT 45A LOT 45B LOT 46A LOT 46B LOT 47A LOT 47B LOT 48A LOT 48B LOT 49A LOT 49B LOT 50A LOT 50B LOT 51A LOT 51B LOT 52A LOT 52B LOT 53A LOT 53B LOT 54A LOT 54B LOT 55A LOT 55B LOT 56A LOT 56B LOT 57A LOT 57B LOT 58A LOT 58B LOT 59A LOT 59B LOT 60A LOT 60B LOT 61A LOT 61B LOT 62A LOT 62B LOT 63A LOT 63B LOT 64A LOT 64B LOT 65A LOT 65B LOT 66A LOT 66B 10-FOOT WIDE MULTI-USE PATH 15' UTILITYAND ACCESS EASEMENT X XX X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD SD SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM SD SD SD S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S NG NG NG OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P S S T S SS S S SSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S X XX X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD SD SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM SD SD SD S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2023 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/22/2023 PLOTTED BY: dom goble DRAWING NAME: U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\ACAD\Planning\PRELIMINARY_PLAT.dwg 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:32BRENT HOLDINGS LLC FLATHEAD 10214.001 1"=60' 1/14/23 JEM DDG LRJ 22 W 28 N 2SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA PRELIMINARY PLAT - UTILITIESCREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION PARCEL C AND D OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 8903, LOCATED IN THE SW 14 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, FLATHEAD COUNTY 1111 FARM TO MARKET ROAD, KALISPELL, MONTANA engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net 60 12030600 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARINGBEARINGS ARE STATE PLANE GRID, DERIVED FROM GPSOBSERVATIONS WITH SURVEY-GRADE RECEIVERS ANDREFERENCED TO THE MONTANA COORDINATE SYSTEM,SINGLE ZONE, NAD 83 (CORS). COORDINATES AND DISTANCES ARE TRANSFORMED TO GROUND AT CONTROLPOINT NO. 1. HORIZONTAL UNITS ARE INTERNATIONALFEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS0.99947036. VERTICAL DATUM ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD88, BASED ON MSOL ANDCOMPUTED USING GEOID 18. VERTICAL UNITS ARE USSURVEY FEET. FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY SPRING CREEK 250' BPATRANSMISSI O N EASEMENT PROPOSED LIFTSTATION PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITY FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) BR O O K S S T R E E T ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) 20 ' A L L E Y 16 ' A L L E Y 16 ' A L L E Y TY R O N E L A N E ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) LEGEND S S W W SD PROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENTLOT LINESUBLOT LINEZONING SETBACKSEXISTING SEWER MAINPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER MAIN EXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPEEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR S S EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING HYDRANT PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED DRAIN INLET PARC E L B O F COS 8 9 0 3 MOUN T A I N V I S T A SUBD I V I S I O N QUAR T E R H O R S E ESTA T E SMEADO W S E D G E SUBD I V I S I O N 10 ' U T I L I T Y EA S E M E N T (T Y P ) FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN BASIS OF BEARINGBEARINGS ARE STATE PLANE GRID, DERIVED FROM GPSOBSERVATIONS WITH SURVEY-GRADE RECEIVERS ANDREFERENCED TO THE MONTANA COORDINATE SYSTEM,SINGLE ZONE, NAD 83 (CORS). COORDINATES AND DISTANCES ARE TRANSFORMED TO GROUND AT CONTROLPOINT NO. 1. HORIZONTAL UNITS ARE INTERNATIONALFEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS0.99947036. VERTICAL DATUM ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD88, BASED ON MSOL ANDCOMPUTED USING GEOID 18. VERTICAL UNITS ARE USSURVEY FEET. SPRING CREEK LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17 PARC E L B O F COS 8 9 0 3 MOUN T A I N V I S T A SUBD I V I S I O N FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) QUAR T E R H O R S E ESTA T E S NE W N A N W A Y ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) EXISTING WETLAND100-FOOT WETLAND SETBACK OPEN SPACE PARKLAND LOT 8 LOT 19 LOT 30A LOT 30B LOT 20LOT 21LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26LOT 27LOT 28LOT 29 LOT 31A LOT 31B LOT 32A LOT 32B LOT 33A LOT 33B LOT 34A LOT 34B LOT 35A LOT 35B LOT 36A LOT 36B LOT 37A LOT 37B LOT 38A LOT 38B LOT 39A LOT 39B LOT 40A LOT 40B LOT 41A LOT 41B LOT 42A LOT 42B LOT 43A LOT 43B LOT 44A LOT 44B LOT 45A LOT 45B LOT 46A LOT 46B LOT 47A LOT 47B LOT 48A LOT 48B LOT 49A LOT 49B LOT 50A LOT 50B LOT 51A LOT 51B LOT 52A LOT 52B LOT 53A LOT 53B LOT 54A LOT 54B LOT 55A LOT 55B LOT 56A LOT 56B LOT 57A LOT 57B LOT 58A LOT 58B LOT 59A LOT 59B LOT 60A LOT 60B LOT 61A LOT 61B LOT 62A LOT 62B LOT 63A LOT 63B LOT 64A LOT 64B LOT 65A LOT 65B LOT 66A LOT 66B LOT 18 FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) X XX X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD SD SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM SD SD SD S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S NG NG NG OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P S S T S SS S S SSSS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W S X XX X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D S D SD SD SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM SD SD SD S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S ©COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC.,2023 PLOTTED DATE: Mar/22/2023 PLOTTED BY: dom goble DRAWING NAME: U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\ACAD\Planning\PRELIMINARY_PLAT.dwg 1/4 SEC. SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE PROJ. #:SHEET OF COUNTY,DATE: SCALE: CLIENT: FIELD WORK: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:33BRENT HOLDINGS LLC FLATHEAD 10214.001 1"=60' 1/14/23 JEM DDG LRJ 22 W 28 N 2SW MONTANA PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MONTANA PRELIMINARY PLAT - BUILDABLE AREASCREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION PARCEL C AND D OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 8903, LOCATED IN THE SW 14 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 28 NORTH, RANGE 22 WEST, FLATHEAD COUNTY 1111 FARM TO MARKET ROAD, KALISPELL, MONTANA engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net 60 12030600 SCALE IN FEET BASIS OF BEARINGBEARINGS ARE STATE PLANE GRID, DERIVED FROM GPSOBSERVATIONS WITH SURVEY-GRADE RECEIVERS ANDREFERENCED TO THE MONTANA COORDINATE SYSTEM,SINGLE ZONE, NAD 83 (CORS). COORDINATES AND DISTANCES ARE TRANSFORMED TO GROUND AT CONTROLPOINT NO. 1. HORIZONTAL UNITS ARE INTERNATIONALFEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS0.99947036. VERTICAL DATUM ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD88, BASED ON MSOL ANDCOMPUTED USING GEOID 18. VERTICAL UNITS ARE USSURVEY FEET. FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY SPRING CREEK 250' BPATRANSMISSI O N EASEMENT PROPOSED LIFTSTATION PROPOSED DETENTION FACILITY FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) BR O O K S S T R E E T ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) TY R O N E L A N E ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) LEGEND W W SD PROPERTY BOUNDARYEASEMENTLOT LINESUBLOT LINEZONING SETBACKSEXISTING SEWER MAINPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER MAIN EXISTING WATER MAINPROPOSED WATER MAINPROPOSED STORM DRAIN PIPEEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR S S EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE PROPOSED SEWER MANHOLE EXISTING HYDRANT PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE PROPOSED DRAIN INLET PARC E L B O F COS 8 9 0 3 MOUN T A I N V I S T A SUBD I V I S I O N QUAR T E R H O R S E ESTA T E SMEADO W S E D G E SUBD I V I S I O N 10 ' U T I L I T Y EA S E M E N T (T Y P ) FM PROPOSED FORCE MAIN BASIS OF BEARINGBEARINGS ARE STATE PLANE GRID, DERIVED FROM GPSOBSERVATIONS WITH SURVEY-GRADE RECEIVERS ANDREFERENCED TO THE MONTANA COORDINATE SYSTEM,SINGLE ZONE, NAD 83 (CORS). COORDINATES AND DISTANCES ARE TRANSFORMED TO GROUND AT CONTROLPOINT NO. 1. HORIZONTAL UNITS ARE INTERNATIONALFEET. COMBINED SCALE FACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT IS0.99947036. VERTICAL DATUM ELEVATIONS ARE NAVD88, BASED ON MSOL ANDCOMPUTED USING GEOID 18. VERTICAL UNITS ARE USSURVEY FEET. SPRING CREEK PARC E L B O F COS 8 9 0 3 MOUN T A I N V I S T A SUBD I V I S I O N FAYETTE LOOP (60' RIGHT OF WAY) QUAR T E R H O R S E ESTA T E S NE W N A N W A Y ( 6 0 ' R I G H T O F W A Y ) EXISTING WETLAND100-FOOT WETLAND SETBACK OPEN SPACE PARKLAND LOT 19 LOT 30A LOT 30B LOT 20LOT 21LOT 22LOT 23LOT 24LOT 25LOT 26LOT 27LOT 28LOT 29 LOT 31A LOT 31B LOT 32A LOT 32B LOT 33A LOT 33B LOT 34A LOT 34B LOT 35B LOT 36A LOT 36B LOT 37A LOT 37B LOT 38A LOT 38B LOT 39A LOT 39B LOT 40A LOT 40B LOT 41A LOT 41B LOT 42A LOT 42B LOT 43A LOT 43B LOT 44A LOT 44B LOT 45A LOT 45B LOT 46A LOT 46B LOT 47A LOT 47B LOT 48A LOT 48B LOT 49A LOT 49B LOT 50A LOT 50B LOT 51A LOT 51B LOT 52A LOT 52B LOT 53A LOT 53B LOT 54A LOT 54B LOT 55A LOT 55B LOT 56A LOT 56B LOT 57A LOT 57B LOT 58A LOT 58B LOT 59A LOT 59B LOT 60A LOT 60B LOT 61A LOT 61B LOT 62A LOT 62B LOT 63A LOT 63B LOT 64A LOT 64B LOT 65A LOT 65B LOT 66A LOT 66B LOT 18 LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 9 LOT 10 LOT 11 LOT 12 LOT 13 LOT 14 LOT 15 LOT 16 LOT 17LOT 8 SINGLE-FAMILY 30'X30' BUILDABLE AREA TOWNHOUSE30'X40' BUILDABLE AREA LOT 35A S S Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 31 of 394 APPENDIX B ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 32 of 394 Part 1 – Property Description 1. Surface Water Locate on a plat overlay or sketch map: A. Any natural water systems such as streams, rivers, intermittent streams, lakes or marshes (also indicate the names and sizes of each). Spring Creek is located within the northeast corner of the property and is approximate 12 feet wide. Spring Creek is shown on the preliminary plat that is included in Appendix A of this application. B. Any artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, aqueducts, reservoirs, and irrigation systems (also indicate the names, sizes and present uses of each). There are no artificial water systems such as canals, ditches, aqueducts, reservoirs, or irrigation systems are within the proposed subdivision. C. Time when water is present (seasonally or all year). Water is present in the Spring Creek all year. The Preliminary Plat shows edge-of-water at the time of the survey on June 29, 2022. Spring Creek is approximately 25 vertical feet below the proposed subdivision. D. Any areas subject to flood hazard, or in delineated 100-year floodplain. The streambank of Spring Creek can be subject to flood hazard. However, the FEMA Flood Hazard study limits end south of Three Mile Drive. There is not a delineated 100-year floodplain for Spring Creek within the subject property. Spring Creek is approximately 230 feet away from the proposed subdivision and 25 feet below the proposed subdivision. The wetland along Spring Creek requires a 100-foot setback. No structures will be constructed within the 100-foot wetland buffer zone so the proposed developed will be outside the believed areas subject to flood hazard. Wetland Delineation Report, dated August 2022 prepared by Morrison-Maierle is included in Appendix G of this application. E. Describe any existing or proposed streambank alteration from any proposed construction or modification of lake beds or stream channels. Provide information on location, extent, type and purpose of alteration, and permits applied for. There are no proposed streambank alterations. A new bike path and park area will be constructed along the north edge of the property in the 100-foot wetland buffer zone but will Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 33 of 394 not affect the stream bank. Proposed grading limits will be approximately 100 feet from the Spring Creek. 2. Ground Water Using available data, provide the following information: A. The minimum depth to water table or to the historic water table and identify dates when depths were determined. What is the location and depth of all aquifers which may be affected by the proposed subdivision? Describe the location of known aquifer recharge areas which may be affected. A geotechnical investigation was conducted on January 4, 2023. The reports shows that the water table is located 14.8 to 20.3 feet below ground surface. The geotechnical report is included in Appendix E of this application. B. Describe any steps necessary to avoid depletion or degradation of groundwater recharge areas. Groundwater recharge areas will not be degraded within the proposed development of this project as the subdivision will connect to the City of Kalispell sewer system and no drain fields will be present. Stormwater runoff from the subject property will be treated before discharge. 3. Topography, Geology and Soils A. Provide a map of the topography of the area to be subdivided, and an evaluation of suitability for the proposed land uses. On the map identify any areas with highly erodible soils or slopes in excess of 15% grade. Identify the lots or areas affected. Address conditions such as: i. Shallow bedrock There are no known shallow bedrock areas within the subject property. A geotechnical investigation report prepared by Alpine Geotechnical was completed on January 24, 2023 and is included in Appendix E of this application. ii. Unstable slopes Steep slopes exist near Spring Creek within the wetland setback buffer. Structures will be built away from unstable slopes and outside of the wetland setback buffer. iii. Unstable or expansive soils Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 34 of 394 Alpine Geotechnical identified an organic silt topsoil atop layers of silty clay, silt, and silty sand within the eastern portion property. Alpine Geotechnical identified previously placed fill approximately 7 to 15 feet in depth at the reclaimed mine area along the western portion of the property. Alpine Geotechnical did not encounter any expansive clay areas. Alpine Geotechnical recommends that additional excavation stability be provided in areas where the silty sand is present and the previously placed fill areas should be subexcavated. The Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix E of this application. iv. Excessive slope The property has excessive slopes along the north edge of the property with 15-53 percent grade. Proposed grading limits will extend in excessive slopes. These areas will be designated as open space where no structures will be built. B. Locate on an overlay or sketch map: i. Any known hazards affecting the development which could result in property damage or personal injury due to: a. Falls, slides or slumps -- soil, rock, mud, snow. The subdivision has no known geologic hazards that could result in property damage or personal injury due to rock falls or slides, mud, snow, surface subsidence, or seismic activity. b. Rock outcroppings There are no known geologic hazards affecting the subdivision which could result in property damage or personal injury due to rock outcroppings. c. Seismic activity. There are no known geologic hazards affecting the subdivision which could result in property damage or personal injury due to seismic activity. d. High water table High groundwater is not expected based on the geotechnical report. The geotechnical report is included with this Environmental Assessment. C. Describe measures proposed to prevent or reduce these dangers. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 35 of 394 There are no known geologic hazards affecting the subdivision described above. No additional measures are proposed. D. Describe the location and amount of any cut or fill more than three feet in depth. Indicate these cuts or fills on a plat overlay or sketch map. Where cuts or fills are necessary, describe plans to prevent erosion and to promote vegetation such as replacement of topsoil and grading. Cut and fills will exceed 3 feet in depth to create suitable buildings sites and adequate drainage on the site. See cut fill exhibit included with this environmental assessment. Topsoil and seed will be placed on all disturbed areas and finished grades will be designed to prevent erosion. 4. Vegetation a. On a plat overlay or sketch map: i. Indicate the distribution of the major vegetation types, such as marsh, grassland, shrub, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest. The eastern portion of the subject property is mostly grassland and the western portion of the property is a reclaimed area of an old gravel pit. There is a wetland along the north property line surrounded by a mixed tree forest consisting mostly of deciduous trees. The Wetland Delineation included in Appendix G shows the wetland delineation and tree line. ii. Identify the location of critical plant communities such as: a. Stream bank or shoreline vegetation Streambank vegetation is present on site. The existing stream bank or shoreline vegetation will not be disturbed as part of the proposed development. b. Vegetation on steep, unstable slopes There is vegetation around the wetland with slopes up to 53%. These areas are inside the 100-foot wetland setback buffer and no structures will be constructed in this area. The grading limits that extend into the steep slopes will be revegetated. c. Vegetation on soils highly susceptible to wind or water erosion There is no vegetation that is highly susceptible to wind or water erosion. Although, there could be water erosion within the streambank as a result of natural causes. The NRCS Web Soils Survey is included with this report. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 36 of 394 D. Type and extent of noxious weeds No known noxious weeds were identified on the subject property. Vegetation and weeds will be removed as part of the construction of the proposed development. The development will be re-vegetated in accordance with the City of Kalispell Engineering Standards. b. Describe measures to: i. Preserve trees and other natural vegetation (e.g. locating roads and lot boundaries, planning construction to avoid damaging tree cover). Trees and other natural vegetation are in the 100-foot wetland setback zone along the north property line. Trees will only be removed that are necessary for construction purposes. ii. Protect critical plant communities (e.g. keeping structural development away from these areas), setting areas aside for open space. The 100-foot wetland setback buffer is set aside for parkland and open space. No structures will be built in this area to protect critical plant communities that reside in the wetland and along Spring Creek. Proposed grading limits will extend into the 100-foot wetland setback but the wetland will remain intact. iii. Prevent and control grass, brush or forest fires (e.g. green strips, water supply, access.) Grass, brush, and forest fires will be prevented through the use of fire hydrants for fire protection and multiple access points to the site so it can be accessed by the City of Kalispell Fire Department. iv. Control and prevent growth of noxious weeds Vegetation and weeds will be removed as part of the construction of the development. The development will be re-vegetated in accordance with the City of Kalispell Engineering Standards. 5. Wildlife A. Identify species of fish and wildlife use the area affected by the proposed subdivision. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 37 of 394 Wildlife such as deer, rodents, birds, and waterfowl that use the property may be affected by the proposed development. However, the proposed development is surrounded by existing residential areas that may minimize wildlife from using the existing property. The wetland area will be preserved in natural state which will maintain any existing wildlife habitats. B. On a copy of the preliminary plat or overlay, identify known critical wildlife areas, such as big game winter range, calving areas and migration routes; riparian habitat and waterfowl nesting areas; habitat for rare or endangered species and wetlands. There are no critical or key wildlife areas present within the subject property according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species Map. An exhibit from the USFWS online mapper showing the property is outside of any critical habitat area is included with this Environmental Assessment. Wetlands and riparian area are present within the proposed development. The wetlands and riparian area are shown on the preliminary plat that is included in after the Preliminary Plat Supplemental Information. There are no big game winter range, calving area, migration routes, and waterfowl nesting areas within the proposed development. C. Describe proposed measures to protect or enhance wildlife habitat or to minimize degradation (e.g. keeping buildings and roads back from shorelines; setting aside wetlands as undeveloped open space). The existing wetland will not be developed, and no structure will be built with in 100 feet from the wetland. 6. Land Use A. Describe the existing historical use of the site. This site was once a gravel pit in the late 1980s. It is not known when the gravel pit was reclaimed. The opencut permit number 00558 is included with this assessment. The site was then used for imported fill material from the UPS facility. The site is currently used as a vacant parcel to store abandoned equipment. B. Describe any comprehensive plan recommendations and other land use regulations on and adjacent to the site. Is zoning proposed? Is annexation proposed? The subdivision is proposed to be annexed into the city of Kalispell and be zoned for R-4. The subdivision to the West is zoned for R-3/PUD, the subdivision to the South is zoned for R- 2/PUD, the lots to the north and East are zoned for AG-20 and SAG-5, respectively. The subdivisions located to the South and West are currently annexed into the City of Kalispell and the lots to the North and East are not annexed. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 38 of 394 C. Describe the present uses of lands adjacent to or near the proposed development. Describe how the subdivision will affect access to any adjoining land and/or what measures are proposed to provide access. The lands to the South and West are subdivisions within the City of Kalispell, and the lands to the North and East are residential uses in Flathead County. The proposed subdivision will not affect access to adjacent lands. D. Describe the basis of the need for the subdivision. How much development of a similar nature is or is not, available in the area? The need for housing in the Flathead Valley is important with the growing population. The proposed development will add 103 living unit to the City of Kalispell and blend in with the adjoining subdivisions. The proposed mix of housing types will provide a wider range of pricing to help with housing affordability issues in the area. E. Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision (mining activity, high voltage lines, gas lines, agricultural and farm activities, shooting ranges, septage disposal operations, etc.) Any such conditions should be accurately described and their origin and location identified. High voltage BPA transmission power lines are located on the East edge of the property. They are in an existing 250-foot easement that overlays the property. No development will be within this easement to protect health and safety hazards. ALLWEST Testing & Engineering performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site. During their investigation, they encountered a petroleum odor from one of their test holes. Soil samples were obtained near the test holes. The soil samples were analyzed by Energy Laboratories, Inc for hydrocarbons in the soils. They did not detect any hydrocarbons from the four soil samples. Their results are included with this Environmental Assessment. Alpine Geotechnical did not encounter any petroleum odor during their geotechnical investigation. The Geotechnical Report is included in Appendix E. There are no health and safety hazards from mining activity, gas lines, agricultural and farm activities, shooting ranges, or septage disposal operations. F. Describe any on-site uses creating a nuisance (unpleasant odor, unusual noises, dust, smoke, etc.) Any such conditions should be accurately described, and their origin and location identified. No known on-site uses creating a nuisance are known. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 39 of 394 Part 2 – Summary of Probable Impacts 1. Effects on Agriculture A. Is the proposed subdivision or associated improvements located on or near prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance as defined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service? If so, identify each area on a copy of the preliminary plat. The subdivision is a surrounded by subdivisions to the South and West and agricultural/suburban residential to the North and East. NRCS Soil Data Access does not define any soils as prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance located on the site. Kalispell Loam is Prime Farmland if Irrigated, but the subject property is not irrigated. An NRCS Web Soils Survey map of the subject property is included with this assessment. B. Describe whether the subdivision would remove from production any agricultural or timber land. The subdivision will not remove from the production of agriculture or timber land because there is no current agricultural or timberland production on the subject property. C. Describe possible conflicts with nearby agricultural operations (e.g., residential development creating problems for moving livestock, operating farm machinery, maintaining water supplies, controlling weeds or applying pesticides; agricultural operations suffering from vandalism, uncontrolled pets or damaged fences). There are no nearby agricultural operations that would cause conflicts. D. Describe possible nuisance problems which may arise from locating a subdivision near agricultural or timber lands. The subdivision will not cause nuisance problems as it is not located near agricultural or timber lands. E. Describe effects the subdivision would have on the value of nearby agricultural lands. The subdivision will have little effect on the value of nearby agricultural lands due to other adjacent density subdivisions. 2. Effects on Agricultural Water User Facilities a. Describe conflicts the subdivision would create with agricultural water user facilities (e.g. residential development creating problems for operating and maintaining irrigation systems) and whether agricultural water user facilities would be more subject to vandalism or damage because of the subdivision. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 40 of 394 There are no known water user facilities in the vicinity of the proposed development. It is not anticipated that agricultural water user facilities would be more subject to vandalism or damage from the development of the subdivision. b. Describe possible nuisance problems which the subdivision would generate with regard to agricultural water user facilities (e.g., safety hazards to residents or water problems from irrigation ditches, head gates, siphons, sprinkler systems, or other agricultural water user facilities). It is not anticipated that problems generated by the subdivision would affect agricultural water user facilities. 3. Effects on Local Services a. Indicate the proposed use and number of lots or spaces proposed for the subdivision, i.e. single family residential, multi-family residential, commercial, industrial. The proposed development contains 103 new lots: 29 single-family lots and 74 townhouse lots for a total of 103 dwelling units. b. Describe the additional or expanded public services and facilities that would be demanded of local government or special districts to serve the subdivision. i. Describe additional costs which would result for services such as roads, bridges, law enforcement, parks and recreation, fire protection, water, sewer and solid waste systems, schools or busing, (including additional personnel, construction, and maintenance costs). Roads – The developer will be responsible for the cost of construction of the proposed roads within the proposed development. The roads will be dedicated to the City of Kalispell after the City accepts an ownership transfer request. The City of Kalispell will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the proposed roads after transfer of ownership. Law Enforcement – Impact fees are assessed to the developers as one-time charges as capital recovery fees for the cost of additional system capacity. The police impact fee is set for $41 per unit. The proposed 103-unit subdivision will result in a total police impact fee of $4,223. Parks and Recreation – The City of Kalispell Subdivision Regulations requires a land dedication equal to 0.03 acres per dwelling unit. The proposed development is Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 41 of 394 required to dedicated 3.09 acres dedicated to parkland. The proposed subdivision will include 3.20 acres dedicated to parkland. The park features will be the responsibility of the developer. Homeowners Association will own and maintain the proposed parkland. Fire Protection - The developer will be responsible for the cost of construction of all the fire hydrants within the proposed development. The City of Kalispell will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the proposed fire hydrants after transfer of ownership. The City of Kalispell assesses fire impact fees of $483 per unit. The proposed 103-unit subdivision will result in a total police impact fee of $49,749. Water, sewer, and Stormwater - The developer will be responsible for the cost of construction of all the water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management facilities within the proposed development. The City of Kalispell will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the proposed water, sewer, drain inlets, and storm drain pipe after transfer of ownership. The HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of the proposed stormwater management facilities. The City of Kalispell assesses water impact fees of $2,016 per unit, wastewater impact fees of $3,054 per unit, and stormwater impact fees of $618 per unit. The proposed 103-unit subdivision will result in a total water impact fee of $207,648, wastewater impact fee of $314,562, and stormwater impact fee of $63,654. Solid Waste Systems – The proposed subdivision is within the Evergreen Disposal collection area. A residential garbage collection fee will be paid by individual homeowners for solid waste collection. Evergreen dispose solid waste at the Flathead County Landfill. Property taxes are assessed to individual homeowners to support the Flathead County Landfill. Schools – Public schools are supported by property taxes assessed to individual homeowners. Additional costs to support the school district with the additional enrollment will come from the property taxes. ii. Who would bear these costs (e.g. all taxpayers within the jurisdiction, people within special taxing districts, or users of a service)? Taxpayers within the jurisdiction will bear the cost of maintenance for roads, law enforcement, utilities, and schools. There will be an increase in tax revenue from the proposed development to help with maintenance costs. iii. Can the service providers meet the additional costs given legal or other constraints (e.g. statutory ceilings on mill levies or bonded indebtedness)? Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 42 of 394 It is anticipated that the service providers can meet the additional costs. iv. Describe off-site costs or costs to other jurisdictions may be incurred (e.g. development of water sources or construction of a sewage treatment plant; costs borne by a nearby municipality). No additional off-site costs or cost to other jurisdictions will be incurred from the development of this subdivision. c. Describe how the subdivision allows existing services, through expanded use, to operate more efficiently, or makes the installation or improvement of services feasible (e.g. allow installation of a central water system, or upgrading a country road). The proposed development includes extensions to City of Kalispell road system and public water and sewer utilities. d. What are the present tax revenues received from the unsubdivided land? The total tax revenues received from the unsubdivided land are listed below: 2022 Taxes and Fees County $31.83 Education $80.38 Other $4.42 Total $116.63 e. Provide the approximate revenues received by each above taxing authority if the lots are reclassified, and when the lots are all improved and built upon. Describe any other taxes that would be paid by the subdivision and into what funds. The total tax revenues from the subdivided lots were estimated using 2022 property taxes from neighboring single-family residential homes and townhomes in the adjacent Mountain Vista Subdivision. The tax revenues are listed below: Estimated Tax Revenues from Subdivided Land Tax Description Mountain Vista Single- Family Residential Taxes and Fees Mountain Vista Townhome Taxes and Fees Total Estimated Creekside Single- Family Residential (29 units) and Townhome (74 units) Taxes and Fees County $653.13 $580.65 $61,908.87 Education $1,700.06 $1,484.80 $159,176.94 City $1,044.49 $820.10 $90,977.61 Other $6.67 $5.83 $624.85 Total $3,404.35 $2,891.38 $312,688.27 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 43 of 394 f. What new taxes generated from the subdivision cover additional public costs? The proposed subdivision will generate $639,836.00 in impact fees and $312,688.27 annually in property taxes. These fees should cover any additional public costs. g. How many special improvement districts be created which would obligate local government fiscally or administratively? Are any bonding plans proposed which would affect the local government's bonded indebtedness? No special improvement districts are proposed with the development of this subdivision. 4. Effects on the Historic or Natural Environment a. Describe and locate on a plat overlay or sketch map known or possible historic, paleontological, archaeological or cultural sites, structures, or objects which may be affected by the proposed subdivision. There are no historical properties, districts, or landmarks in proximity to the proposed development per the Montana’s National Register of Historical Places. An exhibit showing There are no historical properties, districts, or landmarks in proximity to the proposed development is included with this assessment. b. How would the subdivision affect surface and groundwater, soils, slopes, vegetation, historical or archaeological features within the subdivision or on adjacent land? Describe plans to protect these sites. i. Would any streambanks or lake shorelines be altered, streams rechanneled or any surface water contaminated from sewage treatment systems, run-off carrying sedimentation, or concentration of pesticides or fertilizers? It is not anticipated for any surface water to be contaminated from sewage treatment systems, run-off carrying sedimentation, or concentration of pesticides or fertilizers since there are no drain fields present. Storm water will be discharged to the existing wetland but will be treated prior to discharge. ii. Would groundwater supplies likely be contaminated or depleted as a result of the subdivision? It is not anticipated that groundwater supplies will be contaminated or depleted as no drainfields are present and there are no proposed individual wells. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 44 of 394 iii. Would construction of roads or building sites require cuts and fills on steep slopes or cause erosion on unstable, erodible soils? Would soils be contaminated by sewage treatment systems? It is not anticipated that cuts and fills will be required on steep slopes or cause erosion to the existing soils. There are no known existing on-site sewage treatment systems within the subject property. It is not anticipated for soils to be contaminated by sewage treatment systems. iv. Describe the impacts that removal of vegetation would have on soil erosion, bank, or shoreline instability. Vegetation along the streambank will not be removed as it provides protection for the Spring Creek and is in the 100-foot wetland setback buffer. v. Would the value of significant historical, visual, or open space features be reduced or eliminated? There are no significant historical spaces on the property. The visual impacts will be minimal as the proposed subdivision will blend in with the surrounding area and individual homes will go through the building permit plan review. The 100-foot wetland setback buffer will provide a park and open space along the north property line. vi. Describe possible natural hazards the subdivision be could be subject to (e.g., natural hazards such as flooding, rock, snow or land slides, high winds, severe wildfires, or difficulties such as shallow bedrock, high water table, unstable or expansive soils, or excessive slopes) The subdivision is not anticipated to be affected by rock, snow or landslides, high winds, severe wildfires, or difficulties with unstable or expansive soils. The subdivision could be subject to flooding from Spring Creek; however, no structures will be constructed in the 100-foot buffer of the delineated wetland minimizing the chances of flooding. Excessive slopes will not be impacted as they reside outside proposed development. c. How would the subdivision affect visual features within the subdivision or on adjacent land? Describe efforts to visually blend the proposed development with the existing environment (e.g. use of appropriate building materials, colors, road design, underground utilities, and revegetation of earthworks). Upon development, homes will go through the building permit plan review. The development will be re-vegetated in accordance with the City of Kalispell Engineering Standards. The Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 45 of 394 development will visually blend in with surrounding subdivisions, and buildings will face the roads where possible. All development will be in accordance with the City of Kalispell Design Standards. 5. Effects on Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat a. Describe what impacts the subdivision or associated improvements would have on wildlife areas such as big game wintering range, migration routes, nesting areas, wetlands, or important habitat for rare or endangered species. It is not anticipated that the subdivision will have negative impacts on big game wintering ranges, migration routes or nesting areas for deer, rodents, birds, and waterfowl that may use the property. There are no rare or endangered species present on the property or surrounding area. The 100-foot wetland setback buffer aims to protect the wetland and preserve wildlife habitat within the wetland located along the north property line. b. Describe the effect that pets or human activity would have on wildlife. There is a potential for pets or human activity from the proposed development to affect the wildlife, however, no negative impacts are anticipated due to similar neighboring residential and commercial activity. 6. Effects on the Public Health and Safety a. Describe any health or safety hazards on or near the subdivision, such as: natural hazards, lack of water, drainage problems, heavy traffic, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, high voltage power lines, or irrigation ditches. These conditions, proposed or existing should be accurately described with their origin and location identified on a copy of the preliminary plat. High voltage power lines exist along the east side of the property. The power lines are in a 250-foot easement that overlaps the property. No development will be within the easement to avoid health and safety concerns. There are no known natural hazards, heavy traffic, lack of water, drainage problems, dilapidated structure, high pressure gas lines, or irrigation ditches on or near the subdivision. b. Describe how the subdivision would be subject to hazardous conditions due to high voltage lines, airports, highways, railroads, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, irrigation ditches, and adjacent industrial or mining uses. There are no proposed or existing hazardous conditions because airports, highways, railroads, dilapidated structures, high pressure gas lines, irrigation ditches, and adjacent Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 46 of 394 industrial or mining uses are not present. The high-power voltage lines could present hazards but, development will not reside in the 250’ easement along the lines. c. Describe land uses adjacent to the subdivision and how the subdivision will affect the adjacent land uses. Identify existing uses such as feed lots, processing plants, airports or industrial firms which could be subject to lawsuits or complaints from residents of the subdivision. Adjacent land uses include subdivisions to the South and West and residential lots to the North and East. The subdivision will blend with the adjacent land usages and will not negatively affect those adjacent lands. d. Describe public health or safety hazards, such as dangerous traffic, fire conditions, or contamination of water supplies which would be created by the subdivision. The subdivision will provide fire protection and multiple access points for the City of Kalispell Fire Department. Contamination of water supplies will likely not be affected and there is no dangerous traffic. Part 3 – Community Impact Report 1. Education and Busing a. Describe the available educational facilities which would serve this subdivision. The proposed development is within the West Valley School District #1 for K-8th grade and Glacier High School District. The educational facilities available for the proposed development are West Valley Elementary and Middle Schools and Glacier High School. b. Estimate the number of school children that will be added by the proposed subdivision. Provide a statement from the administrator of the affected school system indicating whether the increased enrollment can be accommodated by the present personnel and facilities and by the existing school bus system. If not, estimate the increased expenditures that would be necessary to do so. There are 50,808 housing units in Flathead County according to the 2021 Census data. There are 12,450 K-8th grade students and 4,996 high school students enrolled in public, private, and home schools in Flathead County based on the Flathead County Statistical Report. The number of K-8th grade student per household in Flathead County is 0.25 and the number of high school student per household is 0.1. It’s estimated that the proposed subdivision will add 27 students to the West Valley School District and 11 students to Glacier High School District. Emails from the West Valley School District Superintendent Cindy Rischer and Kalispell School District 5 Superintendent, Micah Hill, stating the school Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 47 of 394 districts can accommodate the additional students are included with this Environmental Assessment. 2. Roads and Maintenance a. Estimate how much daily traffic the subdivision, when fully occupied, will generate on existing streets and arterials. According to the Traffic Impact Study included in Appendix F of the Preliminary Plat Application, the subdivision will generate an estimated 832 average weekday vehicle trips. b. Describe the capability of existing and proposed roads to safely accommodate this increased traffic. The Traffic Impact Study found that the proposed accesses to Farm to Market Road are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service through the year 2035. Current residents will see an increase in traffic on Farm to Market Road due to the development of the subdivision, but the Traffic Impact Study found that the proposed development will have minimal impact on area traffic operations. The Traffic Impact Study is included in Appendix F. c. Describe increased maintenance problems and increased cost due to this increase in volume. The increased vehicle volume is anticipated to have no increased maintenance problems or increased costs. Increased maintenance costs will be covered by impact fees and property taxes. d. Describe proposed new public or private access roads including: i. Measures for disposing of storm run-off from streets and roads. The proposed roads will direct onsite storm runoff to stormwater management facilities that will convey, treat and discharge stormwater to the existing wetland along the north property line. ii. Type of road surface and provisions to be made for dust. The proposed paved asphalt road designed and constructed in accordance with City of Kalispell standards. Provisions for dust control will be provided by the contractor. iii. Facilities for streams or drainage crossing (e.g. culverts, bridges). Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 48 of 394 The proposed stormwater system will discharge treated storm water to the existing wetland. iv. Seeding of disturbed areas. Most areas of the subdivision will be disturbed; however, any exposed disturbed areas will be revegetated. The 100-foot wetland buffer will not be disturbed to protect the existing wetland and Spring Creek. e. Describe the closing or modification of any existing roads. There are no proposed modifications to any existing roads. The proposed road will connect to Farm to Market Road. The proposed road and utility construction will cause short term traffic diversions but it’s not anticipated to cause road closures. f. Explain why road access was not provided within the subdivision, if access to any individual lot is directly from arterial streets or roads. The proposed development includes a proposed road to access individual lots. g. Is year-round access by conventional automobile over legal rights-of-way available to the subdivision and to all lots and common facilities within the subdivision? Identify the owners of any private property over which access to the subdivision will be provided. Year-round access is available to the subdivision and to all lots. h. Estimate the cost and completion date of the system, and indicate who will pay the cost of installation, maintenance and snow removal. The cost of the water and sewer systems will be privately funded by the Owner. It’s estimated that the cost of the road system including sidewalk and curb and gutter will be approximately $1,300,000. 3. Water, Sewage, and Solid Waste Facilities a. Briefly describe the water supply and sewage treatment systems to be used in serving the proposed subdivision (e.g. methods, capacities, locations). The City of Kalispell Public Water Supply and Public Sewage Treatment systems will be extended to the serve the proposed development. The City of Kalispell Public Water Supply (MT0000259) community system has 10 wells and 1 spring to serve residents within the City Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 49 of 394 limits. Per the Montana Safe Drinking Water database, the system serves a population of 20,008 persons and has 8,856 service connections. The proposed development will include 3,700 linear feet of proposed water main, 3,200 linear feet of proposed gravity sanitary sewer, and 820 linear of proposed sanitary force main. The proposed water main extension will connect to the existing 18-inch water main in Farm to Market Road. The proposed gravity sanitary sewer main will convey wastewater from the proposed subdivision to a proposed lift station. The lift station will pump wastewater through a proposed force main and connect to a future sanitary sewer main in Farm to Market Road. b. Provide information on estimated cost of the system, who will bear the costs, and how the system will be financed. The cost of the water and sewer systems will be privately funded by the Owner. It’s estimated that the cost of the water system will be approximately $850,000 and the cost of the sewer system will be approximately $1,000,000. c. Where hook-up to an existing system is proposed, describe estimated impacts on the existing system, and show evidence that permission has been granted to hook up to the existing system. Rules VII of the Kalispell Rules and Regulations Governing Water Service and Kalispell Rules and Regulations Governing Sewer Services grant permission to connect and extend the existing systems if the cost is the responsibility of the developer and is in accordance with Kalispell City Standards. 100 gallons per day per person was used to estimate the average daily water demand and wastewater flow generated for the proposed subdivision to the existing systems. 2.5 persons per household was used to estimate a total proposed subdivision population of 258 persons. A factor of three was applied to the average daily demand/flow to estimate the maximum day demand/flow and a factor of four was applied to the average daily demand/flow to estimate the peak instantaneous demand/flow. The average daily demand/flow was calculated to be 25,800 gpd (17.92 gpm), the maximum daily demand/flow was calculated to be 77,400 gpd (53.75.30 gpm), and the peak instantaneous demand/flow was calculated to be 103,200 gpd (72.67 gpm). The existing water system will need to be analyzed verify that the existing water system can supply the proposed subdivision supply needs. Wastewater flow generated in the proposed subdivision conveys to a proposed lift station. The lift station will need to pump wastewater to the existing City of Kalispell wastewater collection system. However, there is currently no existing City of Kalispell wastewater collection system infrastructure in Farm to Market. The extension of the City’s wastewater collection system will need to be designed go adequately convey wastewater generated from the proposed subdivision. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 50 of 394 d. All water supply and sewage treatment plans and specifications will be reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and should be submitted using the appropriate DEQ application form. The extensions to the water supply and sewage systems will be designed in accordance with the City of Kalispell and DEQ standards. Plans and specifications will be submitted to the DEQ prior to construction. e. Describe the proposed method of collecting and disposing of solid waste from the development. The proposed development is inside the Evergreen Disposal collection service area. Evergreen Disposal will provide curbside services to collect solid waste. Solid waste will be disposed at the Flathead County Solid Waste District Landfill. Chapter 7 of the Flathead County Growth Policy discusses solid waste projection and indicated that the landfill has capacity for current and future needs. If growth is 2% annually the capacity will last for 54 more years, if the growth is 8% annually the capacity will last for 26 more years based on the estimated capacity that remained in July of 2008. Since 2008 the landfill acquired additional property in 2011 to allow additional capacity. f. If use of an existing collection system or disposal facility is proposed indicate the name and location of the facility Evergreen Disposal will be used to collect and dispose of solid waste. The address for their facility is 55 West Valley Drive Kalispell, MT, 59901. 4. Fire, Police Protection and Emergency Services a. Describe the fire, police protection and emergency services available to the residents of the proposed subdivision including number of personnel and number of vehicles or type of facilities for: i. Fire protection -- is the proposed subdivision in an existing fire district? If not, will one be formed or extended? Describe what fire protection procedures are planned? The subject property is currently located within the West Valley Fire Service Area but will be served by the City of Kalispell Fire Department after annexation. Kalispell Fire Station # 62 is 3.7 miles from the proposed subdivision and will access the proposed subdivision from the south from Three Mile Drive and Farm to Market Road. Fire hydrants providing fire protection will be installed as part of the proposed development. