The URL can be used to link to this page

CFBF Report dated 06/19/02chsi 1S Fop, A BETTER FLlio".4 A WORKING TOGETHER FOR SMART GROWTH SOLUTIONS June 19, 2002 City of Kalispell City Council 312 1 st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 To Whom It May Concern: Citizens For A Better Flathead PO Box 771 Kalispell, MT 59903 406 756-8993 email: citizens@flatheadcitizens.org Please accept the following packet as part of the record in the decision to amend the Kalispell City County Master Plan as proposed by Wolford Development. Citizens recognizes that the decision is complex both legally and substantively. We have undertaken to gather, compile and share the facts from a variety of respected sources in order to assist the City's attempt to make the best decision for the future of our community. At this point, there simply is not enough information in the record to make an informed decision on this monumental proposal. What information does exist in the record suggests that at the very least, much more study needs to occur. There is a very real risk that if it chooses to proceed without all the necessary facts, the City will soon regret and residents will be stuck with a decision and considerable harm wrought from this amendment. In particular, Citizens would direct the City's attention to the following concerns: ® treatment of stormwater, risks to the clean drinking water of Evergreen residents, and larger, cumulative impacts to Flathead Lake; ® potential impacts to the downtown and to the tax base of the City of Kalispell; and ® jurisdictional concerns regarding the City's basic authority to make the proposed amendment in an area presently outside of its jurisdiction. We encourage the City that now is the time for the City to take all the time that it needs, and that the size of this project demands, to make the best decision for the future of this region. Citizens further suggests that this proposal highlights the issue of greatest importance facing the City's consideration of whether to amend the current master plan: the need to develop, in cooperation with the County, an updated and compliant growth policy. Were the City's efforts short, making a new growth policy the City's top priority is in everyone's best interests. Before acting on the proposed amendment, the City should attempt to develop and adopt a new growth policy. As the voters so clearly spoke in the last election, the days of poor planning are gone. We look to the City of Kalispell to avoid the mistakes of the past and to lead in making sound decisions for the future. } r F Diane Conradi Executive Director June 19, 2002 Mayor Kennedy & City Council City of Kalispell 312 1"Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 RE: Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Kennedy and Council, Our firm has been retained by Citizens for A Better Flathead to provide engineering insight and opinions regarding the environmental impact of the proposed Glacier Mall Plan Amendment. At issue is the site selected by developers to construct the Glacier Mall and attendant commercial and residential properties. The proposed master plan amendment will allow intense development on a site that is comprised of course gravel soils that support a rapidly moving shallow aquifer. There is no known precedent in our community for such an expansive and intense development within a comparable environmentally sensitive area. In our report that follows, we address the issues of. 1. Stormwater Management, 2. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal and 3. Floodplain. Since detailed information in each of these significant areas is unavailable in the form of a Preliminary Design Report, the analysis we present is based upon the potential use of a variety of means to provide "engineered" solutions for each of these areas. Practical means to address the attendant problems in each of these areas of engineering endeavor will be extremely difficult to solve to the degree that the community will be assured the aquifer and down stream water quality is protected. It should be noted that there is no personal bias against the development of a new mall. However, the site selected does not appear to be capable of supporting a development plan of this intensity. Sewage disposal without connection to the City of Kalispell is a major siting and permitting problem. Stormwater management is a major environmental problem. As you review the insight and opinions contained in the report, it is our hope the elected officials of the City of Kalispell will arrive at the same conclusion. The environmental quality of this area can be easily protected by denying the proposed Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment. Sincerely, BILLMAYER ENGINEERING �q J. Jay Billmayer, P.E. CC: Roger Sullivan 2191 Third Avenue East • P.O. Box 1139 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1139 • (406) 257-8707 • FAX (406) 257-8710 • •. OF F 177NGINEERING INSIGHT • C.75.1 Introduction This report is submitted to offer the City Council additional insight and opinions regarding the environmental impact of the proposed Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment. The proposed development activities include placement of structures and construction of supporting infrastructure in an annexation area that has delineated floodplains that bisect the site. Porous gravel soils under the site that support a rapid moving shallow aquifer. The developer has indicated, "Sewage treatment can be handled by either an on -site, engineered treatment system, an extension to the Evergreen collection system line that ends at the intersection of East Reserve and Highway 2 or by extending a city line to the subject property that would bypass the Evergreen collection system." The following paragraphs will present an expanded engineering prospective that will show that "Engineered" methods that could address the treatment of sewage and stormwater are not reasonably available at this site. The reality is, the community has not been assured that the floodplain modifications, stormwater treatment and dispersal and sewage collection, treatment and disposal can be accomplished on -site without adversely impacting the water quality of the aquifer. Each of these three prime areas are discussed in the light of available on -site solutions. The goal is to show the Kalispell City Council and staff that this site cannot support intense development of the magnitude of the proposal without sacrificing the environmental quality the master plan was created to protect. Site Soils The soil in the area of the proposed Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment were classified by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture in the late 1940's. The soils report was expanded with a supplement characterizing the engineering properties and soil interpretations for use in resource planning and development. That supplement was published initially in 1960. The estimated soil limitations or suitability for select uses in urban planning and development for the Kiwanis loam and Kiwanis-Birch fine sandy loam are as follows: Kiwanis soils series is described as occurring in nearly level to gently sloping bottomland and low terraces within the floodplain of major streams. Soil profile is described as: Surface Layer 0 to 9 inches, dark grayish brown loam or fine sandy loam with weak granular structures. Subsoil Layer 9 to 39 inches, pale brown stratified fine sandy loam, loam or loamy fine sand that is calcareous. Substratum 39 to 60 inches, light brownish gray loose coarse sand and / or gravel. Gravel content increases below 50 inches of depth. Uses A. Building Sites & Residential B. Roads & Parking Limiting Factors Severe (1) Flooding or Ponding Moderate (1) Flooding & Ponding Moderate (4) Frost Heave Potential C.75.1 C. Lagoons Severe (11) Rapid Permeability Severe (16) Hazardous to Groundwater Pollution D. Embankments Severe (6) Poor Compaction Quality Severe (11) Rapid Permeability The aquifer The aquifer that exists below the land area within the proposed Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment has been defined and evaluated by Mr. Jack Stanford at the Flathead Lake Biological Station. The following paragraphs that describe the aquifer are excerpts from one or more of Mr. Stanford's reports. "The aquifer exists between the Flathead and Whitefish Rivers generally following the US Highway 2 corridor from Evergreen to Columbia Falls. The aquifer exists in the glacial gravel -cobble that was deposited 15-30 feet deep on top of and impervious clay formation. The gravels are overlain by 2-5 feet of rich soil developed from sediments deposited over the years by the Flathead River on its flood plain. The river has gradually migrated from west to east to its present position owing to tectonic tilting of the valley and the vast amount of gravel deposited on the river flood plain as the glaciers retreated. The aquifer is fed by water from the Flathead River and the Whitefish Range at the top of the flood plain. Ground water flows south to Evergreen where it is constricted by the finer, less porous materials deposited on the broad delta plain of Flathead Lake. Water and any pollution that is placed into the aquifer flows down -slope at high rates for ground water, in some places reaching 10 cm/sec (hydraulic conductivity). Thus, the aquifer and any constituents it may have in it is discharged into the Flathead River in the areas near and slightly upstream from the deltaic constriction near Evergreen. The Montana Bureau of Mines has produced a map of the aquifer that is generally consistent with our work." In Report Number 14, Ecology of the Alluvial Aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana, Mr. Stanford and others conclude, "Shallow alluvial aquifers biophysically connected to main channel or fundamental units of the geohydraulic continuum of the Flathead River. They are not delineated by the active river floodplain; they also include adjacent low terraces composed of ancient glacial outwash floodplains and modified by recent cut and fill alluviation mediated by floodin-...and the flux of materials in this zone probably controls the biophysiology of the river and also may influence advective processes in Flathead Lake ... In Kalispell Valley human activities on the ancient floodplain are beginning to subsidize the nutrient load of the aquifer and alter faunal distribution patterns. The sensitive nature of these groundwater environments requires greater appreciation in the context of pollution control. In the Flathead and elsewhere these shallow alluvial aquifers are strategic sources of potable supplies." Figure 1 shows the location of numerous private water wells located down gradient of the proposed Glacier Mall development site. Many of these wells are shallow and are relied upon as domestic potable water sources. Introduction of contaminants up stream will adversely affect the water quality of residents in that area. Stormwater ManaLrement The Tri-City Planning Office appropriately revealed the critical nature of the stormwater management issue associated with the Glacier Mall development. Of primary concern is the C.75.1 2 1-0 CO .... ...ww. w~•�•--"uj r"�.•�- LL L,.r { h.: a '• Ef■�{r,vw4} .4 �e�a /4 Yam{ ' lu IlrO pr Jr, G� p 4 - .ram. .�...- y� x117 i` F 3 r w f - I 0 4TAW •� F �p, xM -'~7rA. �r - E sro 1. � �,' 4No ID fed` 17 ` t !�Y �."�+` {4 .•..r' ;�`r �� '� L pit, ' ,,.. _ ,�� ,'�'�� -- `�r fo _ .� protection of groundwater and surface water and the need to comply with state and local laws and rules that have been instituted to protect the quality of state waters. On May 14, 2002 Land and Water Consulting (LWC) informed the planning board through a letter to Ron Vanetta, President, that LWC intends to fully evaluate these issues as a basis for preliminary design of the stormwater management system for the Glacier Mall. "The stormwater PDR is intended to provide a site specific evaluation of the various alternatives, benefits and impacts for the stormwater management at the proposed Glacier Mall .... We anticipate this will be around the first of June 2002." To date this information has not been submitted. In absence of any site specific PDR, a general engineering assessment of the methods reasonably available for stormwater management will have to suffice. Once the PDR is submitted a more detailed response can be submitted. Currently the community relies on numerous systems conveying stormwater to soils or to surface retention ponds to provide stormwater management. These systems utilize sedimentation and containment of the bulk of the contaminants in the bottom of the detention basins or confinement of the contaminants to the soil profile in the case of soil absorption systems. On a whole, these systems have provided satisfactory performance on a small scale. Where soils are sufficiently restrictive, the absorption trench or injection wells work well. The velocity of movement is so low that contaminants are effectively locked in the soil matrix (as in the case of South Kalispell). Also, soil profiles that are free of groundwater to a significant depth (greater than 20 feet as in North Kalispell) provide for retention of the contaminants and significant treatment due to the low flow velocities resulted from retardants by capillary action in the unsaturated soil profile. There are also areas of Kalispell served by stormwater sedimentation and detention basins. Generally, these basins are located above or are protected from the floodplain. Sedimentation basins generally store contaminants until they are removed by excavation or washed further down stream due to a high flow flood event. Recent testing at numerous systems indicates there is water quality contamination associated with the detention basins. The fundamental obstacle to development of a safe stormwater solution for the Glacier mall is the free draining capacity of the soil and the close proximity of the aquifer to the ground surface. Stormwater management systems cannot rely on direct percolation to the soil matrix since the soil is porous and currently saturated by the rapidly moving aquifer. Contaminants induced in the system are simply washed down stream to the river system and ultimately to Flathead Lake. Attempts to filter or utilize vortex type separators in our experience, fail due to partial treatment and lack of maintenance attention. Studies by Dr. Stanford and others have demonstrated the surface of the aquifer fluctuates directly with flood events on the creeks and rivers. The soil profile experiences flushing with a recurrent interval that corresponds to flood events on any of the surface water tributaries to Flathead Lake. Therefore, a flood event will cause significant groundwater surge through the stormwater management system even though floodwaters may not flow across the surface of the development site. C.75.1 3 Therein lies the problem with stormwater sedimentation and detention basins as a proposed solution for the Glacier Mall development. The ponds must be depressed into the upper soil horizon to provide a drainage gradient from the catch basins to the pond system. Any accumulation of contaminants in the sedimentation basins will be simply washed away during seasonal groundwater fluctuations or flood events on any nearby rivers or streams. In addition to the hydraulic problems associated with stormwater management, regulatory criteria will most likely apply. EPA Denver addresses the regulatory issue directly. Any type of system that relies upon dispersal of the stormwater to the shallow ground water will be classified by the EPA as a class V (5) well. EPA has implemented an underground injection control program for Region 8. That program will require the mall facility to operate under a rule authorization (which means they wouldn't have to sample every quarter) or have them come under a permit. "From the information in your e-mail (Joe Meek MDEQ to Lisa Johnson EPA) we will most likely want to permit this well even if BMP's may be in place". EPA has developed a Class 5 UIC Study Fact Sheet Stormwater Discharge Wells. A copy of this fact sheet is attached to this report. Contamination related to stormwater drainage wells has been reported to various degrees in a number of states. Also, stormwater drainage wells are generally vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges of hazardous substances as they are often located in close proximity of roadways, parking lots and commercial and industrial loading facilities where such substances are handled and potentially released. The potential environmental risk associated with intense development on the shallow aquifer and porous soils is obvious. Dr. Jack Sanford and the staff at the Yellow Bay Biological Station have prepared, with the assistance of at least one LWC staff member, an analysis of the connectivity and sensitivity of the shallow aquifer that lies under this development site. The developer should be required to submit sufficient preliminary design information to the council and staff of the City of Kalispell that demonstrates an environmentally safe solution is at least potentially available prior to embarking on a plan change that opens this area for intense development. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal The Glacier Mall proposal holds the option of on -site treatment utilizing an engineered system as a viable alternative to connecting to the City of Kalispell wastewater collection and treatment system. In a practical sense it is not. While a physical or chemical process could be developed to reduce the biologic waste and perhaps minimize the nutrient concentration in the wastewater, such a treatment system would come with a very high price tag. In addition, treated wastewater from this hypothetical system must be disposed of without adversely impacting the receiving waters (as in the case of a point source discharge permit). An MPDES permit would be granted only after the designers and developers could convince the regulatory agencies that the proposed system would meet all applicable design standards and the discharge permit criteria. In reality, this is an extremely difficult if not impossible task. The State of Montana has granted very few discharge permits in recent history. As and alternative, the designers and developers would likely pursue a treatment system that relies upon a wastewater treatment facility, storage and land application via spray irrigation. In C.75.1 1997 the MDEQ adopted a general MGWPCS permit to discharge nutrient enriched, domestic or industrial wastewater from private or public wastewater lagoons, infiltration cells, storage pond, drain fields and land application systems. This general permit was developed to facilitate permit processing and standardized permit requirements. As part of the permit process, the applicant must determine receiving aquifer characteristics, treatment technology used and proposed monitoring system to insure the proper operation of the treatment and disposal system. Again, the issue of ground water quality and non-degregation of that state water must be addressed. Since the implementation of the permit process, most land application systems have resolved to apply effluent to lands by way of sprinkler irrigation at a rate that does not exceed the consumption of the irrigated crop. Wastewater application must match the agronomic consumption thereby eliminating any percolation of wastewater applied through the soil profile beyond the zone of plant uptake. Since applied effluent does not reach state waters, a permit is not required. In addition, the analysis must include a determination of a nitrogen balance for the application system. Should the nitrogen applied exceed the plant consumption, curtailment of application of wastewater at the site must occur. In addition to application requirements, the siting of the facility must meet established design criteria. For instance, the lagoon system cannot be located within a quarter mile of a dwelling or any area that may be built up within a reasonable future period. Also, a 200-foot aerosol buffer must be maintained between an exterior fenced boundary and the irrigated land. The end result of these requirements is a facility that must store the wastewater for approximately 250 days (no application while plants are dormant), a land area that is very large in relation to the size of the facility served. A recent design our firm completed, required approximately 60 acres of land area to serve a 100,000-gallon per day sewage load. Early on, the developer indicated the wastewater flow from the facility would be between 125,000 and 150,000 gallons per day. However, the size of the project has increased greatly and additional mixed uses are proposed. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to estimate the wastewater load to be closer to 300,000 gallons per day. The developer is then faced with the difficult task of finding approximately 180 acres of agricultural land that complies with the facilities siting criteria required by MDEQ. In addition, the wastewater must be collected and conveyed to the site for treatment providing an on -site or private wastewater treatment and disposal facility will be costly and impractical. Therefore, in my opinion, the City of Kalispell does hold the key to the location of this development. Floodplain The proposal indicates the developer will secure a modification of the flood boundaries or secure a Letter Of Map Revision and fill the site eliminating the flood prone area. We have found the original floodplain delineation maps generally in Flathead County are subject to error. We have been successful in securing modifications of the flood boundary maps as published on a number of the waterways in Flathead County. We have also been successful in obtaining Letters Of Map Revision for numerous small developments throughout Flathead County. In 1992 we prevailed in a re -delineation of the entire lower reach of the Flathead River between Flathead Lake and Foy's Bend (approximately 18 river miles). That is the lower reach of three studies that comprised the floodplain mapping of the main stem Flathead River. In 2000 we reviewed the delineation of the middle segment of the Flathead River, between Foy's bend C.75.1 and the area of Goodrich Bayou. Due to the complexity of the confluence of the Whitefish and Stillwater Rivers with the main stem and the presence of the channel constrictions due to the old Highway 2 Bridge near Spruce Park, we have concluded the maps in this area to be beyond the practical limits of revision. That is, the maps that exists today are likely the best maps available under the circumstances. It is, therefore, doubtful the floodplain maps in the area of the Glacier Mall site will be modified through the Letter Of Map Amendment process (erroneous map correction). The other option is through the FEMA process of Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The process to secure a Letter Of Map Revision requires the applicant to develop a plan to construct a fill or levy to eliminate flooding. To secure the approval of a Letter Of Map Revision, the applicant must demonstrate the fill and levy activity will have no adverse affect on adjacent properties. The flood channels bisecting the property have conveyance capacity. If that conveyance capacity is eliminated by means of a levy or fill, the displaced water will flow at a greater depth on adjacent properties. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to develop a hydraulic model that does not show adverse impacts on adjacent properties. In, addition, as demonstrated in the case of the Kalispell Golf Association efforts to protect the championship course located adjacent to the Stillwater River, levies are often times in effective. High levies were constructed to keep the Stillwater River within its banks however the soil system is quite porous as is the case with the mall site and flood water simply flowed underneath the levy and rose upon the golf course in areas that were depressed below the flood elevation. C.75.1 United States Office of Ground Water and VVEPA Environmental Protection .agency Drinking Water What is a storm water Storm water drainage wells are Class V underground injection control (UIC) wells used to remove drainage well? storm water or urban runoff from impervious surfaces such as roadways, roofs, and paved surfaces to prevent flooding, infiltration into basements, etc. The primary types of storm water drainage wells are bored wells, dug wells, and improved sinkholes. In addition, "lake level control wells" are used to drain lakes to prevent overflow following heavy precipitation. What types of fluids are Primarily rain water and melted snow runoff injected into storm water drainage wells? Do injectate constituents Available sampling data indicate that concentrations of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium. exceed drinking water chromium, cyanide, lead, mercury, nickel, nitrate, selenium, and certain organics in storm water standards at the point of runoff have exceeded primary drinking water standards. Available sampling data also show that injection? concentrations of aluminum, chloride, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, zinc, and methyl tert-butvl ether have exceeded secondary drinking water standards or health advisory levels. Water quality data from FL indicate that lake level control well injectate has exceeded primary drinking water standards or health advisory levels for turbidity, arsenic, pentachlorophenol, and fecal coliforms, as well as secondary drinking water standards for iron, manganese, pH, and color. What are the In general, the point of injection for most storm water drainage wells is into sandy, porous soils, a characteristics of the permeable coarse -grained unit, karst, or a fractured unit because these types of formations can readily injection zone of a storm accept large volumes of fluids. water drainage well? Are there any Contamination related to storm water drainage wells has been reported to various degrees in OH, KS, contamination incidents WI. CA. WA, AZ, OK, TN, NY, IN, FL, KY, and MD. Several studies, however, do not clearly associated with storm distinguish contamination from storm water drainage wells versus more general, nonpoint source water drainage wells? pollution. Lake level control wells have been associated with two documented contamination incidents in FL. Are storm water drainage Storm water drainage wells are generally vulnerable to spills or illicit discharges of hazardous wells vulnerable to spills or substances, as they are often located in close proximity to roadways, parking lots, and illicit discharges? commercial/industrial loading facilities where such substances are handled and potentially released. How many storm water There are approximately 71,000 documented storm water drainage wells and approximately 248,000 drainage wells exist in the storm water drainage wells estimated to exist in the United States. United States? Where are storm water About 81 percent of the documented wells are in seven %vestem states: AZ (141857), CA (3,743), WA draina-e wells located (22,688), OR (4,148), ID (5,359), MT (4,000), and UT (2,890). Five other states contain within the United States? approximately 15 percent of the total wells: OH (3,036), FL (2,153), MI (1,301), MD (1,678), and HI (2.622). There are approximately 200-250 lake level control wells in FL. liow are storm water Permit by rule: IL, IN, MI. OH, WI (<10 ft. deep and constructed prior to 1994), MT, WY, ND, SD, drainage wells regulated in UT, CO. ID (< 18 ft. deep), OR, WA, KS, TN, RI states with the largest number of this type of Individual permit;'registration systenn: AZ, CA, HI, ID (z 18 ft. deep), AL, FL. TX, NH, MD, NE, NY well? Banned: NC, GA, WI (any new well since 1994 and wells > 10 ft. deep since the 1930's). MN (for "wells" that reach ground water) `'here can I obtain For general information, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll -free 800-426-4791. The Safe additional information on Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, from 9:00 a.m. storm water drainage to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. For technical inquiries, contact Amber Moreen, Underground wells? Injection Control Program, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (mail code 4606), EPA, 401 M Street. SW, Washington, D.C., 20460. Phone: 202-260-4891. E-mail: moreen.amberCaepa.gov. The complete Class V UIC Study (EPA/816-R-99-014. September 1999), which includes a volume addressing storm water drainage wells (Volume 3), can be found at http:/Av\N xv.epa.gov/OGWDW/uic/c15study.html. United States of America QTO Environmental Protection Agency I List of Constituents in a Typical Motor Vehicle Related Shallow Disposal )FFICE: . Ground Water ProgriL PISA Al I kyl I A 0 1 "'0 W140191112913 Hello Jay, Here is a copy of the list we ask our shallow well permittees to test for on a quarterly basis. This is related to motor vehicle wells like car washes. We add or subtract constituents based on the well operation. We require well operators to meet MCS and health advisories at the last accessible sampling point, with could be the septic tank in some cases. You should be receiving an e-mail shortly with links to our MCLs and other information. Please give me a call if you have any questions. Thanks! Lisa )ATE and TIME:, 159- we] i /2002 01:30 PM PA Form 1315-18 (Rev. 5/97) (E-Forms 4.4) Ij " 3 1 Ell #�4- 3141W 1*91 le- 02,01 Of 9 1*91WINVUENTS METHODS Antimony 200.8, 200.9 Arsenic., 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Barium 200.7, 200.8 Boron 212.3, 200.7 Beryllium 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Cadmium 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Chromium 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Copper 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Cyanide 335.4 Fluoride 300.0 Iron 200.7, 200.9 Leadv' 200.8, 200.9 Manganese 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Mercury 245.1, 245.2,200.8 Mickel 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Nitrate 300.0, 353.2 Nitrite 300.0, 353.2 Selenium 200.8, 200.9 Silver 200.7, 200.8, 200.9 Strontium 272.1, 272.2,200.7 Thallium 200.8, 200.9 Zinc 200.7, 200.8 Benzene Bromobenzene Bromodichloromethane Bromoform Bromomethane Carbon Tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane p- Chlorotoluene o- Chlorotoluene 1,2 - Dibromoethane 1,2 - Dichlorobenzene 1,4 - Dichlorobenzene 1,1 - Dichlorcethane 1,2 - Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene cis-1,2 - Dichloroethylene 105 13VV, i) 1 trans-1,2 - Dichloroethylene 1,1 - Dichloropropene 1,3 - Dichloropropene 1,2 - Dichloropropane 2,2 - Dichloropropane Ethyl Benzene Styrene 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane Tetrachloroethylene Toluene Total Trihalomethanes 1,2,4 - Tnchlorobenzene 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane 1,1,2 - Tnchloroethane Trichloroethylene 1,2,3 - Trichloropropane Vinyl Chloride Total Xylene The VOC constituents listed above can be analyzed using any of the following EPA -approved methods: 502.2, or 524.2. .Joins sheet 14) . ........ ...... .. ; oo 0r Aa . �� / . / . oo Kze:Bd _ �✓per t{r� y KzB.}- h Bd 'o�;ci% Kzd yi u A. oo %{ ` �� ;�• �$� - Aa f - `�V �{, � i•Y"•��F> i.. h '� ` fit•: �//}�� . r=��' d -.��,'• \\\ '. W PjKze ice.$ Kze -�ay. ` ! KZe `� � '�-� �`"� ��1� ?.� � I' �L �•/I o8't.' � So \\ Jet �• :c. .� oo s � yar�` .� •-s Y KZe _ ti�i 4 _ Aa Kzg Wo KZ g \ H so ^�"o six ng Bd? �' ti Kz j i1a Y ♦ g C_ fY BC ,.i 9 s Kzd�� l AI �,( � .y : Kzg � Kz °o �So i e . -..' o l 00 KzdBd ' Kze " l d Mission Kzg Kzg Kzh r Bb Bid t� Kzd fl Kzg � � � � � fir. sr r _•�.�,._ Bd F'r �•�� ` � i, Kze Mf Bd Kzd bo (s Bd t Kzd / _ - • . ' o , •�+Ki' "ke'- . F ao `� `' " s:. fir''•:` a Kza fell ffze �y t tt a _� 1/2 1 Mil? Scale 1:20000 UPPER FLATHEAD VALLEY AREA, MONTANA 43 Kalispell-Tuffit silt loams, 3 to 7 percent slopes (Kzb).—Tliis mapping unit is on moderate, irregular slopes. Individual areas are 30 acres or less in size. Nearly all of this complex is cultivated —mainly for wheat. It is in capability unit IIIs-4. Kalispell-Tuffit silt loams, 7 to 20 percent slopes (Kzc).—This mapping unit is on the steeper slopes of drainageways and on the rolling, dissected edges of terraces. The individual areas contain from 5 to 30 acres. Runoff is fairly rapid on the stronger slopes. This complex is subject to moderate water and wind erosion. Except for the parts consisting of friable, permeable Kalispell soils, it is relatively unproductive. However, most of the complex is farmed with better soils. This mapping unit is in capability unit VIe-1. Kiwanis series The Kiwanis series consists of shallow, loamy soils developed in stratified, medium and moderately coarse, calcareous alluvium on high bottom lands or low terraces. The parent alluvium, largely reworked glacial drift, was derived from gray, green, and reddish argillite, quartzite, and dolomitic limestone, all of the Belt geo- logical formation. The vegetation under which the soils developed was dominantly grass but consisted also of moderate stands of conifers and of mixed stands of coniferous and deciduous trees and shrubs. The surface soil of the Kiwanis soils is dark loam with weak structure. It rests on the parent material, which is also loamy. The Kiwanis soils have a much thicker dark surface soil and a coarser, a more sandy subsoil and much coarser substrata below a, depth of 3 or 4 feet than the Swims soils. They have a thinner surface soil, a more stratified, and more sandy subsoil, and much coarser substrata below` 3 or 4 feet than the Creston soils. Typical profile (Kiwanis loam, on the west side of road, 560 feet south of the north quarter -section corner in __NEl/4NN1/4 sec. 28, T. 29 N., R. 21 IV.) : All 0 to 2 inches, dark grayish -brown to very dark brown (10YR 4/2, dry; 2/2, moist) loam; weak, fine, granular structure; soft when dry, very friable when moist; neutral reaction; boundary clear. A,, 2 to 9 inches, grayish -brown to very dark grayish -brown (10YR 5/2, dry; 3/2, moist) loam; weak, soft, crumb structure; soft when dry, very friable when moist; neutral reaction; boundary clear. C 9 to 39 inches, very pale brown to pale -brown (10YR 8/3, dry; 6/3, moist) fine sandy loam; massive but breaks into soft, irregular lumps; calcareous; boundary abrupt. Di 39 to 58 inches, light -gray to light brownish -gray (10YR 7/2, dry; 6/2, moist), loose, coarse sand; calcareous; boundary gradual. DZ 58 to 70 inches +, same as layer above except that gravel is abundant. In the Kiwanis soils, there is a wide range in the `hickness and darkness of the surface layer and in the 3epth to the loose substrata. In most areas the soils Are calcareous within or near plow depth. Kiwanis fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Kzd).