Loading...
Davis 12/21/09Page 1 of 3 12-21-2009 CITY COUNSEL MEETING NAME AND ADDRESS Hello, Mayor and Council Members and City Manager. I would like to add some more information and assistance in helping the Council with the scoping sessions of the Kalispell City Airport Issue. I think, As the City Government and Residents are becoming more aware of the complexities and problems that are evolving with this existing Airport THAT Much MORE information and ideas are needed to be heard to help with finding a solution. I think we are all painful aware that the idea of expanding the airport at its present location is not a popular subject and has many problems. I'm not one for wasting time and mincing words, so I'll be direct and to the point. Please know I'm not telling anyone what to do or how to do it, I'm just sharing my thoughts and ideas on this matter, in hopes that it can help the counsel to work this out as part of the scoping processes. I think the expansion of the airport at this location is an obvious no go. First, the residents and a number of the city council members have spoken and do not believe in THE condemnation of people's property to accomplish this, as it is not warranted. First the cost to purchase such amount of property is cost prohibitive ( 70 plus acres are needed ), second, it would take years to get through the courts, as the Wise family said they would fight this to the end. Third, I do not believe the F.A.A. would fund such adventure with the known present growth, and the time it would take to get the property a new E.A. would again be out dated and may say no to the idea. It's a known fact that there ARE no other cities in the State of Montana that HAVE two GA operational Airports. Saying that, I'm WORKING TO convince the ability of the powers to be, to justify condemnation in this matter is a necessary good for the people. Many that I have talked to, do not believe so. NOW I WOULD LIKE to lightly to touch on the Noise issues and Safety Issues - the expansion at this location would NEITHER FIX PROBLEMS AND PERHAPS WOULD MAKE more problems, as bigger and more aircraft would be landing, so expanding and re -aligning the runway would MAY REDUCE NOISE FOR SOME BUT ADD NOISE FOR OTHERS - THIS IS A ZERO SUM GAME, I DO NOT QUESTION THE SAFETY OF AVIATION, BUT FROM A PROBABILITY AND RISK STANDPOINT THERE WILL BE GREATER RISK - THIS IS A FACT. Sure WE MAY GET a longer Yage 2 of runway but we WOULD ALSO GET faster and heaver and nosier aircraft flying over our heads. The Daily Inter Lake did a survey called: WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT? Last time I checked and it hasn't changed for some time, But 31% voted to Expand it, 9% voted to move it, 22% voted to Close it, 35% voted to Leave it Alone and 2% Don't know. There's many ways to look at a chart, but it obvious 68 % of the people vote NOT to expand it. With using this model, to me I believe it should be Closed, Moved, and Expanded SOMEWHERE ELSEL It would be a Win/Win for the aviation community and the many Residents of Kalispell. It would reduce Risk factors and Noise issues of faster and larger aircraft. There would be no Condemnations, no court battles, and no wasted costs of extra and future E.A.s, and not to mention the cost of purchasing 70 plus acres from property this close in town. And the inability for future growth is limited. And who wants an airport in the middle of town anyway. TO PUT IT IN THE WORDS OF ONE CITY PLANNER "THIS IS A SILLY PLACE FOR AN AIRPORT. Leaving it alone is not in the best interest of the City, the Residents and the aviation community. First it's not the best uses of that City property, too much liability and maintained costs. It's too small to produce money revenue now or in the future -vs- developing that property for other uses. It's also not in the best interest of the aviation community, it's limiting there abilities to grow in the future. The risk factor is high, people are annoyed with the sounds of buzzing aircraft ( planes and helo's ) from the flight school Closing it is a touchy subject; it could be the only option we have left if we do not agree to move it. If we put it to a vote to the residents such as Move it or Close it, I think it would be voted to be to move it. To vote to expand it or Leave it alone, the Residents and/or the City loses, and so will the aviation community, the vote would be to leave it alone. And if it was to be put to vote to expand it or Close it, and the voters would vote close it. This is just my opinion, but I'm also out here talking to the voters, daily. So in search of my own answers to share with you, I read and studied the old site selection study, The Feasibility/Master plan study, Contacted and questioned Mr. Gary Gates of the F.A.A. and others, Contacted a Real Estate Agent that was highly recommended in this area of issue, and had personal and candid contacted with a Airport Engineering firm. And many other contacts with the residents of Kalispell to find out what they think and want. ( in all professions) I would be more than happy to sit down and share any and all the rage s of i information I gathered from all these sources. But in Brief, Mr. Gates said it's not out of the question to be able to get a F.A.A. grant to relocate the City Airport I do believe F.A.A. would be very happy with that. I have located approx acr s for sale, no restriction, no condemnation, Highway frontage, for 3 mil., an Airport engineering firm said it would cost around 2.5 mil for a 4300 foot B-2 runway, cost to bring in city water and sewer for Hotel and condos and businesses, etc., est. 2 mil.,( total around 8 mil., That's about the cost of just the purchase of the property's in town if you even can get it.) ) And I'm sure there's other costs to be tagged on, but I believe we can come in way under the 15 mil. that's in the plan now. Even the old site selection study supports that. And there's funding for moving business if they want to apply for it, it's not the responsibility of the city to pay for that. This is an opportunity that we need to take advantage of now, we are running out of second chances. This should have been done in 2002. It will not last, the valley is shrinking and we will lose out. There is one other location that could be an option, but it's a very confusing piece of property as the owners have other plans for the surrounding property, it maybe a good idea or maybe not, we need to talk to them and I have not made contact with them. I will explain what I know. Here is a copy of the properties for the council to look at and like I said I would be more than happy to help the counsel to get needed information that I spoke of or research any ideas you have. Donald Scott Davis 448 5th. Avenue West Kalispell, Montana 59901 406-752-1523 - 1 r ^ � ` it � - � '� ��`_` I ;• `r l.i~ � - � y `^ 9 ! . 1 1r�" L-• 1 i e �iL f4•yl'E' -f-''• t r r 4 ,,,,°r+"`.J ,r�i "6.1" f +ti '. '! �1'^"'t�i 1,,,} �ic-g Y �• _ ="�- �! fir` %} � � G �"„�"'^�� ks;~ - Y - W + 'R tie,*/ 11,,,• e a Jr w a (y C 477gn co im .rat Er I .,•- ma's M1,7-..`��. _: ,�_.r, -=,"p- ? �,- �.!" - a•. -4 N .f V i� [C.l� r �1' J�M1. �w � �� ^'-�.c3:rJ• � pp a 'K poll i Mud ri1 � _ _ ter_ __ ✓�. .