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 51 of 394 ii. Law enforcement protection – Is the proposed subdivision within the jurisdiction of a County Sheriff or municipal policy department? The Kalispell Police Department will provide police protection to the proposed development. Access to the development can be from Farm to Market Road. b. Can the fire and police protection service needs of the proposed subdivision be met by present personnel and facilities? If not, describe the additional expenses that would be necessary to make these services adequate, and who would pay the costs? It is anticipated that The Kalispell Fire Department and Kalispell Police Department can provide service needs to the proposed subdivision. 5. Parks and Recreation Facilities a. Describe park and recreation facilities to be provided within the proposed subdivision and other recreational facilities that will serve the subdivision. The proposed subdivision will include a 0.66-acre dog park, 2.54-acre park located in the property, an extension of the bike path along Farm to Market Road, and a new bike path around the proposed lots. b. List other parks and recreation facilities or sites in the area and their approximate distance from the site. Dill park is in the subdivision to the south. This park features a playground and open grass space. Springwater Park is about 1 mile away and features a playground with a multi-use path. c. If cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed, state the purchase price per acre or current market value (values stated must be no more than 12 months old). No cash-in-lieu of parkland is proposed for this subdivision. 6. Payment for extension of Capital Facilities c. Indicate how the subdivider will pay for the cost of extending capital facilities resulting from expected impacts directly attributable to the subdivision. The developer will use private funds from investors and banks for the construction and installation of facilities for the proposed subdivision. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 52 of 394 Opencut Permit 00558 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 60 of 394 Energy Laboratories, Inc Report ANALYTICAL SUMMARY REPORT The analyses presented in this report were performed by Energy Laboratories, Inc., 3161 E. Lyndale Ave., Helena, MT 59604, unless otherwise noted. Any exceptions or problems with the analyses are noted in the report package. Any issues encountered during sample receipt are documented in the Work Order Receipt Checklist. The results as reported relate only to the item(s) submitted for testing. This report shall be used or copied only in its entirety. Energy Laboratories, Inc. is not responsible for the consequences arising from the use of a partial report. If you have any questions regarding these test results, please contact your Project Manager. Lab ID Client Sample ID Collect Date Receive Date Matrix Test Report Approved By: H23010124-001 TH-1 01/04/23 13:00 01/06/23 Soil EPH-Ultrasonic Extraction SW3550CMethanol Extraction for Volatiles SW5035Hydrocarbons, Extractable Petroleum-ScrnVolatile Petroleum HydrocarbonsPercent Moisture H23010124-002 TH-2 01/04/23 13:00 01/06/23 Soil Same As Above H23010124-003 TH-3 01/04/23 13:00 01/06/23 Soil Same As Above H23010124-004 TH-4 01/04/23 13:00 01/06/23 Soil Same As Above Morrison Maierle Inc Project Name:1111 Farm to Market Development Work Order:H23010124 172 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, MT 59901- January 19, 2023 Energy Laboratories Inc Helena MT received the following 4 samples for Morrison Maierle Inc on 1/6/2023 for analysis. Page 1 of 25 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Project:1111 Farm to Market Development Lab ID:H23010124-001 Client Sample ID:TH-1 Collection Date:01/04/23 13:00 Matrix:Soil Report Date:01/19/23 DateReceived:01/06/23 Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 01/09/23 14:20 / jjp0.2wt%12.0Moisture D2974 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-VOLATILE (VPH) 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.11mg/kg-dryNDMethyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)MA-VPH0.078 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDBenzene MA-VPH0.07 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDToluene MA-VPH21 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDEthylbenzene MA-VPH6.4 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDm+p-Xylenes MA-VPH 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDo-Xylene MA-VPH 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.057mg/kg-dryNDXylenes, Total MA-VPH72 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS0.11mg/kg-dryNDNaphthalene MA-VPH2.2 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS2.3mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C10 Aromatics MA-VPH130 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS2.3mg/kg-dryNDC5 to C8 Aliphatics MA-VPH52 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS2.3mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C12 Aliphatics MA-VPH77 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS2.3mg/kg-dryNDTotal Purgeable Hydrocarbons MA-VPH100 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS70-130%REC92.0 Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate MA-VPH 01/10/23 01:54 / GMS70-130%REC85.0 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate MA-VPH - Note 1: The C5 to C8 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Benzene and Toluene.- Note 2: The C9 to C12 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Ethylbenzene, m+p-Xylenes, o-Xylene and C9 to C10 Aromatics. EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-SCREEN ANALYSIS 01/09/23 11:16 / ctf20mg/kg-dryNDTotal Extractable Hydrocarbons SW8015M200 01/09/23 11:16 / ctf40-140%REC81.0 Surr: o-Terphenyl SW8015M - Note: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons are defined as the total hydrocarbon responses regardless of elution time. Report Definitions: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 2 of 25 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Project:1111 Farm to Market Development Lab ID:H23010124-002 Client Sample ID:TH-2 Collection Date:01/04/23 13:00 Matrix:Soil Report Date:01/19/23 DateReceived:01/06/23 Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 01/09/23 14:21 / jjp0.2wt%17.1Moisture D2974 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-VOLATILE (VPH) 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDMethyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)MA-VPH0.078 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDBenzene MA-VPH0.07 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDToluene MA-VPH21 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDEthylbenzene MA-VPH6.4 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDm+p-Xylenes MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDo-Xylene MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDXylenes, Total MA-VPH72 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDNaphthalene MA-VPH2.2 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C10 Aromatics MA-VPH130 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC5 to C8 Aliphatics MA-VPH52 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C12 Aliphatics MA-VPH77 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDTotal Purgeable Hydrocarbons MA-VPH100 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS70-130%REC97.0 Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:25 / GMS70-130%REC91.0 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate MA-VPH - Note 1: The C5 to C8 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Benzene and Toluene.- Note 2: The C9 to C12 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Ethylbenzene, m+p-Xylenes, o-Xylene and C9 to C10 Aromatics. EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-SCREEN ANALYSIS 01/09/23 11:59 / ctf20mg/kg-dryNDTotal Extractable Hydrocarbons SW8015M200 01/09/23 11:59 / ctf40-140%REC80.0 Surr: o-Terphenyl SW8015M - Note: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons are defined as the total hydrocarbon responses regardless of elution time. Report Definitions: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 3 of 25 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Project:1111 Farm to Market Development Lab ID:H23010124-003 Client Sample ID:TH-3 Collection Date:01/04/23 13:00 Matrix:Soil Report Date:01/19/23 DateReceived:01/06/23 Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 01/09/23 14:21 / jjp0.2wt%16.9Moisture D2974 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-VOLATILE (VPH) 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDMethyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)MA-VPH0.078 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDBenzene MA-VPH0.07 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDToluene MA-VPH21 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDEthylbenzene MA-VPH6.4 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDm+p-Xylenes MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDo-Xylene MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDXylenes, Total MA-VPH72 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDNaphthalene MA-VPH2.2 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C10 Aromatics MA-VPH130 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC5 to C8 Aliphatics MA-VPH52 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C12 Aliphatics MA-VPH77 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDTotal Purgeable Hydrocarbons MA-VPH100 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS70-130%REC96.0 Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate MA-VPH 01/10/23 02:56 / GMS70-130%REC90.0 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate MA-VPH - Note 1: The C5 to C8 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Benzene and Toluene.- Note 2: The C9 to C12 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Ethylbenzene, m+p-Xylenes, o-Xylene and C9 to C10 Aromatics. EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-SCREEN ANALYSIS 01/09/23 12:43 / ctf20mg/kg-dryNDTotal Extractable Hydrocarbons SW8015M200 01/09/23 12:43 / ctf40-140%REC78.0 Surr: o-Terphenyl SW8015M - Note: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons are defined as the total hydrocarbon responses regardless of elution time. Report Definitions: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 4 of 25 LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORT Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Project:1111 Farm to Market Development Lab ID:H23010124-004 Client Sample ID:TH-4 Collection Date:01/04/23 13:00 Matrix:Soil Report Date:01/19/23 DateReceived:01/06/23 Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Analyses Result Units Analysis Date / ByRLMethodMCL/QCLQualifiers PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 01/09/23 14:21 / jjp0.2wt%16.4Moisture D2974 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-VOLATILE (VPH) 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDMethyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)MA-VPH0.078 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDBenzene MA-VPH0.07 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDToluene MA-VPH21 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDEthylbenzene MA-VPH6.4 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDm+p-Xylenes MA-VPH 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDo-Xylene MA-VPH 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.060mg/kg-dryNDXylenes, Total MA-VPH72 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS0.12mg/kg-dryNDNaphthalene MA-VPH2.2 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C10 Aromatics MA-VPH130 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC5 to C8 Aliphatics MA-VPH52 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDC9 to C12 Aliphatics MA-VPH77 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS2.4mg/kg-dryNDTotal Purgeable Hydrocarbons MA-VPH100 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS70-130%REC97.0 Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate MA-VPH 01/10/23 03:27 / GMS70-130%REC90.0 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate MA-VPH - Note 1: The C5 to C8 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Benzene and Toluene.- Note 2: The C9 to C12 Aliphatics value is corrected for aromatic constituents Ethylbenzene, m+p-Xylenes, o-Xylene and C9 to C10 Aromatics. EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS-SCREEN ANALYSIS 01/09/23 13:27 / ctf20mg/kg-dryNDTotal Extractable Hydrocarbons SW8015M200 01/09/23 13:27 / ctf40-140%REC74.0 Surr: o-Terphenyl SW8015M - Note: Total Extractable Hydrocarbons are defined as the total hydrocarbon responses regardless of elution time. Report Definitions: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level QCL - Quality Control Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 5 of 25 Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Work Order:H23010124 QA/QC Summary Report 01/19/23Report Date: Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Method:D2974 Batch: PMOIST_230109_B Lab ID:H23010150-001A DUP 01/09/23 14:25Sample Duplicate Run: MAN-TECH_230110A Moisture 200.200.0800 wt% Qualifiers: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 6 of 25 Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Work Order:H23010124 QA/QC Summary Report 01/19/23Report Date: Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Method:MA-VPH Batch: 64994 Lab ID:LCS-64994 01/04/23 11:21Laboratory Control Sample Run: GC2_230104A14 2-Methylpentane 97 70 1300.102.42 mg/kg n-Butylcyclohexane 114 70 1300.102.85 mg/kg n-Decane 115 70 1300.102.87 mg/kg n-Pentane 91 30 1300.102.27 mg/kg Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)127 70 1300.103.17 mg/kg Benzene 118 70 1300.0502.94 mg/kg Toluene 118 70 1300.0502.96 mg/kg Ethylbenzene 120 70 1300.0503.01 mg/kg m+p-Xylenes 119 70 1300.0505.95 mg/kg o-Xylene 114 70 1300.0502.84 mg/kg Naphthalene 95 70 1300.102.38 mg/kg Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons 103 70 1302.038.5 mg/kg Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate 121 70 1300.050 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate 105 70 1300.050 Lab ID:MB-64994 01/06/23 17:19Method Blank Run: GC2_230106B14 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)0.10NDmg/kg Benzene 0.050NDmg/kg Toluene 0.050NDmg/kg Ethylbenzene 0.050NDmg/kg m+p-Xylenes 0.050NDmg/kg o-Xylene 0.050NDmg/kg Naphthalene 0.10NDmg/kg C9 to C10 Aromatics 2.0NDmg/kg C5 to C8 Aliphatics 2.0NDmg/kg C9 to C12 Aliphatics 2.0NDmg/kg Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons 2.0NDmg/kg Xylenes, Total 0.050NDmg/kg Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate 109 70 1300.050 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate 102 70 1300.050 Lab ID:H23010021-001AMS 01/09/23 12:07Sample Matrix Spike Run: GC2_230109A10 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)102 70 1300.123.05 mg/kg-dry Benzene 91 70 1300.0602.72 mg/kg-dry Toluene 99 70 1300.0602.96 mg/kg-dry Ethylbenzene 104 70 1300.0603.11 mg/kg-dry m+p-Xylenes 102 70 1300.0606.12 mg/kg-dry o-Xylene 98 70 1300.0602.93 mg/kg-dry Naphthalene 87 70 1300.122.59 mg/kg-dry Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons 76 70 1302.434.1 mg/kg-dry Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate 100 70 1300.060 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate 87 70 1300.060 Lab ID:H23010021-001AMSD 01/09/23 12:38Sample Matrix Spike Duplicate Run: GC2_230109A10 Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)108 70 130 200.12 5.53.23 mg/kg-dry Benzene 86 70 130 200.060 5.22.58 mg/kg-dry Qualifiers: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 7 of 25 Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Work Order:H23010124 QA/QC Summary Report 01/19/23Report Date: Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Method:MA-VPH Batch: 64994 Lab ID:H23010021-001AMSD 01/09/23 12:38Sample Matrix Spike Duplicate Run: GC2_230109A10 Toluene 104 70 130 200.060 5.13.11 mg/kg-dry Ethylbenzene 112 70 130 200.060 7.73.36 mg/kg-dry m+p-Xylenes 110 70 130 200.060 7.36.59 mg/kg-dry o-Xylene 102 70 130 200.060 4.23.05 mg/kg-dry Naphthalene 90 70 130 200.12 3.42.68 mg/kg-dry Total Purgeable Hydrocarbons 79 70 130 202.4 4.035.5 mg/kg-dry Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate 101 70 1300.060 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate 89 70 1300.060 Method:MA-VPH Analytical Run: R181492 Lab ID:CCV_0109GC203r-S 01/09/23 10:56Continuing Calibration Verification Standard15 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 101 75 1250.102.52 mg/kg 2,2,4-Trimethylpentane 80 75 1250.102.00 mg/kg 2-Methylpentane 84 75 1250.102.09 mg/kg n-Butylcyclohexane 83 75 1250.102.07 mg/kg n-Decane 80 75 1250.102.00 mg/kg n-Pentane 87 75 1250.102.17 mg/kg Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)111 75 1250.102.77 mg/kg Benzene 97 75 1250.0502.42 mg/kg Toluene 100 75 1250.0502.49 mg/kg Ethylbenzene 101 75 1250.0502.53 mg/kg m+p-Xylenes 100 75 1250.0504.98 mg/kg o-Xylene 95 75 1250.0502.38 mg/kg Naphthalene 92 75 1250.102.29 mg/kg Surr: VPH Aromatics Surrogate 105 70 1300.050 Surr: VPH Aliphatics Surrogate 92 70 1300.050 Qualifiers: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 8 of 25 Client:Morrison Maierle Inc Work Order:H23010124 QA/QC Summary Report 01/19/23Report Date: Analyte Result %REC RPDLow Limit High Limit RPDLimitRLUnits QualCount Prepared by Helena, MT Branch Method:SW8015M Batch: 65006 Lab ID:MB-65006 01/04/23 13:02Method Blank Run: HHP2_230104A2 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons 20NDmg/kg Surr: o-Terphenyl 89 40 1400.17 Lab ID:LCS-65006 01/04/23 13:49Laboratory Control Sample Run: HHP2_230104A2 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons 86 60 14020182.5 mg/kg Surr: o-Terphenyl 83 40 1400.17 Lab ID:H23010021-003AMS 01/04/23 15:22Sample Matrix Spike Run: HHP2_230104A2 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons 108 60 14020229.3 mg/kg Surr: o-Terphenyl 102 40 1400.17 Lab ID:H23010021-003AMSD 01/04/23 16:09Sample Matrix Spike Duplicate Run: HHP2_230104A2 Total Extractable Hydrocarbons 106 60 140 20202.6223.5 mg/kg Surr: o-Terphenyl 101 40 1400.17 Method:SW8015M Analytical Run: R181484 Lab ID:CCV_0109HP301r-S 01/09/23 10:22Continuing Calibration Verification Standard15 n-Nonane 96 75 1256.426 mg/kg n-Decane 106 75 1257.075 mg/kg n-Dodecane 98 75 1256.508 mg/kg n-Tetradecane 95 75 1256.344 mg/kg n-Hexadecane 97 75 1256.488 mg/kg n-Octadecane 97 75 1256.485 mg/kg n-Nonadecane 97 75 1256.472 mg/kg n-Eicosane 97 75 1256.453 mg/kg n-Docosane 96 75 1256.381 mg/kg n-Tetracosane 95 75 1256.356 mg/kg n-Hexacosane 98 75 1256.510 mg/kg n-Octacosane 95 75 1256.352 mg/kg n-Triacontane 93 75 1256.229 mg/kg n-Hexatriacontane 98 75 1256.529 mg/kg Surr: o-Terphenyl 90 75 1250.17 Qualifiers: RL - Analyte Reporting Limit ND - Not detected at the Reporting Limit (RL) Page 9 of 25 H23010124 - H23010124-001A Batch ID: 65006 EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (EPH) SCREENING ANALYSIS CHROMATOGRAM Sample Name: H23010124-001A ;0109HP3 , $HC-EPH-SCRN-S, Raw File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\DAT\HP3010923_B\0109HP3.0002.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/9/2023 11:16:10 AM Method File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\METHODS\010923_02.MET Calibration File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\CALS\SR123022A.CAL Sample Weight: 30.05 Dilution: 2 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C18 hydrocarbons: 25650.7800 Mean RF for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 26540.0500 Mean RF for Total Extractable Hydrocarbons: 26095.4100 Rt range for Diesel Range Organics: 6.91 to 17.54 Rt range for C9 to C18 Hydrocarbons: 5.91 to 12.96 Rt range for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 13.01 to 21.17 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT AREA ACTUAL MEASURED %REC *o-Terphenyl 13.069 2319271 6.656 5.382 80.86 - *1-Chloro-octadecane 13.866 1792245 6.656 5.162 77.55 - DRO Area: 806324.25 DRO Amount: 2.0565112 TEH Area: 2106938.8 TEH Amount: 5.3736978 C9-C18 Area: 497957.66 C9-C18 Amount: 1.292044 C19-C36 Area: 1387688.2 C19-C36 Amount: 3.4799721 Page 10 of 25 H23010124 - H23010124-002A Batch ID: 65006 EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (EPH) SCREENING ANALYSIS CHROMATOGRAM Sample Name: H23010124-002A ;0109HP3 , $HC-EPH-SCRN-S, Raw File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\DAT\HP3010923_B\0109HP3.0003.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/9/2023 11:59:47 AM Method File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\METHODS\010923_02.MET Calibration File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\CALS\SR123022A.CAL Sample Weight: 30.5 Dilution: 2 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C18 hydrocarbons: 25650.7800 Mean RF for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 26540.0500 Mean RF for Total Extractable Hydrocarbons: 26095.4100 Rt range for Diesel Range Organics: 6.91 to 17.54 Rt range for C9 to C18 Hydrocarbons: 5.91 to 12.96 Rt range for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 13.01 to 21.17 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT AREA ACTUAL MEASURED %REC *o-Terphenyl 13.059 2300124 6.557 5.259 80.19 - *1-Chloro-octadecane 13.856 1763090 6.557 5.003 76.29 - DRO Area: 466935.38 DRO Amount: 1.173337 TEH Area: 1910983.4 TEH Amount: 4.802008 C9-C18 Area: 685735.06 C9-C18 Amount: 1.753016 C19-C36 Area: 955058.4 C19-C36 Amount: 2.3597088 Page 11 of 25 H23010124 - H23010124-003A Batch ID: 65006 EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (EPH) SCREENING ANALYSIS CHROMATOGRAM Sample Name: H23010124-003A ;0109HP3 , $HC-EPH-SCRN-S, Raw File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\DAT\HP3010923_B\0109HP3.0004.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/9/2023 12:43:16 PM Method File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\METHODS\010923_02.MET Calibration File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\CALS\SR123022A.CAL Sample Weight: 30.03 Dilution: 2 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C18 hydrocarbons: 25650.7800 Mean RF for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 26540.0500 Mean RF for Total Extractable Hydrocarbons: 26095.4100 Rt range for Diesel Range Organics: 6.91 to 17.54 Rt range for C9 to C18 Hydrocarbons: 5.91 to 12.96 Rt range for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 13.01 to 21.17 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT AREA ACTUAL MEASURED %REC *o-Terphenyl 13.063 2223221 6.660 5.162 77.51 - *1-Chloro-octadecane 13.861 1703824 6.660 4.910 73.73 - DRO Area: 643342.9 DRO Amount: 1.6419237 TEH Area: 2314353 TEH Amount: 5.906634 C9-C18 Area: 488617.97 C9-C18 Amount: 1.2686547 C19-C36 Area: 1533191.4 C19-C36 Amount: 3.8474176 Page 12 of 25 H23010124 - H23010124-004A Batch ID: 65006 EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS (EPH) SCREENING ANALYSIS CHROMATOGRAM Sample Name: H23010124-004A ;0109HP3 , $HC-EPH-SCRN-S, Raw File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\DAT\HP3010923_B\0109HP3.0005.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/9/2023 1:27:07 PM Method File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\METHODS\010923_02.MET Calibration File: \\HEFLE\PROGRAMS\ORG\HP3\CALS\SR123022A.CAL Sample Weight: 30.14 Dilution: 2 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C18 hydrocarbons: 25650.7800 Mean RF for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 26540.0500 Mean RF for Total Extractable Hydrocarbons: 26095.4100 Rt range for Diesel Range Organics: 6.91 to 17.54 Rt range for C9 to C18 Hydrocarbons: 5.91 to 12.96 Rt range for C19 to C36 Hydrocarbons: 13.01 to 21.17 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT AREA ACTUAL MEASURED %REC *o-Terphenyl 13.058 2133622 6.636 4.936 74.39 - *1-Chloro-octadecane 13.855 1652334 6.636 4.745 71.50 - DRO Area: 767428.4 DRO Amount: 1.9514635 TEH Area: 2477526 TEH Amount: 6.3000035 C9-C18 Area: 449990.03 C9-C18 Amount: 1.1640966 C19-C36 Area: 1754448.9 C19-C36 Amount: 4.3865776 Page 13 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH AROMATICS PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-001A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0029.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 1:54:45 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons: 240.385 Rt range for C9 to C10 Aromatics: 14.968 to 19.487 Aromatic Hydrocarbon Range Area and Quantitation: C9-C10 Aromatics Area:520.4761 C9-C10 Aromatics Amount: 4.330353E-02 TARGET ANALYTES RT CAL RRT RRT AREA AMOUNT FLAG MTBE_____________________. . . .1 U Benzene__________________. . . .05 U Toluene__________________. . . .05 U Ethylbenzene_____________. . . .05 U m+p-Xylenes______________. . . .05 U o-Xylene_________________14.952 14.952 14.952 193 .05 U 124-Trimethylbenzene_____. . . .05 U Naphthalene______________. . . .1 U SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC QC LIMITS **TRIFLUOROTOLUENE_______8.652 2.5 2.292 91.68 70-130 7 . 4 0 8 . 6 5 1 4 . 9 5 1 7 . 1 1 1 8 . 8 0 M T B E B e n z e n e * * T R I F L U O R O T O L U E N E T o l u e n e E t h y l b e n z e n e m + p - X y l e n e s o - X y l e n e 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0029.RAW H23010124-001A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Page 14 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH ALIPHATICS FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-001A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0029.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 1:54:45 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122B.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122B.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 512.0317 Mean RF for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 446.9048 Mean RF for all calibrated compounds: 551.9584 Rt range for Gasoline Range Organics: 4.849 to 15.833 Rt range for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 3.89 to 13.6 Rt range for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 13.65 to 19.493 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC **TFT_______________8.656 2.5 2.126 85.06 - GRO Area:8916.098 GRO Amount: 0.3230713 TPH Area:10363.73 TPH Amount: 0.3755259 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Areas and Quantitations uncorrected for Aromatics: C5-C8 Area:8622.008 C5-C8 Amount: 0.3367763 C9-C12 Area:767.3752 C9-C12 Amount: 3.434177E-02 0 . 2 6 3 . 8 0 5 . 1 8 5 . 3 5 5 . 5 3 6 . 0 6 6 . 1 8 7 . 4 1 8 . 6 6 1 0 . 3 9 1 0 . 7 1 1 4 . 9 4 1 7 . 1 5 1 9 . 4 5 2 3 . 4 1 n - P e n t a n e 2 - M e t h y l p e n t a n e # M T B E 2 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l p e n t a n e # B e n z e n e * * T F T # T o l u e n e n - N o n a n e # E t h y l b e n z e n e # m + p - X y l e n e s # o - X y l e n e n - D e c a n e # 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e n - B u t y l c y c l o h e x a n e # N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0029.RAW H23010124-001A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Page 15 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH AROMATICS PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-002A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0030.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 2:25:48 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons: 240.385 Rt range for C9 to C10 Aromatics: 14.968 to 19.487 Aromatic Hydrocarbon Range Area and Quantitation: C9-C10 Aromatics Area:497.3172 C9-C10 Aromatics Amount: 4.137671E-02 TARGET ANALYTES RT CAL RRT RRT AREA AMOUNT FLAG MTBE_____________________. . . .1 U Benzene__________________. . . .05 U Toluene__________________. . . .05 U Ethylbenzene_____________. . . .05 U m+p-Xylenes______________. . . .05 U o-Xylene_________________14.952 14.952 14.952 175 .05 U 124-Trimethylbenzene_____. . . .05 U Naphthalene______________. . . .1 U SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC QC LIMITS **TRIFLUOROTOLUENE_______8.652 2.5 2.425 97.01 70-130 4 . 4 9 7 . 4 0 8 . 6 5 1 4 . 9 5 1 7 . 1 1 1 8 . 8 1 M T B E B e n z e n e * * T R I F L U O R O T O L U E N E T o l u e n e E t h y l b e n z e n e m + p - X y l e n e s o - X y l e n e 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0030.RAW H23010124-002A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Page 16 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH ALIPHATICS FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-002A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0030.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 2:25:48 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122B.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122B.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 512.0317 Mean RF for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 446.9048 Mean RF for all calibrated compounds: 551.9584 Rt range for Gasoline Range Organics: 4.849 to 15.833 Rt range for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 3.89 to 13.6 Rt range for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 13.65 to 19.493 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC **TFT_______________8.656 2.5 2.268 90.71 - GRO Area:8759.82 GRO Amount: 0.3174087 TPH Area:9577.023 TPH Amount: 0.3470197 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Areas and Quantitations uncorrected for Aromatics: C5-C8 Area:8448.883 C5-C8 Amount: 0.3300141 C9-C12 Area:618.3162 C9-C12 Amount: 2.767105E-02 3 . 8 0 4 . 9 6 5 . 1 8 5 . 3 6 5 . 5 3 6 . 0 6 6 . 1 8 7 . 4 1 8 . 1 4 8 . 6 6 9 . 6 8 1 0 . 3 7 1 0 . 9 4 1 4 . 9 5 1 7 . 1 6 1 7 . 8 2 n - P e n t a n e 2 - M e t h y l p e n t a n e # M T B E 2 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l p e n t a n e # B e n z e n e * * T F T # T o l u e n e n - N o n a n e # E t h y l b e n z e n e # m + p - X y l e n e s # o - X y l e n e n - D e c a n e # 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e n - B u t y l c y c l o h e x a n e # N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0030.RAW H23010124-002A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Page 17 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH AROMATICS PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-003A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0031.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 2:56:42 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons: 240.385 Rt range for C9 to C10 Aromatics: 14.968 to 19.487 Aromatic Hydrocarbon Range Area and Quantitation: C9-C10 Aromatics Area:523.2388 C9-C10 Aromatics Amount: 4.353339E-02 TARGET ANALYTES RT CAL RRT RRT AREA AMOUNT FLAG MTBE_____________________. . . .1 U Benzene__________________. . . .05 U Toluene__________________. . . .05 U Ethylbenzene_____________. . . .05 U m+p-Xylenes______________. . . .05 U o-Xylene_________________14.961 14.961 14.961 168 .05 U 124-Trimethylbenzene_____. . . .05 U Naphthalene______________. . . .1 U SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC QC LIMITS **TRIFLUOROTOLUENE_______8.652 2.5 2.402 96.09 70-130 7 . 4 0 8 . 6 5 1 4 . 9 6 1 7 . 1 1 1 8 . 8 0 2 0 . 2 1 M T B E B e n z e n e * * T R I F L U O R O T O L U E N E T o l u e n e E t h y l b e n z e n e m + p - X y l e n e s o - X y l e n e 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0031.RAW H23010124-003A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Page 18 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH ALIPHATICS FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-003A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0031.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 2:56:42 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122B.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122B.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 512.0317 Mean RF for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 446.9048 Mean RF for all calibrated compounds: 551.9584 Rt range for Gasoline Range Organics: 4.849 to 15.833 Rt range for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 3.89 to 13.6 Rt range for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 13.65 to 19.493 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC **TFT_______________8.656 2.5 2.251 90.04 - GRO Area:3661.629 GRO Amount: 0.1326777 TPH Area:5097.574 TPH Amount: 0.1847086 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Areas and Quantitations uncorrected for Aromatics: C5-C8 Area:3351.691 C5-C8 Amount: 0.1309173 C9-C12 Area:709.6941 C9-C12 Amount: 3.176041E-02 0 . 3 2 3 . 8 0 4 . 9 6 5 . 1 8 5 . 5 3 6 . 0 6 6 . 1 8 7 . 4 1 7 . 8 7 8 . 6 6 1 0 . 2 3 1 0 . 3 9 1 0 . 9 1 1 1 . 6 0 1 4 . 9 7 1 7 . 1 5 n - P e n t a n e 2 - M e t h y l p e n t a n e # M T B E 2 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l p e n t a n e # B e n z e n e * * T F T # T o l u e n e n - N o n a n e # E t h y l b e n z e n e # m + p - X y l e n e s # o - X y l e n e n - D e c a n e # 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e n - B u t y l c y c l o h e x a n e # N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0031.RAW H23010124-003A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Page 19 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH AROMATICS PHOTOIONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-004A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0032.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 3:27:39 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C9 to C10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons: 240.385 Rt range for C9 to C10 Aromatics: 14.968 to 19.487 Aromatic Hydrocarbon Range Area and Quantitation: C9-C10 Aromatics Area:534.9899 C9-C10 Aromatics Amount: 4.451108E-02 TARGET ANALYTES RT CAL RRT RRT AREA AMOUNT FLAG MTBE_____________________. . . .1 U Benzene__________________. . . .05 U Toluene__________________10.924 10.924 10.924 52 .05 U Ethylbenzene_____________. . . .05 U m+p-Xylenes______________. . . .05 U o-Xylene_________________14.95 14.95 14.95 154 .05 U 124-Trimethylbenzene_____. . . .05 U Naphthalene______________. . . .1 U SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC QC LIMITS **TRIFLUOROTOLUENE_______8.651 2.5 2.434 97.35 70-130 7 . 4 0 8 . 6 5 1 0 . 9 2 1 4 . 9 5 1 7 . 1 2 1 8 . 3 9 1 8 . 8 1 2 1 . 8 4 M T B E B e n z e n e * * T R I F L U O R O T O L U E N E T o l u e n e E t h y l b e n z e n e m + p - X y l e n e s o - X y l e n e 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2.0032.RAW H23010124-004A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Page 20 of 25 Batch ID: 64994 VPH ALIPHATICS FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR CHROMATOGRAM REPORT Sample Name: H23010124-004A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, Raw File: G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0032.RAW Date & Time Acquired: 1/10/2023 3:27:40 AM Method File: G:\Org\2GC\Methods\GC2112122B.MET Calibration File: G:\Org\2GC\Cals\GC2112122B.cal Sample Weight: 50 Dilution: 1 S.A.: 1 Mean RF for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 512.0317 Mean RF for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 446.9048 Mean RF for all calibrated compounds: 551.9584 Rt range for Gasoline Range Organics: 4.849 to 15.833 Rt range for C5 to C8 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 3.89 to 13.6 Rt range for C9 to C12 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons: 13.65 to 19.493 SURROGATE COMPOUND RT ACTUAL MEASURED %REC **TFT_______________8.655 2.5 2.247 89.87 - GRO Area:7568.336 GRO Amount: 0.2742357 TPH Area:8769.207 TPH Amount: 0.3177488 Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Areas and Quantitations uncorrected for Aromatics: C5-C8 Area:7297.91 C5-C8 Amount: 0.2850569 C9-C12 Area:696.86 C9-C12 Amount: 3.118606E-02 3 . 8 0 4 . 9 5 5 . 1 8 5 . 3 5 5 . 5 3 6 . 0 6 6 . 1 8 7 . 4 1 8 . 6 6 1 0 . 4 1 1 0 . 9 4 1 4 . 9 7 1 7 . 1 6 1 8 . 8 3 1 9 . 9 5 2 0 . 7 1 n - P e n t a n e 2 - M e t h y l p e n t a n e # M T B E 2 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l p e n t a n e # B e n z e n e * * T F T # T o l u e n e n - N o n a n e # E t h y l b e n z e n e # m + p - X y l e n e s # o - X y l e n e n - D e c a n e # 1 2 4 - T r i m e t h y l b e n z e n e n - B u t y l c y c l o h e x a n e # N a p h t h a l e n e G:\Org\2GC\DAT\2GC010923_b\0109GC2B.0032.RAW H23010124-004A ;0109GC2 , $HC-VPH-MA-S, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Page 21 of 25 Shipping container/cooler in good condition? Custody seals intact on all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)? Custody seals intact on all sample bottles? Chain of custody present? Chain of custody signed when relinquished and received? Chain of custody agrees with sample labels? Samples in proper container/bottle? Sample containers intact? Sufficient sample volume for indicated test? All samples received within holding time?(Exclude analyses that are considered field parameterssuch as pH, DO, Res Cl, Sulfite, Ferrous Iron, etc.) Container/Temp Blank temperature: Containers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble that is <6mm (1/4"). Water - pH acceptable upon receipt? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No R £ £ £ R R R R R R R £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ Not Present Not Present Not Present £ R R No VOA vials submitted Not Applicable R R 4.4°C On Ice 1/6/2023Taylor K. Jones FedEx tkj Date Received: Received by: Login completed by: Carrier name: rtooke 1/6/2023 Reviewed by: Reviewed Date: Contact and Corrective Action Comments: None Temp Blank received in all shipping container(s)/cooler(s)?Yes NoR £Not Applicable £ Lab measurement of analytes considered field parameters that require analysis within 15 minutes of sampling such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen and Residual Chlorine, are qualified as being analyzed outside of recommended holding time. Solid/soil samples are reported on a wet weight basis (as received) unless specifically indicated. If moisture corrected, data units are typically noted as –dry. For agricultural and mining soil parameters/characteristics, all samples are dried and ground prior to sample analysis. The reference date for Radon analysis is the sample collection date. The reference date for all other Radiochemical analyses is the analysis date. Radiochemical precision results represent a 2-sigma Total Measurement Uncertainty. Standard Reporting Procedures: Work Order Receipt Checklist Morrison Maierle Inc H23010124 Page 22 of 25 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 83 of 394 NRCS Web Soils Survey Soil Map—Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana(Creekside Subdivision) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 1/10/2023Page 1 of 3 53 4 3 5 2 0 53 4 3 5 7 0 53 4 3 6 2 0 53 4 3 6 7 0 53 4 3 7 2 0 53 4 3 7 7 0 53 4 3 5 2 0 53 4 3 5 7 0 53 4 3 6 2 0 53 4 3 6 7 0 53 4 3 7 2 0 53 4 3 7 7 0 53 4 3 8 2 0 695110 695160 695210 695260 695310 695360 695410 695460 695510 695560 695110 695160 695210 695260 695310 695360 695410 695460 695510 695560 48° 13' 2'' N 11 4 ° 2 2 ' 2 4 ' ' W 48° 13' 2'' N 11 4 ° 2 2 ' 1 ' ' W 48° 12' 52'' N 11 4 ° 2 2 ' 2 4 ' ' W 48° 12' 52'' N 11 4 ° 2 2 ' 1 ' ' W N Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600Feet 0 30 60 120 180Meters Map Scale: 1:2,170 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:20,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation ServiceWeb Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Upper Flathead Valley Area, MontanaSurvey Area Data: Version 18, Aug 29, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 31, 2021—Oct 12, 2021 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana(Creekside Subdivision) Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 1/10/2023Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI Aa Alluvial land, poorly drained 5.2 21.6% Bu Blanchard very fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes 2.3 9.7% Kg Kalispell loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes 4.7 19.6% Ta Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes 11.9 49.1% Totals for Area of Interest 24.2 100.0% Soil Map—Upper Flathead Valley Area, Montana Creekside Subdivision Natural ResourcesConservation Service Web Soil SurveyNational Cooperative Soil Survey 1/10/2023Page 3 of 3 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 87 of 394 FEMA FIRM Panel Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 89 of 394 Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species 8/5/22, 3:41 PM Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS] https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html 1/1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | Earthstar Geographics Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species [USFWS] A specific geographic area(s) that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. Final Linear Features Final Polygon Features Proposed Linear Features Proposed Polygon Features 1mi Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 91 of 394 Montana’s National Register of Historic Places 1/12/23, 4:10 PM Montana's National Register of Historic Places https://montana.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5378695ae71b414ba66f478fc57241f6 1/2 E + – h i -114.261 48.224 Degrees 0.4mi0.4mi0.4mi0.4mi0.4mi f e Montana's National Register of Historic Places Property Finding Aid ꤆ BOptions n Filter by map extent oRefreshCZoom to jClear selection56 features 0 selected National Register Historic Districts National Historic Landmarks Montana CountiesNational Register Historic Properties n Find address or place c Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 93 of 394 Superintendent Emails 1 Dom Goble From:Risher, Cindy <crisher@westvalleyschool.com> Sent:Friday, January 20, 2023 9:46 AM To:Dom Goble Subject:Re: Creekside Subdivision - West Valley School District ***This message originated from an External Source.*** Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Dom, Depending on the overall growth of the West Valley area, an additional 26 could be a challenge. If this is the only growth, the students could be integrated into the current school. We know additional growth is happening as more projects are being developed. To accommodate the overall growth, the district will need to add another campus. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Cindy On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 8:50 AM Dom Goble <dgoble@m-m.net> wrote: Good morning Cindy, I was following up to see if you had a chance to review my below email. Thanks for the feedback! Have a great day, 1 Dom Goble From:Dom Goble Sent:Thursday, January 12, 2023 5:04 PM To:Dom Goble Subject:FW: Proposed Subdivision and Existing School Facilities From: Micah Hill <hillm@sd5.k12.mt.us> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2022 4:22 PM To: Luke Johnson <ljohnson@m-m.net> Subject: Re: Proposed Subdivision and Existing School Facilities ***This message originated from an External Source.*** Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email. Luke, I'm not an expert by any means, but I don't think that is correct. According to my boundary charts, that lot is in the West Valley Elementary School District, not Peterson. Unless I'm mistaken, the city's adjustment of boundary lines does not affect a school district's boundaries, that would have to go through a legal process because it is essentially taking the tax base away from one school district and giving it to another. As far as the high school district goes, I would likely say that it will have little to no effect on us for the time being (hard to say if the 37 children would all be high school aged at any given point in time). Thanks, Micah Hill Superintendent Kalispell Public Schools 233 1st Ave E Kalispell, MT 59901 406-751-3434 "A great place to learn, work, and grow!" On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 4:02 PM Luke Johnson <ljohnson@m-m.net> wrote: Once the lot is Annexed to the City of Kalispell, they would go to Peterson Elementary and Glacier High School. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 96 of 394 APPENDIX C EXHIBITS FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, 2023 Plotted by dom goble on Jan/27/2023 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net U:\ 1 0 2 1 4 B r e n t H o l d i n g s , L L C \ 0 0 1 _ K a l i s p e l l D e v e l o p m e n t \ A C A D \ P l a n n i n g \ V I C I N I T Y M A P . d w g 10214.001 1 DDG KALISPELL MONTANA VICINITY MAP DDG CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DDG 250 5000 SCALE IN FEET SUBJECT PROPERTY THREE MILE DRIVE FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY SPRIN G C R E E K S P R I N G C R E E K S P R I N G C R E E K S P R I N G C R E E K THREE MILE DRIVE HE A V E N S P E A K D R I V E QUARTER HORSE LANE MEADOWS EDGESUBDIVISION MOUNTAIN VISTA ESTATES SPRING CREEK ESTATES QUARTER HORSE ESTATES COS 18892 COS 21703 COS 22268 COS 19862 FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, 2023 Plotted by dom goble on Jan/27/2023 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net U:\ 1 0 2 1 4 B r e n t H o l d i n g s , L L C \ 0 0 1 _ K a l i s p e l l D e v e l o p m e n t \ A C A D \ P l a n n i n g \ Z O N I N G M A P . d w g 10214.001 2 DDG KALISPELL MONTANA ZONING MAP DDG CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DDG 200 4000 SCALE IN FEET FLATHEADCOUNTYSAG-5 FLATHEADCOUNTYAG-20 KALISPELLR-3/PUD KALISPELLB-1/PUD FLATHEADCOUNTY AG-80 SUBJECT PARCELKALISPELL R-4 KALISPELLR-3/PUD FLATHEAD COUNTYSAG-10 KALISPELL R-2/PUD THREE MILE DRIVE MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY FLATHEADCOUNTY SAG-5 FLATHEAD COUNTY AG-80 KALISPELLR-2/PUD FLATHEAD COUNTY AG-80 FLATHEADCOUNTYAG-80 XXXX OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X W OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT W W W W W XX X X FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, 2023 Plotted by dom goble on Feb/28/2023 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net U:\ 1 0 2 1 4 B r e n t H o l d i n g s , L L C \ 0 0 1 _ K a l i s p e l l D e v e l o p m e n t \ A C A D \ P l a n n i n g \ G r a d i n g c u t a n d f i l l s . d w g 10214.001 3 DDG KALISPELL MONTANA CUT-FILL ANALYSIS DDG CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DDG 50 1000 SCALE IN FEET ELEVATION TABLE NUMBER MINIMUM ELEVATION MAXIMUM ELEVATION COLOR 2 1 3 -3.00 -3.00+ 3.00 3.00 -3.00 3.00+ X XX X X X W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S D SD SD SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S W W W W W W W W W SD SD SD SD SD SD SD S S S S S S S S S S S FM FM FM FM FM FM FM FM SD SD SD S S SS S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS S S S S S S S S NG NG NG OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P S SSSSS S S OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P OH P BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT BT W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 2023COPYRIGHT © MORRISON-MAIERLE, SHEET NUMBER PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER DATEDESCRIPTIONNO.BY U:\ 1 0 2 1 4 B R E N T H O L D I N G S , L L C \ 0 0 1 _ K A L I S P E L L D E V E L O P M E N T \ A C A D \ P L A N N I N G \ O V E R A L L L A N D S C A P I N G P L A N . D W G REVISIONS DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: Q.C. REVIEW DATE: BY: 172 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, MT 59901 406.752.2216 www.m-m.netengineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierleVERIFY SCALE AND COLOR!THIS SHEET MAY BE REDUCED AND ISINTENDED TO BE IN COLOR. THE BARBELOW WILL MEASURE ONE INCH ATORIGINAL DESIGN SCALE AND RED,GREEN, AND BLUE WILL BE VISIBLE IFREPRODUCED CORRECTLY. MODIFY SCALE ACCORDINGLY! PLOTTED BY:DOM GOBLE ON Feb/28/2023 CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISIONKALISPELL MONTANA LANDSCAPING AND PARK PLAN 10214.001 4 DDG DDG DDG 60 12030600 SCALE IN FEET DOG PARK(0.66 ACRES) BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY. HEIGHT (FT) IVORY SILK TREE LILAC 26 20' - 25' NORTHERN ACCLAIMHONEYLOCUST 29 30' - 40' AMERICAN LINDEN 29 40' - 60' FA R M T O M A R K E T R D PARKLAND NOTES: 1. CITY OF KALISPELL PARKLAND DEDICATION: 0.03 ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT - 0.03 ACRES * 103 DWELLING UNITS = 3.09 ACRES2. CREEKSIDE DOG PARK (0.66 ACRES) + SPRING CREEK PARK (2.54 ACRES) = 3.20 ACRES3. LIFT STATION AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY WERE REMOVED FROM TOTAL AREA OF SPRING CREEK PARK. FENCE AROUND PROPOSED LIFTSTATION TO BE SCREENED FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES.4. MULTI-USE PATH FROM CREEK SIDE PARK THROUGH SPRING CREEK PARK TO CONNECT TO FARM TO MARKET ROAD MULTI-USE PATH.5. SPRING CREEK PARK TO INCLUDE BENCHES AND WALKING TRAILS.6. CREEKSIDE DOG PARK TO BE USED AS AN ENCLOSED DOG PARK. SPRINGCREEK PARK(2.54 ACRES)PROPOSED MULTI-USE PATH PROPOSEDLIFT STATION PROPOSEDDETENTION POND EXISTING TREE LINETO BE PRESERVED DELINEATEDWETLAND (TYP) SPRING CREEK 100-FOOTWETLAND SETBACK OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 1-1/2" IRRIGATION SERVICE IN PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONBOULEVARD. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO DESIGNPIPE, ZONES, AND HEAD DISTRIBUTION. DESIGN TOPROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE AND LIMIT OVERSPRAY ONTO HARD SURFACES INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO SIDEWALKS, WALLS, ASPHALT, LIGHTPOLES, ETC. FIGURE NUMBER © PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY: DSGN. BY: APPR. BY: DATE: COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, 2023 Plotted by dom goble on Feb/28/2023 engineers surveyors planners scientists MorrisonMaierle 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 406.752.2216 www.m-m.net U:\ 1 0 2 1 4 B r e n t H o l d i n g s , L L C \ 0 0 1 _ K a l i s p e l l D e v e l o p m e n t \ A C A D \ P l a n n i n g \ L o t A d d r e s s e s . d w g 10214.001 5 DDG KALISPELL MONTANA LOT ADDRESSES DDG CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION DDG 50 1000 SCALE IN FEET FAYETTE LOOP BR O O K S S T R E E T NE W N A N W A Y TY R O N E L A N E 384380 388 392 396 400 404 408 412 416 420 424 428 432 436 440 444 1111 FA R M T O M A R K E T R O A D FAYETTE LOOP 500 496 492 488 484 480 476 472 468 464 460 457 455 453 451 449 447 448 1113 1115 1117 1119 1121 1123 1125 1127 1129 1112 1114 1116 1118 1120 1122 1124 1126 1128 1130 1111 1113 1115 1117 1119 1121 1123 1125 1127 1129 1112 1114 1116 1118 1120 1122 1124 1126 1128 1130 1111 1113 1115 1117 1119 1121 1123 1125 1127 1129 1112 1114 1116 1118 1120 1122 1124 1126 1128 1130 1111 1113 1115 1117 1119 1121 1123 1125 Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 102 of 394 APPENDIX D DRAFT CONDITIONS, CONVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS 1 DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF CREEKSIDE SUBDIVISION THIS DECLARATION is made as of this/ xx day of _____, 2023 by xxx Brent Holdings, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Declarant." RECITALS A.The Declarant recorded the original Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside on xxx xx, 2022 , 2019 as Document Number , records of Flathead County, Montana.. C.The original Declaration provides that the Declarant may amend the Declaration during the period of Declarant Control;D.The period of Declarant Control has not expired and the Declarant desires to further amend and restate the Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside as set forth herein;E.The real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto is subject to the above referenced Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside ;F.The Common Area of the Project is the open space and alleys shown on Exhibit "A" hereto and the Plat Maps of Creekside - on file and of record 'in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana.G.For the benefit and protection of the Project, to enhance its value and attractiveness, and as an inducement to vendors and investors to make and purchase loans secured by Homes and Lots within the Project, Declarant agrees to provide herein for a comprehensive system of land use and building controls within the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant, during the period of Declarant Control, hereby makes this Declaration for the purpose of subjecting said property and the Project to this Declaration, and declares that the property and the Project described herein shall be held, conveyed, encumbered, leased, rented, used, occupied and improved subject to the following covenants, conditions, · restrictions, reservations, grants of easement rights, rights of way, liens, charges and equitable servitudes, which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of the Project and 2 I : shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the above described property or any part thereof, and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each owner thereof and to the successors in interest thereto. Any conveyance, transfer, sale, assignment, lease or sublease of a Lot or Home in the Project shall and hereby is deemed to incorporate by reference all provisions of this Declaration. The provisions of this Declaration shall be enforceable by Declarant, any LotOwner, the Association and any first Mortgagee of any Lot. To further the general purposes herein i expressed, the Declarant, for itself and its successors and assigns, does hereby declare that the real . ! property described .on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, and all property added to this Declaration bythe Declarant, shall at all times be owned, held, used and occupied subject to the provisions contained in this Declaration, to the covenants, conditions and restrictions contained herein and to any amendments hereto. Article IINTERPRETATION 1.1 - LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose of creating a uniform plan for the operation and maintenance of the Project. 