—The profile of this soil differs from the one described in having a sandier and sliglit.ly lighter col- ored surface soil and subsoil. In addition, the loose, coarse substratum is as near as 24 inches to the surface to places. This soil occupies fairly large areas east and northeast of Kalispell and broad, low terraces between the Flathead and Whitefish Rivers. A large percentage of this soil has been cleared and cultivated. Wheat is the principal crop on the larger farms. The rest has been cut over and is used as brushy pasture. A number of suburban residences and small farms are located on this soil. The owners of the small farins market a small amount of produce, but they de- pend on outside work for a. lame part of their income. This soil is in capability unit IIIs-1. Kiwanis loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Kze).—This soil occupies nearly level, low stream terraces or high bottom lands that are above floods. A few small areas are imperfectly drained. In these areas the ground water is in contact with the fine earth material above the gravel. It rises through capillary action and benefits most crops, especially hay and pasture. This soil occurs in association with Kiwanis fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes, and is used in about the same manner. It is in capa- bility unit IIw-1. Kiwanis loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes (Kzf).—This soil has a slightly thinner surface soil than the soil described. It occurs mainly as small, widely scattered spots in the general area of Kiwanis soils. It is on short slopes that border shallow drainageways and on edges of low terraces that break to the lower flood plains of the larger streams. This soil does not comprise a large acreage on many farms. -lost of it is left in Grass and used for hay or pasture. Little is cultivated. It is in capability unit IIIe-1. Kiwanis-Birch fine sandy loams, 0 to 5 percent slopes (Kzg).—This complex includes about equal parts of Kiwanis fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent. slopes, Birch fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, and soils that are transitional between these in depth to the loose gravel or sand and gravel substrata. These soils occur in such an intricate pattern that it was not feasible to map them separately. This complex of soils comprise a fairly large total area east and northeast of Kalispell. It is associated with the larger areas of Kiwanis and Birch soils. Most of it is under cultivation. Because of the lower water - holding capacity and shallow rooting zone in the shallow Birch soil, crops show uneven growth in fields of this complex. This complex is in capability unit IVs-1. Kiwanis-Birch loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes (Kzh).— This complex consists of an intricate association of Kiwanis loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, and Birch fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. It is in the general area of Kiwanis and Birch soils east and northeast of Kalispell. A, large part of this complex is cultivated. Some is used for brushy pasture. Because of the shallow, droughty Birch soil, crop growth is uneven and yields are lowered. This complex is in capability unit IVs-1. Krause series The Krause series consists of shallow, loamy soils over loose, coarse materials. These soils have developed in the alluvial and out -wash fans along the east side of the valley. The parent material was derived mainly from gray, green, and reddish argillite, quartzite, and dolomitic limestone, all of the Belt geological formation. It con- tains gravel, cobbles, and large stones. The Krause y. �i � � IW, i*'y�^., ,�.t.+c'-^�"�- -a31,r •� �`,.,q„_» ,may gig -K Zw lit LLI Tomf .rot-w..Kyy„�y_,1..-'3'w.+.n �' t i--•�.+� d .. }�,, ° + ,G' S tip:,' Q AYY i A ZckoO € 4 J5' 4 4r � � f4� Iy� _.Q_- •" I-� ! c �k '� P'Y �, �r,�� .."lei, O �^ f".� � �/ IN LL W Nall- +,+�r:,....+'r"swe � °� �" � � t ,:..{.,i�,.�. r '^�.,..r f1 - YID ,,, �� `� = #-+� .-�, v__t � �•Ci' �:: p....,.w,.kviJ 4.� /* ,.r•� i.a1.\'v Fi f f' ✓`+s r�t, ''7:'.,. sli f K, _ yE j v S t - 33 #tY�ey e K4 _ - ., �- s"J•f � �_^ _ 1ts'+V� +% - x.. �. ' � y�.- G - � 6-1 LM ` � r. •.` Ski "'' � V �Jn. r+ '' : _'•,w 4* u�{* .✓ , " `"' y! fV i � _ L �:l. _ r � � � v1' � if ?y _ . -. � ...�" y •. "`^_ -.Y.- � 4/ �-1k�i�i:. , ��...��i; € �� c:'.T€ -. Seleted RLK Wells Total wells=166 Number TRS id AQUIFER Depth SWL 84271 29N21W28 DBDC 111ALVM 20.00 84383 129N21W33 D 112ALVM 150.00 81990 28N21W4 AC 111ALVM 24.00 8.00 81992 28N21 W4 AC 111 ALVM 124.00 20.00 81977 28N21W4 A 84269 29N21W28 DA 81971 28N21W4 111ALVM 20.00 12.00 81972 28N21W4 111ALVM 20.00 12.00 81991 28N21W4 AC 111 ALVM 20.00 8.00 84235 29N21W27 CCC 111ALVM 20.00 6.00 84278 29N21W28 DDDD 111ALVM 22.00 15.00 81976 28N21W4 111ALVM 27.00 27.00 81969 28N21W4 111ALVM 32.00 112.00 81970 128N21W4 1111ALVM 32.00 12.00 81978 128N2lW4 A 1111ALVM 15.00 �_ -1 � r� ; .4 F.tei rsa 'lat Set your zoom #lf�► y -�^�_ _ _-~.`-�1 �Y ► Recenter Ma Map browse D OW In; OEM a . '.�'^"—� _•,.- `fir �l�'.. � . a c - 1 : ` . _ l� 1 ��;y€�-=-�--=�' Choose your la Base. Topos Cities Roads R . , `f = • Railroads E ower&PipesV TR TRS 'I • ; ay ,} �r a 4 AWN �, �i• i I \, *• • ! r. .r GWIli ` Aquifers b ■.f . s.,,�k ♦ �= "mot z Studies b " E� ■ 14-20 -. ;_._� S 20-50 Ir� t' 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 km I i S Scale is 1 : 9450.646640 List Wells on tt usgs swl Set your zoom Recenter Map ►_ ♦_ * „ * +► * * Map browse D mew�1' Choose your la t - J ♦ tBase: '' ' ;' * # i * �'• * '►+� # f None w j ti '� j Cities iti * '� * i * �► �. * * * k` Roads R _ �► Railroads E ower&Pipes R -- GWIC quifers b +►,; = s��.L T — Studies b s swL<=io i �, ► i, � * ,' 1- * P * 20-500 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 km tr ` s Scale is 1 : 25201.724374 List Wells on tl roads lakes rivers swl mnumher depth Static Water Level calc'd Depth calc'd SWL 6419 23.0 9.1 23.0 9.1 6531 20.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 6532 23.0 8.7 23.0 8.7 44415 28.0 12.0 28.0 12.0 81949 15.0 15.0 15.0 61951 26.0 26.0 26.0 81952 32.0 26.0 32.0 26.0 81953 19.5 10.0 19.5 10.0 81954 23.0 20.0 23.0 20.0 81955 20.0 12.0 20.0 12.0 81956 32.0 26.0 32.0 26.0 81957 25.0 2510 25.0 25,0 81958 30.0 10.0 30.0 10.0 81959 40.0 7.0 40.0 7.0 81960 340.0 9.0 340.0 9.0 81961 20.5 9.0 20.5 9.0 81963 21.0 10.0 21.0 10.0 81905 1810 18,0 13,0 81966 18.0 18.0 13.0 81967 16.0 16.0 11.0 81968 16.0 16.0 11.0 81969 32.0 12.0 32.0 12.0 81970 32.0 12.0 32.0 12.0 81971 20.0 12.0 20.0 12.0 81972 20.0 12.0 20.0 12.0 81973 249.0 17.0 249.0 17.0 81975 12.0 12.0 12.0 81976 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 81978 15,0 15.0 10.0 81980 22.0 10.0 22.0 10.0 81981 26.0 26.0 21.0 81982 24.0 9.0 24.0 9.0 81983 24.0 15.0 24.0 15.0 81984 22.0 7.0 22.0 7.0 81985 20,0 20.0 15.0 81986 20.0 20.0 15.0 81987 20.0 20.0 20.0 81988 26.0 26.0 21.0 81989 21.0 8.0 21.0 8.0 81990 24.0 8.0 24.0 8.0 $1991 20,0 &0 MO &0 81992 24.0 20.0 24.0 20.0 81993 27.0 9.0 27.0 9.0 81994 25.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 81995 14.0 14.0 14.0 page 1 mnumber depth Static Water Level oale'd Depth caic'd SWL 82033 24.0 11.0 24.0 11J0 82034 35.0 20.0 35.0 20.0 82035 25.0 8.0 25.0 8.0 82038 20.0 20i0 15.0 82037 158.0 150.0 145.0 82211 MO 9.0 20.0 U 82238 4.0 4.0 4.0 82239 24.8 12.0 24.0 12.0 82240 26.0 12.0 25.0 12.0 82241 24.0 12.0 24.0 12.0 82242 22.0 9.0 22.0 9.0 82243 2M 12.0 23.0 12.0 82244 87.0 12.0 37.0 12.0 84235 20.0 6.0 20.0 6.0 04236 25.8 14.0 25.0 14.0 84247 4.0 4.0 4.0 84254 12.0 12.0 12.0 84266 700.0 16.0 2MO 16.0 84270 23.0 11.0 23.0 11.0 84271 20D 20.0 20.0 84272 25.0 12.0 25.0 12.0 84273 26.0 11.0 25.0 11.0 84274 25.0 MO 25.0 20.0 84275 5.0 5.8 5.0 84277 16.0 15.0 16.0 15.0 84278 22.0 15.0 22.0 15.0 84295 277.0 48.0 277.0 48.0 84330 20.0 20.0 20.0 84331 27.0 11.0 27.0 11.0 84332 21.0 7.0 21.0 7.0 84333 25.0 15.0 25.0 15.0 84334 21.0 8.0 21.0 8.0 84336 14.0 7.0 14.0 7.0 84338 25.0 8.8 25.0 8.0 84337 191.0 U 191.o 8.0 84338 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 84339 21.0 9.0 21.0 8.0 84340 30.0 7.0 30.0 7.0 84383 150.0 150.0 145.0 843&4 22.0 22.0 22.0 84385 32U 21.O 220.0 21.0 84386 25.0 12.0 25.0 12.0 84387 25.0 8.0 25.0 8.0 84388 20.0 8.0 20.0 8.0 84389 17.0 17.0 12.8 mmumber depth Static Water Level oaIc'd Depth calc'd SWL 84390 17.0 17.0 12.0 84391 21.0 21.0 21.0 84302 23.0 8.0 23.0 EiO 84383 30D 25.0 30.0 25.0 84394 30.0 26.0 30.0 25.0 a4395 31.o 34.O 31.0 24.O 84397 32.0 8.0 32.0 8.0 84398 26.0 10.0 25.0 10.0 84398 19.0 10.0 19.0 84426 28.8 12.0 26.0 12.0 84427 18.0 10.0 18.0 10.0 W28 20.0 %0.O MO 124774 24.0 11.0 24.0 11.8 135819 48.0 8.0 40.0 8.0 129516 20.0 14.0 20.0 U.0 137776 28.0 8.0 28.0 8.0 140040 23.8 23.0 18.0 140041 Mo I Mo 140051 28.0 28.0 23.0 148423 10.0 19.0 14.0 140427 22.0 22.0 17.0 140428 18.5 19.5 14.5 140434 25.0 25.0 20.0 148205 29.0 29.0 24.0 148791 28.0 26.0 21.8 150748 200.0 118 200.0 11.0 153829 27.0 10.5 27.0 10.5 153830 30.0 13.5 30.0 13.5 153831 2M.0 14.5 26.0 14.5 153832 27.0 13.8 27.8 13.0 153833 28.0 13.0 28.0 13.0 156685 25.0 8.0 25.0 8.0 157114 20.0 20.0 15.0 160715 28.0 5.0 28.0 5.0 164407 36Z 11.7 26.5 11.7 184921 28.0 7.8 26D 7.8 189199 28.0 10.0 20.0 10.0 176054 143.0 7.5 143.0 7.5 180783 29.6 10.5 29.5 10.5 183065 178.0 7.0 178.0 7.0 M034 25,0 &0 25.0 0.0 187728 29.0 11.0 29.0 11.0 187733 25.0 13.0 25.0 18.0 188187 25.5 107 25.5 10.7 702826 9.0 9.0 9.0 p;jyII;:I mnumber depth Static Water Level cale'd Depth calc'd SWL 702827 13.0 13.0 8.0 702828 12.0 12.0 7.0 702832 18.0 18.0 13.0 702841 19.0 19.0 14.0 703007 11.0 11.0 6.0 703014 15.0 15,0 10.0 703015 14.0 14.0 9.0 703016 11.0 11.0 6.0 703020 20.0 20.0 15.0 703021 21.0 21.0 16.0 703022 12.0 12.0 7.0 Average Depth to water 15.0 Std Deviation 16.6 Average Depth to bottom of well 36.5 Std Deviation 52.2 When depth data is not available the SWL is used. When SWL is not available the depthZ is used. This is done because some of the well logs are incomplete. page 4 Flathead_ - .`Station The University of Montana June 19, 2002 City of Kalispell City Council 312 ls` Avenue East Kalispell, Montana 59901 To Whom It May Concern: 311 Bio Station Lane Poison, Montana, U.S.A. 59860-9659 Phone (406) 982-3301 Fax (406) 982-3201 http://www.umt.edu/biology/flbs This letter responds to a formal request from the Flathead Lakers asking me to summarize Flathead Lake Biological Station (FLBS) research concerning the ecology of the shallow alluvial aquifer of the Flathead River in the Kalispell Valley. With several colleagues, including Research Associate Bonnie K Ellis (FLBS), Dr. F. Richard Hauer (FLBS) and Professor Dr. J. V. Ward (Swiss Institute of Technology, Zurich), I have conducted this research since 1972. The aquifer exists between the Flathead and Whitefish Rivers generally following the US Highway 2 corridor from Evergreen to Columbia Falls. The aquifer exists in the glacial gravel -cobble that was deposited 15-30 feet deep on top of an impervious clay formation. The gravels are overlain by 2-5 feet of rich soil developed from sediments deposited over the years by the Flathead River on its flood plain. The river has gradually migrated from west to east to its present position owing to tectonic tilting of the valley and the vast amount of gravel deposited on the river flood plain as the glaciers retreated. The aquifer is fed by water from the Flathead River and the Whitefish Range at the top of the flood plain. Ground water flows south to Evergreen where it is constricted by the finer, less porous materials deposited on the broad delta plain of Flathead Lake. Water and any pollution that is placed into the aquifer flows down -slope at high rates for ground water, in some places reaching 10 cm/sec (hydraulic conductivity). Thus, the aquifer and any constituents it may have in it is discharged into the Flathead River in the areas near and slightly upstream from the deltaic constriction near Evergreen. The Montana Bureau of Mines has produced a map of the aquifer that is generally consistent with our work. In 1988, I published with J. V. Ward, in the prestigous science journal, Nature, a paper on our findings that the aquifer was habitat for a wide variety of aquatic invertebrates, notably Plecoptera (stoneflies) that are nearly 2 inches long when mature. I had discovered these stoneflies a decade earlier in the flood plain of the Tobacco River near Eureka, Montana. We were able to collect the invertebrates from specially installed monitoring wells throughout the aquifer system. The stoneflies are unique in that when they are mature they migrate to the river, where they emerge as flying adults to mate. Eggs are deposited in the river where they penetrate An Equal Opportunity University City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 2 into the bottom and hatch. Contrary to most stoneflies, the new larvae migrate far into the aquifer to mature, rather than staying in the river channel. Work by Bonnie Ellis showed that the food base for these large invertebrates is bacteria and protozoans that grow on the rocks in the aquifer. Hence, a complex food chain exists naturally in the aquifer and the large, migratory stoneflies are strong indicators of the high connectivity of ground water with the river. We collected these organisms throughout the aquifer, routinely as far away from the river as US Highway 2 (e.g, near Glacier Park International Airport). But, they were not present inside the city limits of Evergreen. On the other hand, the bugs were ubiquitous outside the urbanized area of the aquifer, suggesting that pollution was a problem in the Evergreen area. Indeed, direct measures of dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorus in the well grid verified what the stoneflies were telling us: that pollution of the aquifer by septic systems, street runoff and other sources from the urbanized zone was substantially polluting the aquifer. Moreover, the pollution load was going directly into the river and hence into Flathead Lake. This information in due course led to the sewering of Evergreen to prevent pollution of Flathead Lake via aquifer discharge. The scientific details of this research fundamentally changed the field of river ecology world-wide, because we showed clearly that alluvial aquifers have complex food webs made up of a wide variety of organisms, including large -bodied invertebrates and some small fish and salamanders, and that the river and aquifer are one and the same. Passage of river water through the aquifer is a natural cleansing process mediated by food web retention and transformation of organic matter from the river and its flood plain. We cannot enjoy healthful water supplies such as we have in Flathead Lake if the river -aquifer system upstream has been disconnected by human activities. Clearly, activities such as large-scale gravel mining (which removes the gravel matrix of the aquifer creating lakes) and pollution from any source, including urban expansion, can completely disrupt the aquifer -river ecosystem. Indeed, the stoneflies have not yet re -inhabited the aquifer in the Evergreen since sewering. However, the pollution load to Flathead Lake has been substantially attenuated, based upon our loading calculations. We know from our Flathead River work and similar work elsewhere that ground -surface water exchange between rivers and their flood plain aquifers involves complex processes and pathways that fundamentally determine water quality, riparian plant growth and aquatic species distributions and productivity. Indeed, the Flathead Lake Biological Station has produced some 15 reports, scientific papers and books that use scientific data and studies from the Flathead River and elsewhere to clearly demonstrate that flood plains and their shallow alluvial aquifers are crucially important attributes of river systems. If these features are damaged or destroyed by gravel mining, disposal of pollutants, flow diversion or other influences, rivers cannot maintain clean water, robust riparian corridors and habitat for fisheries and wildlife. Any activity that substantially or incrementally changes the natural integrity of flood plains and their aquifers will have a direct City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 3 and pervasive impact on surface water quality. In the case of the Flathead Valley, destruction or pollution of the shallow alluvial aquifer that re -circulates and cleanses river water will have direct and permanent effects on the quality of the river and Flathead Lake. These papers may be obtained from Marie Kohler at the Biological Station., Craft, J. A. 1998. Microbial respiration in the hyporheic zone of an alluvial flood plain aquifer. Master's Thesis. The University of Montana, Missoula. Ellis, B. K., J. A. Stanford, and J. V. Ward. 1998. Microbial assemblages and production in alluvial aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana, USA. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:382-402. Noble, R. A., and J. A. Stanford. 1986. Groundwater resources and water quality of the unconfined aquifers in the Kalispell Valley, Montana, Polson. Open File Report 093-86 An open file report in conformance with grant number WDG-85-5030 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report No. 177, Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A. 1993. The ecology of surface and groundwater interactions: Ramifications for re- authorization of the Clean Water Act. Congressional Briefing Paper Open File Report Number 131-93, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Washington, DC. Stanford, J. A., B. K. Ellis, J. A. Craft, and G. C. Poole. 1997. Water Quality Data and Analyses to Aid in the Development of Revised Water Quality Targets for Flathead Lake, Montana. Open File Report 142-97, Prepared for The Flathead Basin Commission, Kalispell, Montana by Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A., B. K. Ellis, and G. C. Poole. 