��'�°�r.g y "' %���,,.� ,. f •� -r �.-tls tie._. e k1 elf'..4°�i 1 w - , f , `A , is "� .:_' , F:• I . -. 7!', i r _ "� brie'• i 21F lk C AWN 4, '� �l Oil 4-f �J .• 4 �� � J , rOL ILK L'° C � �' "• R4r 1`� J ,��y� 5 b`.'r Y�. Ir rT 5.��''L,L 'tr4 - a"+,y`Yf.. j°,,�1rr .}� }L °ew's - ✓i�-'� P �.w r�� �'� y}�.. �. r :z � � 'SiVV`r'' ••�'1a ' �- >,�, , `�• B,!'�_A, - tr� 1 1 �k, ^a .r. Ar ''•°77.h F°'f '.Sr x ION.-i� ice. �. r,. { ,F i i _ • - b 5 74. .� 4L's OW3 �. n .�'.. ..� _ Aye�Yr jam• I ■ i'a: "+r> yr. :.i .�' . i' � 7y `� _ .��•i - - _ ,f ii'•�'� t� ,a � � ..,tt + •' � 1'* :.,fir �f �' -. 1� � � -,,,-ti :�,.`. - ,._ .;: ..ma`s � ";� �i ��, - •.,� �,�`V_ .,_ A Al .-. .. it L.. < .' _ ,W ''"�" r -sue•-•.- +jai; {'' ail _ _ _ s.- i . •' w.'3` a`'l -'- __ it f M'." •``tr v ti'ti. r I ,r - i I 1 a • r. - _ .,..ram' •� . WESTERN BROKERSUP MLS #278178 $3,000,000 Sevier Property Kalispell, MT 59901 The Sevier place is located approximately six miles east of Kalispell. It is just southeast of the Hwy 206 and Hwy 35 junction near what is called f-f'oody's. This 243-acre parcel has frontage on Hwy 35 and approximately half a mile of frontage on a county maintained gravel road called Mennonite Church Road. There is just over 4,600 feet of frontage on Hwy 35 which serves as the western boundary of the property. Access to the highway is controlled and there are three access locations off of Hwy 35to the site. Access via the county maintained Mennonite Church Road is unrestricted. The northern and eastern boundaries are both bordering other privately owned properties. The bulk of this site is level, non -irrigated cropland. The soils on this cropland, as you can see in the attached groundwater study, consist of class I Creston Silt Loam. This soil is the finest quality soil in the state of Montana. It could be used for a variety of uses from selling the top soil, to using it for golf course and residential development. The northern boundary of the property is just across a small intermittent stream called Blaine Creek. Back in the `70s and `8Os this was a year-round stream but in the last few decades it has become intennittent. The area right around this strewn is low lying and wet. As you can see from the pictures the mountain views are unobstructed and breath -taking. ball is an exceptionally beautiful time at this location. The head of the county sanitation department has indicated that the summer of 2006 was an acceptable summer for monitoring ground water. ..,d ,. - �:. f... W olfr entw F,ru o� �� Cr k c:w:u. Grpcsrrq gnaw-nns Eau' .. 911 (� ryµ1 y • i w 8 CAM xaron DriJ� W. E i I! MrY.p Vloo y f r"� ` yy,, lrI310k rJ !i nFi rpt Mott stage Road - Op' C� f e CRO ATI N FISH H k.+.q.a.. 1 w..r S s...,o�.... $ 4 Ju9uotle Road r�fwawa p - °` o my 1 dl{edivna1JPG 7YPc 9PEG Image ec 1 CrM" Sae: 696 KO Dimension: 2513x2562 snstow.. noerrn rrF � a r R �' Lows; � r r .o+ ~"' Ctia` c '. aw da Road 7 CC '7 # .Y' ide- 2-71,0 fi Nt4EL -Ti quw wqc w .. 29 28 30 P' MIX isw :vela 31 1 �_,S IJ _ — \ 1j � ]YYO i \, l•. 1 II' jjj �iIxYlo 6fJWf kW s a _ am ion •' pp MIN Sevier } Property. S r i Y 4 0■ 0 CCp CA, w p `l 0 :? L n m m 0 c FL cr 06 IS top n R■ go 0 MURRELL ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTING, PO ¢4\ 06 WHITEFISH, <:© 29927 (406) #\ f\6f E-MAIL: mecon@bigsky.net (: % #\ f \< .»72(» } & > «*«}}+d » \f FlatheadCounty, Montana -j I TRACT I 1, Lai A — TRACT 3 W&3144, I7 I', Z 1, f"42,13, $rlj2r-w .W A" uj .UJ TRACT2 24117YA—, vy v l re 0.6,wir 9 roAZWAY r¢; �'..: Exhibit G -tea � ��.� �• �� •� 10 ��� s�� #.•ems t � ��� p:_+a l.r-�?� . LA Ale L IL ..�.• 1 s� , lr4 4• t .ar _"Tr+Lt e�j� J •yi � , � �2• �' � {� ` � :xi �. � � ��.� - ' - `'� ' Pali r� -� • y{ �„ ,.vdr-r a• i s bra � s�".Z _i [U •�.�.�" �A��� �• �� � — z� CVA& e xts�� . JIM MORRELL, R,S. MURRELL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING ]Exhibit H-1 PO BOX 2063 WHITEFISH. MT 59937 (406) 862-8W8UNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS 4Dwner:. Scv*• t Mailing Address: Property Address:2=(o - 1- Ck MAR 2 12006 P v\- e- FLA i o CITY-coUNTY Contact if not owner: Address: HF-,L L 1 0 ZPARTIMINT Legal Description: Subdivision name: Lot — Block OR Assessor Tract 4: -4 q + Section TAM 0 Rng 2-c;, DATEtt SITE# SITE # SITE # SITE # SITE #5' MM/DDIYY A B A-B A B A-B A A B A-B A B A-B jjq 12:z. 9 '7 Y 71 L I1 A i g 0 4z ix.1 a� 611 IL, il q go ff —ajf- 1- 111 A I 19 liq it --'I' M 11 I/So 24 90 '1190 I lzpo 113 114 Vs--41 -zq 1 150 liq O l /L C ) Im ;k 0 IK I so 90 7-/ I "-I 1/ it q0 go //,y -?:f. S SEE REVERSE FOR MONITORINGPIPEINSTALLATION AND MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS Monitoring for this parcel shall be conducted from through The following monitoring schedule will be required: Preferably once each week, but no less -often than once every da s. Less frequent monitoring may void monitoring conducted and result in monitoring the site through the next groundwater monitoring season. I hereby certify that the above monitoring measurements and information are true, complete and correct to the best of mv-k-uowledge. 0wq* r or Represantative signature Date A 144�1 JIM MURRELL, R.S. MURRELL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Ex H-2 PO BOX 2063 WHITEFISH, MT 69937 (4('6) 86 NDWATER MONITORING RESULTS MAR 9 4 2006 Owner: �, C_.- Mailing Address: FtATtiEnt) CITY-c.u,,.1T: HEALTH DEPARTMIF(4-i Property Address: Contact if not owner: Legal Description: Subdivision name: OR Assessor Tract #: Address: Lot Block Section Twn Rng _ DATE SITE SITE # SITE # SITE # Zs GIt SITE # t SITE # 10 MMIDDIYY A B A-B A B A_B A t3 A,t 8 A-B A B A-B 113 fit'%! `� � 114 2. eA-S t o �i � 1 + 4 Jl� 'O D i!t 6 rrl 11 ;;?4 4/- / l r8 b�' ! 1/ Ott Ci oI 11( 0 1 v/ A 2, 112 a-Z lo 114 -4 70 40 t �3 04 z) rr I 13 / 2 ' li .) . !t1 ? 4c-7 .z 1 gay � q 1S �,o �" 116 1;�� _2 7 jig PA D�2 1 f a' z.� 1� r �v 1 0 1! r ? - 11 7— IS IT N t ?A IZZ © rs d `' r� ' SEE REVERSE FOR MONITORING PIPE INSTALLATION AND MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS Monitoring for this parcel shall be conducted from through The following monitoring schedule will be required: Preferably once each week, but no less often than once every days. Less frequent monitoring may void monitoring conducted and result in monitoring the site through the next groundwater monitoring season. I hereby certify that the above monitoring measurements and information are true, complete and correct to the best of my.fflolledge. O e r Representative signatur Date JIM MURRELL, R.S. MURRELL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING PO BOX 2063 Exhibit H-3 VMITEFISH. MT 59937 GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS,' � ( �. � t�► Owner: L Mailing Address: MAP JF Property Address: Contact if not owner:_ Legal Description: Subdivision name - OR Assessor Tract #: Lot Block Section T wn Rng FLA7-� , ;:;ry-COUNTY HEra T,i ;;LF,l T,,1ENT DATE SITE # � SITE # SITE # 13 2- SITE # SITE # MM/DD1YY A B A-S A B I A-B A B A-B A I B A-B A B I A-B i ll G! 22 C' 1� L SAY nS 16 3 l 1> t M 105,14 to 31 `1A I11� 40 t 11 4 /U7 I too 3t A I c `I . 