1.2 - COVENANT RUNNING WITH LAND This Declaration shall be operative as a set of covenants running with the land, or equitable servitudes, binding on Declarant, its successors and assigns, all subsequent owners of the Property or any part thereof, together with their grantees, successors, heirs, personal representatives, administrators, devisees or assigns. 1.3 - DECLARANT IS ORIGINAL OWNER Declarant is the original Owner of all Lots and Property and will continue to be deemed the Owner thereof except as conveyances or ·documents changing such ownership regarding specifically described Lots are filed of record. 1.4- CAPTIONS Captions given to the various articles and sections herein are for convenience only and are not intended to modify or affect the meaning of any of the substantive provisions hereof. 1.5 - DEFINITIONS Architectural Control Committee or ACC means the committee established pursuant Article III. Articles means the articles of incorporation of the Association, as defined below. 3 Assessments means all sums chargeable by the Association (or by Declarant in exercising Declarant Rights) against a Lot, including without limitation (a) regular and special assessment for Common Expenses and Home Expenses, (b) deposits and contributions to the Association's working capital as established by its Board of Directors, (c) special charges against a Lot Owner for work done on the Owner's Lot, (d) fines, (e) interest and late charges on any delinquent account, and (f) costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the collection of delinquent Owner's account. Association shall mean Creekside Homeowners Association, Inc., a Montana mutual benefit corporation, as described more fully in Article 2, and its successors and assigns. The term "Association" shall be deemed to refer to the Declarant when exercising Declarant Rights otherwise permitted to the Association. Board shall mean the Board of Directors of the Association. Bylaws shall mean the Bylaws of the Association as the same may be amended from time to time. Common Area. The Common Area of the Project are the open spaces and private alleys as depicted on the Plat of Creekside - on file and of record in Flathead County, Montana, but excluding individual Lots within the Property and property dedicated to the City of Kalispell, Montana for public use including streets, public utilities, and related improvements. Thus, the Common Area includes real Property maintained by the Association for the common benefit of the Owners and such other persons as may be permitted to use the Common Area under the terms of this Declaration or any contract with the Association. Common Expenses shall mean (a) the expenses of maintaining, managing, and operating the Common Area; (b) premiums for liability insurance carried by the Association; (c) all other expenses incurred by the Association in administering, services, conserving, managing, paying Property taxes upon, maintaining, repairing, or replacing the Common Area and any improvements located on it; (d) all expenses incurred by the Association in administering and managing the Association and this Declaration; (e) all expenses incurred by the Association in any other activities undertaken for the common benefit of all or some of the Owners; and (t) all expenses lawfully determined to be Common Expenses by the Board of Directors of the Association, as provided in this Declaration and in the articles and Bylaws of the Association. Declarant shall mean xxx LLC. Declarant may assign some or all of its rights under this Declaration to a third party by a written instrument specifically referring to such rights recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. Such instrument may specify the extent and portion of the rights or interests of Declarant which are being assigned, in which case the initial Declarant shall retain all other rights as Declarant. Declaration shall mean this 2020 Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Creekside , as it may be amended from time to time. 11111111111111111 IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIII III Ill llll llll !:::t::«:: : 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 4 Home shall mean and refer to any structure, or portion of a structure, located on a Lot, which structure is designed and intended for use and occupancy as a residence or which is intended for use in connection with such residence, Lot shall mean each parcel within the Property described below, which is designated as a Lot on a plat of the Property, including any such parcel owned by Declarant and excluding any Common Area. Member means a person entitled to membership in the Association. Mortgage shall mean a recorded mortgage or deed of trust that creates a lien against a Lot and shall also mean a real estate contract for the sale of a Lot. Mortgagee shall mean the beneficial owner, or the designee of the beneficial owner, of an encumbrance on a Lot created by mortgage or deed of trust and shall also mean the vendor, or the designee of a vendor, of a real estate contract for the sale of the Lot. Owner shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Project and except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, shall, in the case of a Lot which has been sold pursuant to a real estate contract, include any person of record holding a vendee's interest under such real estate contract, to theexclusion of the vendor thereunder. Any person or entity having such an interest merely as securityfor the performance of an obligation shall not be considered an owner. Period of Declarant Control means the period beginning on the date this Declaration is first recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, and ending on the earlier of: (a) the date which is 7 years later, or (b) the date on which the Declarant has sold 90% of the Lots in each of the Plats. The Period of Declarant control may be reinstated or extended by agreement between the Declarant and the Association; subject to whatever terms, conditions and limitations the Board of Directors may impose on the subsequent exercise by Declarant of the Special Declarant Rights. After the termination of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant, if still an owner, will continue to have all the rights and duties ordinarily given to Members under this Declaration. Plat Maps shall mean the recorded final plat(s) depicting the layout of the Lots in the Project, Including any amendments thereto, Project shall mean any real property (including any improvements and structures thereon) as are now or hereafter subjected to this Declaration and brought within the jurisdiction of the Association. Property shall mean the real estate described in Exhibit A and any additions thereto, (together with all improvements and structures thereon) as well as any property which may in the future become part of Creekside as provided in this Declaration. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 !::Et:E: : 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 5 Transition Date shall mean the earlier of the following: (1) 60 days after the date on which Declarant has sold 90% of the lots in each of the plats, or (2) the seventh anniversary of the recordings of this Declaration, or (3) the date on which Declarant elects to permanently relinquish all Declarant Rights by written notice to all Owners. Article IIHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 2.1 - Establishment of Association and Adoption of Bylaws: An Association is hereby established known as "Creekside Homeowners Association." Said Association may be incorporated under a different name as may be determined by the Association and approved by the Montana Secretary of State. The Association shall be formed prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. The Bylaws of the Association will be adopted by the Association prior to the close of sale of any Lot within the Property. 2.2 - Powers: The Association shall have all such powers as permitted by the laws of the State of Montana, provided that the Association shall be subject to and abide by the provisions of this Declaration, as the same may be amended from time to time 2,3 - Membership: All Owners of the Lots within Creekside shall be members of the Association. The Owners of any Lot shall automatically become members of the Association. and shall remain members until such time as the Ownership of such Lot ceases for any reason, at which time the corresponding membership in the Association shall cease. For the purpose of determining membership at any meeting, a person or entity shall be deemed to be a member upon the recording of a dully executed deed to that Owner, or upon the recording of a notice of a purchaser's interest or an abstract of a contract for a deed showing a contract purchase by an Owner. The legal title retained by the vendor selling under contract shall not qualify for membership. Foreclosure of a mortgage, trust indenture or the termination or foreclosure of a contract for deed wherein title is vested in the mortgagee, beneficiary or original seller on a contract, or repossession for any reason of a Lot sold under a contract shall terminate the vendee's membership, whereupon all rights to such membership shall vest in the legal Owner. Members shall participate in the manner prescribed by the Articles and Bylaws of the Association, and resolutions of the Association's Board of Directors. 2.4- Owners' Address: Upon acquiring a Lot, the Owner(s) of the Lot shall immediately inform the Association of their names and of one address to which notices from the Association should be sent. The Owners shall be responsible for informing the Association of any change of address. 2.5 - Voting: There shall be one vote for each Lot. If a person or entity owns more than one Lot, that person or entity shall have as many votes as the number of Lots owned by that person or entity. If more than one person or entity has an Ownership interest in a single Lot, such persons or entities must decide among themselves how the vote for that Lot shall be cast. 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 !::Et:E: : 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 6 2.6 - Management During Period of Declarant Control: During the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may appoint, remove and replace from time to time any or all of the directors and officers of the Association. If Declarant so elects, Declarant may from time to time relinquish, either on a temporary or permanent basis, the right to appoint all or a portion of the directors and officers of the Association. Any such relinquishment shall be expressed in writing to the Association.2.7 - Association Meeting: Annual and Special meetings of the Association shall occur as set forth in the Association's Bylaws. 2.8 - Turnover Meeting: The Declarant reserves the right, at any time before the expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, to call a special meeting or the Association for the purpose of transferring control of the Association to the members. Should the Declarant call such a meeting, it shall present to the members its plan for the orderly transfer of control of the Association to the members, and the members will be obligated to accept control of the Association in accordance with such plan. Article Ill ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL 3.1 Construction and Exterior Alteration/Repair: 3.1.1 The "Architectural Control Committee" (ACC) shall consist of the Board of Directors of the Association, or of a special "Architectural Control Committee" of at least three (3) or more persons appointed by the Board, all of whom must be members of the Association. All buildings, structures and other improvements (including, without limitation, concrete or masonry walls, rookeries, fences, sheds, over-the-air reception devices, landscaping or other structures and improvements) to be constructed within the Project, and all exterior alterations and repairs of any building, structures or improvements in the Project and visible from any public street, Common Area or other Lot must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee (ACC). Complete plans and specifications, together with an initial ACC Review Fee of $50, for all such proposed buildings, structures, and exterior alterations and repairs, together with detailed plans showing the proposed location of the same in the particular buildings site and other data requested by the ACC, shall be submitted to the ACC before construction, alteration or repair is started. Construction, alteration or repair shall not be started until written approval thereof is given by the ACC. Any exterior modifications approved or developed by the Declarant while exercising Declarant Rights will be deemed approved exterior modifications. The ACC shall have the right, from time to time, to increase the ACC Review Fee, provided such increased fee is in an amount reasonably anticipated to compensate the ACC for its time and costs related to the review of such plans and specifications. The ACC may, in its discretion, reduce or waive the Review Fee for smaller projects such as minor repairs, alterations or small additions to existing improvements. The ACC shall have the right to adopt design guidelines. 3.1.2 The ACC will review submittals as to the quality of workmanship and materials planned and for conformity and harmony of the external design with proposed or existing, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 !::Et!E: : 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 7 structures on neighborhood residential Lots or building sites, and as to location of the building with respect to topography, finish grade elevation and building setback restrictions. 3.1.3 In the event the ACC fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within forty-five (45) days after said plans, and specifications have been submitted to it, such approval will not be required. 3.1.4 All plans and specifications for approval by the ACC must be submitted in duplicate, at lease forty-five (45) days prior to the proposed construction or exterior alteration or repair starting date, unless such requirement is waived in writing by the ACC. Neither the waiver of, nor the failure to waive such requirements shall be construed as a waiver or a relinquishment of such rights for the future. 3.1.5 The ACC may require that, said plans or specifications shall be prepared by an architect or a competent house-designer, approved by the ACC. One complete set of said plans and specifications shall in each case be delivered to and permanently left with the ACC. All buildings or structures shall be erected or constructed, and all exterior alterations or repairs made, by a contractor, house Builder or other person or entity approved by the ACC. The ACC shall have the right to refuse to approve any design, plan or color for such improvements, construction, or exterior alteration or repair visible from a public street, Common Area or other Lot which is not suitable or desirable, in the ACC's reasonable opinion, and in accordance with the standards and specifications herein set forth, aesthetic or otherwise. 3.1.6 In so passing upon such design, the ACC shall have the right to take into consideration the suitability of the proposed building or other structure, and the material of which it is to be built, and the exterior color scheme, to the site upon which it is proposed to erect the same. 3.1.7 The ACC shall have the right to disapprove the design or installation of a swimming pool, hot tub or any other recreational structure or equipment undesirable, in the ACC's reasonable opinion, aesthetic or otherwise. 3.1.8 Declarant shall not be subject to the restrictions of this Section 3.1 as to any Lot owned by Declarant, whether before or after the Transition Date. Additionally, until the Transition Date, Declarant, in its sole discretion, may remove any individual(s) from the ACC, and replace such individual(s) with individual(s) designated by Declarant. 3.2 - Sales Facilities of Declarant and Builders: 3.2.1 Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary, until the Transition Date, Declarant and any Builder shall be permitted to maintain during the period of sale of Lots and/or Homes upon such portion of the Project as Declarant may choose, such facilities as in their sole opinion may be reasonably required, convenient or incidental to the construction, sale, lease or rental of Lots or Homes, including but not limited to, 11111111111111111 IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIII III Ill llll llll !:::t::«:: : 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 8 for business office, storage area, signs, model units, sales office, construction office, and parking areas for all prospective tenants or purchasers of Declarant or Builders. 3.2.2 Until the Transition Date, Declarant and Builders may make temporary alterations to model homes which are not otherwise permitted by this Declaration or the ACC guidelines for marketing purposes. The selling Owner must remove model home alterations and return the Home to full compliance with the ACC guidelines prior to occupancy by a Home purchaser or tenant. Owners other than Declarant or Builders may not make such alterations to any Lot or Home. Article IVCOMMON AREA 4.1 - Control and Management: The Association shall have the exclusive right and obligation to manage, control, improve and maintain the Common Area within Creekside . The Association shall be responsible for liability insurance, state and local taxes payable by the Association for the common area, and maintenance of facilities and improvements in the Common Area. The Board of Directors, among its other duties, shall establish and levy assessments to pay for the taxes payable by the Association, insurance, maintenance and other expenses associated with the Common Area under the control and authority of the Association. The Board of Directors may, in its discretion, adjust the assessments to meet the changing needs of the Creekside community and the areas serving the community. 4.2 - Property Taxes: It is acknowledged that, for property tax purposes, Flathead County and the State of Montana may allocate to each Lot a fractional, proportional portion of the value attributable to the Common Area. By accepting a deed to a Lot, the Owner agrees to this mechanism for property taxation and agrees to pay a proportional share (as allocated by Flathead County and the State of Montana) of the Taxes attributable to the value of the Common Area, while at the same time allowing the Association to administer and control the Common Area. 4.3 - Easements Over All Common Area: The Owners shall have an easement for the use and enjoyment of all of the Common Area, subject to such rules and regulations as the Association may develop from time to time, and also subject to the rights reserved to Declarant and the reserved rights of any third parties with respect to the Common Area. Declarant reserves and shall have an easement over all of the Common Area for ingress, egress and utilities. Declarant may grant further easements to others for such use of the Common Area. 4.4- No Dedication to the Public: Nothing in this Declaration will be construed as a dedication to public use, or a grant to any public municipal or quasi-municipal authority or utility, or an assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of any Common Area by such authority or utility, absent an express written agreement to that effect. However, the Association has the right to dedicate or transfer all or part of the Common Area to any public agency, authority or utility for such purpose and subject to such conditions as may be agreed to. 4.5 - Approval of Declarant: During the Period of Declarant Control, no construction of improvements shall take place within the Common Area nor shall any other changes or alterations 9 be made to the Common Area or the uses within the Common Area without the prior written consent of the Declarant. Article V ASSESSMENTS 5.1 - Assessments: Each Owner, whether or not it shall be so expressed in any deed or contract, is deemed to have agreed to this Declaration, and to pay to the Association assessments for Common Expenses as provided herein, including annual assessments or charges, and special assessments for capital improvements and other expenses, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees, shall be a charge on each Lot, and shall be continuing lien upon the property against which each such assessment is made. Each assessment, together with any accruing interest, costs and attorney's fees, shall be the joint and several personal obligations of the Owner(s) of such Lot at the time when the assessment is due. 5.2 - Purpose of the Assessments: The assessments levied by the Association shall be used to promote the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the Owners; for the improvement, repair and maintenance of easements, trails, and the Common Area; and for any other purposes, expressed or implied in this Declaration. 5.3 - Annual Assessments: The maximum annual assessment per Lot which may be made by the Association in any calendar year shall not substantially exceed the projected and budgeted actual and reasonable costs to be incurred by the Association during the coming year in carrying out its functions and may include a reasonable reserve for contingencies. The annual assessment shall be equal for each Lot. Payment of the annual assessment shall be due and payable on a date or dates established by the Board of Directors, in an annual, monthly, quarterly, or other periodic installment as the Board of Directors may provide. The initial annual assessment shall be $_______ per Lot. The amount of the annual assessments shall be fixed by the Board of Directors in the following manner. At each annual meeting of the members, the Board of Directors shall present a proposed budget of the estimated expenses for the Association for the coming year to the members for review, discussion, amendment, comment and approval. Estimated expenses for the Association shall include, without limitation, the cost of maintenance, repair, and operation of the Common Area; expenses of management fees; expenses and liabilities incurred by the Association under or by reason of this Declaration; payment of any deficit remaining from a previous assessment period; and the creation or supplementing of a reserve fund for general, routine maintenance, repairs and replacement of improvements within the Common Area on a periodic basis, as needed. The Board of Directors shall adopt a budget for the coming year after considering input from the members. 11111111111111111 IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII III 111111111111111 :::t! .::.:7 12/2/2020 12:30 PM taken After the annual meeting, the Board of Directors shall set the amount of the assessments and the dates(s) upon which they are due for the coming year to cover the budget approved in the manner herein set forth. 5.4 - Special Assessments: The Board of Directors may, from time to time, levy upon and subsequently collect from each Owner a special assessment for each Lot. Special assessments may be levied for capital improvements or acquisitions, extraordinary expenses or for such other purposes as the Board of Directors may determine . Any special assessment shall be equal for each· Lot. Payment of any special assessment shall be due and payable as the Board of Directors may provide. 5.5 - Priority of Lien for Assessments: The lien of any assessments will be superior to and prior to any homestead exemption provided now or in the future by the laws of the State of Montana, and to all other liens and encumbrances except the following: (a) Liens and encumbrances recorded before the date of the recording of this Declaration; (b) Liens for real estate taxes and other governmental assessments or charges duly imposed against the Lot by a Montana governmental or political subdivision or special taxing district, or any other liens made superior by statute; and(c) The lien for all sums unpaid on a first mortgage taken in good faith and for value and perfected by recording in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana, prior to the time of recording in said office of an instrument describing the Lot affected and listing the name or names of the Owner or Owners and giving notice of such violation, breach or failure to comply, (with such superiority to include any and all advances made by the first mortgagee, even though some or all of such advances may have been made subsequent to the date of filing of a written lien statement for delinquent assessments). Any first mortgagee who acquires title to a Lot by foreclosing the first mortgage or by receiving a deed or assignment in lieu of such a foreclosure, or any purchaser at a foreclosure sale of the first mortgage, will take the Lot free of any claims for unpaid assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses, and attorney's fees against the Lot which accrue prior to the time such first mortgagee or purchaser acquires title to the Lot. All other persons who hold a lien or encumbrance of any type not described in subsection (a), (b) or (c), above, will be deemed to consent that their lien· or encumbrance will be subordinate to the Association's future liens for assessments, interest, late charges, costs, expenses and attorney's fees, as provided in this Article and in this Declaration, whether or not such consent is specifically set forth in the instrument creating any such lien or encumbrance. 5.6 - Failure to Pay Assessments- Remedies of the Association: No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the Common Area, or by abandonment of their Lot. Any assessment or installment of an assessment not paid within thirty days after its due date will be delinquent. In the event of such delinquency, the Association may take any or all of the following actions: (a)Assess a late charge for each delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time;(b)Charge interest from the delinquency at uniform rates set by the Board of Directors from time to time, but not to exceed the maximum rate of interest allowed by applicable law;(c)Suspend the voting rights of the Owner during any period of delinquency; 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!::r::.::.::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 11 (d)Bring an action against any Owner personally obligated to pay the delinquent assessments;(e)Record a notice of lien with the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Upon delivery of the notice of assessment to the Owner, the assessment shall be a lien upon the Owner's Lot until paid. If the assessment is not paid within thirty days after the recording of the notice of lien, the Association may foreclose the lien in the manner set forth under Montana law for the foreclosure of liens against real property;(f)The Association shall be entitled to recover from the Owner any and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the collection of any delinquent assessments;(g)The remedies provided under this Declaration shall not be exclusive, and the Association may enforce any other remedies to collect delinquent assessments as may be provided by law. 5.7 - Sale or Transfer of a Lot: The sale, transfer, or encumbrance of any Lot shall not affect the personal liability of the Owner responsible for the assessment or the assessment lien if a lien is recorded in the records of Flathead County, Montana. No sale or transfer to a third party with actual or constructive knowledge of an assessment shall relieve such new Owner from the liability for any outstanding assessments, or from any assessments thereafter becoming due, or from the recorded lien thereof. A person or entity purchasing a Lot shall be responsible for checking with the Association for any outstanding assessments against said Lot before closing the transaction. 5.8-Statement of Status of Assessments: On written requests, the Association will furnish to an Owner or his designee or to any mortgagee a statement setting forth the amount of unpaid assessments then levied against the Lot in which the Owner, designee or mortgagee has an interest, The information contained in such statement, when signed by an officer director or agent of the Association, will be conclusive upon the Association, the Board, and every Owner as to the person or persons whom such statement is issued and who rely on it in good faith. 5.9 - Declarant's Responsibility for Assessments: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Declarant, although a member of the Association, shall not be responsible at any time for payment of the annual assessments for Lots owned by Declarant, unless and until Declarant completes construction of a home on such Lot. The Declarant, however, shall pay a proportionate share of all current expenses of administration actually incurred be the Association from time to time for routine maintenance of the Common Area. For purposes of the forgoing sentence, the Declarant's proportionate share of such expenses shall be based upon the ratio of all Lots which are listed for sale owned by the Declarant at the time expense is incurred to the total number of such Lots plus Lots owned by third parties. So long as Declarant owns any Lots, any increase in annual assessment and any special assessment shall require the Declarant's written consent. Further, the Declarant shall in no event be liable for any assessment levied in whole or in part to purchase any property from the Declarant or to finance any litigation or other claim against the Declarant, any cost of investigation and preparing such litigation or claim, or similar related costs. 6.0 The annual assessments shall commence with the purchase of a Lot from the builder/or Developer to an owner for residential occupancy. These fees shall be prorated at the time of closing to pay for the remainder of the year. After the prorated amount is paid, the annual assessments shall be paid annually thereafter. The Board shall have the authority to increase dues based on the annual expenses of the Association. The Board of the Association shall determine and 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!::r::.::.::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 12 approve annually an annual budget covering the estimated Common Expenses for the upcoming year, such budget to include a capital contribution or reserve account if necessary, for the capital needs of the Association. The amount set forth in such budget shall constitute the aggregate amount of annual Assessments for the then applicable year and each owner shall pay his pro rata share of the same as provided in Section 8.3 above. A copy of the budget setting forth the amount of annual Assessments to be levied against the Lots and Dwellings for the following year shall be delivered to each owner. 11111111111111111 IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII III 111111111111111 :::t!:.::.:7 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 13 Article VI PROTECTIVE COVENANTS 6.1-Conditions from Subdivision Approval: The conditions imposed upon the approval of the Creekside Subdivision are incorporated herein as part of this Declaration to the extent they apply to the use of the Property. 6.2 -Zoning Regulations: The zoning of the Property at the time of the filing of this Declaration is R-X and all uses must comply with that zoning unless the zoning has been changed prior to attempted use. If the zoning has been changed, the use shall comply with the then existing zoning. In addition, if at the present time there is a need for a zoning compliance permit from the local planning authority, (presently known as the Flathead Regional Development Office, or City of Kalispell), such permit shall also be required under this Declaration. 6.3 - Land Use: No Lot shall be used except for a single-family residence not to exceed two stories in height. 6.4 - Sewage Disposal: No individual sewage disposal system shall be permitted. All sewage disposal shall be by connection to the City of Kalispell's sewer system. 6.5-Water Supply: No individual water supply system or systems shall be permitted. All water service must be furnished by public water connections. C6,6 - Building Location: All structures shall be constructed within the setback requirementsestablished by the City of Kalispell, Montana, 6.7 - Dwelling Design Guidelines: Minimum square footage of heated living area for a single- family residence, excluding garage, enclosed patios or decks, attics and unheated storage areas shall be no less than 1,000 square feet. All construction shall be complete within one year from the date construction begins. 6.7.1- Exterior Finish: The exterior of all construction on any Lot shall be designed, built and maintained in such a manner as to blend in with the natural surroundings, existing structures and landscaping in the Property. Exterior colors must be approved by the Architectural Control Committee. Exterior trim, fences, doors, railings, decks, eaves, gutters and the exterior finish of garages and other accessory buildings shall be designed, built and maintained to be compatible with the exterior of the structure they adjoin. 6.7.2 - Exterior Materials: Roofing materials shall be minimum 25-year composite. Metal roofing material may be used on accent roofs with the approval of the Architectural 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!::r:i.::.::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 14 Control Committee. No manufactured wood roofs are permitted. Exterior siding may not be vinyl. Minimum roof pitch is to be no less than five-twelve, (5:12). 6.8 -Landscaping: The landscaping of each Lot must be completed within three (3) months from the date of occupancy of the home constructed on the Lot. In the event of undue hardship due to weather conditions, this provision may be extended upon written request to the Association. All front and rear yard areas shall be planted with any of the following: trees and shrubs, ground cover, conifer trees, deciduous shrubs and trees, and lawn areas.Each Owner shall maintain the landscaping of yard area in attractive appearance and free from insects and diseases and noxious weeds. Each Owner shall provide for the timely replacement of lost plant life and bark dust and trimming and pruning of plant material to prevent an overgrown look. 6,9 - Parking Pads: Homeowners are allowed to install parking pads alongside their driveways and garages. The parking pads must be poured solid concrete. The pads may not be within 1 ½ feet of a neighboring property line. The homeowner of any parking pad that is within 5' feet of a side property line will erect, at their own expense, a privacy fence which is at least 5' feet tall and run the length of the pad, provided that the area outside the fence shall be landscaped to allow for drainage. The fence must meet the standards of other Creekside covenants. If the builder constructs a parking pad for a buyer, it will be the buyer's responsibility to erect the fence. 6.10-Fences: No fence or fencing type barrier of any kind shall be placed, erected, allowed or maintained upon any Lot without the prior written consent of the Architectural Review Committee. No hedges, walls, dog runs, animal pens are permitted. All fencing shall be constructed of either wood or aluminum. No fence maybe erected in the side or front yards. No fence may be higher than six feet. Placement of fences on corner lots will be determined by the Architectural Review Committee. The Declarant and the Association may erect any type of fence on the Common Property or elsewhere within the Community as may be deemed appropriate by the Board of Directors or as necessary to satisfy the requirements of any law, regulation or government entity or for health and safety of residents. 6.11-Owner's Obligation to Repair; Each Owner, at the Owner's sole cost and expense, shall repair the Owner's residence, keeping the same in a condition comparable to the condition of the residence at the time of its initial construction, excepting only normal wear and tear. 6.12 - Owner's Obligation to Rebuild: If all or any portion of a residence is damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, it shall be the duty of the Owner or Owners, with all due diligence, rebuild, repair or reconstruct the residence in a manner that will substantially restore it to its appearance and condition immediately prior to the casualty. Reconstruction shall be undertaken within six months after damage occurs, unless prevented by causes beyond control of the Owners. 6.13 - Mobile Homes and Trailers for Residential Purpose: No house trailer, mobile home, doublewide or any other prefabricated structure designed to be hauled or moved on wheels, shall be used for residential purposes. No structures of a temporary character, trailer, tent, shack, garage, or other outbuilding shall be used on any Lot at any time as a residence, whether temporarily or 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!::r:i.::.::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 15 permanently. 6,14-Commercial Activities: No Lot or any part of the herein described property shall be used at any time for any manufacturing or other commercial purpose that would cause any significant 11111111111111111 IIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII III 111111111111111 :::t!:.::.:7 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 16 a increase in traffic. Lawful home occupation businesses shall comply with the requirements of the City of Kalispell. 6.15 - Signs: No signs, advertising, billboards or advertising structures of any kind shall be erected, used or maintained on the Property except for the purpose of advertising of sale or rent of the Property upon which it is erected, provided that the Declarant may place marketing signs for model homes constructed upon any property. 6.16 - Garbage: No rubbish, trash, garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or permitted on any Lot or Common Area. All waste shall be removed as often as reasonably necessary. Equipment for the disposal of such material shall be concealed except for the day of garbage pickup and must be removed from the street within one day of the day of garbage pickup. No part of the Property shall be used or maintained as a dumping or storage ground for rubbish, trash, garbage, old automobiles or other wastes. 6.17 - Common Area: No Owner shall deposit debris such as lawn clippings, limbs, shrub trimmings, or garbage of any nature in the Common Area. The Common Area is to be left in its natural state, other than as reasonably required by the Association, a governing municipality, or the Declarant to access, repair, replace, or update current conditions and improvements. 6.18 - Animals: No animals of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats, and other domestic animals may be kept and raised, but not for commercial purposes. Permitted animals (excluding cats) must be confined to the Lot of their Owner, kept under control of the owner, and not permitted to run at large. All owners shall comply with the Flathead County Dog Ordinance or any other ordinance, rule or regulation the City of Kalispell, Flathead County or the State of Montana regarding animals. No more than 6 chickens shall be allowed on any lot. 6.19-Nuisances: No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on or permitted upon any Lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. . 6.20 - Junk Vehicles: No discarded, ruined, wrecked, or dismantled motor vehicle (including component parts) that is inoperative or incapable of being driven shall be permitted on any lot. 6.21 'I. l ' 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!:::r::i r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 17 6.22 - Rules and Regulations: The Board of Directors may from time to time adopt, amend or terminate rules and regulations concerning the Common Area and/or actions or activities within Creekside that have an impact on other Owners. A copy of any such rules and regulations shall be sent to all Owners. All Owners and their family, guests and invitees shall abide by any· such rules and regulations. 6..23 Solar Panels may be installed upon the following conditions: (i) Only roof-mounted arrays are permitted. Said arrays should be mounted so as to not be visible from any street. (ii) All plans must be preapproved by the ACC prior to installation. All applications to the ACC should include: a. A diagram “drawn to scale” by the licensed contractor installing the system showing where the system will be installed; b. Photos of the roof area where the array will be mounted; c. Material to be used and/or manufacturer’s description of the system, photos and/or pictures of the system and color of the system. d. Where possible, provide photos of similar existing systems as examples. (iii) All components of the solar system should be integrated into the design of the home. The color of the solar system components should generally conform to the color of the roof shingles to the extent practical. Solar “shingles” that mimic the look of a composite shingle are acceptable but should match the color of the current roof shingles as much as practical. (iv) Piping and electrical connections will be located directly under and/or within the perimeter of the panels, when possible, and placed as inconspicuously as possible when viewed from all angles. (v) The highest point of a solar panel array will be lower than the ridge of the roof where it is attached. · Article VII DECLARANT RIGHTS 7.1 - Completion of Work and Establishment of Subdivision: Declarant or the transferees of Declarant shall undertake the work of developing all Lots included within the Creekside Subdivision. The completion of that work, and the sale, rental, or other disposal of residential units is essential to the establishment and welfare of the Property as an ongoing residential community. In order that such work may be completed, and the Property established as a fully-occupied residential community as soon as possible, nothing in this Declaration shall be understood or construed to: (a)prevent Declarant employees, contractors, or subcontractors of Declarant from 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!:::r::i r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 18 doing on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or their representatives, whatever they determine may be reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of such work;(b)prevent Declarant, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of Declarant from constructing and maintaining on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or their representatives, such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the completion of such work, the establishment of the Property as a residential community, and the disposition of Lots by sale, lease, or otherwise; (c)prevent Declarant, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of Declarant from conducting on any part or parts of the Property owned or controlled by Declarant or their representatives the business of completing such work, of establishing the Property as a residential community, and of disposing of Lots by sale, lease, or otherwise; or(d)prevent Declarant, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of Declarant from maintaining such sign or signs on any of the Lots owned or controlled by any of them as may be necessary in connection with the sale, lease or otherwise of such Lots. 7.2- Expansion: Declarant reserves the right but is not obligated to expand the effect of this Declaration to include additional property. Any expansion may be accomplished by recording a Declaration of Annexation and one or more supplemental plats in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. Upon such annexation, each owner of a lot in the annexed property shall automatically become a member of the Association. Such Declaration of Annexation will not require the consent of Owners, the Association, or the Board of Directors of the Association. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!:::r::i r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 19 Article VIII DURATION AND AMENDMENT 8.1 - Duration of Declaration: These covenants, conditions, and restrictions are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for a period of fifteen(15) years from the date these covenants, conditions, and restrictions are recorded, after which time said covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years, unless the written consent of Owners holding sixty percent (60%) or more votes in the Association has been recorded, agreeing to change said covenants, conditions, and restrictions in whole or in part. 8.2- Amendment: This Declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or any provision of it may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property as follows:8.2.1-Prior to Sale of Lots: Prior to the Sale of any Lot, Declarant may terminate, extend, amend or revoke this Declaration as to the whole or any portion of the Property by recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, a document signed by the Declarant stating the action taken. 8.2.2 - After Sale of Lots but During Period of Declarant Control: After the sale of a Lot but before expiration of the Period of Declarant Control, Declarant may terminate, extend, amend, or revoke this Declaration as to the whole or any portion of the Property, 8.2.3 - After of period of Declarant Control: After the Period of Declarant Control, this Declaration, or any provision of it, may be terminated, extended, amended or revoked as to the whole or any portion of the Property upon the written consent of Owners holding sixty (60%) or more of the votes in the Association, The amendment will be immediately effective upon the recording in the records of Flathead County, Montana, of a copy of the document together with a certificate signed by an officer of the Association stating that the required number of consents of Owners were obtained. 8.2,4-Declarant Approval: No termination, extension, or amendment of this Declaration will be effective in any event during the Period of Declarant Control unless the written approval of Declarant is first obtained. Nothing in this section should be construed to permit the abandonment of the Association's responsibility for the maintenance of Common Area identified herein. ARTICLE IX. EXPANSION Section 9.1 Declarant May Expand: Declarant reserves the right, but will not be obligated, to expand the effect of this Declaration to include additional property. The consent of the existing Owners, the Homeowners Association or the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association will not be required for any such expansion, and Declarant may proceed with such expansion without limitation at its sole option. 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111!::r:ii::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 20 Section 9.2 Declaration of Annexation: Any expansion may be accomplished by recording a Declaration of Annexation and one or more supplemental plats in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Flathead County, Montana. The Declaration of Annexation must be·signed by Declarant and (if different) the owner of the real property to be annexed. The Declaration of Annexation must describe the real property to be annexed, submitting it to this Declaration. Upon such annexation, each Lot in the annexed property will be allocated one vote and liability for the Common Expenses equal to the liability allocated to each of the other Lots, and the proportionate voting interest and allocation of Common Expenses for the other Lots will be adjusted accordingly. Upon such annexation, each Owner of a Lot in the annexed property shall automatically become a member of the Homeowners Association. Such Declaration of Annexation will not require the consent of Owners, the Homeowners Association, or the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association. Any such expansion will be effective upon the filing for record of such Declaration of Annexation, unless otherwise provided therein. The expansion may be accomplished in stages by successive supplements or in one supplemental expansion. Upon the recordation of any such Declaration of Annexation, the definitions used in this Declaration will be expanded automatically to encompass the annexed property. Such Declaration of Annexation may add supplemental covenants peculiar to the annexed property, or delete or modify provisions of this Declaration as it applies to the annexed property. However, this Declaration may not be modified with respect to that portion of the property already subject to this Declaration, except as provided below for amendment, Article XMISCELLANEOUS 10.1-Effect of Provisions of Declaration: Each provision contained in this Declaration, and any agreement, promise, covenant and undertaking to comply with each provision contained in the Declaration, and any necessary exception or reservation or grant of title, estate, right or interest to effectuate any provision contained in this Declaration: (a) shall be deemed incorporated in each deed or other instrument by which any right, title or interest in any real property within Creekside Subdivision is granted, devised or conveyed. Whether or not set forth or referred to in such deed or other instrument; (b) shall, by virtue of acceptance of any right, title or interest in any real property within Creekside Subdivision by an Owner or the Association, be deemed accepted, ratified, adopted and declared as a personal covenant of such Owner or the Association, as the case may be, and as a personal covenant, shall be binding on such Owner or Association and such Owner's or Association's respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns; (c) shall be deemed a real covenant by Declarant, for itself, its successors and assigns, and also an equitable servitude, running, in each case, as a burden with and upon the title to each parcel or real property within Creekside Subdivision, including property that may hereafter become part of Creekside Subdivision; and (d) shall be deemed a covenant, obligation and restriction secured by a lien, burdening and encumbering the title to each parcel of real property within Creekside Subdivision , which lien with respect to any Lot shall be deemed a lien in favor of Declarant and/or the Association. 10.2 -Enforcement and Remedies: The Declarant, the Association, and/or any Owner or Owners of Lots shall have the right to enforce all covenants, conditions, and restrictions to or hereafter imposed by the provisions of this Declaration. 11111111111111111 IIIII111111111111111111111111111111 IIIII111111111111111 IIII III Ill lllll Ill1111!::r::i::r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 21 10.4-No Waiver: Failure to enforce any provision contained in this Declaration shall not operate as a waiver of any such provision or of any other provision of this Declaration. 