1995. Influences of nitrogen and phosphorus loading on water quality in Flathead Lake, Montana. Final Report to the Montana Water Quality Division (Contract 240097). Open File Report 134-95, Flathead Lake Biological Station, The University of Montana, Polson. Stanford, J. A., and A. R. Gaufin. 1974. Hyporheic communities of two Montana Rivers. Science 185:700-702. Stanford, J. A., and T. Gonser. 1998. Special Issue. Rivers in the Landscape: riparian and groundwater ecology. Freshwater Biology 40:401-585. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1988. The hyporheic habitat of river ecosystems. Nature 335:64- 66. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1992. Emergent properties of ground water ecology: Conference conclusions and recommendations for research and management. Pages 409-415 in J. A. Stanford and J. J. Simons, editors. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Ground Water Ecology. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda. Stanford, J. A., and J. V. Ward. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 12:48-60. Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, and B. K. Ellis. 1994. Ecology of the alluvial aquifers of the Flathead River, Montana. Pages 367-390 in J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol, J. A. Stanford, editor. Groundwater Ecology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. City of Kalispell June 19, 2002 Page 4 Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams, J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers 12:391-413. Tockner, K., and J. A. Stanford. In press. Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environmental Conservation. (expected to be in print by August, 2002; advance copies available at the Flathead Lake Biological Station). Ward, J. V., J. A. Stanford, and N. J. Voelz. 1994. Spatial distribution patterns of Crustacea in the floodplain aquifer of n alluvial river. Hydrobiologia 287:11-17 Moreover, a very recent scientific synthesis (Tockner and Stanford in press) of river flood plains, that typically include shallow alluvial aquifers such as occurs in the Kalispell Valley (Evergreen -Columbia Falls area), shows that these environments are the most endangered landscapes on earth. Flood plains and their aquifers occupy a small part of the earth's surface, but they are inordinately important as natural flood control zones and they are hot spots of biodiversity and bioproduction. Flood plains have rich soils, owing to natural fertilization and build-up through occasional flooding coupled with good drainage (due to the sand gravel deposits of the aquifer system below the soil layers) and easy availability of irrigation water either from the aquifer or the river. They also are the most valuable real estate in many urbanizing areas because they are the riparian green belts along rivers that have high value as recreation areas. In Boise, Idaho, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and many other areas the most valuable properties are near the green belt of the river. Unfortunately, in the USA and globally, floodplain structure and function has been vastly reduced by revetments, road building, gravel mining, pollution and stream flow regulation, among other human activities. Many governments in the USA (e.g., Napa, California) and around the world (Switzerland has a gas tax for flood plain restoration) have recognized the huge value of their river flood plains and are spending millions to rehabilitate them. Conservation and protection are the only actions that make economic sense anywhere flood plains and their alluvial aquifers remain intact, such as the Flathead Valley. Scientists at FLBS are continuing the scientific investigations of the ecology of flood plains and their alluvial aquifers in Montana with funding from the National Science Foundation. We are available upon request to elaborate on our findings and the implications of our work. Sincerely, C/ Jack A. Stanford 4 Bierman Professor and Director cc: Flathead Lakers v_� Erika Binger, FLBS Outreach Coordinator JAS/mvk Water Quality Data and Analyses to Aid in the Developmer Quality "Targets for Flathead Lake, Montana Phase I of a Cooperatives Study to Determine Total Maximum Daily Loads of Nitrogen and Phosphorus2 Report for The Flathead Basin Commission 723 Fifth Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 Jack A. Stanford. Bonnie K. Ellis, James A. Craft and Geoffrey C. Poole Flathead Lake Biological Station The University of Montana 311 Bio Station Lane Polson, MT 59860-9659 15 April 1997 Revised 10 June 1997 tCooperators included The Confederated SaIish and Kootenai Tribes, U. S. Forest Service, Ms. Mayre Flowers and assistants from local high schools, Flathead County Environmental Health Department, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forest Management Bureau, Plum Creek Timber, Inc., Wildlife Spatial Analysis Laboratory of The University of Montana and the Whitefish, Columbia Fails, Kalispell and Bigfork Wastewater Treatment Plants. Special thanks to Judy Troutwine for determination of land cover types from satellite imagery. Her work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (EPSCoR) and was provided in cooperation with an ongoing study to determine land use correlates of spatial patterns of biodiversity and human demography in the Crown of the Continent area (J. A. Stanford, Co - PI). 2Throughout this report we use the term "nutrients" to apply to the chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus that were quantified in samples: nitrate+nitrite nitrogen (NO2/3), total persulfate nitrogen (TPN), soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP), and total phosphorus (TP). Flathead Lake, Montana, is one of the 300 largest lakes in the world and is renowned for its high water quality. The water column in the summer and fall is very transparent due to naturally low amounts of plant growth nutrients (bioavailable forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) incoming annually to the lake. Secchi disk (20 cm diameter) readings in the fall and winter usually exceed 12 meters. Owing to rapid increase in human habitation (> 2% per year since 1970) of the lake's shoreline and catchment basin, sustaining high quality of water in the lake is an important public concern (Stanford and Ellis 1988). Pelagic primary production at a midlake site was quantified in relation to mass flux of nitrogen and phosphorus through the lake during the period 1977-1995. Early analyses of the data bases (Stanford et al. 1983. Stanford and Ellis 1988) demonstrated chronic water quality changes in the form of increasing primary productivity and infrequent lakewide blooms of the filamentous blue-green alga, Anabaena ffos-aquae. These observations suggested that pollution from human sources was a primary factor in the decline of water quality. In an effort to curtail the phosphorus mass reaching the lake, the State water quality regulatory agency instituted a phosphorus reduction strategy for the catchment that included phosphorus removal from sewage effluents and a ban on the sale of phosphorus containing detergents (Water Quality Bureau 1985). The rationale was that lake -wide primary production was determined by availability of phosphorus and that significant phosphorus reduction was achievable at the sewage treatment plants. It is now known that algal production in the lake is co -limited by low availability of both nitrogen and phosphorus (Spencer and EIIis 1990), at least during the summer stratification period. The long-term monitoring of water quality in Flathead Lake and in the catchment basin upstream has been facilitated and funded by the Flathead Basin Commission. Monitoring results have been reported in biennial technical reports and summarized in the Commission's biennial reports. In recent years, the long-term data on nutrient loading and attendant responses in the lake have been supplemented with additional studies that examined cause and effect (Stanford et al. 1994a, Stanford et al. 1995). These studies have been funded by EPA and are the technical background for the development of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation for the purpose of managing nutrient loads reaching Flathead Lake. The present report is the first phase in the analysis of technical data needed to derive and support TMDL targets. Herein we examine long-term trends and relationships in the Flathead Lake nutrient loading data and in -lake responses from the long-term monitoring program. We also present the results of synoptic studies done during 1995-6 and coordinated by the Biological Station. These synoptic studies were designed to better understand anthropogenic sources of nutrients from within the watershed, specifically including the lake shoreline, the semi -urban and agricultural zone (i.e., the area in the box in Figure 1) and portions of the watershed managed for timber production in relation to undisturbed wilderness settings. The approach to the synoptics involved agency collaboration on determination of sites, sampling and interpretation of the data. Shoreline seeps were examined for sewage contamination and nitrogen loads from the lake shore were estimated in relation to housing density. Storm waters were collected in the urban areas (Whitefish, Kalispell, Columbia Falls and Bigfork) to better resolve nutrient loads associated with spate events. Synoptic collections were made along the courses of the major tributaries (North, Middle and South Forks of the Flathead River, Swan, Whitefish, Stillwater Rivers; Ashley and Stoner Creeks; Lower Kalispell Valley tributaries: Mill and Paladin spring brooks; Dayton and Ronan Creeks) were made to provide snapshots of load changes with respect to changes in land cover types and/or uses (e.g., wilderness, forested areas clearcut, agricultural lands and urban as). The contribution of the Evergreen alluvial aquifer to the annual nutrient load was reexamined by bating and sampling wells that were used by Noble and Stanford (1956) to quantify nutrient pollution of the aquifer by urbanization. Evergreen was recently sewered and connected to the Kalispell Waste Water Treatment facility and gradual attenuation of the aquifer contamination identified by Noble and Stanford (1956) should occur. All of these analyses and synoptic studies are provided as the scientific background for determination of a TNML strategy for Flathead . We do not conclude this report with specific goals or targets for the TMDL process, because that is the purview of management. However, we conclude that water quality in Flathead Lake is substantially influenced by external loading of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from human sources in the basin and we offer recommendations for limiting anthropogenic loads and for reducing scientific uncertainty in predicting cause and effect. Flathead Lake and its catchment basin comprise 15,379 km2 (Figure 1). Seven major tributaries drain the catchnienE, but the 3 forks of the Flathead River produce most of the water that enters Flathead Lake annually (Table 1). About .65% of the annual inflow occurs from mountain snow melt during the spring freshet, which generally peaks between 15 May and 10 June in the mainstern Flathead River at the gauging station near Columbia Falls. Minimum flows generally occur during mid -winter as a result of ice formation in the tributaries. The pattern of water flux is controlled in part by Hungry Horse and Kerr Dams; consequences of hydromanipulation, while likely very significant, are not discussed herein (but see Stanford and Hauer 1992). P? common diatom species (Lange-Bertalot 1979), 3) a siltation index based on the percent relative abundance of mobile diatoms in the sample and 4) a disturbance index based on the % relative abundance of Achnanthes minutissima. Motile diatom taxa have a competitive advantage in habitats with aggrading and unstable substrates of fine sediment. A. minutissinm is a small adnate cosmopolitan species that is resistant to physical, chemical and biological disturbance (wave action, toxic chemicals and grazing). Synoptic Analysis of the Evergreen Aquifer Wells used by Noble and Stanford (1986) and Stanford et al. (1994b) were bated and sampled in late summer 1996 using the same field methods. Analytical methods were as in Table 3 for nitrogen and phosphorus forms, conductivity, ply, turbidity, alkalinity, non -dissolved and dissolved organic carbon. Fecal coliform analyses were done by Montana Environmental Laboratory in Kalispell using the Membrane Filter Procedure (American Public Health Association 1989; method 9222D). Estimates of load from the aquifer were recalculated using more recent groundwater flow data (Roger Noble, pers. communication) but following the same rationale as presented in Noble and Stanford (1986). Collection of storm waters was coordinated by Mayne Flowers of Citizens for a Better Flathead, Kalispell. High school science teachers from Kalispell, Whitefish, Columbia Falls and Bigfork assembled teams of science students who attended a training seminar conducted by research scientists from the Flathead Lake Biological Station and the Natural Resources Departrr=t of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Trips. The training seminar detailed the proper methods for collection of water samples and discharge measurements (relevant literature was also provided). High school science teachers assisted in and monitored all field collections. Discharge measures were made by V. S. Forest Service hydrologists at most Kalispell sites (except the City Shop site) by the integration of cross section flows according to the "mid -section method" of the USGS 0 968, 1969; Price type AA or Pygmy current meters) was used. Discharge was estimated at all other sites by timing the filling of a bucket of known volume or determining stream- cross section and estimating flow using a float (tennis ball). Instantaneous loans were. calculated by multiplying concentration by discharge. . Storm events were sampled during early spring and late fall or early winter of I ..Sites were selected prior to the storm events. City engineers and STP managers in each urban -area reviewed the present storm drain systems and recommended outfall sites which would account for r7 the majority of storm water runoff (Appendix Figures 1-4). However, certain areas, such as Evergreen in Kalispell, do not have storm drain systems and runoff was too diffuse to measure accurately in that region. In Columbia Falls, French drains deliver a large share of the storm water runoff to shallow groundwater and these sites were not monitored. Analytical procedures for nutrients, dissolved and non -dissolved carbon, alkalinity, conductivity, turbidity and total suspended solids were as in Table 3. Field measures of dissolved oxygen, pH and temperature were made by High School science students under the direct supervision of science teachers using Hach kits (DO model OX2P; pH Bromthymol blue model 17F) and alcohol thermometers. Analyses of fecal coliforms and total suspended solids (TSS) were done by the Kalispell, Whitefish, Columbia Falls and Bigfork STPs using the Membrane Filter Procedure (American Public Health Association 1989; method 9222D) for fecal coliforms and the gravimetric procedure (APHA 1989; method 2540D) for TSS. Metal concentrations were determined by inductively coupled argon plan (emission spectrorricter, EPA Method 300.0) at the Murdock Environmental Biogeochenvsuy Laboratory of The University of Montana. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Chemistry Laboratory analyzed 5 of the spring storm water samples for poly -chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs; EPA method 508/8080) and 2-3 of the fall winter samples for volatile organic compounds (VOC; EPA method 524.2) and semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOC; EPA methods 3510 and 625/8270). Citizens for a Better Flathead and Chris Ruffatto of Whitefish High School calculated storm water drainage areas from maps supplied by city engineers. Aerial photographs were used to determine lamd use types (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial, open space/park) within each of Synoptic collections were made along the courses of the major tributaries (North, Diddle and South Forks of the Flathead River, Swan, Whitefish, Stillwater Rivers; Ashley and Stoner Creeks; Lower Kalispell Valley tributaries: dill and Paladin spring brooks; Dayton and Ronan Creeks) to provide snapshots of load changes with respect to changes in land cover types and/or uses (e.g., wilderness, forested areas clearcut, agricultural lands and urban areas). Synoptic sites are shown in Figure 3. The North and Middle Forks and the Swan were sampled during base flow in late August or early September 1995, while a complete synoptic for the South Fork was conducted. in. September 1996. All other tributaries were sampled twice during early r anoff '(3 and/or 4/96) and twice during base flow (8 or 9/95 and 96). Daily discharge records -,for -Ashley Creels, and the itefish and Stillwdter Rivers showed that both April sampling dates were on the rising limb of the hydrographs. Discharge in the Stillwater River peaked 3 days after the late April sampling date. While the Whitefish River did not peak for about 2 months, both April synoptics occurred during the first major peak in the spring hydrogiaph. Discharge was measured at all sites, except during high flows on April 11-12. Water samples were collected as close to mid- E depth and mid -stream as possible. All agencies and private parties participating in the synoptic collections (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, U. S. Forest Service, Plum Creek Timber Co., Flad=d County Health Department and Montana Department of State Lands) were briefed on the uniform methods established for collection of samples. measurement of discharge and quality control by the coordinator, Flathead Lake Biological Station (FLBS). Analytical procedures were as in Table 3. Nutrients for those sites monitored by Department of State Lands (Swift, Chicken, Lazy, Fitzsimmons and Chepat Creeks) were analyzed by University of Montana Water Chemistry Laboratory using methods as in Table 3. The Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab (WSAL) at The University of A4ontana was contracted to provide cover typelland use inputs to our analysis process. Watersheds converging to the monitoring site rations were delineated, and proportions of land coverRand use categories within each watmhed were calculated. An operator -assisted method (Redmond et al. 1994) developed by WSAL was used to delineate catchment areas corresponding to the "hydro-Iogical" sequence of the monitoring site locations. Small catchment areas were first delineated locally for each site. For sites on higher order streams, small catchment areas were aggregated into larger watersheds to represent the entire land area draining to a site. Thus, the contributions of both immediately adjacent and of more distant upstream land to load values could be evaluated. Cover and use data had been previously derived from LAl DSAT TM imagery by WSAL (Redmond and Prather 1996). It was further grouped into twelve categories to investigate impacts on water quality. For each drainage, a raster GIS database included cover rype/land use categories for each component catchment area within the drainage. Proportions of coverage by each category were calculated for both the small catchment areas and their aggregates. For a given watershed, cell counts for each category were divided by the total cell count for the watershed. The water quality response variables routinely measured at the midlake deep site in Flathead Lake change with the seasons. Since phytoplankton require nitrogen and phosphorus to grow, nutrient dynamtics are related to phytoplankton growth as well as loading from internal (in lake) and external (water -shed and airshed) sources. Based on the long-term record at the tnidlake deep monitoring site, phytopiankton bloom in the spring (Figure 4) in response to increasing light (longer days, less cloud cover), increasing water temperatures and presence of labile forms of nitrogen.(N4y3, Figure S) and phosphorus. (SRP. Figure 6) circulated from the depths to the lighted layers of the lake. Spring runoff also W Synoptic Analysis of the Evergreen Alluvial Aquifer Twenty-one groundwater monitoring wells were sampled within the Evergreen alluvial aquifer and 4 wells within the deltaic sand aquifer (i.e., 84-10, 84-7, 84-4, 84-13). located south of the Evergreen alluvial aquifer. Many of the wells that were resampled yielded higher concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus than reported by Noble and Stanford (1986) and Stanford et al. (1994b) (Figure 29, Appendix Table 3; see Appendix Table 4 and above references for site locations). Of the 21 wells sampled in the Evergreen alluvial aquifer, 13 had higher and 3 had lower concentrations of NO2/3 than previously reported. Several of those sites with higher NO2/3 had concentrations at least twice the previously reported values (84-16, GFS, 81 230, LE, 84-23, 82-31). Ammonium nitrogen (NH3) remained fairly low at most sites (measured above detection at KW and 84-23). While over a third of the wells had higher concentrations of SRP and SP than in previous studies, most were very close to the maximum reported. Conductivity values were higher at 18 sites in 1996; several sites showed increases of over 100 gmhos/cm (i.e- 84- I9, GFS and LE). Although DOC concentrations were lower in 1996 at 8 well sites, the values were close to the minimum reported in previous studies. We were unable to demonstrate any substantial improvement in aquifer quality as a consequence of sewering the area. Generally higher concentrations of nutrients (particularly NO2/3) were observed during the 1996 synoptic. However, continued leaching of nutrients is expected from the septic systems still in place within the aquifer. The estimated load from the Evergreen aquifer did change as a consequence of newer information on mass flux of water (Q = 0.21 m3/sec, Roger Noble, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Pers. Comm.) through the aquifer. Estimated NO2/1 load was 5.033 /yr (or about 0.8 % of the 1993 load to the lake). and about 0.0695 MT/yr of S +SP (or about 0.06 % of the 1993 load reaching the lake). Two wells within the deltaic sand aquifer exhibited high levels of nitrogen and/or phosphorus. Well 84-13 continues to have one of the highest concentrations of NO2/3 of the wells studied. The phosphorus values for well 84-10 were very high in comparison to all other aquifer sites. SRP and SP values were 37 and 89 µg/l higher, respectively, than past data. Soil phosphorus in this region would not be expected to yield such high levels of phosphorus in solution. Ammoniumn nitrogen (NH3) was low at all sites in both aquifers except well 84-10 where the concentration was extremely high (i.e., 4299 µg/1). Further study is needed of the possible sources of high levels of NO2 3 at well 94-13 and high SRP, SP and NH3 at well 84-10. 27 Synoptic Studies of Storm rater Runoff The storm event which occurred on April 10-11. 1996 represented one of the wettest events in 1996. Precipitation totals for the event were 0.75, 0.76 and 0.86 inches for the NOAA sites in Kalispell, Whitefish and Bigfork, respectively. All of the sites recommended by the city engineers were sampled (see Appendix Figures l - 4; photo -reductions of original City/County maps), except a site in Bigfork and one in Columbia Falls. Access problems prevented collection at the Bigfork site and the outlet structure at the site in Columbia Falls was submerged in the small receiving basin. Results of chemicaUphysical analyses and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) benchmark values are shown in Tables 7-9. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division has adopted the EPA recommended benchmark values for 41 separate parameters for storm water (personal communication, Roxann Lincoln, DES Storm Water Coordinator). Benchmarks are the pollutant concentrations that when exceeded could impair water quality or affect human health_ The benchmark concentrations are not intended to be effluent limitations, instead they represent a target concentration to achieve through implementation of pollution prevention measures. Concentrations of total suspended solids (TSS), nitrate plus nitrite nitrogen (NO23), total aluminum (TAI), total iron (TFe), total zinc (TZn) and pH exceeded EPA benchmark values for some sites monitored in April 1996 (Tables 7-9). Metals concentrations for 7 out of 13 sites exceeded EPA standards for TAI, TFe and TZn, while 6 sites (out of 14 total) exceeded TSS benchmark values; 4 for NO-2/3-N and 2 for pH. Although no benchmark value exists for fecal coliform bacteria (F-Col), several sites in Kalispell and Whitefish had more than 400 F-Col bacteria per 100 ml. Carbon concentrations (DOC, NDOC) were also quite high, especially particulate carbon (NDOC). None of the samples collected in April 1996 exceeded the TP benchmark value, but 4 sites exceeded the NO2/3 benchmark: Sylvia Cr. and Western Dr. in Kalispell and Edgewood Dr. and Cow Cr. detention basin in Whitefish. The Western Dr. site also had very high levels of ammonium and total nitrogen' (i.e., 2264 and 8112 µg/l, respectively). Five sites were selected in Kalispell and Whitefish for determination of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) present in storm water. Results indicated levels were <I gg/I at all sites but the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in samples made detection of PCB below 1 µ&A difficult. The Meridian storm water site in Kalispell collects groundwater from area springs.and irrigation return flows in addition to storm water runoff. A background sample for the site was to be collected during a period of dry weather following the storm event. However, volunteers did not sample the site until late August and flow was quite high at the site (17 cfs), possibly due to high groundwater flows during the summer of 1996 and/or irrigation return flows. Thus, the data presented for Meridian/no storm. are not directly comparable to storm water results for the W site. It is interesting to note that total nitrogen, alkalinity and conductivity were higher in the background sample (no storm) than the storm sample.. The second series of storm water samples were collected in October and Decemberof 1996. The precipitation events were more localized during the period, thus samples were collected on different dates depending upon the location of the storm. The events were not the wettest events during the fall. Precipitation totals for the Kalispell NOAA site were 0.42, 0.29 and 0.32 inches on October 13-14, 28 and December 8-9, respectively; totals for Bigfork and Whitefish on December 8-9 were 0.23 and 0.38 inches, respectively. No lengthy dry periods preceded any of the storm water collections. Concentrations of TSS, NOy- .;, TAI, TFe, total manganese n), total lead () -and TZ:n exceeded EPA benchmark values for some sites monitored in the fall of 1996 (Tables 10-12). Metals concentrations for 6 to 7 out of I I sites exceeded EPA standards for TAI, TFe and TZn, while- I to 2 sites exceeded TMn and TPb benchmark values. TSS benchmark values were exceeded at 5 sites, with very high values at Bigfork dock and Whitefish 2nd St. W sites. As was observed during the April sampling, several sites had more than 400 F-Col bacteria per 100 ml; extremely high values were measured at the Bigfork dock and Kalispell City Shop sites (2700 and 2200 org/100 ml, respectively). Carbon concentrations (DOC, NDOC) were also quite high at several sites, especially particulate carbon (N ). None of the samples,collected in '-April.1 exceeded the TP benchmark value, but the Bigfork dock and Kalispell Westem Tar. sites were well above I mg/l TP. Only the Western Dr. site exceeded the NOS benchmark. The Western Dr. site continued to. show the highest levels of nutrients of any storm water site; total nitrogen was in excess of 10 mg/l. Nutrient concentrations were much higher during the fall event than the spring event. Conductivity was also very high (i.e., >1000 µmhos/cm) at all Whitefish sites in the fall. During the fall storrrr sampling, three sites were selected in Kalispell and Whitefish for determination of volatile organic compounds (VOCs; 59 compounds) in storm water. Results indicated levels were below detection limit for all 59 compounds at the Kalispell Meridian site. However, 7 different VOCs were found at the other two sites, Kalispell City Shop and Whitefish 2nd St_ W (Table 13). Storm waters from these two sites were also analyzed for semi -volatile organic compounds (SVOCs; 67 compounds) and none were detected. However, storm water - from the Kalispell City Shop site contained high amounts of petroleum hydrocarbons which appeared to be diesel range hydrocarbons (i.e.. C12 to C25). Storm water quality is highly variable from year to year, per storm and per hour. Annual variations occur as a consequence of changes in weather patterns. Storm pollutant loads vary due to storm intensity and duration characteristics. Antecedent dry conditions, fluctuations i6 rainfall intensity during a storm and changes in the local environment can affect the concentratign of pollutants. Storm water quality is highly dynamic and extremely difficult to characterize.. For this 92 study, collection of multiple samples and flows at each site throughout each storm event was not possible with the available funds. The storm water data reported here represent instantaneous measures of pollutant concentrations for the two storm events. Previous data on storm water quality in the region was quite limited (see Morrison-Maierle and Montgomery 1977, Appendix F). Grab samples collected in January and May of 1977 from 4 sites in the Kalispell region revealed the following ranges: 93 - > 10,000 µnihos/cm conductivity; 60 - 1700 org/ml F-Col; 22 - 287 mg/1 CaCO3 alkalinity;.100 - 900 µg/1 TP; 34 - 5400 mg/1 TSS; 7.1 - 7.8 pH. While most of the data reported in the present study were within the ranges reported for 1977, there were a few notable exceptions. The maximum TSS and conductivity values reported for 1977 were much higher than anything reported in the present study. However, concentrations of F-Col and TP were higher in the present study than in 1977. . In the study of urban storm water by Morrison-Maierle and Montgomery (1977), literature values for pollutant concentrations were used in the determination of runoff pollutant loads.. Storm water concentrations measured in the present study are compared to the literature concentrations used to calculate loads by Morrison-Maierle and Montgomery (1977) in Table 14. In general, the values are similar, though the literature values for TSS appear quite low and the organic nitrogen literature values appear somewhat high in comparison to several of the 1996 grab samples. Only as an approximation, we calculated the annual pollutant load using the methods of Morrison- Maierle and Montgomery (1977; see p. 8-16) and the concentrations determined in the present study rather than the literature estimates. The annual pollutant load for a drainage basin was approximated by multiplying the pollutant concentration by the area and runoff coefficient of each land use by average annual rainfall. Runoff coefficients were as follows: 0.35 residential; 0.90 commercial; 0.90 industrial; 0.15 open space/park (from Morrison-Maierle and Montgomery 1977). The results in Table 15 show very similar results for TSS loading, but lower loading estimates for organic nitrogen and higher loading estimates for TP using the 1996 concentration data Using these approximations, stormy water runoff in the 4 major urban areas in the Flathead Basin would have accounted for only 0.5% and 0.9% of the total load of nitrate+nitrite nitrogen and phosphorus, respectively, to Flathead Lake in 1995 (1996 loads unavailable at the time of this. report). However, these are only approximations based on grab samples obtained during two storm events. A thorough analysis of storm water loading can only be made using flow weighted average concentrations (also known as the event mean concentration) which are determined from multiple samples and discharge measures throughout a given event. Representative runoff events (e.g., snow melt- short and long duration, light and heavy intensity) should be investigated over an annual cycle to examine potential variation. Runoff coefficients for the various land use types in the region should also be determined. m Although the nutrient load from urban storm water appears to be a minor load to Flathead Lake in comparison to other sources (i.e., major tributaries and bulls precipitation), the impact to the receiving waters could be significant. In Kalispell, runoff from about 60% of the study area discharges into Ashley Creek and about 20-25% of the runoff enters the combined sewer system, while the remainder drains into the Stillwater River. In Whitefish, about 75% of the urban runoff flows directly into the Whitefish River and about 17% flows into Cow Creek, a tributary to the Whitefish River. The majority of runoff in Columbia Falls enters French drains where it mixes with the shallow groundwater that is hydrologically connected to the Flathead River. The Swan River is the primary receiving water for storm runoff in the Bigfork community. The'growth of algae and aquatic plants in the receiving waters will be stimulated by high nutrient load's. Storm water runoff -occurs over short duration with characteristic high initial concentrations. Shock effects producing environmental impacts such as fish kills are more likely to occur on streams with a low capacity for dilution. The source of very high ammonia levels at the Western Dr. site should, be investigated further. Ammonia can be toxic to fish and, in addition, the bacteria that convert ammonia to nitrite and nitrate consume oxygen needed by fish and other aquatic life. High levels of RI02j3 at Sylvia Ct., Western Dr., Edgewood Dr. and Cow Cr. detention basin are also of concern. Unlike phosphates, nitrates are very soluble and can readily leach into groundwater. Drinking water contaminated with high levels of nitrate is a health hazard. Many metals in high, concentrations can be toxic to aquatic life. Of those metals which exceeded EPA benchmark values (i.e., Pb, Zn, Al, Fe,Mn), lead poses health problems for humans as well. Storm water in the FIathead Basin was analyzed for the presence of volatile organic compounds for the first time; only three sites were sampled once. Because several volatile organic compounds are potent carcinogens, monitoring additional sites may be warranted. Levels of fecal coliform bacteria were also of concern as counts for several sites were higher than public health standards for water contact recreation such as swimming and wading. Although the synoptic studies of nutrient Ioading along the lowland tributaries not designed to examine the effects of storm events (see discussion below), it is