1 J411 31 (v 14 a C) 11Sl 14 C( t/A a Iq o 019 14 1qt .31 H /14 .10 L� -d !i f 1 G.+ -7 P/5- 16 i �38 �91 Iq 141/-iI (301.3-)l 15 1Cf o / i 0 1 31 7-18 115,11� 110 /Ilya oil � G SEE REVERSE FOR MONITORING PIPE INSTALLATION AND MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS Monitoring for this parcel shall be conducted from through Thp following monitoring schedule will be required: Preferably once each week but no less often than once every q-'Tnext days. Less €requent monitoring may void monitoring conducted and result in monitoring the site through the groundwater monitoring season. I hereby certify that the above monitoring measurements and information are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. Owner Representati a signature Date JIM MURRELL, R.S. MURRELL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING PO BOX 2063 Exhibit _4 WHITEFISH. MT 59937 (406) 8M-9569 GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS ?TSAR 2 9 2006 Owner ej � zs' Mailing Address: Property Address: HEALTH DES %3T;:'1,.T Contact if not owner: _Legal Description: Subdivision name: Add Lot Block OR Assessor Tract #: Section Twn Rng DATE SITE # SITE # - SITE # SITE # SITE # MM/DDfYY A I B I A-B A B A-B B =A -A B A-B A B A-B _Aj 4 r ,2 64, ,� t 44 - / P S" S 60 3 !© I -80 6 b ` e 66 .' o� - Z t 76 ry l 6 Y 7 a 7 SEE REVERSE FOR MONITORING PIPE INSTALLATION AND MONITORING INSTRUCTIONS Monitoring for this parcel shall be conducted from through The following monitoring schedule will be required: Preferably once each vdeek, but no less often than once every - tsdays. Less frequent monitoring may void monitoring conducted and result in monitoring the site through the next groundwater monitoring season. f hereby certify that the above monitoring measurements and information are true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge, ;? OwnRepresentative signature Date er r JJN 4&�w �- 3035 � 3O.0 Exhibit F ! II L- Ir �0 _. tl I 3035 r 3045 Q lIQ OI eft i( N,, +W44 I 18 2992 3041 I ♦ 1Fi I5 ;'� ' St 13 I 3 o 3032 ♦ I r I� 29 i� ♦I ��, - i I I T� '� � 21 ?2 3000 �iV2! 192 � I C i 29� 9 ♦ I f 2 •6 — y�^]�i I { C ' u - 76 E�ergFeen VIL 2955-1 1 33 1 SEVIER. ' Z.i 35 3 }I Q}32 I9: I y'RJ I b 5 { 3 2 I a 2920 e 10 s 1 1 9 �p ttl - i0 i� 1 I 12 3,02961 V ' 11, ( 29 1? 16 -�5 In a r 15 ] I t7 5 r - -� Plummer./- 4� 13 29�0 ,ICre t0 I' 931 LoAo _ 290 /D IA �2907 _ 7t 19 i 20 21 {' 22 23 q 22 2 cr ' ! : 30 ����� 1 8 I l \ 8 I 27 � 17.b11 M 25 - To`� 4.� 2 i � � ! li 1 \ � �I� Foys Bend C � 31 Vu �nersvkle3n I- ---_5 =�i� —6 r�W&K& t: GhUici`'i ' 6 Avul;eol, — - 7.5 MMUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) reD r sw A FALLS OLJT�f) rt� 10 WEST GLACI R 7J MI. • r• Exhibit A aao •- _ •;-� -- ��.—..=r—+,J,.�' aBs f : 714 1 1 t155 8L NE PS"�. .! _ _VIEW - • 'i' - , o o r - u y d vs '9 2 i t n„ n'�• {', 16D `OIS � . , • fit ;. Jos zoo oja k I •. 7a' 203 2 5 z eo J i I - f 29& ' ve. 2e7 %/mil os� rj l s q — 295 ! I 3......... � y ! � � � isa ... yes f -� � �l� Q � • > ,Iw♦ k tae,t NO Iev BM �In R7 , x•a �.,_ ` 2I �124 ✓ I 57C 494 f I 28 q`*23 f P 4N 9�0 3000 t Us. \\ 74 zg i Lcu sir In N N N -►w _y . A er+ HOLT 8dAf3E 34 , N RDAlllrrn r l.2.74I I ca i� Ul 369 t •. � f J O it- f' ! Tine purpose of this investigation at the owner's request. began in March of 2006, and concluded after the monitoring of seasonal high groundwater through the peak period ending in duly, was limited to describe only the soil and groundwater characteristics pertaining to the potential development of the 280+ acre parcel. A .nondegradation" determination analyzing the potential impacts to ground water quality from ne4\' wastewater treatment systems {i.e.., mixing zone data, hydraulic, nitrate & phosphorous calculations) was not addressed. The subject parcel is currently recorded as Tracts I and 4 located in the west half of Section 4, T28N7 R20W, Flathead County, MT, Approximately six miles east of Kalispell, two miles north of Creston, and bounded by MT' I lwy 35 to the west, with County roads Mennonite Church to the south, and Lake Blaine to the north. The topography (Exhibit A) is relatively level except the minor area north of the creek with an overall gentle easterly slope of I to 2% in the common direction of the small creek f1mving through the northeast portion of the parcel. However. occasional local, negligible in size, independent and dissimilar undulations are discernible. The sediment was deposited approximately 12,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch of the Quaternary Period, and mapped as "Glaciolacustrine" deposits (Exhibit B). Described as well bedded, sometimes varved (pair of alternating, contrasting lenses) sand and silts locally overlain by undifferentiated dune sand. whose parent material is silty, medium textured. water sorted material from outwash fans and terraces associated with the receding glacier. i f i - .7--Mrifffrm The 1 tSDA SCS Soil Survey mapped the soil type as within the "Creston" series classification (Exhibit C). A relatively ui7i Jl frj deep, dark surface soil underlain by a sandy silt substrata that demonstrates the ability to remain well drained by absorbing water readily with little to no run-off occurring. The favorable permeability - porosity of the soil is further demonstrated by an anticipated percolation rate of approximately I0 minutes/inch. Test Pit Analysis Thirteen test holes were excavated in a grid pattern to a mininnunn of eight feet below the natural around surface and the soil analyzed prior to monitoring, pipe placement and backfilling. The results (Exhibit D) concur with the SCS soil survey classification noting the abrupt transition between the dark colored surface soil and the underlying light colored subsoil, readily evident by a horizon of highly calcareous material (Exhibit E), Comparing the profiles reveal a clear disparity as the "Creston" top soil varies in depth from a minimum of 8 inches to a maximum of 20 inches, yet without a discernible pattern. All test pits replicate the underlying strata of thin, alternating silt and fine sand lenses to eight feet, however due to such fine material, some pipes evidently settled to slightly lesser measurable depths. Page 1 The TM13 tG published "Piezeometrie Contour" map of the perched aquifer (Exhibit F) indicates shallow groundwater ill fills part of Flathead Valley flows In all apparent southwest direction at a relatively uniform. moderately gentle gradient of approximately six one -thousandths (0.006). e • _ Groundwater monitoring was conducted from Arlarch 23 through July 18, 2006 in order to capture the seasonal high peak identifying the minlnll-Im depth] below the natural ground surface. The measured depths Should be reflective of the expected saturation point as the recorded precipitation amount during the monitoring period was at or above normal, following all average or better snow pack winter. A total of' seventeen sites spread over rill imprecise grid were measured weekly (Exhibits G & 14) during the completed 18-week monitoring period as the four 2 inch pipes previously installed at greater depths but not monitored were added to the study of thirteen. Results indicate