10.5 -Attorney's Fees: In the event of a dispute under any provision contained in this Declaration, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred. It is expressly understood by any person purchasing a Lot in this Property, that if an action is successfully brought against an Owner for a violation of the terms of this Declaration, that a reasonable attorney's fee shall be assessed against the Owner in addition to costs and any other damages. 10.6 - Severability: Invalidity or unenforceability of any provision contained in this Declaration in whole or in part shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision or any valid and enforceable part of the provision of this Declaration. 10.7 - Limited Liability: Neither the Declarant, the Association, or their respective officers, directors, employees, or agents shall be liable to any party for any action or for any failure to act with respect to any matter if the action taken or failure to act was in good faith and without malice. This 2022 Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside supersedes and entirely replaces the original Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside recorded xxxx xx, 2023 as Document number xxxx, records of Flathead County, Montana. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarants hereunto executed this Declaration of Conditions, Covenants, Restrictions and Reservations of Creekside this xx day of xxx, 2023. Brent Holdings, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company. (By /;_ Member ByQ , Member 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111-11111111!:::r::i r 12/2/2020 12:30 PM 22 4t11111111111111111 IIIIIIIII IIIII1111111111111111111111111 IIIII IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIll lllll llll llll g'!. 52 1 Fees: $147.00[12/2/2020 12:30 PM EXHIBIT "A" Legal description of 1111 Farm to Market Rd. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 126 of 394 APPENDIX E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT March 13, 2023 Brent Holdings, LLC Attn: Richard Ferry rferry@brentholdings.net Re: Report of Subdivision Geotechnical Investigation 1111 Farm to Market Road Kalispell, Montana Dear Mr. Ferry: Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) completed the subdivision geotechnical investigation for the planned residential development to be located at 1111 Farm to Market Road in Kalispell, Montana. The findings and recommendations of our investigation were submitted in our Report of Subdivision Geotechnical Investigation dated January 24, 2023. The purpose of this report was to address overall site development relating to mass grading, underground utilities, and roadways. Therefore, specific foundation recommendations for individual structures were excluded. The subsurface conditions across the site are variable but generally consists of previously placed fill materials along the west side of the project site atop native silt, silty sand, or poorly graded sand. Glacial till gravel was encountered along the southwestern portion of the property. The east side of the project site is relatively undisturbed and generally consists of limited thickness of topsoil atop native silty clay and silty sand. Because of this subsurface variability, and anticipated variability of future foundation loads, we recommend separate geotechnical investigations be completed for each individual lot or potentially groups of lots within a smaller area of the property. The site is too large, the subsurface is variable, and foundation loads/depths are not known. For these reasons, we do not believe it would be appropriate to provide generalized foundation recommendations for this entire property as part of the subdivision geotechnical report. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contact us. Sincerely, ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL, LLC Kagan Rutz, P.E. Principal/Senior Engineer GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Kalispell, Montana Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 23-901 January 24, 2023 Prepared for: Brent Holdings, LLC Prepared by: 120 Round Stone Drive, Suite 101 Kalispell, Montana 59901 406.257.6479 January 24, 2023 Brent Holdings, LLC Attn: Richard Ferry rferry@brentholdings.net Re: Report of Subdivision Geotechnical Investigation 1111 Farm to Market Road Kalispell, Montana Dear Mr. Ferry: Alpine Geotechnical, LLC (Alpine) has completed the geotechnical investigation for the planned residential subdivision to be located at 1111 Farm to Market Road in Kalispell, Montana. We were asked to provide geotechnical information and recommendations needed to assist with the design, development, and construction of the subdivision phase of this project. Therefore, general site grading, underground utilities, and roadways are the focus of this report. The results of our field investigation, observations, exploration location plan, and boring logs are included in this report. AllWest provided a prior report for this property and provided extensive laboratory testing; however, their report was deemed inadequate for the property. Alpine has therefore provided drilled borings to greater depths and evaluated the recent fill placed on the site. However, we relied on the laboratory testing previously performed for classification and to help develop the engineering recommendations contained herein. Our services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated December 8, 2022 and subsequent authorization to proceed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you during the design phase of your project, and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service to you, please contact us. Sincerely, ALPINE GEOTECHNICAL, LLC Kagan Rutz, P.E. Cliff Clark Principal/Senior Engineer Staff Geological Engineer TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................. i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 1 EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... 1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................................ 1 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................ 2 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 3 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 3 SOIL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................ 3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 4 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................ 4 SITE PREPARATION .............................................................................................................. 5 EARTHWORK ....................................................................................................................... 7 DRAINAGE ........................................................................................................................... 6 PAVEMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 8 CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................... 10 APPENDIX A Exploration Location Plan Boring Logs APPENDIX B Double Ring Infiltration Test Results Field Investigation Photos – Test Pits APPENDIX C General Notes Unified Soil Classification System i SUMMARY OF KEY GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS Based on the information obtained from our subsurface, the site can be properly developed for the proposed project with implementation of the recommendations contained in this report. The following is a summary of Alpine’s key geotechnical considerations and recommendations for development. ◼ Surface conditions include boulders, construction debris, wood, and previously placed fill materials, especially near Farm to Market Road. The surface elevation is variable, and contains surface fill material across the site in some areas. The ground was snow covered at the time of our investigation, so observations were limited. ◼ The subsurface conditions across the site are variable but generally consists of previously placed fill materials along the west side of the project site atop native silt, silty sand, or poorly graded sand. Glacial till gravel was encountered along the southwestern portion of the property. The east side of the project site is relatively undisturbed and generally consists of limited thickness of topsoil atop native silty clay and silty sand. ◼ No petroleum odors or any other signs hazardous materials were observed during our field investigation. However, multiple test pits and soil samples were gathered by Morrison & Maierle in the vicinity of the detected petroleum odor by ALLWEST (their location TP- 06) near the parked scraper. ◼ Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from about 14.8 to 20.3 feet below grade at the time of the field investigation. ◼ The recommended standard duty pavement section for roadways and parking areas is 3 inches of asphalt pavement and minimum of 8 inches of base course over properly prepared native subgrade. The recommended heavy duty pavement section is 3 inches of asphalt pavement and 10 inches of base course over properly prepared native subgrade. ◼ Double Ring Infiltration testing at the planned stormwater detention facility at TP-16 resulted in an infiltration rate of 0.2 in/hr. Higher permeability soils (sands) were encountered along other portions/depths. ◼ Close monitoring of the construction operations discussed herein will be essential in achieving the design foundation support for both building and pavement improvements. It is therefore critical that Alpine Geotechnical be retained to provide observation/testing during the earthwork portion of the project to help ensure satisfactory performance. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. 1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT 1111 Farm to Market Road Subdivision Kalispell, Montana Alpine Geotechnical Project No. 23-901 January 24, 2023 INTRODUCTION Alpine Geotechnical has completed a subsurface investigation for the planned residential subdivision to be located on a 25-acre parcel of land at 1111 Farm to Market Road in Kalispell, Montana. In accordance with our proposal, a total of sixteen (16) locations were explored either through drilling or excavation within the proposed development areas. Sufficient laboratory testing of samples from the recent test pit investigation was provided, so Alpine did not provide any laboratory testing. The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions encountered in the borings and test pits, present the test data, and provide final geotechnical recommendations for subdivision development including earthwork, underground utilities, roadways, and storm drainage systems. PROJECT INFORMATION The project includes development of an approximate 100 lot subdivision, which will consist of town homes, detached single family lots, and full site development, including underground utility installation (water, sewer, gas, electric) along with paved access roads and parking areas. EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field Exploration Subsurface exploration took place January 4-5, 2023, and included sixteen (16) borings/test pits, designated DH-1 through TP-16 drilled or excavated within the proposed development areas to depths ranging from 3.0 to 22.0 feet below existing grade. The acronym ‘DH’ denotes ‘drill hole’ and the acronym ‘TP’ denotes ‘test pit.’ An excavator was needed to prepare the double ring infiltration test location, and was used in areas not accessible with our large, truck-mounted drill rig. An exploration location plan and individual logs of each boring and test pit are included in Appendix A. The borings were advanced using a truck mounted, rotary drill rig (Diedrich D50) using continuous flight hollow-stem augers owned and operated by Alpine Geotechnical. The test pits were excavated using a CAT 313 excavator operated by Alpine Geotechnical. Representative samples were obtained by split-barrel sampling methods in general accordance with applicable ASTM D1586, where the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N) is determined based on the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch outside diameter split-barrel sampler the Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 2 last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches. This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled by the drill crew with auger cuttings at the conclusion of each boring. A field log of each boring was prepared by our geotechnical engineer and geoscientist. These logs included visual classifications of the subsurface materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller’s interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent field classifications, modified as needed based on laboratory tests of the samples. The logs also contain the field SPT results, natural moisture content, groundwater information, and any boring-specific comments. Laboratory Testing Representative portions of each recovered sample obtained during the field investigation were sealed in air tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual and laboratory examination. Each sample obtained during the field investigation was tested for natural moisture content. Based on our field classifications and the provided laboratory test results, the estimated group symbol for each stratum is shown on the logs, according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). A brief description of the USCS is attached to this report in Appendix C, along with General Notes that provide explanation of the USCS. SITE CONDITIONS Current ground cover across the western portion of the site includes grass and weeds, mounds of previously placed fill soil and rock, piles of wood and debris, and the large fill pad placed by LHC in 2021. The existing topography along the western portion of the property is relatively flat and slopes downwards towards Spring Creek to the north. However, the western portion of the property is approximately 10 feet lower in most locations than the eastern portion of the property due to historical grading efforts. Based on available satellite imagery from Google Earth, a single home was located near the center of the property until sometime after August 2006, at which point it was demolished. Imagery from September 2009 appears to show the western half of the property being excavated with mass regrading at a lower elevation. The controlled fill pad placed by LHC was conducted throughout the summer of 2020. Current ground cover across the eastern portion of the property includes native grasses and the existing topography is relatively flat, sloping gradually downwards towards Spring Creek. Unlike the western portion of the property, this side of the property appears to be historically undisturbed. Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Geology The project site is located in Kalispell, Montana, which lies in the Rocky Mountain Trench bounded by the Salish Mountains to the west and the Swan Range to the east. These mountain ranges were formed during Tertiary tectonic activity in which Precambrian Belt rocks were faulted and uplifted. Pleistocene mountain and continental glaciation advanced generally southeastward through the trench in the vicinity of Kalispell depositing generally competent till soils beneath the base of the ice sheet. As the glaciers retreated, a sequence of weaker lakebed and outwash alluvial soils were deposited over the glacial till as meltwater accumulated in areas where drainage was impeded by morainal features. The project site is located northwest of Kalispell where glacial outwash deposits consisting of silt, clay, and sand comprise the majority of the near- surface landform. However, near-surface glacial till gravel was encountered along much of the southwestern portion of the site. Soil Conditions Based on the results of the borings and test pits, subsurface conditions across the site are variable. The west side of the project site (DH-1 through DH-9) generally consists of approximately 7 to 15 feet of previously placed fill material atop native soils. The native soils in this vicinity consists of limited thickness of organic silt topsoil transitioning to silty sand or poorly graded sand with some interbedded silt layers. The east side of the project site appears relatively undisturbed and generally consists of limited thickness of organic silt topsoil atop native soils consisting of silty clay, silt, and silty sand. The fill materials encountered along the west side of the project site in the upper 10 feet +/- of the profile are generally stiff (or medium dense), based upon Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N- values that range from 8 to 27 blows per foot. Natural moisture contents in this stratum range from 5 to 21 percent. The underlying native granular soils across the project site are typically medium dense to very loose based upon SPT N-values that range from 16 to 1 blow per feet, that typically decrease with depth. Moisture contents in the native granular strata range from 4 to 37 percent. The native fine-grained soils encountered along the east side of the project site in the upper 10 feet +/- of the profile are stiff to medium stiff, based upon Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N- values that range from 15 to 5 blows per foot. Natural moisture contents in this stratum range from 11 to 23 percent. Subsurface conditions encountered at each boring and test pit location are indicated on the individual logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate depths of changes in soil types. The in-situ transition between materials may be gradual. The attached logs should be reviewed for a detailed description of the conditions encountered at the individual investigation locations. Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 4 Groundwater Conditions The borings were observed while drilling and immediately after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Static groundwater was encountered during the field investigation at depths ranging from about 14.8 to 20.3 feet below existing grade, depending on location and elevation. It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table will occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff, and other hydrologic factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the future may vary relative to the conditions indicated on the logs. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations From a geotechnical perspective, the proposed roadway and utility infrastructure project can be installed by open trench excavation methods, provided the recommendations presented in this report are considered and all applicable excavation safety regulations are followed. The excavations for utility installation will be conducted in differing soils, varying from previously placed fill materials to medium stiff clay and loose sand to dense gravel across the project area. The relative density (coarse-grained soils) and consistency (fine-grained soils) of the soils explored was variable, which will require different methods to provide excavation stability. Significant portions of the project area contained fine-grained soils with interbedded silty sand. Therefore, we anticipate sloughing or caving in most open areas, particularly within zones where loose, silty sand is encountered. The areas of dense to very dense silty gravel with sand located along the southwestern portion of the property are characterized as OSHA Type B excavation soils. All other areas of the project should be characterized as OSHA Type C excavation soils. Particular attention should be given to open excavations in the sandy areas as well as potential seepage zones which will be more prone to sloughing/caving. The presence of cobbles and boulders should also be anticipated along the western portion of the property in the areas of glacial till. It should be recognized that large boulders and other obstructive fill materials were encountered in the large fill area, so some amount of processing of the fill materials will need to be considered as part of the construction budgeting. In addition, the mounds of fill scattered across the property will also need to be properly processed prior to placement. Petroleum odors or any other signs hazardous materials were not observed during our field investigation at any of our investigation locations. However, multiple test pits and soil samples were gathered by Morrison & Maierle in the vicinity of the detected petroleum odor (ALLWEST investigation location TP-06). There were two locations within the previously placed fill area identified in our investigation that contained significant organic silt topsoil that was soft and very moist or wet that present some concern for future settlement of roadways and potentially future building sites. In DH-4 between about 7.5 to 9.5 feet below the current surface, and in DH-6 between about 8 and 12 feet below the current surface. Because of the soft, wet, and significant organic content these areas present a concern for future settlement of roads and structures. The area around DH-6 lies within a future Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 5 roadway, and this material should be subexcavated and removed during underground utility and roadway construction. The area around DH-4 appears to impact residential lots, and may impact the roadway to the south. It is unclear what the lateral extent of the buried topsoil is at these locations. They were identified based on high moisture content and low in-situ density from the field investigation. Other areas of the fill contain lesser thicknesses of topsoil, have lower moisture content or intermixed gravel and present less concern for future adverse impacts. Water conditioning, wetting, or drying, should be anticipated based on the moisture contents that were measured. However, the magnitude of wetting or drying of backfill soils to facilitate compaction will depend on the timeframe of construction and moisture conditions at that time. The organic topsoil materials encountered are not acceptable for use as backfill, and should not be used as subsurface trench backfill, but can be placed atop the trench to match the existing topsoil thickness in non-pavement or other non-hardscaped areas. Representative samples of each backfill material should be taken from mixed excavation spoil piles for laboratory maximum dry density (Proctor) testing. Trench compaction will be best accomplished via vibratory compaction equipment in the coarse-grained soils (i.e., sands and gravels) and sheepsfoot compaction equipment in fine-grained areas. Adequate trench backfill density should be achieved through compaction after ensuring that the moisture content and lift thickness are appropriate. We suggest water conditioning to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content of backfill materials be completed outside the trench. Trenches should be backfilled in maximum loose lift thicknesses of 8 to 12 inches (depending on compaction equipment) followed by compaction to a minimum of 95 percent of standard Proctor (ASTM D698) density or as otherwise specified in the contract documents. Imported granular trench backfill that meets the City of Kalispell requirements for mainline utility backfill should be used beneath all hardscaped and all settlement- sensitive areas Site Preparation To prepare the site for construction, all existing near surface topsoil/organic matter, surficial weeds/grasses, and cobbles/boulders should be completely removed under all building and roadway/parking areas. The areas around DH-4 and DH-6 at the depths indicated should be subexcavated to remove the buried topsoil. The native granular subgrade (glacial till gravel or silty sand) once encountered should be thoroughly recompacted to recover excavation disturbance. The native fine-grained subgrade (silt/clay) once encountered should be cut neatly using a smooth-lipped bucket. If the excavations consist primarily of native silt, additional recompaction and stabilization will likely be necessary under roadways and building areas. This will require a combination of thoroughly water conditioning and recompacting. The large fill area placed by LHC contained varying amounts of silt and silty sand. Some unsuitable soils (i.e., topsoil) were encountered in this vicinity during the field investigation, however, the fill in this area is a suitable subgrade for the planned roadway and utilities, provided the subgrade is properly prepared prior to additional fill placement. The subgrade in roadway and parking areas should be proof load tested using rubber-tired construction equipment, and should be stable under that loading. The surface should be cut or Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 6 filled as necessary using Structural Fill, and prepared to an elevation that will accommodate the minimum recommended pavement section(s). All fill materials should be placed according to the Earthwork section of this report. Earthwork It should be recognized that the inorganic fill placed most recently by LHC was adequately tested and documented during placement, and is, therefore, not considered uncontrolled fill. We are not aware of the exact depth of fill placed most recently by LHC, but there appears to have been fill placed on the site prior to LHC’s involvement. Excavated materials not suitable for use as backfill should be disposed of off-site. The exposed subgrade should be stable under the loading of construction equipment, thoroughly recompacted and tested by Alpine personnel prior to fill placement. Depending on the season of construction and other factors such as defined haul routes, instability may develop that will require subgrade stabilization. Our engineering staff should be consulted if this situation develops to provide stabilization recommendations, such as subexcavation and replacement, or geotextile/geogrid reinforcement. The on-site native inorganic soils are suitable for use as building backfill if processed and placed according to this report. For fill areas beneath all exterior hardscaped features such as roadways, sidewalks, and exterior patios/stops we recommend support from Structural Fill to minimize undesirable settlement. Processing involves removal of all oversized material larger than 3 inches in diameter, and rejecting all otherwise unsuitable materials such as organic matter and construction debris. Special attention should be paid in areas where exterior porches or hardscape features cross the building backfill zone. If such areas are planned, we recommend Structural Fill be used exclusively for exterior backfill from foundation depth in order to reduce settlement potential. The near-surface clay and silt subgrade will be highly frost susceptible, and building plans should reflect this potential. Exterior flatwork areas or unheated buildings that are attached to heated spaces are particularly vulnerable to seasonal uplift due to frost heave and should be mitigated if a high level of performance is desired. Mitigation would include replacement of the upper 18 inches with a granular, non-frost susceptible fill material. A geotextile separation fabric should be placed atop the subgrade, followed by a thin layer (3 inch thick +/-) of clean, free-draining aggregate to serve as a capillary break followed by another layer of geotextile fabric. Structural Fill should be used to achieve final subgrade elevation. Structural Fill for soil replacement and backfill in select areas should be developed from reliable source(s) approved by Alpine Geotechnical and meeting the following gradation and composition requirements: Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 7 Screen or Sieve Size Percent Passing by Weight 3-inch 100 1 1/2-inch 85-100 No. 4 30-60 No. 200 10 maximum • The sand, gravel, and cobble-size particles comprising the fill must be hard, durable rock materials that will not degrade by moistening or under mechanical action of the compacting equipment; i.e. not shale or other clayey rock types. • The binder/fines fraction should have maximum Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index values of 25 and 10 percent respectively. • No frozen, organic, or other deleterious materials should be present in the fill aggregate. The soil’s water content at the time of compaction should be in the range specified in the following table. Some moisture conditioning of on-site soils may be required to achieve adequate compaction; wetting or drying may be required depending on the natural soil moisture conditions at the time of construction. All fill materials should be placed and compacted in horizontal lifts. The fill lifts should not exceed 12 inches in loose thickness for heavy compaction equipment, and 6 inches for smaller equipment such as large vibratory plates and jumping jacks used in foundation and utility excavations. Small vibratory plate compactors should be used in landscaped areas only. Typically, sheepsfoot compactors are best suited for fine-grained, cohesive soils and vibratory, smooth-drum compactors are needed for coarse-grained soils. At a minimum, excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” and its appendices, and in accordance with any applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depth should in no instance exceed those specified by these safety regulations. Flatter slopes than those dictated by these regulations may be required depending upon the soil/groundwater conditions encountered and other external factors. These regulations are strictly enforced and if they are not followed, the owner, contractor, and/or earthwork and utility subcontractor could be liable and subject to substantial penalties. Under no circumstances should the information provided in this report be interpreted to mean that Alpine Geotechnical is responsible for construction site safety or the contractor’s activities. Construction site safety is the sole responsibility of the contractor who shall also be solely responsible for the means, methods, and sequencing of the construction operations. Our engineering staff will be available during construction to provide guidance, if requested in connection with agreed construction phase work by Alpine Geotechnical. Drainage Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 8 Site grading should provide effective drainage away from future building sites during and after construction. Water permitted to pond in building or roadway areas can result in greater soil movements. Finished grades should be positively sloped away from the foundation and backfill zones at a minimum slope of 5 percent over the 10 feet immediately adjacent to the foundation perimeter. Irrigation in the backfill zone should be strictly minimized or isolated from the backfill zone. Roof gutters with downspouts should be provided with discharge points beyond the backfill zone. If positive drainage is not provided during the life of the structure, then increased movement could develop. Infiltration testing was conducted using a double-ring infiltrometer in accordance with ASTM D3385 at three locations across the site. The following table summarizes the results of the infiltration tests, complete test results are included in Appendix C. Test Location Depth of Test (below existing grade) Stabilized Infiltration Rate (in/hr) TP-16 3.0 feet 0.2 The double ring infiltration test was performed in low permeability clay soils encountered in that vicinity. It should be recognized that higher permeability soils (sands) were encountered along other portions of the property, therefore, the planned detention facility could be moved in favor of a higher permeability location. Alpine can assist with a more favorable detention facility location if requested. Pavements It is anticipated that final subgrade elevations within the parking/access roadway areas will be at or above existing grades. Prior to placing any additional fill for pavement section construction, the existing subgrade materials should be stable under rubber-tired construction equipment, including dump truck traffic. Areas that are shown to be unstable during this proof loading operation indicate that deeper subgrade deficiencies may exist and these areas should be repaired under the direction of our geotechnical engineer. The requirements of a suitable fill and its placement are discussed in the Earthwork section of this report. Unsuitable material encountered below subgrade and/or subbase course level should be further undercut and replaced with Structural Fill based on observation by our geotechnical engineer. The upper 1 foot of subgrade material below the subexcavation depth should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density per ASTM D698. Localized instability of the native silt/clay subgrade may develop during construction when subjected to dump truck and repetitive equipment traffic, especially with higher moisture contents. A geotextile separation fabric (Propex Geotex 200 ST) should be placed above properly prepared subgrade. Isolated areas may need geogrid and in order to provide adequate stability to compact the subbase course. A defined equipment haul route using geotextile and geogrid should be considered to minimize the potential for widespread subgrade instability to develop. Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 9 The design approach used to develop the following tables for the flexible surfacing was based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 1993 Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, Chapter 4 Low Volume Road Design. We used structural coefficients of the Montana Department of Transportation and our local experience. Specific information regarding anticipated vehicle types, axle loads and traffic volumes was not provided. In developing our recommendations, we have assumed that traffic will consist primarily of automobile traffic and a limited number of delivery trucks and trash removal trucks. The preliminary site plan estimates 300 parking spaces will be constructed. If heavier vehicle types or higher traffic volumes are expected, Alpine Geotechnical should be afforded the opportunity to review, and possibly revise, these assumptions and recommendations. The design of pavement thickness was based on the approach described above and on the following parameters: ◼ Stable subgrade as previously detailed and verified by proof-loading with rubber-tired construction equipment and dump truck traffic. ◼ Placement of geotextile fabric atop subgrade (Propex Geotex 200 ST) ◼ Any required fill is placed in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. ◼ Flexible Pavement Design Catalog assuming a maximum of 5 ESAL’s per day over the service life and a California Bearing Ratio of 6.7 percent provided by ALLWEST. ◼ A service life of 20 years. As a minimum, we suggest the following typical pavement section be considered: Typical Pavement Section Thickness Traffic Area Asphalt Concrete Surface Course Crushed Base Course Total Thickness Roads and Parking Areas Standard Duty 3 inches 8 inches 11 inches Roads and Parking Areas Heavy Duty 3 inches 10 inches 13 inches We recommend our technical staff be afforded the opportunity to evaluate the existing subgrade materials during construction. We also recommend field density testing be performed of all fill placed to achieve final subgrade elevation as well as subbase and base course materials. Pavement sections based upon a more detailed pavement design could be provided if specific traffic loading, frequencies, and desired pavement design life are provided. The pavement section provided is based on design traffic loading as discussed and is not intended for nor should it be construed to be a construction platform either in full or partial section. Construction use is likely to exert heavier and higher frequency axle/wheel loads under adverse weather or channelized traffic conditions than assumed in this forgoing design. If construction access/haul load sections are desired, additional geotechnical input based on construction traffic will be required. Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 10 Pavements subjected to higher traffic volumes than assumed above may require thicker pavement sections. The above section represents the minimum thickness for in-service use and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Aggregate base course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02235 (6th Edition) for Crushed Base Course, 1 ½ inch or ¾ inch minus and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum ASTM D698 dry density. Aggregate subbase course should meet Montana Public Works Specification Section 02234 (6th Edition) for Sub Base Course, and compacted to at least 95% of the maximum ASTM D698 dry density. Long term pavement performance will be dependent upon several factors, including maintaining subgrade moisture levels and providing for preventive maintenance. The following recommendations should be considered the minimum: • Site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements • The subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum ¼ inch per foot slope to promote proper surface drainage • Consider appropriate edge drainage and pavement underdrain systems • Apply joint sealant and seal cracks regularly Preventive maintenance should be planned and provided through an on-going pavement management program. Preventive maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventive maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g., crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements. Prior to implementing any maintenance, additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of preventive maintenance. CLOSURE/LIMITATIONS Alpine Geotechnical should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Alpine Geotechnical also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, foundation preparation/construction, and backfilling of excavations and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between boring locations, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction has commenced. If variations appear, Alpine should be Geotechnical Investigation Report 1111 Farm to Market Road ■ Kalispell, Montana January 24, 2023 ■ Alpine Project No. 23-901 11 immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Alpine Geotechnical reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. APPENDIX A 120 Round Stone Drive Kalispell, MT 59901 PH. (406) 257-6479 Project No. Scale Date 23-901 NTS 01-24-23 Exploration Location Plan Exhibit 1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Kalispell, Montana A-1 DH-4 DH-2 DH-9 DH-3 DH-8 DH-1 DH-6 TP-5 TP-10 TP-16 DH-12 DH-14 DH-15 DH-11 DH-13 DH-7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 13 14 14 4 5 5 5 4 5 6 7 3 3 3 4 FILL SP Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown/ dark brown, damp to moist, loose, 5.5' thick Fill, silty gravel with sand, grey, damp, medium dense, 2.5' thick Fill, silty sand with intermittent silt, brown, moist, medium dense, 4.5' thick Wet, trace topsoil at 12.0' Poorly graded SAND trace silt, grey/brown, damp to wet, medium dense to loose End of Boring DH-1 at 22.0' 145 15 5 28 5'-7' 10'-12' 15'-17' 20'-22' 27 10 11 6 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-1 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-04-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21567, -114.37221 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Kagan RutzDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :20.3'At Completion :20.3' Figure A-2 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2 6 11 12 7 7 7 6 4 6 7 50/ 4" 25/ 0" FILL GC-GM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense, 5.0' thick Fill, silt with sand, light brown, moist, stiff, 4.0' thick Fill, organic silt topsoil trace gravel, dark brown, moist, stiff, 2.0' thick Silty clayey GRAVEL with sand, brown, moist, medium dense to very dense, with cobbles and boulders Auger refusal at 10.0' End of Boring DH-2 at 10.0' 13 14 18 7 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7'6"-9'3" 10'-10' 17 14 13 50 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-2 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-04-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21642, -114.37222 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Kagan RutzDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-3 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 6 7 18 15 20 23 7 8 8 8 4 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 FILL OL SP SP-SM SM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, moist, medium dense, 3.5' thick Fill, organic silt topsoil intermixed with sand/ gravel, dark brown, medium stiff, 1.0' thick Fill, silty gravel with sand, light brown, moist, dense, 4.5' thick Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.0' thick Poorly graded SAND trace silt, brown, moist, medium dense Poorly graded SAND with silt, brown, very moist to wet, loose Silty SAND, brown, wet, loose End of Boring DH-3 at 22.0' 11 21 8 4 9 29 2'6"-4'6" 5'-6'6" 10'-12' 15'-17' 20'-22' 13 43 16 6 5 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-3 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21601, -114.37212 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :18.4'At Completion :18.4' Figure A-4 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 4 5 5 7 10 13 11 3 3 2 2 4 8 14 14 0 3 7 8 1 0 1 4 FILL OL SM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense, 7.5' thick Wet at 6.0' Fill, organic silt topsoil intermixed with silt sand, grey/dark brown, moist, medium stiff, 1.5' thick Fill, silty sand, brown, moist, loose to mediumd dense , 2. 2' thick Fill, silt, light brown, moist, very stiff, 3.8' thick Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, very moist, stiff Silty SAND trace gravel, grey/blue, wet, medium dense to very loose No gravel below 20.0' With rust colored mottling below 21.2' End of Boring DH-4 at 22.0' 9 11 22 11 16 3118 37 31 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7'6"-9'6" 10'-12' 15'-17' 20'-22' 9 23 5 22 10 1 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-4 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-04-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21657, -114.37186 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Austin LybeckDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :15.3'At Completion :15.3' Figure A-5 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 OLML ML GC-GM Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 8" thick Sandy SILT, brown, moist, medium stiff SILT with sand trace gravel, brown, moist, stiff Silty clayey GRAVEL with sand, light brown, moist to wet, dense to very dense, with cobbles and boulders End of Excavation TP-5 at 8.0' LOG OF TEST PIT NO.: TP-5 Project: 1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.: 23-901 Client: Brent Holding LLC Date: 01-04-23 Location: See exploration location map: 48.21525, -114.37144 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Cliff ClarkExcavator: CAT 313Depth to Water> Initial : N/E At Completion : N/E Figure A-6 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 7 10 9 10 3 4 4 8 4 7 7 7 4 2 2 2 4 5 4 5 2 3 2 3 FILL OL SM SP Fill, silty gravel with sand, brown, damp, medium dense, 2.0' thick Fill, silt with sand trace gravel, brown, moist, very stiff to medium stiff, 6.0' Intermixed with organic silt topsoil below 5.0' Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, stiff to medium stiff Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose Poorly graded SAND trace silt, brown, moist to wet, loose End of Boring DH-6 at 22.0' 10 13 17 21 17 14 8 36 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7'6"-9'6" 10'-12' 15'-17' 20'-22' 19 8 14 4 9 5 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-6 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-04-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21576, -114.37155 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Kagan RutzDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :19.3'At Completion :19.3' Figure A-7 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 7 7 9 6 5 5 7 6 5 6 7 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 FILL SM SP-SM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, moist, medium dense, 5.0' thick Fill, sandy silt, light brown, moist, stiff, 4.0' thick Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense to loose Poorly graded SAND with silt, brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense End of Boring DH-7 at 17.0' 7 12 17 5 5 8 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7'6"-9'6" 10'-12' 15'-17' 14 10 11 8 10 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-7 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21639, -114.37104 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :16.5'At Completion :16.5' Figure A-8 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 7 10 11 9 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 FILL SM SP-SM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, moist, medium dense to loose, 9.0' thick With interbedded silt below 8.5' Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose Poorly graded SAND with silt, brown, moist to wet, medium dense End of Boring DH-8 at 17.0' 8 10 4 6 2'6"-4'6" 7'-9' 10'-12' 15'-17' 21 8 9 14 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-8 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21639, -114.37104 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :16.5'At Completion :16.5' Figure A-9 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 6 10 10 5 7 6 8 4 5 5 5 1 2 2 3 2 4 5 6 1 1 2 3 FILL ML SM Fill, silty sand trace gravel, brown, damp to moist, medium dense, 5.0' thick Fill, silty sand intermixed with organic silt topsoil, brown to light brown, moist, medium dense SILT trace sand, light brown, moist to very moist, stiff to medium stiff Silty SAND, light brown, wet, loose End of Boring DH-9 at 22.0' 11 18 22 29 32 31 2'6"-4'6" 5'-7' 7'6"-9'6" 10'-12' 15'-17' 20'-22' 16 13 10 4 9 3 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-9 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-04-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21663, -114.37106 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Austin LybeckDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :14.8'At Completion :14.8' Figure A-10 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 FILL GC-GM Fill, organic silt topsoil trace gravel with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 8" thick Fill, poorly graded gravel with silt and sand, dark brown, moist, medium dense, subrounded, 1.8' thick Silty clayey GRAVEL with sand, light brown, moist, dense to very dense End of Excavation TP-10 at 6.0' LOG OF TEST PIT NO.: TP-10 Project: 1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.: 23-901 Client: Brent Holding LLC Date: 01-04-23 Location: See exploration location map: 48.21524, -114.37201 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Cliff ClarkExcavator: CAT 313Depth to Water> Initial : N/E At Completion : N/E Figure A-11 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 5 5 4 3 4 3 4 4 OL CL-ML SM Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.5' thick Silty CLAY trace sand, light brown, moist, stiff Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose End of Boring DH-11 at 7.0' 14 3 2'-4' 5'-7' 9 7 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-11 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21536, -114.37017 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-12 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 8 7 8 3 4 3 4 OL CL-ML Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.5' thick Silty CLAY trace sand, light brown, moist, stiff to medium stiff Zone of silty sand from 6.0'-6.7' End of Boring DH-12 at 7.0' 16 13 1'6"-3'6" 5'-7' 15 7 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-12 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21626, -114.37005 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-13 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 OL CL-ML ML SM Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.0' thick Silty CLAY trace sand, light brown, moist, stiff Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, stiff Silty SAND, brown, moist, medium dense End of Boring DH-13 at 7.0' 16 11 4 1'-3' 5'-7' 10 10 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-13 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21539, -114.36909 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-14 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 OL CL-ML Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.5' thick Silty CLAY trace sand, light brown, moist, medium stiff Zone of silty sand from 6.0'-6.7' End of Boring DH-14 at 7.0' 11 14 1'6"-3'6" 5'-7' 5 6 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-14 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21613, -114.36910 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-15 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4 3 2 2 3 4 5 5 OL ML SM CL-ML Organic SILT topsoil with surficial grass, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.0' thick Sandy SILT, light brown, moist, medium stiff Silty SAND, brown, moist, loose Silty CLAY trace sand, brown, very moist, stiff End of Boring DH-15 at 7.0' 5 6 23 1'-3' 5'-7' 5 9 LOG OF BORING NO.: DH-15 Project:1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.:23-901Client:Brent Holding LLC Date:01-05-23Location:See exploration location map: 48.21566, -114.36857 Elevation:Existing Driller:Alpine Geotechnical Logged By:Cliff ClarkDrill Rig:Diedrich D50Depth to Water> Initial :N/E At Completion :N/E Figure A-16 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 OL CL-ML Organic SILT topsoil, dark brown, moist, soft, 1.0' thick Silty CLAY trace sand, light brown/brown, moist, medium stiff, laminated Double Ring test preformed at 3.0' End of Excavation TP-16 at 6.0' LOG OF TEST PIT NO.: TP-16 Project: 1111 Farm to Market Subdivision Project No.: 23-901 Client: Brent Holding LLC Date: 01-04-23 Location: See exploration location map: 48.216777, -114.369839 Elevation: Existing Driller: Alpine Geotechnical Logged By: Teal GaynerExcavator: CAT 313Depth to Water> Initial : N/E At Completion : N/E Figure A-17 ELEVATION/ DEPTH SOIL SYMBOLS,SAMPLERSAND TEST DATA USCS Description NM DD DEPTH STANDARD PENETRATION TEST N C U R V E 10 30 50 PAGE 1 OF 1 APPENDIX B Client:Brent Holdings LLC Date:1/4/2023 Project: 1111 Farm To Market Subdivision Project #:23-901 Report of:Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double Ring Infiltrometer ASTM D3385 0.2 in/hr TP-16 Depth:3.0'Final Stablized Infiltration Rate: (see attached map) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 In f i l t r a t i o n R a t e ( i n c h / h r ) Cumulative Time (min) Infiltration Rate vs. Cumulative Time Inner Ring Annular Ring From: Cliff Clark Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:26 AM To: Cliff Clark Sent from my iPhone From: Cliff Clark Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:31 AM To: Cliff Clark APPENDIX C UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Soil Classification Group Symbol Group Name B Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels: More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels: Less than 5% fines C Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3 E GW Well-graded gravel F Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F Gravels with Fines: More than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel F,G, H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G,H Sands: 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands: Less than 5% fines D Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3 E SW Well-graded sand I Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3 E SP Poorly graded sand I Sands with Fines: More than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sand G,H,I Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand G,H,I Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Silts and Clays: Liquid limit less than 50 Inorganic: PI 7 and plots on or above “A” line J CL Lean clay K,L,M PI 4 or plots below “A” line J ML Silt K,L,M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OL Organic clay K,L,M,N Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,O Silts and Clays: Liquid limit 50 or more Inorganic: PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clay K,L,M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt K,L,M Organic: Liquid limit - oven dried 0.75 OH Organic clay K,L,M,P Liquid limit - not dried Organic silt K,L,M,Q Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010 2 30 DxD )(D F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. H If fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel,” whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line. Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 170 of 394 APPENDIX F TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY KALISPELL DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared For Brent Holdings, LLC DECEMBER 2022 Flathead County, Montana Traffic Impact Study KALISPELL DEVELOPMENT Flathead County, Montana Prepared For Brent Holdings, LLC December 2022 Project No. 22-0114 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714 ● (406) 209-3960 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com PTOE Certification – 2020 Table of Contents | i Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Purpose of Report & Study Objectives ............... 1 Study Area ...................................................... 1 Alternate Modes of Transportation ................... 1 Pedestrians & Bicyclists .................................. 1 Existing Conditions............................... 1 Proposed Development ....................... 2 Transit Service ................................................ 2 Proposed Development .................................... 2 Traffic Operations ............................................ 2 Site Accessibility ............................................. 3 Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses ............................ 3 Access Spacing ............................................... 3 Proposed Development ....................... 3 Sensitivity Analysis Scenario ............... 3 Proposed Study Area Development 4 Proposed Development Plan ............................. 4 Development Horizon ....................................... 6 Transportation Elements of the Proposed Development .................................... 6 Trip Generation ............................................... 6 Trip Distribution .............................................. 6 Traffic Assignment .......................................... 8 Pedestrians & Bicyclists .................................. 8 Transit Service ................................................ 8 Existing Conditions 8 Study Area Land Use ........................................ 8 Study Area Roadway ........................................ 8 Study Area Intersections ................................ 11 Alternative Modes of Transportation ............... 12 Traffic Volumes ............................................. 12 Safety ........................................................... 12 Crash Experience .......................................... 12 Projected Traffic 15 Through Traffic Projections ............................ 15 Growth Rate Projections ................................ 15 Projected Background Traffic Volumes ........... 15 Total Traffic Projections ................................. 15 Transportation Analyses 15 Analysis Scenarios ........................................ 15 Analysis Methodologies ................................. 24 Operations .................................................... 24 Unsignalized Intersections ................ 24 Two-Lane Highways ........................... 24 Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses .......................... 29 ii | Table of Contents Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Assessment of Impacts 29 Traffic Operations .......................................... 29 Crash Experience .......................................... 29 Site Accessibility ........................................... 29 Operations .................................................... 29 Need for Auxiliary Turn Lanes ......................... 29 Access Spacing ............................................. 29 Traffic Operations .............................. 30 Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses ............. 31 Compliance with Applicable Local Codes ........ 31 Conclusions & Recommendations 32 Site Accessibility ........................................... 32 Site Circulation ............................................. 32 Alternative Modes of Transportation ............... 32 Pedestrians & Bicyclists ................................ 32 Transit Service .............................................. 33 Improvements & Traffic Control Guidance ....... 33 References 34 Appendices Appendix A Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Appendix B Traffic Count Data Appendix C Trip Generation Analyses Appendix D Average Annual Growth Rate Analyses for Vehicular Traffic Appendix E Capacity & Level of Service Analyses Appendix F Auxiliary Turn Lane Evaluations Appendix G Single Access Scenario Sensitivity Analyses List of Tables & Figures | iii Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 List of Tables Table 1: Estimated Project Trip Generation ......................................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Study Area Intersections Existing Characteristics .............................................................................................. 11 Table 3: Farm to Market Road (S-424) Study Area Roadway Segment Reported Crash Experience Summary ........... 12 Table 4: Kalispell Development Single Access Scenario – Weekday, AM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Summary .... 30 Table 5: Kalispell Development Single Access Scenario – Weekday, PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Summary .... 31 Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled Intersections ............................................................................. A-1 Table A-2: Level of Service Criteria for Two-Lane Highways ............................................................................................ A-2 Table A-3: City of Kalispell Access Spacing Guidelines .................................................................................................... A-3 List of Figures Figure 1: Overall Development Plan ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Development Location & Study Area .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Primary Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4-1: Development Site Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4-2: Development Site Traffic Assignment ............................................................................................................ 10 Figure 5-1: 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 5-2: 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 6-1: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 6-2: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 16 Figure 7-1: Estimated 2035 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 18 Figure 7-2: Estimated 2035 Background Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................... 18 Figure 8-1: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 20 Figure 8-2: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 20 Figure 9-1: Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 9-2: Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 22 Figure 10: Traffic Operations Summary for 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions ........................................................ 25 Figure 11: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Conditions ....................................... 26 Figure 12: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Conditions ................................................... 27 Figure 13: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Conditions ................................................... 28 Figure A-1: Control Delay and Flow Rate ........................................................................................................................... A-1 1 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Executive Summary Purpose of Report & Study Objectives This report summarizes the results of a traffic impact study conducted by E5 Engineering, PLLC for the proposed Kalispell Development project in Flathead County, Montana. The objectives of the traffic study are as follows: ▪ Determine the existing transportation conditions in the study area to establish a base condition. ▪ Assess the impact that the proposed development will have on transportation conditions in the area. ▪ Determine any roadway or access modifications and/or improvements that will be necessary to effectively accommodate and mitigate future conditions. Study Area The proposed development is located on Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in Flathead County. Farm to Market Road (Montana State Secondary Highway 424, S-424) is adjacent to the west of the proposed development. The surrounding properties are primarily residential uses. This includes the existing single family residential properties located to the south and southwest across Farm to Market Road. Spring Creek is located to the east along with larger tract, primarily residential properties to both the east and the north. Some agricultural use is presently located directly west across Farm to Market Road. Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle counts were conducted during the weekday morning and evening peak periods at four intersections in the vicinity of the site to determine the existing traffic volumes during the general peak hour of activity within each of these time periods. The intersections evaluated included the following: ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road ▪ Three Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Three Mile Drive (S-424) Alternate Modes of Transportation Pedestrians & Bicyclists Existing Conditions Sidewalks and pathways are primarily available for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area of the Farm to Market Road (S-424) and Mountain Vista Way intersection within the study area. These are mainly located within the Mountain Vista Estates Subdivision to the south of the proposed Kalispell Development as well as the Meadows Edge Subdivision to the southwest across Farm to Market Road. 2 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Proposed Development Sidewalk connections would be included within the proposed Kalispell Development. These would be located along the included roadways as well as provide connections to the adjacent transportation network. An extension of the paved trail along the east side of Farm to Market Road from the existing trail north of Mountain Vista Way is proposed to be included with the Kalispell Development. Additionally, a multi-use path is proposed to be included in the northern and eastern portions of the project. There may also be an opportunity for a trail connection to Mountain Vista Way through the proposed open space area near the southeast corner of the proposed Kalispell Development. Transit Service Mountain Climber is a public transportation resource within Flathead County currently providing transit service in the Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Whitefish areas. Mountain Climber does not currently offer any fixed transit routes or stops adjacent to the proposed development; however, it is within the area for utilizing on-demand transit service requests. No specific transit improvements are currently proposed with the Kalispell Development project. Proposed Development The proposed Kalispell Development project evaluated as a part of this study is to include 35 single family, 16 duplex, 8 triplex, and 4 quadplex lots for a total of 107 dwelling units. The project is proposed to be developed in a single phase. Access to the development is proposed to be provided via two approaches to Farm to Market Road (S-424). Based on ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 832 average weekday vehicular trips. Peak hour traffic generation for the weekday, AM and PM periods is estimated at 57 and 73 vehicular trips, respectively, at full build-out. Pedestrian and/or bicyclist related trips were also estimated for the weekday, AM and PM periods, having projected volumes of 12 during the AM and 20 during the PM peak periods. The proposed Kalispell Development has been estimated to be fully completed within the next six to eight years. Therefore, this study has assumed full build-out and occupancy of the development by 2030. The proposed development fits within the Category 1 definition for preparation of a traffic impact study per the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction dated July 5, 2022. Thereby, this study has also evaluated five years into the future beyond anticipated full build-out and occupancy to the year 2035. Traffic Operations Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic operations, and considerations for alternative modes of transportation reveal that the proposed Kalispell Development will have minimal impact on area traffic operations. Each of the proposed development accesses to Farm to Market Road (S-424) are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service through the year 2035 based on the conditions evaluated as a part of this study. As with any development, there will be an increase in traffic volumes with the buildout of the proposed development. Residents in the area may note an increase in traffic volumes on Farm to Market Road (S-424). 3 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Site Accessibility Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses Farm to Market Road (S-424) and its intersections with the proposed Kalispell Development site accesses were evaluated for consideration for auxiliary turn lanes utilizing criteria from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Traffic Engineering Manual (November 2007). The analyses found that the intersections did not meet minimum criteria for consideration of installing left- or right-turn lanes at either intersection based on any of the analysis scenarios evaluated as a part of this study. Access Spacing Proposed Development Farm to Market Road (S-424) is classified as a minor arterial roadway by the Move 2040 – Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. The proposed Kalispell Development accesses may be considered non-continuous local roads. As currently proposed, the south access to the Kalispell Development has a separation of approximately 435-feet from Mountain Vista Way as measured from centerline to centerline. The two proposed accesses for the Kalispell Development have a separation of approximately 313-feet. As proposed, these do not meet the access spacing guidelines of the City of Kalispell that provide a minimum spacing guideline of 660-feet. Otherwise, specific approval is required from the City of Kalispell Public Works Department and MDT for the proposed access locations. Sensitivity Analysis Scenario Adequate separation from the existing intersection of Farm to Market Road (S-424) and Mountain Vista Way would be available for a single access to and from the proposed Kalispell Development. However, secondary access for emergency services providers may require some additional consideration. Sensitivity analyses were performed under a single access scenario to verify if there would be any changes to the study findings because of traffic operations or auxiliary turn lane considerations. The proposed single access scenario to Farm to Market Road (S-424) is projected to operate within acceptable levels of service through the year 2035. The analyses also found that the intersection would not meet minimum criteria for consideration of installing left- or right-turn lanes at the intersection. 4 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Proposed Study Area Development Proposed Development Plan Brent Holdings, LLC is proposing the Kalispell Development project that is to include 35 single family, 16 duplex, 8 triplex, and 4 quadplex lots for a total of 107 dwelling units. The project is proposed to be developed in a single phase. Access to the development is proposed to be provided via two approaches to Farm to Market Road that is also Montana State Secondary Highway 424 (S-424). The proposed development is located on Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in Flathead County situated in the southwest quarter of Section 2, Township 28 North, Range 22 West, Principal Meridian of Montana. Farm to Market Road is adjacent to the west of the proposed development. Existing single family residential properties are located to the south. Larger tract, primarily residential properties are located to the east and the north. Spring Creek is also located to the east. The proposed development plan is shown in Figure 1 below. The site location and study area are shown in Figure 2 on the following page. Figure 1: Overall Development Plan 5 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 2: Development Location & Study Area 6 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Development Horizon The proposed Kalispell Development has been estimated to be fully completed within the next six to eight years. Therefore, this study has assumed full build-out and occupancy of the development by 2030. The proposed development fits within the Category 1 definition for preparation of a traffic impact study per the City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction dated July 5, 2022. Thereby, this study will also evaluate five years into the future beyond anticipated full build-out and occupancy to the year 2035. Transportation Elements of the Proposed Development Trip Generation Estimated trip generation for the proposed development was derived utilizing rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in the Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. The rates were based on the single- family detached and attached housing land uses with a general urban / suburban setting or location and the proposed number of dwelling units as the independent variables. Based on the ITE trip generation rates, the proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 832 average weekday vehicular trips. As shown in Table 1 below, peak hour traffic generation for the weekday, AM and PM periods is estimated at 57 and 73 vehicular trips, respectively, at full build-out. Pedestrian and/or bicyclist related trips were also estimated for the weekday, AM and PM periods, having projected volumes of 12 during the AM and 20 during the PM peak periods. The estimated project trip generation for the proposed development is also presented in Appendix C. Table 1: Estimated Project Trip Generation Land Use ITE Code Quantity Average Weekday Trip Ends Weekday, AM Peak Hour Trip Ends Weekday, PM Peak Hour Trip Ends Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single Family Detached Housing Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 210 35 DU 166 166 332 7 18 25 21 12 33 Estimated Walk/Bike Trip Ends 3 1 4 3 4 7 Single Family Attached Housing Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 215 72 DU 250 250 500 10 22 32 23 17 40 Estimated Walk/Bike Trip Ends 6 2 8 5 8 13 Total Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends = 107 DU 416 416 832 17 40 57 44 29 73 Total Estimated Walk/Bike Trip Ends = 9 3 12 8 12 20 DU = Dwelling Units Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of identifying the probable traffic routes that development related traffic will utilize based on likely trip origins and destinations given the characteristics of the proposed development and the surrounding area. Various methods are available for estimating trip distribution, including the analogy, trip distribution model, area of influence, origin-destination (O-D), and surrogate data methods. This study utilizes the analogy method that bases the trip distribution on existing travel patterns in the area. Figure 3 on the following page shows the estimated primary trip distribution with the proposal for the Kalispell Development. 7 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 3: Primary Trip Distribution 8 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Traffic Assignment The assignment of development traffic provides the information necessary to determine the level of site related impacts to the area roadway system and intersections. It involves determining the volume of traffic and its movements within the transportation system. At a minimum, trip assignment must also consider route choice, how the existing transportation system functions, and travel times to and from the development. The resulting traffic assignment within the study area is shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 on the following pages. Pedestrians & Bicyclists Sidewalk connections would be included within the proposed Kalispell Development. These would be located along the included roadways as well as provide connections to the adjacent transportation network. An extension of the paved trail along the east side of Farm to Market Road from the existing trail north of Mountain Vista Way is proposed to be included with the Kalispell Development. Additionally, a multi-use path is proposed to be included in the northern and eastern portions of the project. There may also be an opportunity for a trail connection to Mountain Vista Way through the proposed open space area near the southeast corner of the proposed Kalispell Development. Transit Service Mountain Climber is a public transportation resource within Flathead County currently providing transit service in the Kalispell, Columbia Falls, and Whitefish areas. Mountain Climber does not currently offer any fixed transit routes or stops adjacent to the proposed development; however, it is within the area for utilizing on-demand transit service requests. No specific transit improvements are currently proposed with the Kalispell Development project. Existing Conditions Study Area Land Use Currently, the site of the proposed Kalispell Development is primarily vacant land on Parcels C and D of Certificate of Survey No. 8903 in Flathead County. The surrounding properties are primarily residential uses. This includes the existing single family residential properties located to the south and southwest across Farm to Market Road (S-424). As noted previously, Spring Creek is located to the east along with larger tract, primarily residential properties to both the east and the north. Some agricultural use is presently located directly west across Farm to Market Road. Study Area Roadway Farm to Market Road, also being Montana State Secondary Highway 424 (S-424, C000424A) is functionally classified as a major collector by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) and is a secondary system route. The roadway provides a link from United States Highway 93 Alternate (US 93 ALT) within Kalispell at its intersection with Three Mile Drive (also S-424) westerly then northerly to United States Highway 93 (US 93) roughly four miles west of Whitefish, Montana. Land uses along S-424 within the study area are a mix of agricultural properties to the north of the proposed Kalispell Development and residential properties to the south and east. Within the study area, Farm to Market Road (S-424) is an undivided two-lane highway with a single travel lane in each direction. The posted speed limit is 50 miles per hour (50 mph). A passing zone is currently available for northbound traffic from approximately 195 feet north of Mountain Vista Way that transitions to a passing zone for both northbound and southbound vehicles approximately 640 feet further to the north. 9 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 4-1: Development Site Traffic Assignment 10 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 4-2: Development Site Traffic Assignment 11 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Study Area Intersections The existing intersections evaluated as a part of this study and their current traffic control plus configurations are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2: Study Area Intersections Existing Characteristics Intersection Traffic Control Approach Lane Configuration Bike Lane Pedestrian Accommodations ID Roadways Crossing Marked Crosswalk 3 Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way 2-Way (EB & WB) EB WB NB SB 4 Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road 1-Way (NB) NB NWB SEB 5 Three Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road 2-Way (NB & SB) EB WB NB SB 6 Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Three Mile Drive 1-Way (EB) EB NWB SEB 12 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Alternative Modes of Transportation As noted in the descriptions of the study area roadways and intersections, sidewalks and pathways are primarily available for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area of the Farm to Market Road (S-424) and Mountain Vista Way intersection within the study area. These are mainly located within the Mountain Vista Estates Subdivision to the south of the proposed Kalispell Development as well as the Meadows Edge Subdivision to the southwest across Farm to Market Road. Traffic Volumes To determine current vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle conditions within the study area, peak period traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle counts were utilized for the following intersections based on averages taken for two weekdays on August 23 and 24, 2022 (Tuesday and Wednesday): ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road ▪ Three Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road ▪ Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Three Mile Drive All counts were conducted during the morning (7:00 – 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 – 6:00 p.m.) peak periods. The results of the traffic counts show that the peak hours occur between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. within the study area for a majority of traffic. The count data were not adjusted for seasonal and daily variations to allow for a slightly more conservative analysis. Monthly and daily adjustment factors available through MDT would result in a reduction to observed volumes. Summaries of the count data are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2 on the following pages and are provided in Appendix B. Safety Crash Experience Traffic safety conditions in the study area were documented by reviewing the crash history of the study area intersections using provided data from the MDT crash database. Public crash information for the period 2016 through 2020, the latest five years available, were reviewed. Table 3 below summarizes the reported crash experience for the Farm to Market Road (S-424) roadway segment within the study area. Table 3: Farm to Market Road (S-424) Study Area Roadway Segment Reported Crash Experience Summary Roadway Study Area Segment Reported Crashes Years of Data Length of Segment Crashes Per Mile Start End Farm to Market Road (S-424) East of Its Intersection with Three Mile Drive North of Spring Creek 11 5 0.78 miles 2.81 There were three reported crashes through MDT’s public crash information database at the intersection of Farm to Market Road (S-424) and Mountain Vista Way during the five-year period from 2016 to 2020. Additionally, two reported crashes occurred at the intersection of Three Mile Drive and West Springcreek Road during that timeframe. Limited data is available from the public crash information provided by MDT. Additional crash information such as type; weather, roadway, and lighting conditions; number of vehicles, age and gender of drivers; wildlife collisions; and other potentially contributing conditions can be obtained through a review of the specific crash reports. 13 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 5-1: 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes 14 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 5-2: 2022 Existing Traffic Volumes 15 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Projected Traffic Through Traffic Projections Growth Rate Projections Estimated traffic volumes for the 2030 and 2035 analysis years were projected by applying an average annual growth rate (AAGR) to the 2022 traffic volumes. Traffic growth for Farm to Market Road (S-424), Three Mile Drive, and West Springcreek Road was based on an assumed AAGR value of 2.50% within the study area through the 2030 and 2035 analysis years, which is generally in keeping with the household growth rate projected in the Move 2040 – Kalispell Area Transportation Plan dated September 2021 and prepared by KLJ in partnership with the Study Review Committee. Mountain Vista Way utilized an AAGR value of 0.50% accounting for the built-out nature of the subdivisions served by that roadway but allowing for some growth that may occur due to potential slight changes in observed traffic volumes. Projected Background Traffic Volumes Estimated 2030 and 2035 background traffic volumes from growth rate projections within the study area were developed to establish the baseline condition for the impact analyses resulting from the proposed development and are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 for 2030 and Figures 7-1 and 7-2 for 2035 background traffic volumes on the following pages. When using the AAGR method for future traffic projections, proposed development traffic would be included in the overall future total traffic estimated volumes. Therefore, anticipated 2030 and 2035 background traffic volumes are reflective of forecast traffic growth outside of the study area. Total Traffic Projections Estimated 2030 and 2035 total traffic volumes include the combination of background traffic volumes with those projected for the proposed Kalispell Development, which are shown in Figures 8-1 and 8-2 on pages 19 and 20 for 2030 total traffic volumes and Figures 9-1 and 9-2 on pages 21 and 22 for 2035 total traffic volumes. Transportation Analyses Analysis Scenarios To identify significant project impacts, the following scenarios were evaluated: ▪ Existing Conditions Scenario –2022 Current Daily Traffic Volumes ▪ Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes – Excluding Phase 2 Development Consists of projected, non-site through traffic volumes resulting from growth outside the study area. ▪ Full Buildout Scenario – Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes Consists of estimated 2030 background traffic volumes in combination with forecast Kalispell Development traffic. ▪ Opening Year + 5 Years Scenario – Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Volumes Consists of estimated 2035 background traffic volumes in combination with forecast Kalispell Development traffic. 16 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 6-1: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes 17 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 6-2: Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Volumes 18 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 7-1: Estimated 2035 Background Traffic Volumes 19 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 7-2: Estimated 2035 Background Traffic Volumes 20 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 8-1: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes 21 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 8-2: Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Volumes 22 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 9-1: Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Volumes 23 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 9-2: Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Volumes 24 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Analysis Methodologies Operations The operations analyses employ methodologies based on empirical research conducted by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and other authorities, utilizing level of service (LOS) as the performance measure to evaluate the cumulative effects of such things as travel speed, traffic volumes, roadway and intersection capacity, travel delay, and traffic interruptions. Operating conditions are designated as LOS A through LOS F, representing the most to least favorable. Unsignalized Intersections LOS for intersections is determined by control delay, which is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue to the time the vehicle departs from the stop line. The total elapsed time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position, including deceleration of vehicles from the free flow speed to the speed of vehicles in the queue. LOS characteristics based on varying durations of average vehicle delay as listed in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the TRB are summarized in Appendix A. The methodology used to determine the level of service for unsignalized intersections is based on Chapter 20 of the HCM for two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersections. The LOS criteria are applicable for two-way and all-way stop-controlled intersections. The TWSC analyses were performed using HCS TWSC Version 8.1 developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. The HCM methodology for evaluating TWSC intersections is based on gap acceptance and conflicting traffic for vehicles stopped on the minor street approaches. The critical gap (or minimum acceptable gap) is defined as the minimum time interval in the major street traffic stream that allows entry for one minor street vehicle. Average control delay and LOS for the minor street approach(es) is/are reported. LOS is not defined by the HCM for the intersection because major street traffic volumes and operations may skew the results of the LOS analyses. Two-Lane Highways The method presented in Chapter 15 of the HCM for evaluating two-lane highways related to motor vehicles is based on average speed, percent followers, and follower density. The HCM utilizes these three performance measures based on typical desired quality of service objectives of reduced travel times and drivers feeling the need to pass. LOS characteristics based on varying follower density for higher- and lower-speed highways as listed in the HCM are summarized in Appendix A. For analysis purposes, a two-lane highway may be evaluated in segments. The HCM methodology takes into consideration “the ability to pass, lane geometry, grades, lane and shoulder widths, posted speed limits, traffic demands, adjacent land uses, driveways, and other characteristics of the facility”. The two-lane highway analyses performed as a part of this study were completed using HCS Highways Version 8.1 also developed and maintained by the McTrans Center at the University of Florida. Study Scenario Analyses LOS analyses for the study scenarios were performed using the existing geometry for Farm to Market Road (S-424), current traffic control and geometry at each of the existing study intersections, and the proposed approach geometry at each of the Kalispell Development accesses to Farm to Market Road (S-424) with stop control for each approach. The analyses are summarized in the figures on the following pages and detailed results are included in Appendix E. 25 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 10: Traffic Operations Summary for 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions 26 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 11: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Background Traffic Conditions 27 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 12: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2030 Total Traffic Conditions 28 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Figure 13: Traffic Operations Summary for Estimated 2035 Total Traffic Conditions 29 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses Farm to Market Road (S-424) and its intersections with the proposed Kalispell Development site accesses were evaluated for consideration for auxiliary turn lanes utilizing criteria from the MDT Traffic Engineering Manual (November 2007). The analyses found that the intersections did not meet minimum criteria for consideration of installing left- or right-turn lanes at either intersection based on any of the analysis scenarios evaluated as a part of this study. The results of the analyses are provided in Appendix F. Assessment of Impacts Traffic Operations As shown in the traffic operations analyses, each of the study area intersections and proposed development accesses to Farm to Market Road (S-424) are projected to operate within acceptable levels of service through the year 2035 based on the conditions evaluated as a part of this study. Crash Experience No significant crash trends were identified within the study area based on the reported number of crashes in comparison to the traffic volumes from MDT reported crash data. Further review of the data from the specific crash reports may provide insight for additional crash information such as type; weather, roadway, and lighting conditions; number of vehicles, age and gender of drivers; wildlife collisions; and other potentially contributing conditions. Site Accessibility Operations As noted previously, the proposed accesses to Farm to Market Road (S-424) from the proposed Kalispell Development are projected to function with acceptable capacity and within reasonable levels of service. Need for Auxiliary Turn Lanes The left- and right-turn auxiliary lane analyses for each of the proposed accesses to and from the Kalispell Development did not meet MDT’s minimum guidelines for consideration of the installation of either left- or right-turn lanes on Farm to Market Road (S-424) based on either 2030 or 2035 projected traffic volumes. Access Spacing Farm to Market Road (S-424) is classified as a minor arterial roadway by the Move 2040 – Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. The proposed Kalispell Development accesses may be considered non-continuous local roads. Under that consideration, a minimum spacing of 660-feet would be required under the City of Kalispell access spacing guidelines that are included in Appendix A for reference. Otherwise, specific approval is required from the City of Kalispell Public Works Department for the proposed access locations. As currently proposed, the south access to the Kalispell Development has a separation of approximately 435-feet from Mountain Vista Way as measured from centerline to centerline. The two proposed accesses for the Kalispell Development have a separation of approximately 313-feet. As proposed, these do not meet the access spacing guidelines of the City of Kalispell. 30 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Adequate separation from the existing intersection of Farm to Market Road (S-424) and Mountain Vista Way would be available for a single access to and from the proposed Kalispell Development. However, secondary access for emergency services providers may require some additional consideration. Sensitivity analyses were performed under a single access scenario to verify if there would be any changes to the study findings because of traffic operations or auxiliary turn lane considerations. Traffic Operations Intersection capacity and LOS analyses were performed for the proposed Kalispell Development under a scenario with a single access to Farm to Market Road (S-424). The results of the analyses are provided in Appendix G and the weekday, AM peak hour analyses for the 2030 and 2035 estimated total traffic scenarios are summarized in Table 4 below. Results for the weekday, PM peak hour are summarized in Table 5 on the following page. Table 4: Kalispell Development Single Access Scenario – Weekday, AM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour Analysis Scenario Traffic Control Performance Measure Intersection NB TR SB LT WB LR 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Level of Service (LOS) A A A B Delay (sec/veh) 7.1 5.01 7.5 10.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr) 331 105 186 40 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr) 6 0 0 6 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft) 0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft) 660 4452 150 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Level of Service (LOS) A A A B Delay (sec/veh) 7.1 5.01 7.5 11.2 Entry Volume (veh/hr) 372 118 214 40 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr) 6 0 0 6 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.07 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft) 0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft) 660 4452 150 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = Westbound | TR = Thru-Right; LT = Left-Thru; and LR = Left-Right 1Assumed average vehicle delay value to account for right-turn movements. 2Measured to residential driveway access north of the proposed Kalispell Development. 31 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Table 5: Kalispell Development Single Access Scenario – Weekday, PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations Summary Weekday, PM Peak Hour Analysis Scenario Traffic Control Performance Measure Intersection NB TR SB LT WB LR 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Level of Service (LOS) A A A B Delay (sec/veh) 6.5 5.01 7.9 11.9 Entry Volume (veh/hr) 428 248 151 29 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr) 12 0 0 12 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.06 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft) 0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft) 660 4452 150 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Level of Service (LOS) A A A B Delay (sec/veh) 6.5 5.01 8.0 12.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr) 479 279 171 29 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr) 12 0 0 12 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c) 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.06 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh) 0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft) 0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft) 660 4452 150 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = Westbound | TR = Thru-Right; LT = Left-Thru; and LR = Left-Right 1Assumed average vehicle delay value to account for right-turn movements. 2Measured to residential driveway access north of the proposed Kalispell Development. Auxiliary Turn Lane Analyses Auxiliary turn lane analyses were again performed under a single access to Farm to Market Road (S-424) scenario for the proposed Kalispell Development. As before under the primary proposal with two accesses to the proposed development, the analyses found that the intersections did not meet minimum criteria for consideration of installing left- or right-turn lanes based on either the estimated 2030 or 2035 total traffic volumes. The results of the analyses are provided in Appendix G. Compliance with Applicable Local Codes The proposed Kalispell Development improvements should be installed in accordance with City of Kalispell, Flathead County, and MDT requirements, as applicable. 32 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Conclusions & Recommendations Analysis of trip generation estimates, traffic operations, and considerations for alternative modes of transportation reveal that the proposed Kalispell Development will have minimal impact on area traffic operations. As with any development, there will be an increase in traffic volumes with the buildout of the proposed Kalispell Development. Residents in the area may note an increase in traffic volumes on Farm to Market Road (S-424). Based on the analyses included herein, the following are recommended as appropriate: Site Accessibility The access configuration for the proposed Kalispell Development as currently proposed with the development plan includes installing two (2) local road approaches to Farm to Market Road (S-424). Additional considerations for the proposed accesses include the following: ▪ The proposed accesses were evaluated under stop control with single lanes on each approach plus single receiving lanes. ▪ The proposed intersections should be designed to accommodate the appropriate design vehicles (inclusive of emergency services, deliveries, buses, and construction equipment), include considerations of the needs for non-motorized users, and provide adequate intersection sight distance for driver, pedestrian, and bicyclist safety in accordance with City of Kalispell and AASHTO standards. ▪ Modification to existing pavement markings on Farm to Market Road (S-424) to adjust the passing zone will be required based on access locations included with the proposed Kalispell Development. ▪ If a single access to the proposed Kalispell Development is required the recommendations for traffic control, use of appropriate design vehicles, intersection sight distance, and Farm to Market Road (S-424) passing zone pavement marking modifications would remain the same. Site Circulation ▪ Internal roadways should be designed for the appropriate vehicles, including emergency and solid waste vehicles, as necessary. ▪ Adequate sight distance must be preserved at driveways, internal intersections, and potential pedestrian circulation routes for driver and pedestrian safety within the development. Alternative Modes of Transportation Pedestrians & Bicyclists The sidewalk connections within the proposed Kalispell Development will allow for circulation within the development as well as ties to Farm to Market Road (S-424). An extension of the paved trail along the east side of Farm to Market Road from the existing trail north of Mountain Vista Way is proposed to be included with the Kalispell Development. Additionally, a multi-use path is proposed to be included in the northern and eastern portions of the project. There may also be an opportunity for a trail connection to Mountain Vista Way through the proposed open space area near the southeast corner of the proposed Kalispell Development. 33 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 Sidewalk connections would be included within the proposed Kalispell Development. These would be located along the included roadways as well as provide connections to the adjacent transportation network. An opportunity is also available for a trail connection to Mountain Vista Way through the proposed open space area near the southeast corner of the proposed Kalispell Development. Transit Service No specific transit improvements are currently proposed with the Kalispell Development project. Improvements & Traffic Control Guidance Included recommendations for the proposed Kalispell Development improvements should be installed in accordance with City of Kalispell requirements, as well as Flathead County and Montana Department of Transportation standards (as applicable), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 34 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development December 2022 References 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2018). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2018 7th Edition – 2nd Printing. Washington, DC. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2005). Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice. Washington, DC. 3. City of Kalispell. (July 5, 2022). City of Kalispell Standards for Design and Construction. Kalispell, MT. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (September 2017). Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Washington, DC. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (September 2021). Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Washington, DC. 6. KLJ and the Study Review Committee. (September 2021). Move 2040 – Kalispell Area Transportation Plan. Kalispell, MT: City of Kalispell. 7. Transportation Research Board. (2022). Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies of Sciences · Engineering · Medicine. Appendix A Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance | A-1 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development October 2022 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service The method presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) for evaluating unsignalized, stop-controlled intersections is based on the average total delay for each impeded movement. As used here, total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of a queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue to the first-in-queue position. The average total delay for any minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The resulting delay is used to determine the level of service as shown in Table A-1 below. Table A-1: Level of Service Criteria for Stop-Controlled Intersections Average Control Delay Level of Service (LOS) Characteristics 10 seconds A Little or no delay 10.0 – 15.0 seconds B Short traffic delay 15.0 – 25.0 seconds C Average traffic delay 25.0 – 35.0 seconds D Long traffic delays 35.0 – 50.0 seconds E Very long traffic delays > 50.0 seconds F When the demand exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered, and queuing may cause severe congestion to the intersection. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, 2022) Figure A-1: Control Delay and Flow Rate Source: Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Page 17-24 (Transportation Research Board, 2000) A-2 | Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development October 2022 Two-Lane Highways Level of Service The method presented in the HCM for evaluating two-lane highways related to motor vehicles is based on three performance measures: average speed, percent followers, and follower density. The HCM utilizes these three performance measures based on typical desired quality of service objectives of reduced travel times and drivers feeling the need to pass. The average speed performance measure is self-explanatory. The percent followers performance measure is characterized by vehicles that are considered to be following a slower vehicle, which may be affected by restricted passing opportunities. Spacing between vehicles measured by headway is used to determine if a vehicle is in a follower state, having a threshold value (critical headway) of 2.5 seconds. The follower density measure is defined as the number of vehicles in a follower state per mile per lane by the HCM. It is used as it is influenced by not only vehicular demand but roadway characteristics as well. The LOS criteria for two-lane highways are presented in Table A-2 below. Table A-2: Level of Service Criteria for Two-Lane Highways Level of Service (LOS) Follower Density (followers/mile/lane) Higher-Speed Highways Posted Speed Limit ≥ 50 mph Lower-Speed Highways Posted Speed Limit < 50 mph A 2.0 2.5 B > 2.0 – 4.0 > 2.5 – 5.0 C > 4.0 – 8.0 > 5.0 – 10.0 D > 8.0 – 12.0 > 10.0 – 15.0 E > 12.0 > 15.0 F Demand Exceeds Capacity Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition | A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (Transportation Research Board, 2022) City of Kalispell Access Spacing Guidelines To assist in promoting the long-term safe and efficient operation of its transportation network, the City of Kalispell has adopted specific access spacing guidelines for intersections and driveways. The adopted guidelines are provided in Table A-3 on the following page. Appendix A: Level of Service Concepts, Analysis Methodologies, & Standards of Significance | A-3 Traffic Impact Study – Kalispell Development October 2022 Table A-3: City of Kalispell Access Spacing Guidelines Access Type Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector Local Road Residential Driveway No Direct Access No Direct Access No Direct Access No Direct Access As Approved by the Public Works Department (PWD) Commercial Driveway No Direct Access No Direct Access 660’ 660’ 100’ Non-Continuous Local Road No Direct Access 660’ 660’ 660’ 150’ Continuous Local Road No Direct Access 1,320’ 660’ 660’ 150’ Collector Streets 2,640’ 1,320’ 660’ 660’ 660’ Minor Arterials 5,280’ 2,640’ 1,320’ 1,320’ 1,320’ Minimum Spacing Between Intersection and Nearest Driveway N/A N/A 330’ 330’ 100’ for Commercial Driveways; 35’ for Residential Driveways Appendix B Traffic Count Data Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 7:00 AM 0 0 7 0 1 0 7 5 0 1 0 0 0 6 2 10 0 0 0 0 12 1 27 0 0 0 0 28 53 7:15 AM 1 0 7 0 0 0 8 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 16 0 0 1 0 17 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 64 7:30 AM 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 20 1 0 1 0 23 1 46 1 0 0 0 48 90 7:45 AM 1 0 15 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 20 0 0 2 0 23 1 48 0 0 1 0 49 93 300 8:00 AM 2 0 6 0 0 0 8 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 19 0 0 1 0 24 1 42 0 0 0 0 43 79 326 8:15 AM 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 23 1 0 1 0 25 0 37 0 0 0 0 37 77 339 8:30 AM 1 0 12 0 1 0 13 5 0 1 0 1 0 6 1 14 1 0 1 0 16 1 35 0 0 0 0 36 71 320 8:45 AM 1 1 8 0 0 0 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 3 23 1 0 2 0 27 0 35 0 0 0 0 35 76 303 TOTALS 6 1 80 0 2 0 87 33 2 5 0 1 0 40 18 145 4 0 9 0 167 5 303 1 0 1 0 309 603 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 7:30 AM 0 0 13 0 0 0 13 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 20 1 0 1 0 23 1 46 1 0 0 0 48 90 7:45 AM 1 0 15 0 0 0 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 20 0 0 2 0 23 1 48 0 0 1 0 49 93 8:00 AM 2 0 6 0 0 0 8 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 5 19 0 0 1 0 24 1 42 0 0 0 0 43 79 8:15 AM 0 0 12 0 0 0 12 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 23 1 0 1 0 25 0 37 0 0 0 0 37 77 TOTALS 3 0 46 0 0 0 49 15 1 2 0 0 0 18 11 82 2 0 5 0 95 3 173 1 0 1 0 177 339 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.38 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.75 0.