clear from the above analyses that during a storm event water quality degradation will occur from urban runoff at certain locations along Ashley and Cow Creeks and the Whitefish, Stillwater and Swan Rivers. Land use cover types were associated with each of the synoptic points in each sub -basin. Concentrations and loads were plotted in relation to these cover types (Figures 30-40). It is important to understand that the spectral image of some land uses may vary, resulting in overlap into more than one grouping. For example, cropland, which is actively growing at the time of 31 Flathead Lake is among the cleanest large lakes in the temperate areas of the world, but deterioration of water quality has been demonstrated by long-term analyses summarized in this report. Management of nutrient loading to prevent excess blooms of algae in the water column and on the shoreline is the primary water quality concern for Flathead Lake. Our long-term data bases clearly show that production and standing crops of algae in the water column are influenced dramatically by the rate and timing of inputs of bioavailable nitrogen and phosphorus from the catchment, including the lake shoreline and bulk precipitation on the lake surface. Since 1977 when our neater quality monitoring began, open -water primary production has steadily increased. Interannual variation in these data are high, owing to year to year differences in temperature, light, mixing of the water column, internal nutrient cycling, water flux through the lake (e.g., as influenced by climate and operations of Kerr and Hungry Horse Dam) (Stanford and Hauer 1992, Stanford and Ward 1992), external nutrient loading and cascading effects associated with food web changes largely mediated by the population dynamics of Mysis relicra. The food web changes introduced significant variation into the expected relationship -between primary production and nutrient loading. Nonetheless, primary productivity accurately predicts biomass (chi a) and is strongly linked to nutrient load reaching Flathead Lake annually after the Mysis- mediated food web cascade stabilized (1989-present). Hence, our long term record of primary productivity in Flathead Lake is a robust indicator of water quality that is strongly influenced by external nutrient loads. Shoreline periphyton also is responsive to changes in nutrient availability and the very visible scums of algae clearly are a water quality concern. However, we do not have sufficient time series data for periphyton biomass and productivity to link shoreline scums to external nutrient loading. Short term studies (Bauman 1988, Marks and Lowe 1993) show that Flathead Lake periphyton increase sharply if nutrients, especially phosphorus, are added. Our shoreline surveys and previous work by Hauer (1988) clearly link localized scums to shoreline pollution sources. We conclude that periphyton also is a robust indicator of water quality but insufficient monitoring data exist to establish a relation to annual nutrient load. Like all large temperate lakes, Flathead Lake experiences an annual vernal bloom- of diatoms (phytoplankton) in the spring (April -May) associated with high nutrient conetntrations in the water column. long day length and seasonal warmriing. Phytoplankton biomass (chi a) and primary production tend to reach an annual maximum at this time. The vernal diatom bloom expends .the nutrient .supply and crashes as the lake thermally stratifies in the summer: During stratification, algal growth is constrained by lack of nutrients and most years the stratified period is characterized by very small forms of algae that rapidly recycle nitrogen and phosphorus_ Generally, biomass declines substantially in relation to the vernal bloom; but, primary production can remain fairly high owing to rapid uptake and release of nutrients by these small sized microbes. Most years the lake appears very clear in late summer and fall because the water.column is not producing a high biomass of algae; and, sediments from spring runoff have settled to the lake bottom. Secchi disk readings average over 10 m in late summer and fall. however, on certain years, especially on wet years when external nutrient loading is high during summer, the pollution alga, Anabaena floc -aquae, has bloomed lakewide (e.g., 1983 and 1993). Moreover, we have observed oxygen depletion in the Ross Deep area of Big Arm Bay during the stratified period. In lakes worldwide Anabaena blooms and oxygen depletion during stratification are very well documented indicators of.water quality deterioration associated with abnormal nutrient loading (Vallentyne 1974, Wetzel 1983, Cole 1994). We conclude that water quality in Flathead Lake remains on or near a threshold with respect to nutrient loading and resulting water quality measured in terms of algal production and associated water clarity. We recognize other factors influence algal growth in large lakes like Flathead, especially seasonal light availability, the strength of summer thermal stratification (i.e., depth of mixing during stratification) and food web interactions (e.g., availability of herbivorous zooplankton above the thermocline). Moreover, the physiology of algal growth when nutrient concentrations are below detection levels requires better resolution. Nonetheless, we have quantified point and non -point sources of anthropogenic nutrient loading and documented that humans substantially elevate delivery of nutrients to Flathead Lake. Although substantial control of the primary point sources has been attained through addition of nutrient removal technologies at the urban sewage treatment plants, we conclude that anthropogenic nutrient loads have to be further reduced if the increasing trend in primary production is to be reversed and Anabaena blooms prevented. The conclusion is the same for the "ring around the lake." Periphyton growths are heaviest in areas of high nutrient input from shoreline sources and most of those areas are associated with dense housing development, contamination of ground%Qater or both. Our documentation of shoreline pollution, coupled, with anthropogenic loading from the catchment and interactive effects of shoreline erosion (caused by Kerr Dam operations and construction of "hard" revetments and docks), strongly suggest that unsightly periphyton growths will continue to proliferate on the shore of Flathead Lake unless shoreline contamination is curtailed. How much of a reduction in nutrient loading is required and what are the sources that are most problematic and potentially controllable? the answer to that question depends on how the load is allocated to the various sources (e.g., as identified by analysis of existing cover types): Installation of state-of-the-art waste water treatment on urban sources reduced jotal phosphorus loading from sewage treatment plants by about 12% compared to the period before 35 advanced treatment. Calculation of that load reduction is based upon time series measures at the sewage treatment plants (self monitoring data) in relation to total load teaching the lake measurcd at our monitoring sites. Primary production in the lake seems to have declined in relation to points source controls and is correlated with reduced nutrient loads. However, sewage volume will increased as population increases and the sewage treatment plants currently are operating well blow permit limits on their discharges. Hence, the 12% reduction could be offset quickly by increased volume and reduced treatment efficiency associated with higher volume. Accurate determination of non -point sources is problematic because that requires differentiating the percentage of the angenic load from load derived from natural processes. Our-synoptics provided substantial insight, especially for the land use activities within the box in Figure 1. . The synoptics clearly show that water quality substantially deteriorates (nutrient loads increase up to 91X; excluding the very high N0213 increase measured in Ashley Creek on b) in the Stillwater and Whitefish Rivers and Ashley Creek as those tributaries flow through the Kalispell Valley and discharge into Flathead Lake. Much of this lowland loading may be controllable through upland (terrestrial) retention of fertilizers, pasture wastes, street runoff and rural septic effluents via implementation of best management practices. Timber harvest and management is a significant land use activity upstream from the valley bottom area.inside the box in Figure 1. 'Twenty eight percent of the Flathead Lake watershed is managed and roaded for timber harvest and it is well known that these activities can substantially reduce water quality. Indeed, the data in Figures 39A-E and 41 strongly suggest that nutrient loads are substantially elevated in streams with significant timber management activities. On the other hand, our synoptic data also clearly show that pollution from these sources, if it is indeed significant, is attenuated in the alluvial valleys upstream from the heavily populated areas in the Kalispell 'Valley. Our estimates of shoreline pollution loads are based on application of a general nutrient retention model for septic systems. Although the model estimates are corroborated by the shoreline surveys (i.e., high risk soil types generally were sites of documented seep contamination) and pollution from faulty septic systems, erosion and runoff from home sites clearly is occurring along the shoreline and can be utter controlled, accurate determination of loads remains elusive for lack of time series empirical data e conclude that on the basis of data currently in hand, we cannot precisely allocate the non -point loads to all potential sources owing mainly to lack of a solid time series data base for the timber management land use category and uncertainty about shoreline sources. Nonetheless, the Flathead Lake TWML team (see Cooper 1997) concluded that a reasonable TMDL allocation could be applied to the various sources by using our load estimates for 1993 (one of the bad Anna a na bloom years) and our synoptic data (this was not a consensus approach of the TMDL team but it was generally agreed upon as a starting point fora TMDL allocation, see Cooper 1997). Rased on synoptic measures reported herein, non -point loading within the Kalispell Valley (i.e., "the land between the lakes"... the area in the box in Figure 1) and delivered mainly via the.Stillwater and Whitefish Rivers and Ashley Creek accounted for .6-13 % of the 1993 load of nutrients to flathead Lake. If we assume that the data in Figure 41 are representative of the timber management influences on water quality for the entire basin, and if we assume that excess nutrients above wilderness background are exported to Flathead Lake (i.e., anthropogenic nutrients are only seasonally sequestered on the alluvial flood plains of the Flathead and Swan Rivers and the entire anthropogenic load is exported to the Lake during spring runoff), 6 - 28% of the 1993 loadwould be associated with the legacy of forest harvest in the catchment. Another 3-5% derived from shoreline problems, based on our Ioad estimates, and yet another ca. 5-16% from airshed pollution. If these estimates are close to reality (and they may not be, owing to paucity of long- term data in headwater streams and uncertainty about the exact basin area influenced by forest management activities plus uncertainties about shoreline pollution amounts), Flathead Lake today may receive about 40- higher annual load than it did prior to significant human disturbance within the catchment. This suggests that significant water quality deterioration could have occurred in Flathead Lake prior to initiation of the Iong term monitoring effort in 1977. Long term records for the lake archived at the Biological Station (summarized on pg. I3) show that blooms of Anabaena and shoreline scums of algae did not occur historically, which corroborates the notion that water quality in Flathead Lake was significantly better historically than it was at the time monitoring began in 1977. Our data and analyses do not establish a relationship between best management practices and reduced loading potentially associated with them. Such resolution is possible only by gathering long-term data in experimental designs (e.g., comparisons of sub -basins with different management prescriptions) that allow ma nagernent effects- to be separated from natural sources of variation. Nonetheless, a primary objective should be to retain nutrients in the catchment, not the lake, to the extent possible. In general, that simply means retention of nutrients within the terrestrial landscape in the form of plant biomass. Moreover, we do not suggest an incremental nutrient -algae reduction model currently exists; interactions with food web changes, climate and hydromanipulation by the dams introduce complex interactions that reduce the likelihood of a straightforward relation. Nonetheless, minimizing anthropogenic nutrient loading in Flathead Lake is the only way to maintain and enhance water quality in Flathead Lake, based on the measures we have made over ,that last two decades. Water clarity is linked to sediment discharge by the river and phytopl n production in the water column in response to nutrient loading. Nutrients are dynamically derived 37 from a variety of natural and human sources in the water and airsheds. Production of organic matter in the water column directly influences oxygen concentrations in the water column of the lake. Anabaena flos-aquae is a sentinel of water quality problems, especially when scum forming blooms occur. Anabaena likely will not bloom lakewide if nutrient loads from human sources, especially non -point sources are attenuated to levels that maintain primary productivity rates and chlorophyll concentrations on the low end of the monitoring record. Climatic variation is a substantial uncertainty, but 15% or so reduction in non -points during the summer of 1993 would have approximated loads on drier years when Anabaena did not bloom. Any Iatent effects due to internal storage and recycling within the lake between high load wet years and low load dry years (coupled with the interactive effects of dam management actions which influence water and nutrient flux through the lake), would be moderated by continuous non -point reductions - Clearly, the management community must agree on loading coefficients for the different land use types so that modeling approaches can be used to examine tradeoffs. The data and interpretation presented herein can be further refined to allow greater resolution of load sources. The Biological Station currently is developing a phytoplankton-nutrient loading model which could be used to study the effects of different strategies for non -point load reductions. I. Targets for TMDL actions should be responsive to the nutrient loading (process) and midlake primary productivity - chlorophyll a (response) relationship measured at the midlake site and documented in this report. 2. Actions to implement a TMDL allocation for Flathead Lake should be approached adaptively and allow for further analysis, modeling and interpretation of the data, with emphasis on greater understanding of seasonal effects (whereas this report has dealt mainly with reporting of the data and trends and analysis of annual nitrogen and phosphorus loads and in -lake responses). 3. Much greater resolution of the influences of various land use practices on non -point nutrient loading is needed, particularly in relation to past and current forest management activities. Innovative research techniques and designs for time series analysis (e.g.. use of isotopic signals and paired basin experiments to determine carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus routing from timber and agriculture production areas), rather than the synoptic approach used herein, are needed to resolve uncertainties about sources and amounts of non -point loads and the efficacy of best management prescriptions. The importance of variations in geology, soil nutrient retention 38 characteristics and other biophysical influences on export of nutrients from the catchment need to be included in future load allocations. 4. Continuation of the long-term monitoring program is essential to a proactive TMDL process. The utility of a TMDL allocation cannot be evaluated quantitatively without continuation of the monitoring program. Time series data relating shoreline algal growths (periphyton) and progression of hypolimnetic (bottom) oxygen deficits to nutrient loading from watershed, airshed and shoreline sources are needed. The monitoring program should bepeer-reviewed and evaluated, with respect to its utility as the scientific rationale for whatever TMDL strategy is ultimately 5. Basic research on the nutrient physiology of scum forming algae (A ena) in Flathead Lake is needed to reduce uncertainty about biophysical interactions between nutrient supply and algal 6. Food web changes manifested by inadvertent and intentional introductions of non-native biota can confound nutrient management strategies. Increased vigilance to prevent introductions is needed along with research to reduce uncertainties about top -down effects -on food web structure and productivity. These effects can be further confounded by fish harvest and artificial stocking i. Flux of water through the Flathead Lake watershed is controlled by the operations of Kerr and Hungry Horse Dams, which are influenced.by hydropower markets and political considerations (e.g., fisheries management objectives downstream from Flathead Lake, such as recent augmentation of late summer flows in the lower Columbia River with water stored in Hungry - Horse Reservoir to accelerate Chinook salmon smolt outmigration in the mainstem Columbia River). Water and nutrient flux are interdependent. All management efforts need to be coordinated with the TNML. process to, insure that actions for hydropower production or other considerations outside the Flathead Basin do not significantly alter water flux and therefom also nutrient flux iw Flathead a in a manner that confounds the processes and responses observed to date. WE Table 6. Scores for diatom association indices for periphyton collected from Flathead Lake bays -in. August 1995. PRA = percent relative abundance. Site Depth Disturbance Diversity Pollution PRA Siltation PRA Index] Index Index Cymbella Index Anomoeorzeis microcephala vitrea Bigfork 2 33.8 3.1165 2.73 4.5 10.1 3.8 5 30.6 3.0737 2.75 3.8 10.5 1.1 Woods 2 12.6 3.5509 2.60 16.1 11.9 8.9 5 28.9 3.1675 2.61 12.9 13.0 5.1 Yellow 0.4 32.3 2.2314 2.75 2.4 2 41.3 2.2626 2.86 10.6 1.1 5 16.8 3.0503 2.92 3-1 2.9 0.3 Skidoo 2 24.6. 