groundwater ranges front 70 to 80 inches below the natural ground surface in the easterly sites 97, 412, and 413 that border the creek. The remaining "new" sites vvere continually dry demonstrating seasonal water is greater than a mininium 90 inches (settled tines limited measuring, depth), with the existing pipes establishing a more accurate water table ranging from 10 to IS feet deep ill locations south and west of the creek, respectively. Except sites #16 and 417, which were purposely installed in "wet'" locals, serving as reference points to ensure the peak being captured. f. U Overall, both the soil and seasonal lligh groundwater conditions on the majority of the subject parcel demonstrate favorable characteristics for the placement and proper operation of a sewage treatment system sub- surface drainfield, provided in adequate distance is maintained from the creek. Nearing, the creek groundwater is encountered at shallower depths, therefore an elevated sand mound design may be required for this area. The soils flanking the creek and north, excluding ale knoll top, are the only areas on the subject parcel not conducive for the potential placement of a sewage treatment system drainfield. 1v1BMG Geology and Groundwater Water- Resources of the Kalispell Valley, Northwestern Montana, Bulletin 68, July. 1968. By L. Konir_eski. A. Brietkrietz, and R. McMurtrey. USDA SCS Soil Survrey, Upper Flathead Valley Area., Series 1946, No. 4, Reissued 1960. Page 2 Exhibit B-1 J. Qg•db Pjebl,,11�1 i4- 05' tp , mr CT 0) m Aliuvium Mainly sand and silt in lower valley flood plain areas, rr sand and gravel in upper valley; includes local deposits of talus and peat o np p C��aJ Glacial 0utwash - Heierogenous mixtures of boulders, cobbles, gravel, and sand; locally overlain by a few feet of undifferentiated dune sand Crevasse fill Well bedded and well sorted sand, focally overlain by as much as 20 feet of undifferentiated dune sand o Glocioiacustr ne deposits U) Well bedded, sometimes vorved, sand and silt; locally w overlain by as much as 75 feet of undifferentiated a dune sand ROM Glacial drift, bedded Kame and moroine-forming deposits of mostly well bed- ded gravel and sand; in places poorly sorted and poorly bedded; locally overlain by glociolocustrine deposits Ice-contoci, drumlin -forming clay and boulder till; locally overlain by glociolocustrine deposits `i- z a' W I— d Z) 0 z �L a — w L µ1 N Basement rocks "= Undifferentiated Precambrian sedimentary rocks under- V lying the valley fill and adjacent mountains w a; n "-�;`Or 3 RCPORTCR PRTG. 5 SUPPLY CO. 114 ° 20' •ii l rJ/ r Base from Geology by GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE KALISPEI r L FHEAD VALLEY AREA, MONTANA - SHEET NUMBER 23 Exhibit C-2 34 SOIL SURVEY SERIES 1946, NO. i I areas, is used as unimproved pasture. Spring -seeded small grain (tivlieat, barley and mal(s) aid tame grasses ;ire the principal crops. ,�ane ;alfalfa is grown. The more open pastures contain considerable bluegrass :ind whileclover. This soil is excellent for gasses and spring -planted, early maturing small gl:lin because it has a ulodetate to good supply of organic inatter, is fz•iable, and has abrnrdnnt moisture tivilhin reach of plant. roots. It warms somewhat later in spring than the better drained soils on the terraces and uplands. I.ale spring frosts may chima,e nil bitt. fire hard~= crops, because of tile. ]ow position of this soil. .Much of this soil is drained by open ditches and iul- proved natnraI drainage channels. Yields of all crops grown on this soil ire among the highest for any soil rn the Upper Flathead Valley .keen. &cause of l he flood- ing hnzard, this soil is in capability nnil. Mr-1. Creston series The. Creston series consists of deep, dark, friable, silty soils on the broad terraces in the east -central partof the Upper Flathead Iralley Area. The parent material is silty, medium-texhiretl, water -sorted material oil oil( - wash fails and terraces that. were formed by Glacial str•eaanrs wheat the glacier receded from the valley :and mountain slopes. The native vegetation is a dense cover of tall grasses willr a few scattered ponderosa pines. `i9te clad: surface soil is, on the average, nbou, 1 foot thick. It is underlain by a dark -brown lager, G to 10 inches thick. There is ,c rather abrupt transition be- tween IIie dark-bt•own layer n1ld the rlIIderl}'ilt', light- eolorerl, highlti= calearenus material. The Ciyeston soils are well drained. Tbey absorb venter readily anti little runoff occurs. Small amounts of water ma,}= nccnnlubite in lore spots following heavy rains <.rr rabid uaelting of snow. These soils )lave i good salpply of organic mailer. No injnrions stilts are present M. any depth. Creston soils differ from the Kalispell soils plainly in liatvinr a'i darker and sli ]ri.ly llricicer surface soil and the horrrori of vale-illi11 carbonate acciin-nrlatioll at treater depth. Tlw silty lower subsoil and silbstratum in the Creston soils distingilish them from the Flathead and Blanchard soils, which have moderately sandy or sandy Subsoils and subst-rat a. Typical profile (cultivated area of Creston silt loam ?a norfh side of road and about 740 f(ket. ~vest. of road intersection in the SF:r/1, 0/.1 sec, 5, T. 28 ITT., R. 20 IV.) :1,,, 0 to 12 inches, dnrk gm)•ish-brown to very dark grayish'- brown or very train: brown (JOY]t 3.5/2, dry; 2.5/2, mois(.) silt. loner; weak, fine, grauulnr or crumb striletitre; soft %Yhola dry, friable when uroist; ncu- tra; boundary clear. Il. 12 to is inches,.bron•n to dark -brows) (7.5YR 4/.2, dry; 3/3, moist) silt lonni; weak, very coarse, prismatic stmetim-, soft. n•lien dry, very friable when moist; nentrai; boundary clear. ('« IS to 33 inches, very palls brown to brown (10Y11 7/3, (lr%-; 513, moist) silt loam; weak, coarse, subangulir iriochy stl'tiewre; soft n-lten dry, very friable when uroist.: eaileareous; net:uniulation of calcium cau- bonate in this horizon; boundary gradnal. C' 33 to 12 inches, very pale brown io brown (10YR 7/3, iir}-; 5/3, uroist) loam; inacsive; soft when dry, very friable when moist; calcareous; grades to stratified silt and sand. The Creston soils are rehativeiv nniforiu over much of their ,irea. In places, liowever, they are leached of free carbonates to a depth of 20 to 26 inclies and have a I3:r horizon. In some. areas Creston soils intergrade to the Brocken soils (not mapped in this Area). Creston silt loam, D to 3 percent slopes ICe): This is one of fire most desirable'soils in the Upper "Flathead Valley Area for farming. It is nearly level and easily tilled. All is cultivated escept a few small areas not easil}, reached. This soil is in a part. of the valley that gets nearly the i naximunr rainfall. Because of ample inoisture aucl a. good distribution of sirn finer rainfall, this soil produces neatly all crops suited to the Upper Flathead Valle), Area. - Winter wheat is the principal crop. This soil is in capability unit I-1. Creston silt loam, 3 to 7 percent slopes {Cll.