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.55 0.89 0.50 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.95 0.75 0.90 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.90 0.91 % HEAVY VEHICLES 0.00%0.00%3.75%0.00%3.45%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%16.67%12.41%0.00%0.00%12.57%0.00%5.61%0.00%0.00%5.50%6.80% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%1.25%0.00%1.15%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2.76%0.00%0.00%2.40%0.00%0.99%0.00%0.00%0.97%1.33% 1 173 3 1 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 46 15 11 82 2 5 0 Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'53.03" N | Longitude: 114d22'22.91" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-03 Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY Total Vehicles | Weekday, AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\Farm-to-Market-Rd+Mountain-Vista-Way_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 1 of 2 | 10/2/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'53.03" N | Longitude: 114d22'22.91" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-03 WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 4:00 PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 36 2 0 0 0 46 1 40 1 0 0 0 42 96 4:15 PM 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 1 1 3 0 0 0 5 8 35 3 0 0 0 46 1 35 1 0 0 0 37 92 4:30 PM 1 1 8 0 0 1 10 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 38 4 0 1 0 50 3 34 1 0 0 0 38 102 4:45 PM 1 0 9 0 0 0 10 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 9 34 4 0 1 0 47 1 27 2 0 0 0 30 90 380 5:00 PM 3 0 8 0 0 0 11 6 0 1 0 0 0 7 13 48 4 0 2 0 65 1 36 1 0 0 0 38 121 405 5:15 PM 1 1 8 0 0 0 10 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 12 57 3 0 1 0 72 2 30 2 0 0 0 34 119 432 5:30 PM 2 2 9 0 0 0 13 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 13 47 4 0 3 0 64 1 25 2 0 0 0 28 109 439 5:45 PM 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 41 3 0 0 0 52 2 28 2 0 1 0 32 94 443 TOTALS 9 4 56 0 0 1 69 21 1 11 0 0 0 33 79 336 27 0 8 0 442 12 255 12 0 1 0 279 823 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 5:00 PM 3 0 8 0 0 0 11 6 0 1 0 0 0 7 13 48 4 0 2 0 65 1 36 1 0 0 0 38 121 5:15 PM 1 1 8 0 0 0 10 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 12 57 3 0 1 0 72 2 30 2 0 0 0 34 119 5:30 PM 2 2 9 0 0 0 13 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 13 47 4 0 3 0 64 1 25 2 0 0 0 28 109 5:45 PM 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 8 41 3 0 0 0 52 2 28 2 0 1 0 32 94 TOTALS 7 3 30 0 0 0 40 12 0 6 0 0 0 18 46 193 14 0 6 0 253 6 119 7 0 1 0 132 443 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.58 0.38 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.77 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.88 0.85 0.88 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.88 0.75 0.83 0.88 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.87 0.92 % HEAVY VEHICLES 0.00%25.00%1.79%0.00%4.35%4.76%0.00%0.00%0.00%3.03%3.80%5.06%3.70%0.00%4.75%0.00%6.67%0.00%0.00%6.09%5.10% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%1.79%0.00%1.45%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.49%0.00%0.00%1.13%0.00%0.78%0.00%0.00%0.72%0.97% 7 119 6 1 0 7 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 46 193 14 6 0 MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK PERIOD MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Total Vehicles | Weekday, PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY MOUNTAIN VISTA WAY E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\Farm-to-Market-Rd+Mountain-Vista-Way_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 2 of 2 | 10/2/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 7:00 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 37 2 0 0 0 39 51 7:15 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 15 41 5 0 0 0 46 63 7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 63 1 0 0 0 64 85 7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 65 1 0 0 0 66 88 287 8:00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 48 2 0 0 0 50 74 310 8:15 AM 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 48 2 0 0 0 50 75 322 8:30 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 15 48 3 0 0 0 51 68 305 8:45 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 25 44 1 0 0 0 45 73 290 TOTALS 21 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 1 144 0 0 0 145 394 17 0 0 0 411 577 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 7:30 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 19 63 1 0 0 0 64 85 7:45 AM 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 65 1 0 0 0 66 88 8:00 AM 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 21 48 2 0 0 0 50 74 8:15 AM 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 20 48 2 0 0 0 50 75 TOTALS 12 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 80 224 6 0 0 0 230 322 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.86 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.91 % HEAVY VEHICLES 9.52%0.00%0.00%9.52%0.00%0.00%12.50%0.00%12.41%4.57%11.76%0.00%4.87%6.93% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2.78%0.00%2.76%0.76%0.00%0.00%0.73%1.21% 6 224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 0 0 Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'53.03" N | Longitude: 114d22'22.91" W August 23-34, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-03 Northbound (From the South)East Side of Farm to Market Road Northwestbound (From the Southeast)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Northbound (From the South)East Side of Farm to Market Road Northwestbound (From the Southeast)Southbound (From the North) WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD Total Vehicles | Weekday, AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\Farm-to-Market-Rd+W-Springcreek-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 1 of 2 | 10/2/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'53.03" N | Longitude: 114d22'22.91" W August 23-34, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-03 WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 4:00 PM 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 43 43 5 0 0 0 48 96 4:15 PM 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 40 38 4 0 0 0 42 88 4:30 PM 3 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 46 41 3 0 0 0 44 93 4:45 PM 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 43 36 4 0 0 0 40 87 364 5:00 PM 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 55 47 5 0 0 0 52 115 383 5:15 PM 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 65 36 4 0 0 0 40 112 407 5:30 PM 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 55 33 2 0 0 0 35 98 412 5:45 PM 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 46 32 3 0 0 0 35 86 411 TOTALS 45 1 0 0 1 46 0 0 0 0 393 0 0 0 393 306 30 0 0 0 336 775 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 4:45 PM 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 43 36 4 0 0 0 40 87 5:00 PM 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 55 47 5 0 0 0 52 115 5:15 PM 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 65 36 4 0 0 0 40 112 5:30 PM 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 55 33 2 0 0 0 35 98 TOTALS 26 1 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 218 0 0 0 218 152 15 0 0 0 167 412 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.81 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.81 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.90 % HEAVY VEHICLES 6.67%0.00%0.00%6.52%0.00%0.00%3.82%0.00%3.82%6.21%6.67%0.00%6.25%5.03% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.02%0.00%1.02%1.31%0.00%0.00%1.19%1.03% 15 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 218 0 0 FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK PERIOD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Total Vehicles | Weekday, PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing Northbound (From the South)East Side of Farm to Market Road Northwestbound (From the Southeast)Southbound (From the North) Northbound (From the South)East Side of Farm to Market Road Northwestbound (From the Southeast)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\Farm-to-Market-Rd+W-Springcreek-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 2 of 2 | 10/2/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 7:00 AM 0 15 1 0 0 0 16 2 5 0 0 0 0 7 1 2 7 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 35 7:15 AM 1 15 0 0 0 0 16 2 10 1 0 0 0 13 0 2 8 0 0 0 10 0 3 2 0 0 0 5 44 7:30 AM 0 26 1 0 0 0 27 1 5 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 14 0 0 0 18 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 53 7:45 AM 0 28 1 0 0 0 29 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 1 2 8 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 51 183 8:00 AM 0 19 2 0 0 0 21 4 8 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 4 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 43 191 8:15 AM 1 21 2 0 0 0 24 3 6 1 0 0 0 10 1 3 8 0 0 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 48 195 8:30 AM 0 16 1 0 0 0 17 5 10 0 1 0 0 16 1 2 15 0 0 0 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 54 196 8:45 AM 0 14 4 0 0 0 18 5 12 0 0 0 0 17 1 3 7 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 47 192 TOTALS 2 154 12 0 0 0 168 26 62 2 1 0 0 91 7 20 71 0 0 0 98 2 14 2 0 0 0 18 375 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 7:45 AM 0 28 1 0 0 0 29 4 6 0 0 0 0 10 1 2 8 0 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 51 8:00 AM 0 19 2 0 0 0 21 4 8 0 0 0 0 12 1 3 4 0 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 43 8:15 AM 1 21 2 0 0 0 24 3 6 1 0 0 0 10 1 3 8 0 0 0 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 48 8:30 AM 0 16 1 0 0 0 17 5 10 0 1 0 0 16 1 2 15 0 0 0 18 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 54 TOTALS 1 84 6 0 0 0 91 16 30 1 1 0 0 48 4 10 35 0 0 0 49 1 7 0 0 0 0 8 196 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.80 0.75 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.75 1.00 0.83 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.25 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.91 % HEAVY VEHICLES 0.00%1.95%0.00%0.00%1.79%7.69%3.23%50.00%0.00%5.49%0.00%5.00%4.23%0.00%4.08%0.00%7.14%50.00%0.00%11.11%3.73% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 0 7 1 0 0 1 1 84 30 0 0 0 0 6 16 4 10 35 0 0 Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary 3 Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'40.82" N | Longitude: 114d22'24.82" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-04 Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE Total Vehicles | Weekday, AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 1 of 2 | 10/3/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary 3 Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'40.82" N | Longitude: 114d22'24.82" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-04 WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 4:00 PM 1 15 1 0 0 0 17 9 15 0 0 0 0 24 1 3 4 1 0 0 9 0 5 1 0 0 0 6 56 4:15 PM 1 13 1 0 0 0 15 9 22 1 0 0 0 32 3 5 6 0 0 0 14 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 66 4:30 PM 0 17 1 0 0 0 18 9 22 1 0 0 0 32 2 3 5 0 0 0 10 1 1 2 0 0 0 4 64 4:45 PM 0 13 3 0 0 0 16 15 22 1 0 0 0 38 2 4 8 0 0 0 14 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 73 259 5:00 PM 1 12 3 0 0 0 16 15 27 0 0 0 0 42 2 7 5 0 0 0 14 1 5 1 0 0 0 7 79 282 5:15 PM 1 6 1 0 0 0 8 18 33 0 0 0 0 51 5 8 10 0 0 0 23 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 87 303 5:30 PM 0 11 2 0 0 0 13 13 30 1 0 0 0 44 5 6 8 0 0 0 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 78 317 5:45 PM 0 12 2 0 0 0 14 14 27 0 0 0 0 41 1 4 8 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 71 315 TOTALS 4 99 14 0 0 0 117 102 198 4 0 0 0 304 21 40 54 1 0 0 116 5 26 6 0 0 0 37 574 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS LEFT THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 4:45 PM 0 13 3 0 0 0 16 15 22 1 0 0 0 38 2 4 8 0 0 0 14 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 73 5:00 PM 1 12 3 0 0 0 16 15 27 0 0 0 0 42 2 7 5 0 0 0 14 1 5 1 0 0 0 7 79 5:15 PM 1 6 1 0 0 0 8 18 33 0 0 0 0 51 5 8 10 0 0 0 23 1 3 1 0 0 0 5 87 5:30 PM 0 11 2 0 0 0 13 13 30 1 0 0 0 44 5 6 8 0 0 0 19 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 78 TOTALS 2 42 9 0 0 0 53 61 112 2 0 0 0 175 14 25 31 0 0 0 70 3 14 2 0 0 0 19 317 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.50 0.81 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.85 0.85 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.70 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.75 0.70 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.91 % HEAVY VEHICLES 25.00%2.02%0.00%0.00%2.56%3.92%1.52%50.00%0.00%2.96%0.00%2.50%1.85%0.00%1.72%0.00%11.54%16.67%0.00%10.81%3.14% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% 2 14 3 0 0 2 2 42 112 0 0 0 0 9 61 14 25 31 0 0 3 MILE DRIVE WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEEKDAY, PM PEAK PERIOD 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD WEST SPRINGCREEK ROAD Total Vehicles | Weekday, PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)Northbound (From the South)Southbound (From the North) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 3 MILE DRIVE E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 2 of 2 | 10/3/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 7:00 AM 0 22 0 0 0 22 7 10 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 37 76 7:15 AM 0 23 0 0 0 23 12 15 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 41 91 7:30 AM 0 41 0 0 0 41 6 19 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 63 129 7:45 AM 0 36 0 0 0 36 9 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 65 130 426 8:00 AM 0 23 0 0 0 23 12 21 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 48 104 454 8:15 AM 0 28 0 0 0 28 9 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 47 1 0 0 0 48 105 468 8:30 AM 0 31 1 0 0 32 15 14 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 48 109 448 8:45 AM 0 20 0 0 0 20 16 25 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 43 1 0 0 0 44 105 423 TOTALS 0 224 1 0 0 225 86 144 0 0 0 230 0 0 0 392 2 0 0 0 394 849 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 7:30 AM 0 41 0 0 0 41 6 19 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 63 129 7:45 AM 0 36 0 0 0 36 9 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 65 0 0 0 0 65 130 8:00 AM 0 23 0 0 0 23 12 21 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 48 104 8:15 AM 0 28 0 0 0 28 9 20 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 47 1 0 0 0 48 105 TOTALS 0 128 0 0 0 128 36 80 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 223 1 0 0 0 224 468 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.75 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.90 % HEAVY VEHICLES 0.00%2.68%0.00%2.67%5.81%12.50%0.00%10.00%0.00%4.59%0.00%0.00%4.57%5.54% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%2.78%0.00%1.74%0.00%0.77%0.00%0.00%0.76%0.82% 1 0 0 0 0 80 128 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary 3 Mile Drive & Farm to Market Road (S-424) Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'40.82" N | Longitude: 114d22'24.82" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-04 Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)South Side of 3 Mile Drive Southeastbound (From the Northwest) WEEKDAY, AM PEAK HOUR SUMMARY WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)South Side of 3 Mile Drive Southeastbound (From the Northwest) 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE (S-424) Total Vehicles | Weekday, AM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 1 of 2 | 10/3/2022 Date Count Performed:Count Time Periods: Data Collection Method:Setup Location: Intersection Turning Movement Count Summary 3 Mile Drive & Farm to Market Road (S-424) Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana Weekday, AM & PM Peak Periods Latitude: 48d12'40.82" N | Longitude: 114d22'24.82" W August 23-24, 2022 (Tuesday & Wednesday) Video Traffic Recorder | Unit E5-04 WEEKDAY, AM PEAK PERIOD SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION HOURLY START TIME LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS VOLUME 4:00 PM 0 19 0 0 0 19 23 43 0 0 0 66 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 43 128 4:15 PM 0 20 0 0 0 20 32 40 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 38 0 0 0 0 38 130 4:30 PM 0 23 0 0 0 23 32 46 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 41 142 4:45 PM 0 21 0 0 1 21 37 43 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 0 38 139 539 5:00 PM 1 17 0 0 0 18 41 55 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 46 1 0 0 0 47 161 572 5:15 PM 0 16 0 0 0 16 51 65 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 168 610 5:30 PM 1 18 0 0 0 19 43 55 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 150 618 5:45 PM 0 20 0 0 0 20 41 46 0 0 0 87 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 32 139 618 TOTALS 2 154 0 0 1 156 300 393 0 0 0 693 0 0 0 306 2 0 0 0 308 1,157 SEASONAL/ DAILY ADJ. FACTOR 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 INTERSECTION START TIME LEFT THRU U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS THRU RIGHT U-TURN PEDS BIKES VEHICLE TOTALS VEHICLE TOTALS 4:45 PM 0 21 0 0 1 21 37 43 0 0 0 80 0 0 0 37 1 0 0 0 38 139 5:00 PM 1 17 0 0 0 18 41 55 0 0 0 96 0 0 0 46 1 0 0 0 47 161 5:15 PM 0 16 0 0 0 16 51 65 0 0 0 116 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 36 168 5:30 PM 1 18 0 0 0 19 43 55 0 0 0 98 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 150 TOTALS 2 72 0 0 1 74 172 218 0 0 0 390 0 0 0 152 2 0 0 0 154 618 PEAK HOUR FACTOR 0.50 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.88 0.84 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.92 % HEAVY VEHICLES 0.00%1.95%0.00%1.92%2.67%3.82%0.00%3.32%0.00%6.21%0.00%0.00%6.17%3.89% % BUSES & RVs 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.02%0.00%0.58%0.00%1.31%0.00%0.00%1.30%0.69% 2 0 0 0 2 218 72 172 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 MILE DRIVE (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK PERIOD 3 MILE DRIVE 3 MILE DRIVE (S-424)FARM TO MARKET ROAD (S-424) Total Vehicles | Weekday, PM Peak Hour Total Pedestrians Crossing Total Bicycles Crossing Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)South Side of 3 Mile Drive Southeastbound (From the Northwest) Eastbound (From the West)Westbound (From the East)South Side of 3 Mile Drive Southeastbound (From the Northwest) WEEKDAY, PM PEAK PERIOD 3 MILE DRIVE E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Count Data\3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_202208_23+24 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714-7245 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com ● (406) 209-3960 Page 2 of 2 | 10/3/2022 Appendix C Trip Generation Analyses ITE Land Use Code Quantity 1Units Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Single Family Detached Housing 210 35 DU Total Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 166 166 332 7 18 25 21 12 33 Total Estimated Walk and/or Bike Trip Ends 3 1 4 3 4 7 Single Family Attached Housing 215 72 DU Total Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends 250 250 500 10 22 32 23 17 40 Total Estimated Walk and/or Bike Transit Trip Ends 6 2 8 5 8 13 Total Residential =107 DU Total Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends =416 416 832 17 40 57 44 29 73 Total Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends =9 3 12 8 12 20 1Units: DU = Dwelling Units Estimated Trip Generation Summary Kalispell Development Estimated Weekday Trip Ends Estimated Weekday, AM Peak Hour Trip Ends Estimated Weekday, PM Peak Hour Trip Ends E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Forecasting\Estimated-Trip-Gen_Kalispell-Development Page 1 of 2 ITE Land Use Code 210: Single-Family Detached Housing| Setting/Location = General Urban/Suburban Trip Ends Analysis Case Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday 50%Entering 50%Exiting Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. 26%Entering 74%Exiting Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 63%Entering 37%Exiting Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. 75%Entering 25%Exiting Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 38%Entering 62%Exiting ITE Land Use Code 215: Single-Family Attached Housing| Setting/Location = General Urban/Suburban Trip Ends Analysis Case Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday 50%Entering 50%Exiting Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. 31%Entering 69%Exiting Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 57%Entering 43%Exiting Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. 75%Entering 25%Exiting Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends On a Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. 38%Entering 62%Exiting Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers - Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition (2021). T = 0.11X T = Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Average Rate Utilized T = 0.18X T = Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Average Rate Utilized T = 7.62(X) - 50.48 T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units R2 = 0.94 T = 0.52(X) - 5.70 T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units R2 = 0.92 T = 0.60(X) - 3.93 T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units R2 = 0.91 Estimated Trip Ends Analysis Equation Directional Distribution R2 Value T = 9.43(X) T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Average Rate Utilized T = 0.70(X) T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Average Rate Utilized T = 0.94(X) T = Estimated Vehicle Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Average Rate Utilized T = 0.11(X) T = Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Assumed Rate Utilized T = 0.18(X) T = Estimated Walk, Bike, & Transit Trip Ends X = Dwelling Units N/A Assumed Rate Utilized Estimated Trip Ends Analysis Equation Directional Distribution R2 Value E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Forecasting\Estimated-Trip-Gen_Kalispell-Development Page 2 of 2 Appendix D Average Annual Growth Rate Analyses for Vehicular Traffic Reported 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year Year AADT AAGR AAGR AAGR 2015 3,720 --- 2016 2,613 -29.76%-- 2017 2,629 0.61%-- 2018 2,120 -19.36%-17.09%- 2019 2,154 1.60%-6.24%- 2020 2,184 1.39%-5.99%-10.10% 2021 2,792 27.84%9.61%1.33% 2,602 -2.95%-4.93%-4.38% Reported 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year 20-Year Year AADT AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR AAGR 2000 1,960 ----- 2001 2,140 9.18%---- 2002 2,230 4.21%---- 2003 2,840 27.35%13.16%--- 2004 2,280 -19.72%2.13%--- 2005 2,280 0.00%0.74%3.07%-- 2006 2,320 1.75%-6.52%1.63%-- 2007 2,360 1.72%1.16%1.14%-- 2008 2,250 -4.66%-0.44%-4.55%-- 2009 2,090 -7.11%-3.42%-1.73%-- 2010 2,080 -0.48%-4.12%-1.82%0.60%- 2011 2,100 0.96%-2.27%-1.97%-0.19%- 2012 2,070 -1.43%-0.32%-2.59%-0.74%- 2013 2,120 2.42%0.64%-1.18%-2.88%- 2014 2,080 -1.89%-0.32%-0.10%-0.91%- 2015 2,470 18.75%6.07%3.50%0.80%- 2016 2,229 -9.76%1.69%1.20%-0.40%- 2017 2,242 0.58%2.53%1.61%-0.51%- 2018 2,110 -5.89%-5.12%-0.09%-0.64%- 2019 2,144 1.61%-1.29%0.61%0.26%- 2020 2,174 1.40%-1.02%-2.52%0.44%0.52% 2021 2,738 25.94%9.07%4.20%2.69%1.24% 2,241 2.14%0.65%0.02%-0.12%0.88% AADT = Average Annual Daily Traffic AAGR = Average Annual Growth Rate AADT data obtained from the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Mo n t a n a S t a t e S e c o n d a r y H i g h w a y 4 2 4 (F a r m t o M a r k e t R o a d , C 0 0 0 4 2 4 ) Co r r i d o r T r a f f i c G r o w t h P r o j e c t i o n s MDT Count Location 15-7B-031 (West of Springcreek Road) AVERAGES = Mo n t a n a S t a t e S e c o n d a r y Hi g h w a y 4 2 4 (F a r m t o M a r k e t R o a d , C0 0 0 4 2 4 ) MDT Count Location 15-7B-030 (North of Mountain Vista Way) AVERAGES = Traffic Growth Rate Analyses Study Area Page 1 of 1 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Forecasting\Traffic-Growth-Projections_Kalispell-Dev-TIS 10/3/2022 Appendix E Capacity & Level-of-Service (LOS) Analyses Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB TR SB LT WB LR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 10.5 5.0 7.5 10.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)306 19 101 186 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)4 4 0 0 4 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)265 295 150 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 10.8 5.0 7.5 10.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)347 19 114 214 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)4 4 0 0 4 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)265 295 150 Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB TR SB LT WB LR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.3 11.4 5.0 7.8 11.4 Entry Volume (veh/hr)396 14 231 151 14 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)9 9 0 0 9 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)265 295 150 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.3 12.0 5.0 7.9 12.0 Entry Volume (veh/hr)447 14 262 171 14 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)9 9 0 0 9 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)265 295 150 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = Westbound TR = Thru-Right; LT = Left-Thru; and LR = Left-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & North Site Access Weekday, AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary North Site Access Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Weekday, PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) North Site Access Total Minor Approach(es) 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Page 1 of 1 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-01_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+N-Site-Access Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB TR SB LT WB LR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 10.8 5.0 7.5 10.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)325 21 105 199 21 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)6 6 0 0 6 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)360 265 150 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 11.2 5.0 7.5 11.2 Entry Volume (veh/hr)366 21 118 227 21 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)6 6 0 0 6 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)360 265 150 Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB TR SB LT WB LR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.3 11.9 5.0 7.9 11.9 Entry Volume (veh/hr)421 15 248 158 15 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)12 12 0 0 12 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)360 265 150 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.4 12.5 5.0 8.0 12.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)472 15 279 178 15 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)12 12 0 0 12 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)360 265 150 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = Westbound TR = Thru-Right; LT = Left-Thru; and LR = Left-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Weekday, PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) South Site Access Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & South Site Access Weekday, AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary South Site Access Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) 2035 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions WB Stop Controlled Page 1 of 1 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-02_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+S-Site-Access Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB LTR SB LTR EB LTR WB LTR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 10.1 7.8 7.4 9.8 11.0 Entry Volume (veh/hr)341 68 95 178 50 18 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)6 0 5 1 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 1,035 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 10.1 7.8 7.4 9.8 11.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)353 71 99 183 52 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)6 0 5 1 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 1,035 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.2 10.6 7.9 7.5 10.1 11.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)400 71 113 216 52 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)17 11 5 1 0 11 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.02 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 360 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.2 10.9 8.0 7.5 10.4 12.4 Entry Volume (veh/hr)443 72 127 244 53 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)17 11 5 1 0 11 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.01 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 360 160 260 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB = Southbound LTR = Left-Thru-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2035 Total Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled Intersection Operations Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour Mountain Vista Way Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Mountain Vista Way 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way 2030 Background Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled Page 1 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-03_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Mountain-Vista-Way Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure NB LTR SB LTR EB LTR WB LTR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 10.9 7.6 7.7 10.4 12.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)454 61 253 140 42 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)7 0 6 1 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)25 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 1,035 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 11.0 7.6 7.7 10.4 12.4 Entry Volume (veh/hr)468 63 261 144 43 20 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)7 0 6 1 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)25 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 1,035 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.2 11.7 7.7 7.9 10.9 13.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)529 63 298 168 43 20 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)24 17 6 1 0 17 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.05 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)25 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 360 160 260 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.3 12.2 7.8 8.0 11.2 14.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)582 64 330 188 44 20 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)24 17 6 1 0 17 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.05 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)25 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 360 160 260 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB = Southbound LTR = Left-Thru-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2035 Total Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled Intersection Operations Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Mountain Vista Way Weekday, PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Mountain Vista Way Mountain Vista Way Total Minor Approach(es) 2030 Total Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled 2030 Background Traffic Conditions EB & WB Stop Controlled Page 2 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-03_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Mountain-Vista-Way Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure SB TR NWB LT NB TR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)5.9 11.1 5.0 7.7 11.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)331 12 236 83 12 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.0 11.3 5.0 7.8 11.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)343 14 244 85 14 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.0 11.8 5.0 7.8 11.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)390 14 277 99 14 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.0 12.4 5.0 7.9 12.4 Entry Volume (veh/hr)433 16 306 111 16 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 SB = Southbound; NWB = Northwestbound; and NB = Northbound TR = Thru-Right and LT = Left-Thru XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2030 Background Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled 2035 Total Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road Weekday, AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary W Springcreek Rd Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Page 1 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-04_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+W-Springcreek-Rd Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure SB TR NWB LT NB TR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 12.1 5.0 7.6 12.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)426 29 172 225 29 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 12.3 5.0 7.6 12.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)440 30 178 232 30 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)6.9 13.1 5.0 7.7 13.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)497 30 202 265 30 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.07 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.1 14.1 5.0 7.7 14.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)554 40 223 291 40 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.01 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)340 870 610 SB = Southbound; NWB = Northwestbound; and NB = Northbound TR = Thru-Right and LT = Left-Thru XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2035 Total Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled Intersection Operations Summary Intersection Operations Farm to Market Road (S-424) Farm to Market Road (S-424) W Springcreek Rd Total Minor Approach(es) 2030 Total Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & West Springcreek Road Weekday, PM Peak Hour 2030 Background Traffic Conditions NB Stop Controlled Page 2 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-04_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+W-Springcreek-Rd Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure EB LTR WB LTR NB LTR SB LTR Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 9.5 7.3 7.5 9.4 10.2 Entry Volume (veh/hr)244 82 97 65 71 11 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.02 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 0 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 9.8 7.3 7.6 9.7 10.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)246 70 118 58 62 8 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.01 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 0 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.1 9.8 7.3 7.6 9.7 10.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)248 72 118 58 62 10 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A A B Delay (sec/veh)8.2 10.0 7.3 7.6 9.9 10.7 Entry Volume (veh/hr)280 82 133 65 71 11 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.03 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB = Southbound LTR = Left-Thru-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled Three Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road Intersection Operations Summary Weekday, AM Peak Hour W Springcreek Rd Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Three Mile Drive Three Mile Drive W Springcreek Road 2030 Background Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled 2035 Total Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled Page 1 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-05_Ops-Summary_3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure EB LTR WB LTR NB LTR SB LTR Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.5 10.9 7.7 7.5 10.7 11.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)317 89 53 175 70 19 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.05 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.6 11.4 7.8 7.5 11.2 12.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)378 102 64 212 81 21 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.04 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.7 11.5 7.8 7.5 11.3 12.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)384 108 64 212 85 23 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.05 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B B Delay (sec/veh)8.9 12.2 7.8 7.5 12.0 12.9 Entry Volume (veh/hr)436 122 73 241 96 26 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.07 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.06 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)345 635 565 610 EB = Eastbound; WB = Westbound; NB = Northbound; and SB = Southbound LTR = Left-Thru-Right XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled 2030 Background Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled 2035 Total Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled Intersection Operations Summary Three Mile Drive & West Springcreek Road Weekday, PM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Three Mile Drive Three Mile Drive W Springcreek Road W Springcreek Rd Total Minor Approach(es) 2030 Total Traffic Conditions NB & SB Stop Controlled Page 2 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-05_Ops-Summary_3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure SEB TR WB LT EB LT Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.3 10.8 5.0 7.9 10.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)485 128 228 129 128 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.19 0.00 0.04 0.19 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.1 0.7 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.3 10.8 5.0 8.0 10.8 Entry Volume (veh/hr)505 128 236 141 128 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.19 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.7 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.3 11.2 5.0 8.1 11.2 Entry Volume (veh/hr)550 128 267 155 128 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.20 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.7 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.3 11.5 5.0 8.2 11.5 Entry Volume (veh/hr)597 128 295 174 128 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)0 0 0 0 0 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.06 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.21 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.2 0.8 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 SEB = Southeastbound; WB = Westbound; and EB = Eastbound TR = Thru-Right and LT = Left-Thru XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Three Mile Drive (S-424)Weekday, AM Peak Hour Intersection Operations Summary Three Mile Drive (S-424) Intersection Operations Total Minor Approach(es) Farm to Market Road (S-424) Three Mile Drive (S-424) 2030 Background Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled 2035 Total Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled 2030 Total Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled Page 1 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-06_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+3-Mile-Dr Traffic Analysis Scenario Control Performance Measure SEB TR WB LT EB LT Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A Delay (sec/veh)7.5 9.9 5.0 8.0 9.9 Entry Volume (veh/hr)626 76 154 396 76 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.09 0.10 0.00 0.13 0.10 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.5 0.3 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.7 10.1 5.0 8.1 10.1 Entry Volume (veh/hr)691 93 158 440 93 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.12 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.12 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.6 0.4 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.7 10.3 5.0 8.2 10.3 Entry Volume (veh/hr)746 93 180 473 93 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.12 0.13 0.00 0.17 0.13 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.6 0.4 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A B Delay (sec/veh)7.8 10.6 5.0 8.3 10.6 Entry Volume (veh/hr)830 105 198 527 105 Ped + Bike Volume (ped+bike/hr)1 1 0 0 1 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (v/c)0.14 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.15 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (veh)0.0 0.7 0.5 HCM 95% Max Queue Length (ft)0 25 25 Available Queue Storage (ft)870 950 635 SEB = Southeastbound; WB = Westbound; and EB = Eastbound TR = Thru-Right and LT = Left-Thru XXX = Queue length exceeds available queue storage Average intersection delay and volume-to-capacity ratio for minor approach(es) is a weighted average provided for reference purposes. The Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis does not define overall average delay for the intersection as a whole for two-way or single approach stop-controlled intersections. A design vehicle length of twenty-five feet (25 ft) is used in the queue length calculations. 2022 Current Daily Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Three Mile Drive (S-424)Weekday, PM Peak Hour 2030 Background Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled 2035 Total Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled Intersection Operations Summary Intersection Operations Farm to Market Road (S-424) Three Mile Drive (S-424) Three Mile Drive (S-424) Total Minor Approach(es) 2030 Total Traffic Conditions EB Stop Controlled Page 2 of 2 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Int-06_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd+3-Mile-Dr Two-Lane Highway Operations Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) North of Site Highway Segment Type:Passing Zone Lane Width:12 feet Highway Segment Length:1,320 feet Shoulder Width:2 feet Access Point Density:16.0 points per mile (pts/mi)Posted Speed Limit:50 miles per hour (mph) Weekday, AM Peak Hour Performance Measure NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A A Vehicular Volume (veh/hr)87 178 91 183 98 186 111 214 Heavy Vehicle Percentage 11.70%5.48%11.70%5.48%11.08%5.44%11.15%5.45% Pedestrian & Bicyclist Volume (peds+bikes/hr)0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Calculated Average Speed (mph)49.8 49.3 49.8 49.2 49.6 49.2 49.4 49.1 Percent Followers 20.3%31.3%21.0%31.9%22.1%32.3%24.2%35.4% Estimated Segment Travel Time (minutes)0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.31 Follower Density, FD (followers/mi/ln)0.4 1.2 0.4 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.6 1.7 Weekday, PM Peak Hour Performance Measure NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B A Vehicular Volume (veh/hr)206 140 211 144 216 151 247 171 Heavy Vehicle Percentage 4.74%6.05%4.74%6.05%4.70%5.91%4.71%5.93% Pedestrian & Bicyclist Volume (peds+bikes/hr)1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 Calculated Average Speed (mph)49.1 49.4 49.1 49.4 49.1 49.3 48.9 49.2 Percent Followers 34.7%27.8%35.2%28.4%35.8%29.3%39.0%31.9% Estimated Segment Travel Time (minutes)0.31 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.30 0.31 0.31 Follower Density, FD (followers/mi/ln)1.6 0.9 1.6 0.9 1.7 1.0 2.1 1.2 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = WestboundNB = Northbound and SB = Southbound 2035 Total Traffic 2022 Existing Conditions 2030 Background Traffic 2022 Existing Conditions 2030 Background Traffic 2030 Total Traffic 2035 Total Traffic 2030 Total Traffic Page 1 of 1 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Hwy-01_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd_N-Site Two-Lane Highway Operations Summary Farm to Market Road (S-424) South of Site Highway Segment Type:Passing Constrained Lane Width:12 feet Highway Segment Length:1,320 feet Shoulder Width:2 feet Access Point Density:7.3 points per mile (pts/mi)Posted Speed Limit:50 miles per hour (mph) Weekday, AM Peak Hour Performance Measure NWB SEB NWB SEB NWB SEB NWB SEB Level of Service (LOS)A B A B A B A B Vehicular Volume (veh/hr)95 236 99 244 113 277 127 306 Heavy Vehicle Percentage 12.12%4.81%12.12%4.81%10.99%4.60%11.12%4.62% Pedestrian & Bicyclist Volume (peds+bikes/hr)0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Calculated Average Speed (mph)51.4 50.7 51.4 50.6 51.3 50.5 51.1 50.4 Percent Followers 25.0%42.5%25.7%43.3%28.0%46.5%30.1%49.0% Estimated Segment Travel Time (minutes)0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 Follower Density, FD (followers/mi/ln)0.5 2.2 0.5 2.3 0.7 2.8 0.8 3.3 Weekday, PM Peak Hour Performance Measure NWB SEB NWB SEB NWB SEB NWB SEB Level of Service (LOS)B A B A B A B B Vehicular Volume (veh/hr)253 172 261 178 294 202 330 223 Heavy Vehicle Percentage 4.14%6.26%4.14%6.26%4.01%5.87%4.02%5.91% Pedestrian & Bicyclist Volume (peds+bikes/hr)0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 Calculated Average Speed (mph)50.6 50.9 50.6 50.9 50.4 50.8 50.3 50.7 Percent Followers 44.4%35.9%45.1%36.6%48.3%39.5%51.1%41.7% Estimated Segment Travel Time (minutes)0.30 0.29 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Follower Density, FD (followers/mi/ln)2.5 1.3 2.6 1.4 3.2 1.8 3.8 2.1 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound; and WB = WestboundNWB = Northwestbound and SEB = Southeastbound 2035 Total Traffic 2022 Existing Conditions 2030 Background Traffic 2022 Existing Conditions 2030 Background Traffic 2030 Total Traffic 2035 Total Traffic 2030 Total Traffic Page 1 of 1 E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Traffic Analyses\Hwy-02_Ops-Summary_Farm-to-Market-Rd_S-Site HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)3 0 47 15 1 2 11 82 2 3 174 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.90 6.44 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.27 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.34 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.35 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)55 20 12 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)809 618 1296 1515 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)9.8 11.0 7.8 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)9.8 11.0 1.0 0.1 Approach LOS A B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 6:11:57 AMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_AM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)7 3 32 13 0 6 46 193 14 6 127 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 25 2 5 0 0 4 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 7.15 6.42 7.15 6.50 6.20 4.14 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.23 3.32 3.55 4.00 3.30 2.24 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)46 21 50 7 Capacity, c (veh/h)716 525 1424 1356 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.1 7.6 0.3 0.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.1 1.6 0.4 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 6:15:24 AMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_PM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)12 0 0 83 228 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)10 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.59 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)13 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)599 1317 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.1 7.7 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.1 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:21:01 AMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)28 1 0 225 153 19 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)7 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.07 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.56 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)32 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)538 1392 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.1 7.6 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.1 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:23:13 AMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)1 90 6 17 30 1 4 10 37 1 7 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 7 0 5 4 0 7 50 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 4.17 7.10 6.55 6.24 7.10 6.57 6.70 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 2.26 3.50 4.05 3.34 3.50 4.06 3.75 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)1 19 56 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)1591 1455 872 701 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.1 0.1 9.4 10.2 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 2.7 9.4 10.2 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:30:08 AM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)2 42 9 61 112 2 14 25 31 3 14 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)25 4 0 3 2 0 12 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.35 4.14 7.10 6.53 6.22 7.10 6.62 6.37 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.43 2.24 3.50 4.03 3.32 3.50 4.11 3.45 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)2 67 77 21 Capacity, c (veh/h)1331 1536 713 577 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.04 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.3 0.3 10.7 11.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 2.8 10.7 11.5 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:32:42 AM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)227 1 46 83 0 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)6 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.16 7.00 6.53 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.25 3.50 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)51 142 Capacity, c (veh/h)1289 767 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.19 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 0.3 10.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.0 10.8 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:57:44 AM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_AM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2022 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)152 2 173 223 2 74 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 0 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 7.00 6.52 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 3.50 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)188 83 Capacity, c (veh/h)1402 817 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.10 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.5 0.3 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 1.2 9.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)4.2 9.9 Approach LOS A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 7:59:41 AM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_PM_2022-Ex.xtw HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 96 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 196 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %11.70 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.06 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 49.8 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.95195 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.54049 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.33570 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75414 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.4 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.8 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.8 Percent Followers, %20.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.4 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 5 0.00 0.4 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 21:40:11 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_AM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 196 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 96 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %5.48 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.12 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.91955 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.57623 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.29874 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.76163 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.2 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.3 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.3 Percent Followers, %31.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.2 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 11 0.00 1.2 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:57:42 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_AM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 224 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 152 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %4.74 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.13 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.94741 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.55399 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.32191 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75684 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.6 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.1 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.1 Percent Followers, %34.7 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.6 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 13 0.00 1.6 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:54:09 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_PM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 152 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 224 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %6.05 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.09 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.97228 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.53280 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.34430 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75222 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.9 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.4 Percent Followers, %27.8 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.9 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 9 0.00 0.9 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:58:22 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_PM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 104 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %12.12 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.06 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.32557 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.46027 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71838 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.5 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 51.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 51.4 Percent Followers, %25.0 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.5 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 6 0.00 0.5 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:44:54 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_AM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 259 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %4.81 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.15 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33876 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45962 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71801 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.2 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.7 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.7 Percent Followers, %42.5 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.2 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 15 0.01 2.2 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:38:59 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_AM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 281 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %4.14 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.17 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33997 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45956 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71798 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.5 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.6 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.6 Percent Followers, %44.4 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.5 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 16 0.01 2.5 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:45:40 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_PM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2022 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Existing Conditions Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 191 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %6.26 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.11 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33615 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45975 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71809 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.3 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.9 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.9 Percent Followers, %35.9 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.3 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 11 0.00 1.3 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:51:11 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_PM_2022-Ex.xuf HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)3 0 49 16 1 2 11 86 2 3 179 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.90 6.44 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.27 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.34 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.35 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)57 21 12 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)803 606 1290 1509 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)9.8 11.1 7.8 0.1 0.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)A B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)9.8 11.1 0.9 0.1 Approach LOS A B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 12:46:19 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)7 3 33 14 0 6 48 198 15 6 131 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 25 2 5 0 0 4 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 7.15 6.42 7.15 6.50 6.20 4.14 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.23 3.32 3.55 4.00 3.30 2.24 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)47 22 52 7 Capacity, c (veh/h)710 509 1419 1348 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.4 7.6 0.3 0.3 7.7 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.4 1.7 0.4 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 12:48:45 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)14 0 0 85 236 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)10 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.59 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)15 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)589 1307 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.3 7.8 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.3 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 12:51:43 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)29 1 0 232 157 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)7 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.07 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.56 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)33 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)528 1384 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.3 7.6 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.3 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 12:56:11 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)1 110 7 20 37 1 5 12 45 1 7 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 7 0 5 4 0 7 50 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 4.17 7.10 6.55 6.24 7.10 6.57 6.70 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 2.26 3.50 4.05 3.34 3.50 4.06 3.75 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)1 22 68 9 Capacity, c (veh/h)1580 1427 841 664 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.1 0.1 9.7 10.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 2.7 9.7 10.5 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 1:18:51 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)2 51 11 74 136 2 17 26 38 4 15 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)25 4 0 3 2 0 12 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.35 4.14 7.10 6.53 6.22 7.10 6.62 6.37 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.43 2.24 3.50 4.03 3.32 3.50 4.11 3.45 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)2 81 89 23 Capacity, c (veh/h)1300 1520 671 519 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.04 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.4 0.4 11.2 12.3 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 2.9 11.2 12.3 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 1:20:51 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)234 2 56 85 0 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)6 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.16 7.00 6.53 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.25 3.50 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)62 142 Capacity, c (veh/h)1279 758 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.19 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)8.0 0.4 10.8 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.4 10.8 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 1:24:26 PM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)156 2 210 230 2 91 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 0 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 7.00 6.52 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 3.50 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)228 101 Capacity, c (veh/h)1397 810 v/c Ratio 0.16 0.12 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.6 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 1.5 10.1 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)4.7 10.1 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/4/2022 1:26:17 PM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xtw HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 100 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 201 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %11.70 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.06 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 49.8 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.95397 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.53894 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.33736 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75380 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.4 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.8 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.8 Percent Followers, %21.0 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.4 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 6 0.00 0.4 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:30:40 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 201 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 100 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %5.48 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.12 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.92186 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.57423 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.30080 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.76121 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.3 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.2 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.2 Percent Followers, %31.9 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.3 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 11 0.00 1.3 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:58:56 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 229 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 157 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %4.74 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.13 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.94922 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.55253 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.32344 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75652 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.6 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.1 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.1 Percent Followers, %35.2 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.6 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 13 0.01 1.6 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:55:01 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 157 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 229 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %6.05 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.09 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.97415 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.53140 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.34580 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75190 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.9 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.4 Percent Followers, %28.4 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.9 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 9 0.00 0.9 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:59:32 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 109 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %12.12 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.06 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.32557 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.46027 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71838 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.5 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 51.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 51.4 Percent Followers, %25.7 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.5 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 6 0.00 0.5 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:46:20 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 268 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %4.81 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.16 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33876 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45962 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71801 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.3 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.6 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.6 Percent Followers, %43.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.3 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 15 0.01 2.3 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:40:46 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_AM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 290 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %4.14 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.17 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33997 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45956 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71798 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.6 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.6 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.6 Percent Followers, %45.1 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.6 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 16 0.01 2.6 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:46:53 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Background Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 198 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %6.26 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.12 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33615 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45975 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71809 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.4 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.9 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.9 Percent Followers, %36.6 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.4 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 11 0.01 1.4 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:52:36 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_PM_2030-Bkgnd.xuf HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & N Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street North Site Access Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)15 4 94 7 2 184 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)21 2 Capacity, c (veh/h)677 1461 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.5 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.5 0.1 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 8:58:59 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+N-Site-Access_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & N Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street North Site Access Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)11 3 213 18 4 147 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)15 4 Capacity, c (veh/h)575 1284 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.4 7.8 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.4 0.2 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:01:45 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+N-Site-Access_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & S Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street South Site Access Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)18 3 98 7 1 198 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)23 1 Capacity, c (veh/h)643 1450 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.8 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:26:08 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+S-Site-Access_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & S Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street South Site Access Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)13 2 229 19 3 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)16 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)537 1257 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.9 7.9 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.9 0.2 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:27:33 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+S-Site-Access_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)3 0 49 16 1 2 11 100 2 3 212 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.90 6.44 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.27 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.34 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.35 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)58 21 12 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)760 548 1247 1459 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.1 11.8 7.9 0.1 0.1 7.5 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.1 11.8 0.8 0.1 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:35:14 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)7 3 33 14 0 6 48 235 15 6 155 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 25 2 5 0 0 4 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 7.15 6.42 7.15 6.50 6.20 4.14 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.23 3.32 3.55 4.00 3.30 2.24 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)47 22 53 7 Capacity, c (veh/h)659 445 1386 1261 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.9 13.5 7.7 0.3 0.3 7.9 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.9 13.5 1.5 0.3 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:38:12 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)14 0 0 99 267 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)10 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.59 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)16 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)542 1264 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.8 7.8 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.8 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:28:18 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)29 1 0 265 179 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)7 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.07 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.56 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)34 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)477 1351 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)13.1 7.7 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)13.1 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:32:28 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)1 110 7 20 37 1 5 12 45 1 9 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 7 0 5 4 0 6 50 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 4.17 7.10 6.55 6.24 7.10 6.56 6.70 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 2.26 3.50 4.05 3.34 3.50 4.05 3.75 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)1 22 68 11 Capacity, c (veh/h)1580 1427 840 665 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.1 0.1 9.7 10.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 2.7 9.7 10.5 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:37:28 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)2 51 11 74 136 2 17 30 38 4 17 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)25 4 0 3 2 0 11 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.35 4.14 7.10 6.53 6.22 7.10 6.61 6.37 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.43 2.24 3.50 4.03 3.32 3.50 4.10 3.45 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)2 81 93 25 Capacity, c (veh/h)1300 1520 661 518 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.05 0.14 0.05 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 0.5 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.4 0.4 11.3 12.3 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 2.9 11.3 12.3 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:41:51 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)265 2 56 99 0 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)6 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.16 7.00 6.53 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.25 3.50 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)62 142 Capacity, c (veh/h)1242 723 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.20 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.7 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 0.4 11.2 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.2 11.2 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:56:14 PM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)178 2 210 263 2 91 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 0 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 7.00 6.52 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 3.50 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)228 101 Capacity, c (veh/h)1369 779 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.13 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.6 0.4 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 1.6 10.3 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)4.5 10.3 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 12:00:01 AM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 108 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 204 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %11.08 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.06 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 49.8 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.95629 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.53802 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.33838 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75357 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.5 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.6 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.6 Percent Followers, %22.1 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.5 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 6 0.00 0.5 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:32:48 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_AM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 204 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 108 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %5.44 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.12 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.92584 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.57087 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.30427 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.76049 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.3 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.2 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.2 Percent Followers, %32.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.3 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 12 0.00 1.3 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 07:00:06 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_AM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 235 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 164 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %4.70 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.14 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.95241 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.55004 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.32607 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75598 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.7 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.1 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.1 Percent Followers, %35.8 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.7 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 14 0.01 1.7 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:57:01 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_PM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 164 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %5.91 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.10 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.97626 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.53003 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.34728 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75159 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.0 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.3 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.3 Percent Followers, %29.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.0 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 9 0.00 1.0 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 07:00:48 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_PM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 126 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %10.99 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.07 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.32761 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.46017 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71832 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.7 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 51.3 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 51.3 Percent Followers, %28.0 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.7 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 7 0.00 0.7 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:47:37 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_AM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 308 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %4.60 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.18 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33914 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45960 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71800 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.8 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.5 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.5 Percent Followers, %46.5 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.8 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 17 0.01 2.8 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:42:06 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_AM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 330 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Total Trucks, %4.01 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.19 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.34021 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45955 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71797 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 3.2 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.4 Percent Followers, %48.3 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 3.2 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 18 0.01 3.2 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:48:19 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_PM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2030 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 227 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Total Trucks, %5.87 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.13 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33685 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45972 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71807 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.8 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.8 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.8 Percent Followers, %39.5 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.8 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 13 0.01 1.8 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:53:57 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_PM_2030-Total.xuf HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & N Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street North Site Access Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)15 4 107 7 2 212 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)21 2 Capacity, c (veh/h)637 1443 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.8 0.1 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:03:21 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+N-Site-Access_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & N Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street North Site Access Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)11 3 244 18 4 167 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)15 4 Capacity, c (veh/h)532 1248 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.0 7.9 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.0 0.2 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:09:51 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+N-Site-Access_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & S Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street South Site Access Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)18 3 111 7 1 226 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)23 1 Capacity, c (veh/h)604 1432 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.2 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.2 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:22:37 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+S-Site-Access_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & S Site Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street South Site Access Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)13 2 260 19 3 175 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)16 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)496 1222 v/c Ratio 0.03 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.5 8.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.5 0.2 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:24:16 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+S-Site-Access_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)3 0 50 16 1 2 12 113 2 3 240 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 0 4 0 0 0 15 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 6.90 6.44 7.10 6.50 6.20 4.25 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.00 3.34 3.50 4.00 3.30 2.34 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)59 21 13 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)727 508 1224 1442 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.04 0.01 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.4 8.0 0.1 0.1 7.5 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.4 12.4 0.8 0.1 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:41:14 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Mountain Vista Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Mountain Vista Way Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)7 3 34 14 0 6 49 266 15 6 175 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 25 2 5 0 0 4 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)2 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.50 7.15 6.42 7.15 6.50 6.20 4.14 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.50 4.23 3.32 3.55 4.00 3.30 2.24 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)48 22 54 7 Capacity, c (veh/h)626 408 1360 1225 v/c Ratio 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.2 14.3 7.8 0.4 0.4 8.0 0.0 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B B A A A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.2 14.3 1.5 0.3 Approach LOS B B A A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/10/2022 9:43:17 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Mtn-Vista_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)16 0 0 111 295 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)10 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.10 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.59 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)18 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)507 1230 v/c Ratio 0.04 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.1 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.4 7.9 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.4 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:30:17 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & W Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street West Springcreek Road Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR LT TR Volume (veh/h)39 1 0 291 197 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)7 0 0 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.07 6.50 4.10 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.56 3.30 2.20 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)45 0 Capacity, c (veh/h)440 1324 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.3 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)14.1 7.7 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)14.1 0.0 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:34:02 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)1 124 8 23 41 1 6 14 51 1 10 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)0 7 0 5 4 0 6 50 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.10 4.17 7.10 6.55 6.24 7.10 6.56 6.70 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.20 2.26 3.50 4.05 3.34 3.50 4.05 3.75 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)1 25 78 12 Capacity, c (veh/h)1575 1407 816 639 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.02 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 Control Delay (s/veh)7.3 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.1 0.1 9.9 10.7 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.1 2.8 9.9 10.7 Approach LOS A A A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:39:43 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Three Mile & Springcreek Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Drive Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street West Springcreek Road Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (veh/h)3 58 12 84 154 3 19 34 43 4 19 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)25 4 0 3 2 0 11 17 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)0 0 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 4.1 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.35 4.14 7.10 6.53 6.22 7.10 6.61 6.37 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 2.2 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.43 2.24 3.50 4.03 3.32 3.50 4.10 3.45 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)3 92 105 29 Capacity, c (veh/h)1277 1509 620 483 v/c Ratio 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.06 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.0 0.2 0.6 0.2 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.5 0.5 12.0 12.9 Level of Service (LOS)A A A A A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh)0.3 3.0 12.0 12.9 Approach LOS A A B B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:43:48 PM3-Mile-Dr+W-Springcreek-Rd_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)293 2 63 111 0 128 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)6 0 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.16 7.00 6.53 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.25 3.50 3.33 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)70 142 Capacity, c (veh/h)1210 693 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.21 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.8 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 0.5 11.5 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)3.3 11.5 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/13/2022 11:58:01 PM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection S-424 & Three Mile Drive Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Three Mile Dr / Farm to Market Rd (S-424) Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Three Mile Drive Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Intersection Orientation East-West Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Number of Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR LT LR Volume (veh/h)195 3 238 289 2 103 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 0 2 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)4.1 7.1 6.2 Critical Headway (sec)4.13 7.00 6.52 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.2 3.5 3.3 Follow-Up Headway (sec)2.23 3.50 3.32 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)259 114 Capacity, c (veh/h)1346 754 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.15 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.7 0.5 Control Delay (s/veh)8.3 1.9 10.6 Level of Service (LOS)A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)4.8 10.6 Approach LOS A B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 12:01:55 AM3-Mile-Dr+Farm-to-Market-Rd_PM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 122 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 235 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %11.15 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.07 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 49.8 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.96693 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.52994 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.34704 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75176 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.6 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.4 Percent Followers, %24.2 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.6 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 7 0.00 0.6 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:34:36 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_AM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 235 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 122 Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Total Trucks, %5.45 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.14 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.93274 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.56502 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.31033 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75924 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.7 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.1 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.1 Percent Followers, %35.4 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.7 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 13 0.01 1.7 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 07:01:35 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_AM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 268 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 186 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %4.71 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.16 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.96091 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.54332 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.33317 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.75451 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.1 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --48.9 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 48.9 Percent Followers, %39.0 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.1 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 15 0.01 2.1 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/09/2022 22:59:21 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_NB_PM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Zone Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 16.0 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 186 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 268 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 Total Trucks, %5.93 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.11 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 50.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)2.98724 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.52202 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.35591 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.74976 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 1.2 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Tangent 1320 --49.2 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 49.2 Percent Followers, %31.9 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.31 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 1.2 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 11 0.00 1.2 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 07:02:18 Farm-2-Mrkt_N-Site_SB_PM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 141 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %11.12 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.08 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.0 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.32738 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.46018 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71833 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 0.8 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 51.1 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 51.1 Percent Followers, %30.1 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.29 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 0.8 Vehicle LOS A Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 8 0.00 0.8 A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:49:06 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_AM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 340 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Total Trucks, %4.62 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.20 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33911 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45960 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71800 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 3.3 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.4 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.4 Percent Followers, %49.0 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 3.3 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 19 0.01 3.3 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:43:46 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_AM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 371 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Total Trucks, %4.02 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.22 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.34019 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45955 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71797 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 3.8 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.3 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.3 Percent Followers, %51.1 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 3.8 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 21 0.02 3.8 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:49:45 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_NWB_PM_2035-Total.xuf HCS Two-Lane Highway Report Project Information Analyst T. Eastwood Date 9/17/2022 Agency E5 Engineering, PLLC Analysis Year 2035 Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Estimated Total Traffic Units U.S. Customary Segment 1 Vehicle Inputs Segment Type Passing Constrained Length, ft 1320 Lane Width, ft 12 Shoulder Width, ft 2 Speed Limit, mi/h 50 Access Point Density, pts/mi 7.3 Demand and Capacity Directional Demand Flow Rate, veh/h 251 Opposing Demand Flow Rate, veh/h - Peak Hour Factor 0.89 Total Trucks, %5.91 Segment Capacity, veh/h 1700 Demand/Capacity (D/C)0.15 Intermediate Results Segment Vertical Class 1 Free-Flow Speed, mi/h 52.2 Speed Slope Coefficient (m)3.33678 Speed Power Coefficient (p)0.41674 PF Slope Coefficient (m)-1.45972 PF Power Coefficient (p)0.71807 In Passing Lane Effective Length?No Total Segment Density, veh/mi/ln 2.1 %Improvement to Percent Followers 0.0 %Improvement to Speed 0.0 Subsegment Data #Segment Type Length, ft Radius, ft Superelevation, %Average Speed, mi/h 1 Horizontal Curve 1320 1025 2.0 50.7 Vehicle Results Average Speed, mi/h 50.7 Percent Followers, %41.7 Segment Travel Time, minutes 0.30 Follower Density (FD), followers/mi/ln 2.1 Vehicle LOS B Facility Results T VMT veh-mi/p VHD veh-h/p Follower Density, followers/mi/ln LOS 1 14 0.01 2.1 B Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved.HCS™Highways Version 2022 Generated: 10/14/2022 06:55:04 Farm-2-Mrkt_S-Site_SEB_PM_2035-Total.xuf Appendix F Auxiliary Turn Lane Evaluations E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+N-Site-Access_LT-Eval 186, 101 151, 231 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & North Site Access 2030 AM Peak Hour - LT = 1.08% 2030 PM Peak Hour - LT = 2.65% 1.08% 2.65% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+N-Site-Access_LT-Eval 214, 114 171, 262 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & North Site Access 2035 AM Peak Hour - LT = 0.93% 2035 PM Peak Hour - LT = 2.34% 0.93% 2.34% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+S-Site-Access_LT-Eval 199, 105 158, 248 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & South Site Access 2030 AM Peak Hour - LT = 0.5% 2030 PM Peak Hour - LT = 1.9% 0.50% 1.90% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+S-Site-Access_LT-Eval 227, 118 178, 279 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & South Site Access 2035 AM Peak Hour - LT = 0.44% 2035 PM Peak Hour - LT = 1.69% 0.44% 1.69% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+N-Site-Access_RT-Eval 101, 7 231, 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & North Site Access 2030 AM Peak Hour - RT = 6.93% 2030 PM Peak Hour - RT = 7.79% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+N-Site-Access_RT-Eval 114, 7 262, 18 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & North Site Access 2035 AM Peak Hour - RT = 6.14% 2035 PM Peak Hour - RT = 6.87% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+S-Site-Access_RT-Eval 105, 7 248, 19 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & South Site Access 2030 AM Peak Hour - RT = 6.67% 2030 PM Peak Hour - RT = 7.66% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+S-Site-Access_RT-Eval 118, 7 279, 19 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & South Site Access 2035 AM Peak Hour - RT = 5.93% 2035 PM Peak Hour - RT = 6.81% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. Appendix G Single Access Scenario Sensitivity Analyses HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Single Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Single Site Access Alternate Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)33 7 91 14 3 183 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)44 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)664 1450 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)10.8 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)10.8 0.1 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/23/2022 2:17:59 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Single-Site-Access_AM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Single Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Single Site Access Alternate Analysis Year 2030 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)24 5 211 37 7 144 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)32 8 Capacity, c (veh/h)553 1257 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.9 7.9 0.1 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.9 0.4 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/23/2022 2:20:23 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Single-Site-Access_PM_2030-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Single Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Single Site Access Alternate Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, AM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.90 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)33 7 104 14 3 211 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)44 3 Capacity, c (veh/h)624 1432 v/c Ratio 0.07 0.00 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)11.2 7.5 0.0 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)11.2 0.1 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/23/2022 2:22:46 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Single-Site-Access_AM_2035-Total.xtw HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report General Information Site Information Analyst T. Eastwood Intersection Farm to Market & Single Access Agency/Co.E5 Engineering, PLLC Jurisdiction MDT / City of Kalispell Date Performed 9/17/2022 East/West Street Single Site Access Alternate Analysis Year 2035 North/South Street Farm to Market Road (S-424) Time Analyzed Weekday, PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Factor 0.91 Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs)0.25 Project Description Kalispell Development TIS | Total Traffic Lanes Major Street: North-South Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6 Number of Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Configuration LR TR LT Volume (veh/h)24 5 242 37 7 164 Percent Heavy Vehicles (%)3 3 3 Proportion Time Blocked Percent Grade (%)3 Right Turn Channelized Median Type | Storage Undivided Critical and Follow-up Headways Base Critical Headway (sec)7.1 6.2 4.1 Critical Headway (sec)7.03 6.53 4.13 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.5 3.3 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec)3.53 3.33 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Flow Rate, v (veh/h)32 8 Capacity, c (veh/h)510 1222 v/c Ratio 0.06 0.01 95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh)0.2 0.0 Control Delay (s/veh)12.5 8.0 0.1 Level of Service (LOS)B A A Approach Delay (s/veh)12.5 0.4 Approach LOS B A Copyright © 2022 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™TWSC Version 2022 Generated: 10/23/2022 2:25:01 PMFarm-2-Mrkt+Single-Site-Access_PM_2035-Total.xtw E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Single-Site-Access_LT-Eval 186, 105 151, 248 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Single Site Access Alternate 2030 AM Peak Hour - LT = 1.61% 2030 PM Peak Hour - LT = 4.64% 1.61% 4.64% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Single-Site-Access_LT-Eval 214, 118 171, 279 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 VO - O p p o s i n g V o l u m e ( v p h ) D u r i n g D e s i g n H o u r VA-Advancing Volume (vph) During Design Hour Volume Guidelines for Left-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways (50 mph) Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Single Site Access Alternate 2035 AM Peak Hour - LT = 1.4% 2035 PM Peak Hour - LT = 4.09% 1.40% 4.09% Left-Turn Treatment Not Necessary Left-TurnTreatment Should be Considered 5%10%20% 30% 40% E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2030-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Single-Site-Access_RT-Eval 105, 14 248, 37 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Single Site Access Alternate 2030 AM Peak Hour - RT = 13.33% 2030 PM Peak Hour - RT = 14.92% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. E:\E5 Engineering PLLC\Projects\22-0114 - Kalispell Development TIS\Auxiliary Lane Analyses\2035-Total_Farm-to-Market-Rd+Single-Site-Access_RT-Eval 118, 14 279, 37 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Ri g h t - T u r n D e s i g n H o u r V e h i c l e s ( D H V ) i n A n a l y s i s D i r e c t i o n Total Design Hour Vehicles (DHV) per Hour in Analysis Direction Guidelines for Right-Turn Lanes at Unsignalized Intersections on 2-Lane Highways Farm to Market Road (S-424) & Single Site Access Alternate 2035 AM Peak Hour - RT = 11.86% 2035 PM Peak Hour - RT = 13.26% Right-Turn LaneMay Not Be Justified Right-Turn Lane May Be Justified Note: For Highways with a design speed below 50 mph (80 km/h) with a DHV < 300 and where right turns are > 40, an adjustment should be used. To read the vertical axis of the chart, subtract 20 from the actual number of right turns. 