—This soil has irregular and moderate slopes. IL occurs in close association avith the nearly level Creston soil. Most of this soil occurs oil snrall riches within broad, nearly level lerraces or along terrace edges and small drains Crossing the terraee.5. In m some small areas tire. surface soil is noL quite so thick as that• in the profile described Tor the Creston series. Ill places it vas thinned by erosion. Most of this soil is cultivated: it, is in capa- bility umt Ile-1. Creston silt loam, 7 to 12 percent slopes (Cgl.—This soil is on the steeper terrace edges Gain short slopes along drainageways that cross tire. terraces. Although sivall ur area, it. is a prominent part of a huidseape of nearly level soils. This soil is slightly to moderately eroded. Erosion is the maim problem in ctiltivited areas. Ui dit-colored Spots are ewainon on some slopes where the subsoil has been ruixed wish the snrfaco soil during cultivation. host of this soil is farined alon- with the more nearly level Creston soils. It is in capability unit IIIe-1. Creston silt loam, 12 to 45 percent slopes (Ch).—This soil occupies moderately steely and steep breaks and edges of the terr•nees in association with other Creston soils. '.file surface Layer is dart., bitt it is Trot. so Inti- forurly thick as that in the profile described :IF typical. In places file Iight-colored snlnoil is only= a few inches below the surface. This soil is idle or ill pastures consisting of native vegetation. Runoff is moderate to high after laettvy rain, and cultivated areas are subject to eousiderable erosion. This soil is ill capability unit. Vie-1. Deniers -Kalispell complex This complex consists of areas of Demers silt. loam arld Kaispell silt loam that occur iu Such an intricate pattern it. was not feasible to ma ) them separately. The acreage. of each soil ill the complex is about equal. The Deniexs member of the complex, a moderately deep, weakly solodized-Solonetz, contains salts that adversely affect tile growth of plants. The Demers soil lifts de- veloped frorn gray, greelr, and reddish argillite, tinartzite, and dolomitic lirnest.one. 1'lIe native vegetation is a t.liin to ioderately dense cover of grasses. These and 5aa]Igi is,S axe on file Strongly alkalilre Gard saline spots. The other member of the complex, Kalispell silt loam, is described iulder the Kalispell Series. Tile Demers soil bas a. brownish silt loam stirfziee soil raucl a Brownish claypall subsoil with a blocky st.r•uctilre. Exhibit C-3 Iit, � _ OIL TYPErtsRC RATE, Aa P.iluvial land -poorly d-ained_ f -36'r n/in- 1_b Alluvial land -well cxained 9 min/in f 155 ft Ba -) Banks loarr,y .find sand 10 min/in E 165 fv` Bb Banks very fine sandy loan; 20 min/in 225 ft7 Ba �- W. { Birch fine sandy loam` 8 min/in 150 ft2 Bd Birch gravelly loam 3 min/in i 100 ft2 Be, B.fIBg,Bh,Bk, ! Blanchard fine sand and. 5-6 min/in ; 130 ft-2 Bm,Bn,Bo,Bp,Br, :loamy fire sand. � P_s,Ht_,Bu,Bv t Blanchard very fine sandy loam 13 min/an 175 ft2 Ca,.Cb,Cc�. _..t Chamokane-soils_ : _1�. min/in 115 ft2 Cd - Corvallis sib clay loam _ 35 nin/in _ 275 ft.2 _ Ce, Cf , Cam, Ch Ori?ston 'si_ o 1 omin/in . _ . _ 16 ft2_.. Da, Db, Dc Demers silt loam 10 win/in �� 250 ft2 Dd,Le,Bf Fepew silty clay loam 35 min/in ! 275 fyi2 _ . Fa,Fb,F'c,Fd,Fh Flathead fine sandy loam $min/in 15o ft2 Fe,FT,Fg iFlathead very fine sandy loam 13 min/in 175_ ff2 Ho,Fb _ t Haldtnoon-sili loam 25 ran/in t M�-2L"5 ft2 HC,Hd'He �Halfmoon very fine sandy loam 35 min/in 275 ft2 Hf,Hg,Hh , Halfmoon fine sandy loan 30 train/in 250 f-L2 Hk-'Pm:,,1Ir,Ho,Hp Haskill loaymy & fine sand 7 min/in It 140 ft2 Ka� ~ y Kalispell fine sandy loam 6 min/in 130 ft2 Kb,Kc,Kd Ka-Uspell gravelly loam 2 min/in 100 ft2 Ke,Kf,Kg,Kh,Kk,Xml Kalispell loam 5 min/in 130 ft2 !=n,Kc,Xp,Kr,Ks,Kt1, Kalispell loam 5 mi..n/in 150 ft2 r,'_,Kv,1Cw,Kx,Kza, `Kalispell silt loa-a 8 min/in 200 ft2t` a_zb,ltzc Kalispell silt loam r_ m�n/in 200 f;,2 Kzd,Kzg Kiwanis fine sandy boon' t 6 min/in 130 ftZ I:ze,Kzf,Kzh Kiwanis loam 5 sriin/in ..._i25 f 1 zi:,_Kz;r,,K7,o _-.. Krause gravelly Loam 3-4 min/in iio ft2 Za t Made land ...� _ i Need. on _site inspection ijcCaffery rCczxse sand 4 min/in w 115 f A.c,":d,l'ie,?'if McCaffery• loamy fine sand 8 min/in ^-�I--�- -150 f•tti 1`g,:th,PSk,?Sm Aires gravelly loam 2 min/in 1 85 f�- Mires lewd � 5 ;,L-nAn 125 ft, _ __..... __ .. Mr Mourtainous land 1 3-4 =s____,Muck and Peat Need on site inspection ....I ... ` ., i:r .r:i. .�..r• x Prospect loam ' 5 -Ti 11/1n f 8 m.in/in �-� `C f j'P iY}1 y Tirozpect stony loan ( 7" i loam 15 ai.n/ill �, �• i traspnct sal 0lURRELLENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING PO BOX 2063 WHITEFISH, K0T69937 (406)862'9589 PROJECT: GEV|BRPROPERTY. FLATHEAD COUNTY DATE: 3/23/2006 EVALUATION BY: J|KdK4URRELL.R.G..GEOLOGIST NOTES: GPSPOSITIONING +/-2Uft PAGE 1OF5 TEST HOLE ANALYSIS TEST HOLE# DESCRIPTION N48dag1278D 0-172 EXISTING HOLEm/2inch PIPE VV114degO8.A3O 2 0'8 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1) SILT LOAM; GRANULAR DTRUCT N48deg12.749' VEA8FRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLB\R8NDRY VV114dogOQ,10O' 8'30 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; MINOR LENTICULAR LENBES� BREAKS T0VVKSUBANGBLKYSTRUCT�EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT ROOTS TO28inches VNN0MATTING; SLTCALCAREOUS ACCUMULATION; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 30'72 PALE BROWN TOMOD BRN(5YR5/2'5YR4/4)SILT LOAM: MASSIVE STRUCT|NPLC; GRAN |NHAND; VRYEASILY FRIABLE; TRACE SCAT MOTTLING; GRAD BNDRY 72 Q0 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; 8LTRED|SHHUE VVKTOMOD ALTSTRATIFICATION: EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND, TRACE ISOLATED MOTTLING 3 0-12 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR STRUCT; N48Ueg12.747' VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VV\14deg00393' 12-28 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; MINOR LENTICULAR LENSES; BREAKS TOVVKSUBANG BLKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT ROOTS TO1Oinches W1NOMATTING; VYKCALCAREOUS; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 38-70 PALE BROWN TOMOD 8RN(5YR5O-5YR4/4)SILT LOAM: MASSIVE 8TRUCT|NPLC; GRAN |NHAND; VRYEASILY FRIABLE; TRACE SCAT MOTTLING; GRAD 8NDRY 78 08 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2) SANDY SILT LOAM- SLTRED|SHHUE VVKTOMOD ALTSTRATIFICATION: EASILY FRIABLE |NHANO� TRACE ISOLATED MOTTLING PROJECT: OEV|ERPROPERTY. FLATHEAD COUNTY DATE: 3123/2006 EVALUATION BY: J}k0MURRELL.R.S,GEOLOGIST 4 0-13 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAKGRANULAR 8TRUCT; N 48deg 12.878' VEAGFRIABLE; MANY ROOT8�CLEAR BNDRY VV114degQU3A7' 18 18 BROWNISH GRAY (5YR4/1)SILT LOAM: VVKT0MOD PRISMATIC STRUCT;VRYEASILY FRIABLE; SCAT ROOTS; BOUNDARY CLEAR. 18-42 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; K4|NORLENTICULAR: VVKSU8ANGBLKYSTRUCTTOEASILY FRIABLE; SCAT ROOTS TO22inches N0NOMATTING: VVKCALCAREOUS; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 42-84 PALE BROWN T0MOD BRN(SYRS/2-6YH4/4)SILT LOAM; MASSIVE STRdCT|NPLC; GRAN |NHAND; VEASFRIABLE. TRACE SCAT MOTTLING; GRADES TOSTRATSILT &SAND 84'98 PALE BROWN (SYR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; VVKTOMOD ALTSTRATIFICATION ; EASILY FRIABLE !NHAND; TRACE ISOLATED MOTTLING 5 0-18 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR GTRUCT; N4Odeg12877' VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR 8NDRY VV114degOB,2OO' 18 24 BROWNISH GRAY (5YR4/1)SILT LOAM; VVKTDMOD PRISMATIC 3TRUCT;VRYEASILY FRIABLE; SCAT ROOTS TO2Oinches NyN0MATTING; BNDRYCLEAR. 