619 Milestone Drive ● Belgrade, Montana 59714 ● (406) 209-3960 ● E5EngineeringPLLC@gmail.com Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 343 of 394 APPENDIX G DELINEATED WETLAND REPORT 1111 Farm to Market Road Flathead County, Montana Wetland Delineation Prepared for: Brent Holdings, LLC 270 North Jefferson Davis Drive Fayetteville, GA 30214 Prepared by: 172 Timberwolf Parkway Kalispell, MT 59901 August 2022 Project No. 10214.001 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation i Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Soil ................................................................................................................................................. 1 2.3 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 1 3 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Soil ................................................................................................................................................. 2 3.3 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.1 Topography ........................................................................................................................... 3 3.3.2 National Wetland Inventory ................................................................................................. 3 3.3.3 Floodplains ............................................................................................................................ 3 3.3.4 On-Site Hydrology ................................................................................................................. 3 4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 3 5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B USACE Wetland Determination Forms Appendix C Site Photographs 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A wetland delineation was performed by Morrison-Maierle, Inc. (Morrison-Maierle) for Brent Holdings LLC (Client) for a property located at 1111 Farm to Market Road, situated northeast of the intersection of Mountain Vista Way and West Springcreek Road (also known as Farm to Market Road) in Flathead County, Montana. The investigation area is 24.52 acres of land (Appendix A, Figure 1). The subject property was evaluated for its content of wetlands and waterbodies, based on criteria set forth in the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). Prior to the site visit, Morrison-Maierle reviewed existing project area literature including historical aerial photography, topographic maps, and hydrology data. A subsequent field evaluation was performed to identify hydric soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation. Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries. Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison- Maierle’s professional judgement that waters of the U.S. are present within the project area. The investigation area contains 0.81 acres of palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland, 1.2 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub (PSS) wetland, and 298 linear feet of stream which is identified as Spring Creek. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the aforementioned regulatory government agencies. 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation Page 1 1 Introduction At the request of Brent Holdings LLC, Morrison-Maierle completed a wetland delineation for 24.52 acres of property located in Flathead County, Montana (Appendix A, Figure 1). The investigation area encompasses vacant property located northeast of the intersection of Mountain Vista Way and West Springcreek Road (Farm to Market Road). 2 Methods This wetland delineation utilized the methodology presented in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and subsequent modifications outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0) (Environmental Laboratory 2010). The methodology includes sampling procedures for vegetation, hydrology, and soil parameters. Upland data points (UDP) and wetland data points (WDP) were established as needed during the field visit. Data for vegetation, hydrology, and soils were recorded in the field and entered on Wetland Determination Data Forms. Corresponding photographs were taken at each data point. Sample points and wetland boundaries (if present) were collected with a handheld GPS device; data was imported into ArcMap to create maps and perform calculations. 2.1 Vegetation Vegetation at upland and wetland data points was classified based on wetland indicator status. The indicator status of vegetation was derived from the USACE 2020 National Wetlands Plant List (NWPL). Using the current plant list, vegetation cover qualified as hydrophytic where over 50% of the dominant plant species had an indicator status of obligate (OBL), facultative wet (FACW), and/or facultative (FAC). FAC plants, such as Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), are equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands. Vegetation cover was considered as upland where over 50% of the dominant plant species were classified as upland (UPL), and/or facultative upland (FACU). Plants observed within each data plot were identified using Montana Manual of Vascular Plants (Lesica 2012). Vegetation nomenclature follows USACE NWPL (2020) and Lesica (2012). 2.2 Soil Wetlands must meet the qualifications of at least one hydric soil indicator or meet the definition of a hydric soil (a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (NRCS 2019a)). Soils at each data point were evaluated and described notating the depth, matrix color, mottle abundance and contrast (if present), texture, etc. (Environmental Laboratory, 1987 and 2010). Moist matrix color and moist mottle color of the soils were determined utilizing the Munsell Soil Color Chart (Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, 2009). 2.3 Hydrology Primary and secondary hydrologic indicators were assessed at each data point; one primary indicator or two secondary indicators are required to qualify the area as containing wetland 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation Page 2 hydrology. Examples of primary hydrology indicators are saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface, surface water, and water table within 12 inches of the ground surface. Examples of secondary hydrology indicators are FAC-neutral test and geomorphic position on the landscape. 3 Results A wetland delineation of the project area was performed by a Morrison-Maierle environmental scientist on July 27, 2022. The vegetation, hydrology, and soil characteristics at each of eleven data points were documented in the field and recorded on Wetland Determination Data Forms for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (USACE 2020). 3.1 Vegetation Vegetation communities were evaluated and documented to delineate wetland and upland boundaries, where existing. The location of all data points is identified on Figure 5 of Appendix A. Upland communities within the project area consist primarily of grasses and weedy species; trees and shrubs are prevalent along the northern edge of the investigation area and follow Spring Creek at the northeastern corner. Dominant vegetation of the upland area consisted of intermediate wheatgrass (Elymus hispidus), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), pulse milkvetch (Astragulus tenellus) and tall tumble mustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). There were three distinct wetland communities within the project area. Wetland 1 is a PEM and PSS wetland complex associated with Spring Creek, in the far northeastern corner of the investigation area. Dominant vegetation within this wetland included green alder (Alnus viridus), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), redtop bentgrass (Agrostis gigantea), and broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia). Wetland 2 is also a PEM and PSS complex that borders the northern boundary of the investigation area, at the northwestern corner. Dominant vegetation consisted of black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera), crack willow (Salix fragilis), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense). Wetland 3 is a small horseshoe-shaped PEM wetland situated south of Wetland 2, in the northwestern corner of the investigation area. This wetland appeared to be a result of previous earth moving activities which created a depression surrounded by berms. Vegetation is a near monoculture of broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) combined with a lesser amount of field horsetail (Equisetum arvense). 3.2 Soil A custom NRCS soil report for the investigation area was obtained from the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2022). Four mapped soil types were identified in the project area: Alluvial land, poorly drained (Aa), Blanchard very fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes (Bu), Kalispell loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes (Kg), and Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Ta). 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation Page 3 The poorly drained Alluvial land soils have a hydric soil rating of 1 to 32% (NRCS 2022). Wetlands 2 and 3 are completely contained in this Alluvial (hydric) soil unit. Wetland 1 is situated within multiple soil units and is primarily composed of the Alluvial (hydric) soil unit. Soils were analyzed in the field for texture and color using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 209). Soils within the upland areas generally exhibited 10YR 3/2 (very dark grayish brown) silt loam. The forested upland area exhibited a 10YR 2/1 (black) silty clay and the upland disturbed area exhibited a shallow 10YR 4/3 (brown) silt loam with gravel. Wetland soil colors were primarily 10YR 2/2 (very dark brown) with one observation of 2/1 (black), with textures of silty clay and silty clay loam. All wetland soils met either the Histosol (A1) or Thick Dark Surface (A12) hydric soil indicator. 3.3 Hydrology 3.3.1 Topography According to the Kalispell, Montana (2020) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map, the property ranges in elevation between approximately 3,000 and 3,050 feet. Spring Creek is depicted at the northeast corner of the subject property, flowing southeast (Figure 2). 3.3.2 National Wetland Inventory The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), which serves as a publicly available resource that provides detailed information on the abundance, characteristics, and distribution of US Wetlands. According to the NWI database, Spring Creek is identified as riverine habitat (R3UBG), and parts of a larger freshwater forested/shrub wetland (PSS1A) feature are located along the northern boundary and northeast corner of the investigation area (Figure 4). 3.3.3 Floodplains The project area is located within Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FIRM Panel 30029C1805J for Flathead County with an effective date of November 3, 2015. The subject property is located outside of the 100-year floodplain. 3.3.4 On-Site Hydrology Upland areas did not show evidence of any hydrology indicators. Spring Creek was flowing at the time of the investigation in a southeast direction through the northeast corner of the subject property. Hydrologic indicators at wetland data points included saturation throughout the soil profile, standing water, geomorphic position, a positive FAC-neutral test, and high ground water. 4 Conclusions Based on the wetland delineation presented in this report and the data collected, it is Morrison- Maierle’s professional judgement that waters of the U.S. are present within the project area. The project area contains 0.81 acres of PEM wetland and 1.2 acres of PSS wetland for a total of 2.01 acres of wetlands. Additionally, 298 linear feet (0.05 acres) of stream, identified as Spring Creek, 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation Page 4 flows through the northeast corner of the investigation area. See Figure 5 for a map of the investigation area and delineated features. Table 1 below summarizes the wetlands and waterways delineated within the investigation area. Table 1. Wetlands and Waterways in the Project Area Feature ID Feature Type Area / Linear Feet TRIB 1 (Spring Creek) Perennial Stream 298 ft (0.05 acres) WET 1 PEM/PSS 1.40 acres WET 2 PEM/PSS 0.57 acres WET 3 PEM 0.04 acres TOTAL WETLANDS 2.01 acres TOTAL WATERWAYS 298 ft (0.05 acres) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are the final authority over the jurisdictional status of both wetlands and waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The findings discussed in this report are solely the opinion of Morrison-Maierle and have not been verified by the aforementioned regulatory government agencies. 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation Page 5 5 References Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Environmental Laboratory. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast. (Version 2.0) U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2022. FEMA Map Service Center. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation. 2009. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division, New Windsor, NY. Lesica, P. 2012. Manual of Montana Vascular Plants. Brit Press. Fort Worth, Texas. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Hydric Soils Definition. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/hydric/?cid=nrcs142p2_053961 Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2022. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2020. National Wetland Plant List 2020. http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2018. Wetland Determination Data Sheet – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Version 1.16. OBM Control # 0710-0024, Expires 11/30/2024. Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR335-15, paragraph 5-2a). ENG Forms 6116-6, July 2018. US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2022. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Kalispell, Montana, 7.5-minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map. https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#15/48.2155/-114.3715 APPENDIX A: FIGURES COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig1_Vicinity.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 1 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 Legend Subject Property ±0 1 20.5 Miles VICINITY MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig2_Topo.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 2 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 Legend Subject Property ±0 1,000 2,000500Feet USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig3_Soil.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 3 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 ±0 250 500125Feet NRCS SOIL MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 Legend Subject Property NRCS Soil Map Unit COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig4_NWI.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 4 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 ±0 250 500125Feet USFWS NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 Legend Subject Property Freshwater EmergentWetland FreshwaterForested/Shrub Wetland Riverine !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( WET 1A WET 1C WET 1B WET 2A WET 2B WET 3 WET 2B UDP 7 UDP 6 WDP 5UDP 5 WDP 4 WDP 3 UDP 4 UDP 3 WDP 2 WDP 1 UDP 2UDP 1 COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig5_WD.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 5 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 ±0 200 400100Feet WETLAND DELINEATION MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 Legend Subject Property Stream (298 linear feet) PEM Wetland (0.81 acres) PSS Wetland (1.2 acres) !(Upland Data Point !(Wetland Data Point APPENDIX B: USACE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 350 350 70 70 =Total Cover Carduus nutans 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover No UPL Yes50 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2154040228 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.371600433 Kalispell loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 1 None Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) NA ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Flat FlatheadCity/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 30 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 5.00 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NA naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? This area was formerly a gravel pit that operated from at least 1962-1992. Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Sisymbrium loeselii UPL UPL Herb Stratum 15 Yes Elymus hispidus 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 70 NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-16 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Gravel below soil. Loose granular structure. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) UDP 1SOIL Silt loam texture Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 25 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 225 415 45 100 =Total Cover Elymus hispidus Bromus inermis Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 25 No FACU Yes20 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2154329061 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.36869428 Tally, Blanchard, and Flathead soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 2 None Section, Township, Range: 25.0% ) NA ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 90 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Flat FlatheadCity/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 100 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 30 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoVerbascum thapsus FACU Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species UPL 4.15 5 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NA naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Indicator Status 1 4 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Achillea millefolium Yes FAC FAC Herb Stratum 20 Yes Poa pratensis 10 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 20 Yes NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/3 Color (moist) 0-18 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Loos granular structure with fine and medium roots. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) UDP 2SOIL Silt loam texture Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-20 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 60 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 200 590 40 165 =Total Cover Lactuca serriola Solanum dulcamara Tanacetum vulgare 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Populus tremuloides Yes =Total Cover Cornus sericea 5 No FACW 15 FACW No FACW Yes40 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 35 35 FACU 48.2171567479 NAD83 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.369168049 Alluvial land, poorly drained None Long: 5 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 3 Linear Section, Township, Range: 40.0% ) 30 ft ) Alnus viridis Populus tremuloides Prevalence Index worksheet: 60 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Hillside FlatheadCity/County: 45 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover Yes 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 240 Multiply by: 90 Prevalence Index = B/A = 20 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 5 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: NoCirsium arvense FAC Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACU 3.58 15 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? This area was formerly a gravel pit that operated from at least 1962-1992. Indicator Status 2 5 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: 10 Phalaris arundinacea 30 No FACU UPL Herb Stratum 30 Yes Elymus hispidus 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 5 No NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-18 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) UDP 3SOIL Silty clay texture Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):10-20 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 30 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 350 515 70 115 =Total Cover Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: Pseudotsuga menziesii Yes =Total Cover No 5 UPL Yes20 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 10 10 FACU 48.2170700198 NAD83 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.369649823 Blanchard very fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 4 Linear Section, Township, Range: 25.0% ) 30 ft ) Crataegus douglasii Prevalence Index worksheet: 45 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Upland FlatheadCity/County: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 120 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 15 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 4.48 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Indicator Status 1 4 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus hispidus 5 FAC FACU Herb Stratum 70 Yes Achillea millefolium 10 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-18 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: No hydric soil indicators observed at this sampling location. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) UDP 4SOIL Silt loam texture Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):10-20 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 NA Remarks: Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Elymus hispidus No FAC UPL Herb Stratum 35 Yes Bromus inermis 10 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACU 4.75 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 20 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Upland FlatheadCity/County: None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 5 Linear Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) NA ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 30 0 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2170700198 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.369649823 Alluvial land, poorly drained (Plot size: =Total Cover 5 No UPL Yes50 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 425 475 85 100 =Total Cover Verbascum thapsus Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP 5SOIL Silt loam texture Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: No hydric soil indicators observed at this sampling location. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 3/2 Color (moist) 0-18 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):5-10 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes No X Yes No X Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 30 NA Remarks: Indicator Status 0 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Sisymbrium altissimum UPL UPL Herb Stratum 10 Yes Astragalus tenellus 5 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NA naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? This sampling location is at a former gravel pit which operated from at least 1962-1992. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 4.67 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 70 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 40 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 0 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Upland FlatheadCity/County: None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT UDP 6 Linear Section, Township, Range: 0.0% ) ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 0 0 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2161400984 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.371143482 Alluvial land, poorly drained (Plot size: =Total Cover No FACU Yes15 Vegetation is reestablishing, but is very weedy. Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 10 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 100 140 20 30 =Total Cover Carduus nutans 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X UDP 6SOIL Gravel silt loam Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: No hydric soil indicators observed at this location. Original soils have been removed during previous gravel mining operations. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 4/3 Color (moist) 0-5 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey 5 Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No hydrology observed at this sampling point. No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Compaction/heavy gravels 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 330 0 160 =Total Cover Cirsium arvense 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover Cornus sericea No FACW 30 Yes FAC Yes90 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2168514518 NAD83 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.367770159 Blanchard very fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes PSS Long: 30 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT WDP 1 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 30 ft ) Alnus viridis Prevalence Index worksheet: 30 0 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline riparian FlatheadCity/County: 150 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 300 Prevalence Index = B/A = 10 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 2.06 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Indicator Status 3 3 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Equisetum arvense 60 FAC FACW Herb Stratum 5 No Phalaris arundinacea 5 0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No X Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/1 Color (moist) 0-20 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) WDP 1SOIL Silty clay loam texture Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 295 0 130 =Total Cover Phalaris arundinacea Cinna latifolia Geum macrophyllum 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 Yes 30 FAC Yes20 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.217216606 NAD83 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.368642912 Alluvial land, poorly drained PSS Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT WDP 2 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) 30 ft ) Alnus viridis Prevalence Index worksheet: 165 20 Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline riparian FlatheadCity/County: 55 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 110 Prevalence Index = B/A = 55 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FACW 2.27 2 - Dominance Test is >50% (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Indicator Status 4 4 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Agrostis gigantea 30 No FAC OBL Herb Stratum 35 Yes Typha latifolia 20 20 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 15 No NA Remarks: ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 20 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Saturated throughout No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Surface Water (A1) Peat Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-20 Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Peat throughout soil profile Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) WDP 2SOIL Remarks ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil X , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes No X ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8. 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 NA Remarks: Indicator Status 2 2 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Cirsium arvense No UPL FACW Herb Stratum 20 Yes Phalaris arundinacea 10 0 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NA naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species FAC 2.60 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 60 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 120 Prevalence Index = B/A = 30 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline depression FlatheadCity/County: None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT WDP 3 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) NA ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 90 0 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2171680202 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.371295893 Alluvial land, poorly drained (Plot size: =Total Cover 10 No FAC Yes60 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 260 10 100 =Total Cover Phleum pratense Elymus hispidus 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes No X WDP 3SOIL Silty clay texture Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-16 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 8 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 100 NA Remarks: Indicator Status 6 7 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: 15 Typha latifolia 40 No FACW FAC Herb Stratum 25 Yes Equisetum arvense 20 35 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? 30 ft naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species OBL 2.47 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 0 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 35 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover Yes 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 70 Prevalence Index = B/A = 80 Yes 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline Terrace FlatheadCity/County: None Long: 10 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT WDP 4 concave Section, Township, Range: 85.7% ) 30 ft ) Cornus sericea Populus balsamifera Prevalence Index worksheet: 240 35 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 20 20 FAC 48.2171680202 NAD83 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.371295893 Alluvial land, poorly drained (Plot size: Populus balsamifera Yes =Total Cover Salix fragilis 10 Yes UPL 15 FACW Yes OBL Yes45 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 50 395 10 160 =Total Cover Glyceria striata Phalaris arundinacea 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP 4SOIL Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-16 Surface Water (A1) Peat Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 2 2 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Saturated throughout No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):0-5 Subregion (LRR):Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: X Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present?Yes X No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes X No Yes X No Yes X Yes X No ) 1. 2.(A) 3. 4.(B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (A/B) 1. 2. 3. 4.x 1 = 5.x 2 = x 3 = x 4 = 1.x 5 = 2.Column Totals:(A)(B) 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.X 8.X 9. 10. 11. Woody Vine Stratum 1. 2. Yes X U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-3; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 11/30/2024 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) Tree Stratum Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland?No 85 NA Remarks: Indicator Status 1 1 VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. (Plot size: Equisetum arvense OBL Herb Stratum 5 No Typha latifolia 80 (If no, explain in Remarks.) Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? NA naturally problematic?(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) (Plot size: Yes Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: significantly disturbed? Wetland formed due to soil piles and excavation activities from former gravel pit operation. Remarks: FACU species FAC species OBL species 1.12 2 - Dominance Test is >50% Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 15 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1 4 - Morphological Adaptations1(Provide supporting =Total Cover ) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) (Plot size: 0 Total % Cover of: =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 0 Multiply by: 0 Prevalence Index = B/A = 5 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: UPL species FACW species Sampling Date: Sampling Point: Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none): 07/27/22 Brent Holdings, LLC Breanne Cline man-made FlatheadCity/County: None Long: 30 ft NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? S2 T28N R22W MT WDP 5 concave Section, Township, Range: 100.0% ) NA ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 15 80 Project/Site:1111 Farm to Market Road LRR E, MLRA 44 NWI classification: Dominant Species? 48.2169677206 NAD83 Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Datum:-114.372173369 Alluvial land, poorly drained (Plot size: =Total Cover FAC Yes80 Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Dominance Test worksheet: % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Absolute % Cover 0 95 0 85 =Total Cover 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 100 X Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present?Yes X No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) X X X Surface Water Present?Yes X Water Table Present?Yes X Saturation Present?Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present?Yes X No WDP 5SOIL 15% gravel Remarks Drainage Patterns (B10) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Remarks: HYDROLOGY Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Geomorphic Position (D2) Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A)Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Sediment Deposits (B2) Drift Deposits (B3) Water Marks (B1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Salt Crust (B11) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2 Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Iron Deposits (B5) Saturation (A3) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Shallow Aquitard (D3) (inches)Color (moist) 10YR 2/2 Color (moist) 0-20 Surface Water (A1) Loamy/Clayey Matrix Texture Redox FeaturesDepth Remarks: 0 Field Observations: (includes capillary fringe) Saturated throughout No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 4B) 4A, and 4B) 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Restrictive Layer (if observed): 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR A, E) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D, G) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: 2.5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S2) (LRR G) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR D) Other (Explain in Remarks) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8)unless disturbed or problematic. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, ENG FORM 6116-9, JUL 2018 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast – Version 2.0 APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 1: View of the upland herbaceous community at Upland Data Point (UDP) 1, facing north. Photo 2: View of the silt loam soils found in the upland areas of the project site. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 3: View of the topographic change in the northeast corner of the property, transitioning from upland field to the riparian area along Spring Creek, facing north. Photo 4: Another view of the topographic change at the northern end of the property, facing west. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 5: View of palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) wetland adjacent to Spring Creek, facing north at Wetland Data Point (WDP) 1. Photo 6: View of the black organic soils within wetland 1. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 7: View of Spring Creek at the northeast corner of the property, facing northeast. Photo 8: View of Spring Creek at the northeast corner of the property, facing west. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 9: View of the PSS and palustrine emergent (PEM) wetland communities in Wetland 1 at WDP 2. Photo 10: View of the black peat soil at WDP 2. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 11: View of the steeply sloped upland forested area that serves as the transition vegetation community between Wetland 1 to the north and the upland field to the south. Photo 12: View from UDP 4 of the steep topographic transition at the north end of the property, facing north toward Spring Creek. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 13: View from WDP 3 of Wetland 2,a PEM wetland,facing east. Photo 14: View of Wetland 3 of the PEM and PSS wetland community, facing northeast. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 15: View of the upland man-made berm area adjacent to Wetland 2 and 3, facing Farm to Market Road to the west. Photo 16: View of the loose light brown loamy soils at UDP 5. U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\Image 1111 Farm to Market RoadWetland DelineationKalispell, Montana Photo Date: July 27, 2022 Photo 17: View of Wetland 3, man-made from former gravel pit operations and soil stockpiling. Photo 18: View of the sparsely vegetated soils in the former gravel pit operation area on the west side of the property, facing Farm to Market Road. memo Page 1 TO: Dom Goble, PE – Morrison-Maierle FROM:Breanne Cline, Environmental Scientist – Morrison-Maierle DATE:12/9/2022 JOB NO.:10214.001 RE:Isolated Wetland Memo for Preliminary Plat CC:Richard Ferry – Brent Holdings, LLC Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use A wetland delineation was performed at 1111 Farm to Market Road in Kalispell, Montana by Morrison-Maierle environmental staff on July 27, 2022. The purpose of this memo is to document the isolated nature of Wetland 3, as identified on the attached figure. Wetland 3 is a small (0.04 acres), horseshoe-shaped emergent wetland. Google Earth aerial imagery indicates the property, including where Wetland 3 is located, was used as a soil or gravel borrow area around 2009. Material stockpiles and vegetation regrowth are evident in the 2011 aerial photograph. It is our assumption that Wetland 3 was, at least in part, created by the earth moving and stockpiling activities that occurred on this property. During the wetland delineation site investigation, Wetland 3 was noted as being isolated from the other delineated wetlands on the north boundary of the property. There appears to be no surface hydrological connection to other wetlands or to Spring Creek due to the soil stockpiles almost entirely surrounding it. For more site information, please see the Wetland Delineation Report by Morrison-Maierle dated August 2022. Sincerely, Breanne ClineEnvironmental ScientistMorrison-Maierle !(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( WET 1A WET 1C WET 1B WET 2A WET 2B WET 3 WET 2B UDP 7 UDP 6 WDP 5UDP 5 WDP 4 WDP 3 UDP 4 UDP 3 WDP 2 WDP 1 UDP 2UDP 1 COPYRIGHT MORRISON-MAIERLE, INC., 2022 U:\10214 Brent Holdings, LLC\001_Kalispell Development\GIS\Exhibits\Wetlands\Fig5_WD.mxd FIGURE NO. PROJECT NO. 10214.001 5 172 Timberwolf ParkwayKalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 752-2216Fax: (406) 752-2391 ±0 200 400100Feet WETLAND DELINEATION MAP FLATHEAD COUNTY MT 1111 Farm to Market Road Wetland Delineation DRAWN BY: BC CHK'D BY: BC APPR. BY: CP DATE: 7/26/2022 Legend Subject Property Stream (298 linear feet) PEM Wetland (0.81 acres) PSS Wetland (1.2 acres) !(Upland Data Point !(Wetland Data Point memo Page 1 TO: Dom Goble, PE – Morrison-Maierle FROM:Breanne Cline, Environmental Scientist – Morrison-Maierle DATE:12/9/2022 JOB NO.:10214.001 RE:Isolated Wetland Memo for Preliminary Plat CC:Richard Ferry – Brent Holdings, LLC Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply For Your Use A wetland delineation was performed at 1111 Farm to Market Road in Kalispell, Montana by Morrison-Maierle environmental staff on July 27, 2022. The purpose of this memo is to document the isolated nature of Wetland 3, as identified on the attached figure. Wetland 3 is a small (0.04 acres), horseshoe-shaped emergent wetland. Google Earth aerial imagery indicates the property, including where Wetland 3 is located, was used as a soil or gravel borrow area around 2009. Material stockpiles and vegetation regrowth are evident in the 2011 aerial photograph. It is our assumption that Wetland 3 was, at least in part, created by the earth moving and stockpiling activities that occurred on this property. During the wetland delineation site investigation, Wetland 3 was noted as being isolated from the other delineated wetlands on the north boundary of the property. There appears to be no surface hydrological connection to other wetlands or to Spring Creek due to the soil stockpiles almost entirely surrounding it. For more site information, please see the Wetland Delineation Report by Morrison-Maierle dated August 2022. Sincerely, Breanne ClineEnvironmental ScientistMorrison-Maierle Creekside Subdivision Annexation and Initial Zoning Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Applications Page 393 of 394 APPENDIX H CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY From:nick venturini To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Creekside Subdivision comments Date:Saturday, March 11, 2023 10:43:12 AM Good evening all, I am emailing to address my concerns on information provided in File #KPP-23-02 and KPP-23-03. My family and I are the sole property owners of land adjacent to this proposed subdivision at 1145 Farm to Market Rd. This development will directly impact our land, our animals, and way of life we have become accustomed to living on this property for 24 years. My concerns are Part 1 Property Description Section 5. Wildlife The application claims minimal impact to wildlife in the proposed development because of the 100 ft wetlands buffer, however our experience observing this property for two decades contradicts this assumption. As stated, the property contains water fowl who breed in wetlands then nest in the grasslands on that property. We have observed sandhill cranes, waterfowl, and pheasants nesting there well beyond the 100 ft buffer. There are several does that bed down with their fawns in this field and use it as a safe haven to navigate their changing habitat due to recent housing developments. There are several hawks, owls, and bald eagle that nest near by and hunt rodents in that field. We have also seen fox den on the property. Their claims are based on a short term observation of the property motivated by profit and have not provided actual fact. Section 6. Land Use Subsection E. The application claims there are no shooting ranges that will cause health and safety hazards. Our family legally uses our property as a shooting range. In Montana a shooting range is defined as “a place where people shoot, and which may also have the advantage of a location which lends itself to, or has improvements that augment, safe shooting.” The firearms shot on our property throughout the spring, summer and fall seasons are bows, shotguns, and rifles. We use an open area directly adjacent to the proposed open area park to shoot sporting clays. We have also developed land barriers on our property to safely sight in our rifles. The Montana Shooting Range Protection Act 76-9-103 states “Planning -- effect on shooting ranges. The laws of this state concerning planning, master plans, or comprehensive plans may not be construed to authorize an ordinance, resolution, or rule that would: (1) prevent the operation of an existing shooting range as a nonconforming use.” “76-9-104. Zoning -- effect on shooting ranges. A planning district master plan, recommendation, resolution, rule, or zoning designation may not: (1) prevent the operation of an existing shooting range as a nonconforming use.” We also hunt waterfowl and upland birds on our property. Again, the application neglected to provide answers based on facts instead of assumptions. Part 2 – Summary of Probable Impacts Section 1 Effects on Agriculture Subsection C. Describe possible conflicts with nearby agricultural operations, specifically concerns with vandalism, uncontrolled pets or damaged fences. We have livestock on our property and farm equipment. We have already had a rise in trespassing through our property and found evidence of people being in our barn and around our equipment. Our animals will cause injury to any trespassing dogs or possibly people that try to intervene. We rely on our equipment to maintain our pastures an the wetlands around us. In conclusion this subdivision will create a financial burden on our family to build a more solid fence to prevent trespassing and building a new structure to secure our equipment from theft and damages. It will burden an already stressed wildlife population that has lost a majority of their habitat. We are proud provide a safe habitat to the valley’s wildlife but our property alone is not enough and the surrounding areas are still needed. I will be at the city planning meeting on March 14th to address my concerns in person. Sincerely, Nicholas Venturini Sent from Mail for Windows From:Brittany Johnson To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL Proposed Creekside subdivision Date:Tuesday, March 14, 2023 7:16:18 PM We live at 455 Mountain Vista Way and would like to submit some of our concerns related to the proposed Creekside Subdivision. Our concerns are1. Traffic concerns and safety. There are currently approximately 7 subdivisions feeding Three mile and the start of Farm to Market. Three Mile during rush hour is currently bumper tobumper traffic and adding more developments at this time does not support the increase in traffic safely. There is a development that is currently under construction. We still do notknow of the impacts this development will have on the traffic and we feel it would be best to wait for the completion of this development to gain feedback on how the current road systemcan handle another subdivision before approving more. 2. The over population in the West Valley school district is another concern. The levy’s havenot been passed recently and the school is at or over capacity. With expansions in these developments there needs to be fees charged to the developers of the subdivisions to help withexpansion costs of the schools. 3. There is a stream that runs through the proposed site. This area has been inhabited byvarious wildlife. With the development of the area, animals are losing habitat. This is causing an increase in deer being hit on the road by vehicles. Thank you for your time,Tory and Brittany Johnson From:Laura Simpson To:Kirstin Robinson Subject:EXTERNAL KA-23-02 and KPP-23-03 Date:Thursday, March 16, 2023 7:17:02 PM To whom it may concern: Please do not develop this land. Our infrastructure cannot support this extra traffic. Meadow's Edge is still under construction and this would add to the annoyance, noise, dust, traffic of yetanother development. This does not have the support of the community. The levy didn't pass for the new school to be built. We understand that the classrooms are busting at the seams, butthere has to be a reasonable way to build a new school without it costing close to $30 million. I am happy to help the community and have some of my tax dollars to maintain the schools,but I cannot afford my taxes to go up even more. I am single, have no children, and work for a nonprofit. I am giving back to my community daily. Until the school board proves that theycan properly use the funds, they are not going to have the support. Where are the children of these new homes going to go to school? How much are these homes going to cost? Can a localeven afford it? Or will it be more people moving here and not treating the community or land well? These are single family homes. What jobs are these people going to do? Are they justworking remotely and taking constantly from our limited local resources? We as taxpayers cannot be expected to bear the burden of development we did not ask for nor welcome. Thebuilders need to be responsible for building a new school and for repairing and updating roads and traffic patterns. They have to be responsible for more than building structures and thenleaving without any promise to improve the infrastructure. They get what they want and then leave us with the mess. And as a final note. Can we please stop developing every inch of green grass? Green areas inthe middle of neighborhoods don't count. What's more beautiful about this land is that it's untouched and left alone. I prefer to see the mountains out my backyard and not 5 yrs ofconstruction with a bunch of houses where there used to be a beautiful field filled with deer for the rest of my life. -Laura Simpson