24 48 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)FNSANDY SILT L0AKLENTICULAR; EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; ALT3TRATVRYFNSAND &SILT CALCAREOUS; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 48 08 PALE BROWN TOMOD BRN (5YR 512'5YR4/4) SILT LOAM; MASSIVE STRUCT|NPLC: GRAN |NHAND; VEASFRIABLE; TRACE SCAT MOTTLING; GRADES TOSTRATSILT &SAND 08-102 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; VVKTOMOD ALTSTRATIFICATION; EASILY FRIABLE INHAND; TRACE ISOLATED MOTTLING 0 8'10 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR STRUCT; N48dag12.875` VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VV114degO8.Q27' 10-14 BROWNISH GRAY (5YR4/1)SILT LOAM; VVKTDMOD PRISMATIC STRUCT;VRYEASILY FRIABLE; SCAT ROOTS; BOUNDARY CLEAR. 14'24 PALE BRN(5YR5/2)SILT LOAM; VVKLENTICULAR; EASILY FRIABLE /NHAND; GRADES TUVRYFNSAND &SILT SCAT ROOTS TO 18 inchenNV NO MATTING; VVKCALCAREOUS; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 24'100 GRAYISH BRN(SYR3/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; VVKTOMOD ALTSTRATIFICATION; EASILY FRIABLE !NHAND; TRACE LINEAR MOTTLING, SLTDAMP @BOTTOM PROJECT: SENERPROPERTY. FLATHEAD COUNTY u4|e 3C2312006 7 0'8 BROWNISH BLACK (3YR2M)SILT LOAM: GRANULAR STRUC-C N48de012.0A7 VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VV114degO8.Q27' 8-42 PALE BRN(5YR512)SILT LOAM; VVKLENTlCUL8R� EA8\LYFR)ABLE|NHAND;GRADESTOVRYFNSAND&G|LT SCAT ROOTS TO18inches VV/NDMATTING; TRANSITIONAL BOUNDARY 42-72 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM, MOD LENTICULAR: EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; GRADES TOVRYFNSAND &SILT MOD MOTTLED; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 72 98 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; MASG/VESTRUCT; EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT MOD MOTTLING 8 0'14 BROWNISH BLACK (5/R2/1)SILT LOAM: GRANULAR STRUCT N48deg12,803' VEASFRIABLE; MANYROOTS,-ABRUPTBNDRY vV114deQOQ,1O6' 14-36 PALE BROWN (5YR5D)SILT LOAM: WEAK 8U8'8LKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE INHAND� 8CATROOTGTO2Oinohee;|G(JLATEDCALC|UMCAR8ONATE TRANSITIONAL BOUNDARY 36-74 PALE BROWN TDMOD 8RN(5YR5/2'5YR4/4)SILT LOAM; MASSIVE STRUCT)NPLC; GRAN |NHAND; EAGFRIABLE; SCAT MOTTLING; GRAD RNDRY 74-08 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM,- VVKT0K4ODALTSTRATiF|CAT|ON;EAS|LYFR|ABLE|WHAND; SCAT MOD MOTTLING EXISTING HOLE wl 2 inch PIPE N48deg 12-062 10 O 2O BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR STRUCT N48deg13.1O3' VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOT3�CLEAR BNDRY VV114deg00.JQ4' 20-36 DUSKY BRN(5YR2/2)LOAM; MOD GRANULAR 8TRUCT�EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; ROOTS COMMON; BOUNDARY CLEAR. 38'48 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; MOD LENTICULAR-, EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND, GRADES TOVRYFNSAND &SILT MOD K8OTTLED�GRADUAL BOUNDARY 48'100 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; MASSIVE STRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; TRACE TDSCAT MOTTLING PROJECT: 3EV\ERPR0PERTY. FLATHEAD COUNTY DATE: 3/23/2006 EVALUATION BY: J|/NKUURRELL.R.S,GEOLOGIST 11 0-12 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2M)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR STRUCT; N48deg13.113 VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VVl14dmg00.2O2' 12'18 DUSKY 8RN(5YR2/2)LOAM; MOD GRANULAR GTRUCJ�EASILY FRIABLE \NHAND� ROOTS COMMON: BOUNDARY CLEAR. 18 2O PALE BROWN (5YR5/Z)SILT LOAM; WEAK SUB'BLKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT ROOTS TO22inches; MINOR CALCIUM CARBONATE ABRUPT BOUNDARY 28 72 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; MOD LENTICULAR-, EASILY FRIABLE /NHAND; GRADES TUVRYFNSAND &SILT MOD MOTTLED; GRADUAL BOUNDARY 72-104 PALE BROWN (5YR6/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; KAASS|VESTRUCl; EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; MODERATE TOLARGLEYMOTTLED 12 EXISTING HOLE wV2 inch PIPE N48dag13.072 VV114deQO&9SS' 13 0-16 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR STRUCT: N4Odeg13.140' VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VV114dogUQ.075' 10'20 DUSKY BRN(5YR2/2)LOAM; MOD GRANULAR STRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE iNHAND: SCAT ROOTS TQ1@inches; BOUNDARY CLEAR, 20'36 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SILT LOAM; WEAK SUB'BLKYGTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; CALCIUM CARBONATE; ABRUPT BOUNDARY 36'04 GRAYISH BRW(5YR3/2)SILT LOAM; MOD LENTICULAR; EASILY FRIABLE |NHANO�GRADES T{)VRYFNSAND &SILT MOD MOTTLED�GRADUAL BOUNDARY 54'108 GRAYISH BRN(5YR3Q)SANDY SILT LOAM; VVKT0MOD ALTSTRATIFICATION �EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; MODERATE LINEAR MOTTLING, DAMP @80 14 EXISTING HOLE w/2inch PIPE N48doA13.105' VV114deg0&.154' PROJECT: SEVIERPR0PERTY FLATHEAD COUNTY DATE: 3/23/2006 EVALUATION BY: J/K8k4URRELLR.EL.GEOLOGIST 15 0-18 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR 2/1)SILT LOAM�GRANULAR STRUCT N4OdeO13.19Z VEASFRIABLE: MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY VV114degOA,3Q3' 18'25 DUSKY BRN(5YR 2/2)LOAM: MOD GRANULAR 8TRUCT- EASILY FRIABLE }WHAND: ROOTS TO18inches; BOUNDARY CLEAR. 25'52 PALE BROWN (5YR82)SILT LOAM: WEAK SUB-8LKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND� CLEAR BNDRY 52'102 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; MASSIVE 8TRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT VERTICAL MOTTLING 16 O 12 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM: GRANULAR 3TRUCT; VEA8FRIABLE; MANY ROOTS; CLEAR BNDRY 12-32 BROWNISH GRAY (5YR4/1)LOAM: WEAK GRANULAR STRUCT:EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT ROOTS; BOUNDARY CLEAR. 32'96 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SILT LOAM; MOD SUB-8LKY8TRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; CALCIUM CARBONATE; ABUNDANT MOTTLING: WATER @~38inches 17 0-14 BROWNISH BLACK (5YR2/1)SILT LOAM; GRANULAR 8TRUCT; VEASFRIABLE; MANY ROOTS: CLEAR BNURY 14-28 BROWNISH GRAY (5YR4/1)LOAM; WEAK GRANULAR BTRUCT�EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; ROOTS TO18inches; BOUNDARY CLEAR, 28 36 PALE BROWN (5YR 5/2)SILT LOAM; MOD SUB-BLKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE (NHAND� CALCIUM CARBONATE; CLEAR BOUNDARY 35'80 PALE BROWN (5YR5/2)SANDY SILT LOAM; MASSIVE 8TRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; MODERATE MOTTLING; TRANSITIONAL BOUNDARY 80-96 GRAYISH BROWN (5YR 3/24)FNSANDY SILT LOAM; MOD SUB-8LKYSTRUCT;EASILY FRIABLE |NHAND; SCAT MOTTLING, SEEP @7ft Exhibit E-1 Exhibit E-2 City Council Meeting 12-21-2009 Also I would like to add for the record and to the Mayor, Counsel member's and City manager are some documents that should be reviewed. Such as: RESOLUTION NO.4978, A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE AIRPORT/ATHLETIC COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO APPROVE A PROPOSED PROJECT AS AN UNRAN RENEWAL PROJECT AND TO FINANCE THE PROJECT THROUGH THE ISSUANCE OF TAX INCREMENT URBAN RENEWAL BONDS, UNDER FINDINGS IT SAYS: A. NO PERSON WILL BE DISPLACED FROM THEIR HOUSING BY THE PROJECT. That sounds like the counsel said way back in 2005, there will be no condemnation on this project. And I would like to add to the record the Kalispell City Airport Operating Rules and Regulations Effective date of August 1st. 2005, under the Introduction please note it's signed by the City Manager James Patrick and The airport Manager, Fred Leistiko. And in Chapter 1, under General rules, Section 100.2 Enforcement A. These Rules and Regulations will be enforced by several means. The Kalispell City Police Department, The Kalispell City Fire Department, The Airport Manager, and The City Manager will all have authority to enforce these rules...... ETC ETC B. A violation of these regulation may result in revocation of ramp access privileges, termination of lease agreements, denial of use of the airport, and/or prosecution under applicable Federal Laws, State Laws, or CITY ORDINANCES I WOULD LIKE TO ASK? I would like to see any and all reports of violations at the city airport since 08-1-2005 from all OF THESE sources. If there are none to be found then I sincerely doubt that these rules have been enforced. And the airport manager should be relieved from his duties. I found a Kalispell Airport Area Survey from City Council Resolution no. 4180 September 19, 1994 and Board of Commissioners Resolution no. 1060a, was it sent out to the public and if so what was the results? And enclosed is a copy of some questions asked by a citizen March 7t". 7:00 pm 2005, were these question answered, I'd like to see the results or if they were not answered I want to know why and want them answered. A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE AIRPORT/ATHLETIC COMPLEX REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO APPROVE A PROPOSED PROJECT AS AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT AND TO FINANCE THE PROJECT '! OF TAX URBANINCREMENT BONDS WHEREAS, The Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 1242 (the "Ordinance") adopted on July 17, 1996, created an urban renewal district (the "District") and approved the City of Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the District. The Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 1260 (the "Amended Ordinance") adopted on March 17, 1997, amended Ordinance No. 1242 to provide for the segregation of and application of tax increment in the Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan and confirmed January 1, 1996 as the base year for calculating the tax increment as provided in MCA 7-15-82 through 7-15-4292. The City has issued no Tax Increment Urban Renewal Bonds within this District for this Plan; and WHEREAS, Among the identified goals and objectives of the Plan has been to: a. minimize hazards to aviation, b. develop the airport in accordance with an airport layout plan, C. increase development opportunities on nearby properties, d. promote compatible land use in and around the airport, e. establish a funding mechanism for airport properties, and f. establish a priority schedule for plan implementation. In furtherance of that Plan, the City has developed an FAA approved Airport Master Plan, establishing the layout and priority schedule for airport development and also increased development opportunities and promoted compatible land uses in and around the airport through the sale of land for the construction of Rosauers Supermarket, Whitefish Credit Union and the Southfield Towers office and retail development. The plan has also been followed through the application for and inclusion of the airport and its Airport Master Plan in the National Plan of Integrated Airports Systems (NPIAS) for funding in the current amount in excess of 7 million dollars; and WHEREAS, Consistent with the Airport Master Plan, the City proposes to complete Phase I of the Plan, which will include: a. purchase of land and improvements currently owned by Red Eagle Aviation, b. construction of the northwest ramp and taxiways C. construction of the northwest utilities, d. construction of an internal vehicle access road (16' wide), and e. purchase and installation of an automatic vehicle security gate, and which project has been approved by Council with Resolution 4976 on February 7, 2005. WHEREAS, The City has determined based on its annual collection of tax increment that it can issue approximately $1,900,000 in principal amount of tax increment urban renewal bonds (the "Tax Increment Urban Renewal Bonds" or the "Bonds") which with other available revenues of the City would allow for the City to complete Phase I of the Airport Master Plan. PROPOSITION: The City proposes to approve Phase I of the Airport Master Plan as an urban renewal project (the "Project") so that tax increment funds as well as the proceeds of tax increment bonds can be used for this purpose. The City proposes to issue $1,900,000 of its Tax Increment Urban Renewal Bonds, of which approximately $1,700,000 will be used in furtherance of the Project, and the remainder will be used to establish the necessary reserves and pay for the costs of the sale and issuance of the Bonds. FINDINGS: The Council hereby finds, with respect to the Project as follows: a. no persons will be displaced from their housing by the Project; b. the Plan, as modified to include the Project, conforms to the comprehensive plan or parts thereof of the City; C. the Plan, as modified to include the Project, will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the needs of the City as a whole, for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the District by private enterprise; d. the issuance of $1,900,000 of Bonds for the Project, along with other available funds of the City, will enable the City to implement the Project as a substantial part of the Plan. The Plan can not be fully implemented with the available funds, but the City believes it will obtain other funds over time to complete the Plan; and e. the Project constitutes an urban renewal project within the meaning of the Act and the Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. A public hearing is hereby called and shall be held on Monday, March 7, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers on the proposed modification of the City's Urban Renewal Plan. It is anticipated that the City will issue its Tax Increment Urban Renewal Bonds the amount of $1,900,000. The Bonds will be payable from the tax increment collected within the Urban Renewal District. SECTION II. Notice of the public hearing shall be published in the Daily Inter Lake on February 24th, and March 3rd, 2005, in substantially the form attached as Exhibit B hereto (which is incorporated by reference and made a part hereof). PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF KALISPELL, THIS 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2005. "amela B. KehjWdy Mayor ATTEST: Theresa White City Clerk [4M i . PHASE I OF KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN Estimated Cost Purchase of Red Eagle Aviation Property & Improvements $600,000 Construction of northwest ramp and taxiways $880,000 Installation of northwest utilities $141,672 Construction of internal vehicle access road (16' wide) $ 60,800 Purchase & installation of automatic vehicle security gate $ 16,408 Total Ten Percent Bond Reserve Requirement Costs of Bond Sale and Issuance $ 30,000 W-41-11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Kalispell, Montana (the "City") will hold a public hearing on the proposed modification of the City Of Kalispell Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") on March 7, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers in the Kalispell City Hall, Kalispell, Montana. It is proposed that the City will issue and sell its urban renewal tax increment bonds (the "Bonds") in an amount sufficient, but not to exceed $1,900,000, to fund all or a portion of the project as hereinafter described, if the modification of the Urban Renewal Plan is approved. The proposed modification is the approval of Phase I of the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan, which will include purchase of land and improvements currently owned by Red Eagle Aviation, construction of the northwest ramp and taxiways, construction of the northwest utilities, construction of an internal vehicle access road (16' wide), and purchase and installation of an automatic vehicle security gate. Any interested persons may appear and will be heard or may file written comments with the City Clerk prior to such hearing. Publication Dates: February 24, 2005 March 3, 2005 FICIN City Clerk EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2005 IV, The owners of Federally obligated airports have the responsibilities for instituting airport Rules and Regulations for the safe operation of the airport and for instituting Minimum Standards to establish the threshold entry criteria for those wishing to provide aeronautical services to the public on their . .. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contends that it is the prerogative of the airport owner (sponsor) to impose Rules and Regulations for the safe operation and use of its airport. Two of the assurances given by the airport owner in exchange for Federal funding to assist in developing runways, taxiways, etc, is that they will establish Rules and Regulations along with Minimum Standards for those wishing to provide aeronautical services on their airport. These rules and regulations adopted by the City of Kalispell, as owner of the Kalispell City Airport, are designed to minimize aviation accidents in the air and on the ground. It is the intent of the- City of Kalispell to provide the safest possible atmosphere for the conduct of aviation operations for our tenants, guests, residents, students and employees. Failure to abide by these rules and regulations or flagrant violations of these procedures could result in expulsion from the airport property. The City of Kalispell intends to enforce these rules and regulations by civil or criminal penalties if necessary. dames Patrick, City Manager d Q .l Fred Leistiko, Airport Manager -3- i , f 100.1 Amendments and Corrections: a. Amendments, additions, deletions, or corrections to these Rules and Regulations may be initiated by the Kalispell City Airport as conditions warrant. These Rules and Regulations may be reinforced by a Policy Letter issued by the Airport Manager or City Manager that will be regulatory until these rules are amended. b. These Rules and Regulations supersede and cancel all previous rules and regulations that may have been published for the Kalispell City Airport. a. These Rules and Regulations will be enforced by several means. The Kalispell City Police Department, the Kalispell City Fire Department, the Airport Manager, and the City Manager will all have authority to enforce these Rules. There will be times when the authority and the tenants on the airport may not agree on the application of certain standards. When this happens, the airport will strive to do everything possible to come to an amenable agreement. This could include mediation and/or review by the Airport Advisory Council. b. A violation of these regulations may result in revocation of ramp access privileges, termination of lease agreements, denial of use of airport, and/or prosecution under applicable Federal Laws, State Laws, or City Ordinances. C. Voiding of any particular rule or regulation contained herein shall not affect the validity of the remainder of these regulations. d. The City of Kalispell may deny the use of the Airport to any person in violation of these regulations or any violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations. e. The Airport Manager may prohibit aircraft operations when it is determined that conditions are such that continued operations would be unsafe. The Manager may issue a Notice To Airman (NOTAM) to close any portion of the Airport; or to terminate or restrict any activity thereon. -7- 1. Do you feel Kalispell needs this airport? 2. Should the airport be sold/leased and operated privately? 3. Should the City own and operate the airport? If so, should the on be self mppordng with no City subzidy? S. Should small jets be allowed? 6. Who should pay for the operation of the airport? 7. What improvements do you feel should be made to the auport? ras I Lou" I Ia It* L't Yes No Yes —No — Yes No Yes —No Yes —No Users FARMICity Residents Combination Monday, March 00 The Kalispell City Council will decide on a $1.9 million bond issue to begin reconstruction and expansion of the City Airport, with the potential to accommodate executive jet aircraft. Please be present to voice your comments, submit them in writing, or contact the City Council. This may be our final opportunity to have a say bigger, about a big er, busier, noisier, and more expensive City Airport. Highest and Best Use - There has been no evaluation of alternative uses for this city -owned, 80-acre parcel, with a current real estate value estimated at $10 to $20 million and not on the tax rolls. This is a prime site, with an excellent location and all services, capable of producing large business income and tax revenue - No systenigot evaluation of public opinion has been done, as required by the FAA., 111P11111111111111i 11 J 111��11111�lllpli 11,111 q1111111111 111111 Glacier Park International is willing and fully capable of handling all iiii Jill 'l11111111111 141 t Il 11 All Safety - A highly developed commercial and residential area surrounds this parcel. Remember the plane crash last August that killed two people within three blocks of Flathead High School? Is this the safest or best location for a larger airport? Do we need two airports? Kalispell is the only Montana city to have both a city (general aviation) and commercial airport. s, Total cost to taxpayers to reconstruct and maintain this propos expansion? Nobody knows for sure. * Is this the highest and best use for this valuable land? * Is this the best deal for taxpayers? * Is this airport reconstruction the safest thing we can do for our city? I