3.5608 2.57 16.4 14.5 2.0 5 33.8 3.2073 2.74 12.3 8.9 1.6 Indian 2 37.8 2.7703 2.75 11.3 9.8 2.0 5 35.3 3.0468 2.76 7.4 7.9 5A Goose 2 45.1 2.6847 2.72 12.3 9.6 5.8 5 22.5 3-0848 2.59 26.7 10.1 0.5 Walstead 2 19.5 3.6433 2.82 7.3 7.6 3.3 5 31.5 3.3746 2.93 6.1 8.4 4.6 Dayton Harbor 2 23.3 3.3503 2.70 10.8 15.5 3.9 4 40.8 3.0214 2.86 4.9 5.9 1.3 Point Caroline 2 13.4 3.7535 2.58. 9.0 13.8 14.9. 5 21.0 3.8156 2.73 4.8 11.6 :5.0 Lakeside 2, 5.6 3.8224 2.62 0.3 31.4 I Percent relative abundance of Achnanthes minutissima *Amphora perpusilla = 32.8 PRA 54 V ® N m go cc r4 W% O O �O c o room oo N .p V- r: a N M F �O h V1 V1 r- N t- o v v Q N 0 o C O O O O p V !Y ev 00 a v O C vi %n r N 00 �o tV tV IT N — V N N m O 0 0� A^�0^�00"I C9 -� w N b tC^. 9 O V N dC tit lw . c 0000m- cv aNa.aa� o tnCOC er r a r• W{ 06 c� — Ogntl�C o 0 v'f 0 P M cnwyn��ON� �O qp! en h—A N �o to r'. m 00 Q� V'1 Vl P+ N O O N �$ Ndo �-.- c.o oQQ O� Cl! t^. — Q 00 Q o a Cw+J000Q0�C�pp� O ONQatt'�'.�N O N N 0 0 0 0 •O =Q V1 �'.N3�t'� oa1o000� ® o c o 0 0 r r� r• r D r c. F: N QN V �N�nv Omer 1p7n tv vi � � oc T rC U g Y g YUCE too _ m G Bi (A U •c ,� Y rp E $ f`8 . a am CT, r, ;:. !:4 ao s -coo CL C; z C; W+ -P � C 0 3� z 2 IT: a,9 t4 z Wy C> ci CO C; fl: W11 C14 oo Q -T C) el. p. f�l — t-- (7, r t-- = C-4 C, cc —NON ac V 14-P. z 17 O or- f10 cc' 0'* 0" r4 r4 10 r- C4 00 M > 41 41 05 Z-t w Ob 0 < z 3 v `v v v v N F K y O Q N C p N Q' � 00 C14 s v! V1 BOO m Wf-. N Q L y NOOC�Or�OO oo c v� Qv Uv v vlwv w eTr a a v v v V v Y v v V v v v v 7 E r r o C C o 0 0 0 o O O C O 0 0 0 3 v v vvv.vvv vvvvvvu c y E E � C r e� vs C4 c oc �Ooo e� e- O v- N '®— h e- NraMnv— O C O uo Q N-T��N t- O F" C �e9riP�• 0 .. U _e +o a a Cho N O rv)fN nrN C^ ��nOM a C Q w C .0 O � C try v� v� v v V v V V v� V V d 3. w s, cr, o a 3 E a = 7E2 e� 6a ea O P, = a 4 M1p Ag is •y > 9J � ` .ad ' _ .0 A � < = }� O '�ty� yyy F dS_Qi 3 mdal.LZ �Z 5 p —C, arr ea �`pcc o-. Inr. m — h p m O O C O � $$ P z C4 C O � � O O G O r C O C 0 0 0 o r— r orhr c a w —00 co qm P'7 h W O N Q V1 NP 00 N O Ca OwOrO�'^• � OCN r 10 10 CN tl- v� r.NeN IN w N— ® oo cCooC) ccC%tn c r e �+vcQa 10 O C O O o c myQ COOCON r-rr .0 �C r`.® 0 so r C-7c voZocr Flt CN _ Q N v1 T4 N IT e rN- O Q rar .ovaivvv��n �o mQ—a QFmP1N V1 m O+ r+p m VZ fV er Q' cc .0 0 r4 10 N C-. — N fn N g 07 LU 'eV=Z o 1= C) Coot oC® Ic go C, r4 79 z C>W-� r- C, 0. 3b 9 e4 wn r4 C4 'D C-4 \4) 'CC W1 C4 en 13 CN 00 W) ;:� 1- 8 tr PA cc f— %^ 00 MN no 9 C4 *0 c 00 r4 C4 rq go I-. w C+ 00 0% 0 & C4 Ir O vg coo Go ad -0 aj E u 78 V S > IQ = � z 10 f-r .0 E 14 M 0 > 59 em: �pN N QN?f14 N N tv N N H .O F N O V O O V'1C C� 00 rDON n O° v 'v v�vv�v °�vv4i F n o 0o acccao Coco 3 v vv vv v vv v v v v v V c P�'M1 ca V'1 M N1 �O O Y1 P N E �C Q N m O .Q O d M Q, O {VV C M1 VS { % 1 N P_ G .O O ' V • zz N V N V tV — Wl � 3 c �v IQ V v v IQ1�1 O V C. cd -- — -- ou a v.9 E � en 2 0 to u lu id in 43 Mil Table 13. Volatile organic compounds detected in stormwater samples collected 9 December 1996. Concentrations are given in micrograms per liter. site volatile organic compound concentration Kalispell, City Shop Benzene 12.49 Toluene 34.97 Ethylbenzene 4.54 meta plus para Xylene 23.75 ortho Xylene 14A7 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene 6.89 Naphthalene 1.90 Whitefish, 2nd Street Bridge cis 1,2 - Dichloroethene 12.34 Trichkmxdiew 3.70 Toluene 1.15 Tea-achloroethene- 11.99 to plus para Xylene 1.46 ortho Xylene 0.70 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene 1.21 a Table 14. Estimated concentrations Of total suspended solids. organic nitrogen and total phosphorus used to calculate storm water loading for different land uses in the 1977 Flathead- Drainage 208 Projoct (Morrison-Maierle- and Montgomery 1977) in -comparison -to, measured concentrations in grab samples from storm water sites sampled in 1996. Values are in mg1l. land use/site total suspended organic nitrogen total phosphorus solids residential 162 2.2 0.52 commercial- 105 1.2 0.22 industrial 112 1.0 0.36 open space/park- 115 1.0- 0:45. Bigfork Dock 252,867 1.4, 0.3 0.62, 1.35, Columbia Falls Hwy 40 369,317 1.0. 0.8 0.58,0.49 Meadow L Golf Course 0.2 0.01, Kalis 11 City Shop 28, <50 0.4, 1.0 0-13,0.44 MeridianARailroad 24,30 0.4,0.7 0-09,0.09 Hwy 2 Stillwater Bridge 140, 100 1.2, 1.4 0.50,0.52 Sylvia Ct/Woodland Dr 20,60 1. 1, 1 2 036,0.58 Western Dr 15,200 1.5,0.0 0.46, 1.68 Whitefish - Baker St Bridge 450 0.4 0.18 Edgewood Dr/Cow- Cr 10 0.3 0.08 Detention BasinlCow Cr 26 0.4 0.10 2nd St W Bridge 99; 790 0.7, 0.6 0.41,0.66 Hwy 93 DQ 134,70 0.8, 0.3 0.34,0.82 N of RN Railroad 42, Z 1.3, 0.2 0.29,0.07 MN Table 15. Nutrient and suspended solids loading from storm water calculated using measured concentrations from grab samples collected during two events in 1996 compared to loads determined by Morrison-Maierle and Montgomery (1977) using. literature estimates of concentrations. community drainage ammual suspended nitrate ¢ organic total - area rainfall solids nitrite N nitrogen phosphorus (acres) (inches) (tonslyr) (tonslyr). (toWyr) (tons/yr) Mispell 1977 study 1280 15.5 123 1.35 0.32 1996 study 1148 25.23 40 - 134 2.38 - 2.64 1.00 - I.14 0.36 - 1.02 Whitefish 1977 study 714 23.0 121 1996 study .571 28.62 82 - 140 C. Falls 1996 study 12 25.23 9 - 10 13igfork 19% study 10 27.05 6 - 22 0.002 -0.01 0.01 - 0.03 0.02 - 0.03 63 The following facts are all drawn from the public record in this case, including, for example: (1) Tri-City Planning Office Staff Report 4KMPA-02-2; (2) Citizens for a Better Flathead, Wolford Master Plan Amendment Comments; (3) Engineering/Hydrology Report of Jay Billmayer; (4) June 19, 2002 Letter from Dr. Jack Stanford, Flathead Lake Biological Station, (5) and supporting documentation. A. Proposal Wolford Development Montana, LLC, (Applicant) requests an amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan on approximately 232 acres on property located near the NE corner of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive. Concurrent with the master plan amendment request, the applicants have filed a petition to annex. The proposal would amend the master plan for the area from Light Industrial, Agricultural and Residential on approximately 170 acres to a Commercial designation, from Agricultural on approximately 56 acres to High Density Residential and from Agricultural on approximately six acres to Public. The actual project site area contains 247 acres with 15 acres near the northeast corner of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive already having a master plan designation for Commercial and a B-2, General Business, zoning designation. The total area proposed for commercial development would be 184.47 acres and approximately 56.26 acres in mixed use residential. The remaining 5.93 acres is designated as public along the Trumbull Creek channel. The Glacier Mall Mixed Use Development proposed by Applicant is seeking approval for a "commercial/residential mixed use" development that would include a fully enclosed regional mall on approximately 70 acres, an adjacent commercial center on approximately 32 acres, a series of free standing commercial parcels totaling approximately 66 acres and a mixed use area of approximately 56 acres for lower intensity commercial uses such as offices as well as high density residential uses. Approximately 6 acres has been designated as a park and there is approximately 5 acres designated as open space between this development and the Granite View Subdivision near the southeast portion of the project site. The overall concept of the development would be to capture a regional retail market that would include all of northwest Montana and beyond. Located at a major intersection within the Kalispell area that is in close proximity to Glacier International Airport as well as the commercial center of the Flathead Valley, the developers have chosen this site not only because of its location, but because of the amount of undeveloped property that would allow for future expansion. The layout and size of the site would promote the development of large retail stores with relatively smaller parcels also available for commercial development along the perimeter of the mall and new retail center. Architectural and landscape components would be integrated through a future Planned Unit Development on the portion of the site designated for the indoor mall, regional center and to the west of the mall site where several commercial out parcels are located. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 1 On July 9, 2001, Applicant submitted applications for a master plan amendment to the newly created Flathead County Planning and Zoning Office to amend the Kalispell City - County Master plan from Light Industrial, Agricultural and Residential to Commercial on approximately 145 acres. An application was also submitted on July 11, 2002, for B-2, General Commercial zoning on the property. The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing on the master plan amendment on August 14, 2001, and forwarded a recommendation to both the Kalispell City Council and Board of County Commissioners to approve the amendment. The planning board called a special meeting on August 21, 2001, to hold a public hearing on the zone change to B-2. The planning board recommended approval of the zone change from I-1H, Light Industrial Highway, SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, and R-2, Suburban Residential to B-2, General Commercial, to the county commissioners. Prior to this the 1999 Montana Legislature passed Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) which revised the basic enabling legislation for master plans/growth polices and created some uncertainty regarding amendments to existing master plans and adoption of "new" zoning after October 1, 2001. These uncertainties resulted in a decision by the county commissioners and the city -county planning board to expedite the application so that actions taken by the planning board and county commissioners would occur before October 1, 2001. On August 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed B-2 zone change and passed a resolution of intent. A public hearing was scheduled before the Kalispell City Council on the proposed plan amendment for September 17, 2001, but was cancelled on the advice of the City's legal counsel because of issues relating to the legality of amendments to the master plan and creation of "new" zoning. On September 18, 2001, the county commissioners held a public hearing on the master plan amendment. On September 28, 2001, the commissioners approved the master plan amendment to a Commercial designation on approximately 145 acres. On that same date, the commissioners also approved a zone change to B-2, General Commercial, with an implied understanding that the developers would later submit a proposal for a planned unit development for a large indoor mall, i.e. Glacier Mall. The County's approval of the master plan amendment and subsequent zoning has not been either formally or informally recognized by the City of Kalispell. Approximately one month after the commissioners' September 28, 2001 action, the City of Kalispell filed a petition in district court seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the effect of the unilateral actions and approvals by the Board of County Commissioners. In essence the City challenged both the County's legal authority to unilaterally amend the Kalispell City -County Master Plan within the joint planning jurisdiction and the validity of the zoning approval. That suit has essentially languished over the last several months. On December 17, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners unilaterally withdrew the County's participation in the joint Kalispell City -County Planning Board. It was the County's intent to exclude the extra -territorial planning jurisdiction from the City's planning review authority and to include it within the Flathead County Planning Board's planning review authority. Subsequent to this action, the City of Kalispell has attempted Proposed Findings of Fact Page 2 to negotiate revised extra -territorial planning jurisdiction boundaries, but pending legal disputes have stymied progress. As a result of the County's withdrawal from joint planning in the Kalispell area, the City has limited its planning authority to inside the city limits. In response to the situation the Kalispell City Council has established an interim City planning board. The board was established as "interim" because there were some expectations that a new joint jurisdictional boundary could be negotiated between the City of Kalispell and Flathead County. On November 11, 2001, the Kalispell City Council directed the City Attorney's Office to seek an opinion from the State Attorney General's Office regarding the interpretation of SB 97, which amended the statutes relating to the master plan later referred to as the "growth policy;" to determine the effect it would have on existing master plans. The City's request for an opinion was submitted to the Attorney General's Office on April 1, 2002. An Attorney General's Opinion has not yet been issued in response to the request. It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the Legislature, by enacting SB 97, never intended for those local governments with existing master plans to be constrained from taking any action or making any changes to the existing plan(s) before creating a new "growth policy." The City Attorney's Office has recommended that the City of Kalispell should move forward utilizing the current master plan as the legal existing document. The basis of this recommendation is an assumption that unless and until a growth policy plan is adopted to replace it, the existing master plan is a valid document. In reliance on its own opinion, the City Attorney's Office has developed a process for the City to use in reviewing master plan amendments: If a landowner with property outside the city limits is seeking a plan amendment and annexation, the developer would come to the City with an application for plan amendment and, because the property is currently out of the City, for annexation. The plan amendment, annexation and initial zoning requests would all be reviewed and heard by the Kalispell City Planning Board. Recommendations for approval of the annexation and zoning would be contingent upon the approval of the plan amendment request. Because the property will be brought into the City, the City assumes review authority within the City jurisdiction and County review and approval would not be required. Based upon the development of the above described process and sentiment from both the City and the developer that waiting for the opinion from the Attorney General's Office is contrary to the interests of both parties, the parties agreed to pursue the current proposal. Applicant's proposal was addressed at a public hearing before the Kalispell City Planning Board on May 14, 2002, and then again at a second hearing on May 28, 2002. A hearing before the City Council on the proposal is also scheduled for June 24, 2002. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 3 ITOOMENVOTOPUM A. Property 1. The 232 acres proposed for the plan amendment is located near the north east corner of LaSalle Road and East Reserve Drive. The properties proposed for the plan amendment can be described as Assessor's Tracts 7, 7E, 7EB, 7ED, 7G, 7J, 7F, 3A, 3B and 3BA located in Section 28, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. *2. The owners of the property are: Frank J. Weimar, Jump Reserve Properties, Jump Investments, Andrew Farris, Thomas Bruyer and Daniel and Fay Skiles. 3. In its present use and zoning condition, there are several single family dwellings and associated outbuildings on the property, which has been used for agricultural purposes. Approximately 17 acres is zoned County R-2, Suburban Residential, approximately 54 acres is zoned I-1H, Light Industrial Highway and approximately 161 acres is currently zoned SAG-10, Suburban Agricultural, an agricultural district with a ten acre minimum lot size requirement intended for small farm and estate type development. 4. The adjacent area is characterized by a mix of uses in the immediate area with commercial development generally located along LaSalle Road and residential developments further to the east and west: North —A mix of commercial, light industrial and residential, unzoned South —Commercial and residential, County B-2, R-2 and R-1 zoning East —Agricultural and residential, County SAG-10 and R-2 zoning West —Commercial, light industrial, agricultural, County B-2, I-1 AG-80 zoning B. Jurisdiction 5. The property is outside the city limits of the City of Kalispell. The property is within the jurisdictional area controlled by the Kalispell City -County Master Plan. 6. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan was developed and respectively adopted by the City of Kalispell on April 7, 1986 (Resolution #3641) and by Flathead County on February 6, 1986 (Resolution #578A), pursuant to the authority granted the now defunct Kalispell City -County Planning Board in §76-1-601, MCA. The Authority to amend the master plan rests upon the governing bodies, as defined by §76-1-103(3), MCA, i.e. the City and the County. See also §§76-1-503, -504, and-506, MCA. 7. In the wake of SB 97 and due to the present absence of a joint City -County Planning Board with clear authority to address the master plan and the jurisdictional area containing Applicant's property, significant questions exist as to the status of the master plan and the City's ability to act unilaterally upon the proposal. The City's previous attempts to resolve these questions remain unanswered. While the City has engaged up to this point considerable research and effort in hopes of guiding not only the current Proposed Findings of Fact Page 4 parties but the City's planning efforts generally, the City lacks an authoritative answer to its questions, leaving the City to rely on its own review and opinion. The only way to lend certainty to these questions regarding the validity of the master plan and which entities have authority regarding its application and amendment would be to refrain from further action involving the master plan until the passage of a new interlocal agreement and/or until receipt of an answer to the City's request for an Attorney General's opinion. 8. The present proposal (regarding approximately 232 acres) is substantially different in size and nature from that which the County approved (regarding approximately 144 acres) on September 28, 2001. Consequently, the City's present action on the proposal cannot be considered merely an endorsement or subsequent approval of the County's previous amendment of the master plan. Any action by the City on the proposal must therefore be considered in its own right as an independent exercise of jurisdiction and discretion. 9. Concurrent with the proposal to amend the master plan, Applicant has applied for annexation to the City of Kalispell. Any assumption of jurisdiction by the City to act on the proposal and amend the master plan is based upon a present expectation that the property will subsequently be annexed into the City limits, as well as the City's creation of an interim Kalispell City Planning Board, as necessitated by the County's withdrawal from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board. IT I - _' , 1 10. Montana law states that where local government officials are involved in matters regarding a specific tract of land for a special consideration for a particular owner, their role is quasi-judicial, as opposed to legislative. See Little v. Board of County Comm'rs (1981), 193 Mont. 334, 344, 631 P.2d 1282, 1288. Here, in considering the Applicant's specific proposal, the Kalispell City Council must therefore engage a quasi-judicial decision -making process. 11. In this quasi-judicial decision -making process, the Applicant bears the burden of proving the following: (1) that the proposed amendment is consistent with the unamended portions of the master plan; (2) that there is a public need for the amendment, which is based upon a demonstrable change in the character of the area; and (3) that the proposed amendment is the best way of meeting that public need. See South of Sunnyside, Etc. v. Board of Comm'rs (Ore. 1977), 569 P,2d 1063, 1072-73 (relied upon by the Montana Supreme Court in Little, 193 Mont. at 345, 631 P.2d at 1288); see also Fasano v. Board of Comm'rs., 507 P.2d 23, 30 (Ore. 1973) (also cited with approval by the Montana Supreme Court in Little, 193 Mont. at 347, 631 P.2d at 1290.). Where Applicant fails to satisfy this burden, there is insufficient basis to adopt the requested amendment. D. Standards of Evaluation 12. Montana law states: After adoption of a growth policy, the city council ... or other territorial government within the jurisdiction of the board must be guided Proposed Findings of Fact Page 5 by and give consideration to the general policy and patterns of development set out in the growth policy in the ... adoption of zoning ordinances or resolutions. §76-1-605(3), MCA (emphasis added). 13. Montana Supreme Court precedent: mandate[s] that local governments consider and adhere to the policies set forth in their comprehensive plans [master plans] in future land use planning decisions. Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County (1997), 283 Mont. 486, 495, 943 P.2d 85, 91 (citing Bridger Canyon Property Owners' Ass'n v. Planning and Zoning Comm'n (1995), 270 Mont. 160, 890 P.2d 1268. 14. There are no specific evaluation criteria in the Kalispell City -County Master Plan or in the Montana planning statutes for review of plan amendments. Nor has the City of Kalispell developed specific evaluation criteria for this proposal. 15. One factor in consideration of the proposed amendment to the master plan is whether a sufficient change in circumstances exists to warrant the amendment. Without a sufficient change, the amendment is presumptively unnecessary, and likewise any consideration of the concomitant factors regarding whether there is a public need for the amendment and whether the proposed amendment is the best way of meeting that need. 16. Furthermore, the master plan sets forth 12 specific areas, each of which identifies a series of goals and objectives, and which "taken together form the cornerstone of the [master] plan." These 12 areas include: Growth Management Administration Environment Housing Economy Land Use Transportation Public Facilities Historic Preservation Recreation Energy Agriculture In requiring substantial compliance with an existing master plan, Montana law necessarily requires that the proposal be evaluated in relation to the stated goals and objectives of the existing master plan in each of these areas. E. Evaluation Change of Circumstances 17. The master plan was adopted in 1986 and intended to address the planning period through 2010. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 6 18. Since 1986, there have been substantial changes in the population, economy and development within the Kalispell area. Although many elements and issues of the current master plan are still valid, many changes have taken place in the community which warrant the development of an updated growth policy. 19. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the unadjusted 2000 information shows that the Kalispell area grew by approximately 16 percent between 1990 and 2000, from an area population of approximately 25,000 to approximately 29,000. Additionally, the city of Kalispell has grown approximately 19 percent from approximately 12,000 in 1990 to approximately 14,200 in 2000. 20. The master plan, as adopted in 1986, also relied upon U.S. Census Bureau figures and population trends over the three decades (1950-60; 1960-70; and 1970-80) preceding the plan's adoption. It noted that population in the Kalispell area covered by the master plan grew by approximately 17 percent between 1960 and 1970, and then by 37 percent between 1970 and 1980, from approximately 13,000 in 1960 to 21,000 in 1980. (Master Plan, p.26). 21. In offering population projections for the jurisdictional area, the master plan stated that "projections serve as a basis for determining the future physical needs of a community." (MP, p.35). The master plan projected that the Kalispell area would grow at a rate of 12 percent between 1990 and 2000, to a projected population of 26,600. (MP, p.36). Finally, it noted that "the actual city population projection is highly dependent upon the annexation and development policies of the city and the regulating policies of the county." (MP, p.36). 22. While the projections proved only partially correct, the master plan projections and consideration of past growth suggests that advanced growth in the projected period for the Kalispell area was expected at the time of the plan's adoption in 1986. The mere fact that the 2000 Census indicates growth at a rate of 16-19 percent is not in itself indicative of a change in circumstances from those being relied upon by the drafters of the master plan. Nor is such evidence of population growth at a faster than expected rate of 16-19 percent sufficient evidence that the physical needs of the community have changed from those that were projected and developed in 1986 based upon slightly less growth. 23. Along with this population growth has been a shift from a resource based economy, i.e. timber, mining and manufacturing to an economy that relies more on the delivery of good and services with an emphasis on retirement and tourism income. 24. The 1986 master plan discusses the economy of the Kalispell area as "based on timber, agriculture, tourism, and retailing." (MP, p.29). It also notes an economic trend, and describes the changing nature of the Kalispell area economy: Although the economic base of the area has long been agricultural and forestry related industries, the area is becoming more popular as a'tourist and retirement center. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 7 (MP, p.33). 25. By its express discussion of this trend, the master plan clearly relied upon this element of the Kalispell area economy in its future planning. The mere fact that the trend toward the City of Kalispell's economy becoming more services oriented and tourism based has continued, albeit in the record here only through undocumented testimonial evidence, is not in itself indicative of a change in circumstances from those being relied upon by the drafters of the master plan. On the contrary, to the extent that the master plan expected this trend, the record suggests that circumstances and conditions have not adequately changed to justify an amendment to the master plan. 26. Another important circumstance within the Kalispell area that has brought about significant change and growth is the provision of public water and sewer to the area east of Kalispell, Evergreen. In 1991, through an interlocal agreement with the City of Kalispell, the Evergreen Sewer District was allocated approximately 682,000 gallons per day of effluent to be treated at the Kalispell sewer treatment plan out of the 3.2 million gallon capacity. An area that was previously limited to the use of on -site sewage treatment facilities and with a significant amount of undeveloped or underdeveloped property was thereby given the opportunity for previously unrealized growth. The location of this area along a federal highway, US Highway 2, i.e. LaSalle Road, provided good visibility and access to an area that was ripe for commercial development. In essence, the provision of sewer to the area has allowed Evergreen to develop into a community in its own right with a full range of private and public services. Commercial development along the Hwy 2 strip has been ongoing, fostering the construction of everything from big box retail to national banks and franchise restaurants. Within the Evergreen area there is substantial opportunity for future commercial expansion and infill, albeit there are few large remaining undeveloped parcels, i.e. parcels over 20 acres in size. 27. Unintended impacts associated with the commercial development and expansion in the Evergreen area have been the surplus of retail space available in the downtown core of Kalispell, the Kalispell Center Mall, Gateway West Mall (now closed), as well as remaining undeveloped commercial property on US Highway 93 south of Kalispell. The regional center with big box retail store is a phenomenon that has had significant impact on local and regional economies in the last decade. 28. Within the last year, the City of Kalispell has already amended the master plan to include two significant commercial expansions. These include the 60-acre commercial site north of Kalispell at the intersection of Hwy 93 and Reserve Drive with Home Depot and Target, and the 640-acre Section 36 site in the same area. Those plan amendments were based in part upon demonstration of a sufficient change in circumstances from the 1986 master plan. Further amendment of the master plan to provide for additional commercial expansion in the form of Applicant's proposal must be based upon evidence of changed circumstances over and above that which was used as a basis for the two most recent plan amendments. That is, population changes and economic trends since 1986 justified the two previous amendments. Unless those same changes and trends warrant both the previous amendments and the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment Proposed Findings of Fact Page 8 requires showing of some change in circumstance since the latest amendments to warrant further amendment. No changes in circumstances specific to the period since the previous amendments have been raised to warrant the proposed amendment. 29. In conclusion, there is inadequate evidence in the record at this time to conclude that circumstances and conditions have changed since the 1986 master plan and the most recent commercial amendments to the master plan so as to warrant changes to the master plan pursuant to this proposal. Public bleed 30. The master plan, adopted in 1986, notes that at the time it was drawn up, there were approximately 591 acres of commercial property in Kalispell. (MP, p.40). The 1986 master plan projected a need for an additional 400 acres of commercial development by the year 2010. (MP, p.43). 31. As amended to this point, the master plan already designates over 1200 acres for commercial use, far exceeding the projected 1000 total anticipated acres for commercial use. Many of those 1200 acres remain undeveloped or underdeveloped. 32. The proposal would add approximately 170 acres of commercial designation, thereby increasing the amount of commercial land, in the jurisdiction by more than 14 percent. 33. Applicant's interest in developing the property is neither synonymous with nor adequate to show a public need. 34. Even presuming that circumstances have changed sufficiently to warrant the amendment, there is nothing in the record to reflect a public need for the proposed amendment. 35. A public need for additional commercial land, much less a specific commercial designation of this magnitude at this site, has not been established. Goals and Objectives of the Kalispell City -County Master Plan 36. The first Goal of the master plan is: A comprehensive, effective growth management program which provides for all the needs of the community, is adaptable to changing trends and is attuned to the overall public welfare. (MP, p.5). 37. Growth management also includes consideration of the impacts of new commercial developments on surrounding lands and the interconnectedness of these land Proposed Findings of Fact Page 9 use decisions. Impacts associated with the influx of nearly 200 acres of commercially designated property approximately three miles from the commercial core of Kalispell with access to public services has the potential to alter the established land use patterns within the city of Kalispell. 38. Growth management for the City of Kalispell relies largely on compact expansion redevelopment and infill within the current city limits because there is very little remaining undeveloped property and few large parcels that lend themselves to new development of large scale commercial or residential projects. Annexation of the outlying areas on the urban fringes becomes another strategy to manage and encourage growth within the city limits of Kalispell where adequate provision of public services can be addressed. Since Kalispell is limited to planning inside its city limits, a more aggressive annexation policy and plan is one of the primary tools that the City will need to rely on in conjunction with the provision of services, primarily water and/or sewer to a newly developing area. 39. The Evergreen area located between the Kalispell city limits and the property at issue here has traditionally resisted annexation by the City. It is unclear what effect extending via annexation the City to this property outlying the Evergreen area would have on Evergreen's interest in annexation. The Evergreen area lacks significant areas of undeveloped property. 40. Master plan Goals and Objectives 1(e) encourages the City to: Adopt a municipal annexation program which coordinates with the Extension of Services Plan to aggressively deal with fringe developments setting the stage for immediate or future annexation so as to preserve the tax base of the city and eliminate future barriers to orderly growth. (MP, p.5). 41. In November 1995, Kalispell adopted its current Extension of Services Plan. The plan established a service boundary that does not include the property proposed for the master plan amendment. It may be worthy to note that the 1995 Kalispell Extension of Services Plan was not necessarily based upon a careful quantitative analysis of existing and future needs, but rather a "common sense" approach that considered topographical barriers and existing jurisdictional boundaries. 42. Master plan Goals and Objectives 1(d) encourages the City to: Adopt and continually update the Extension of Services Plan to program the extension of such municipal services such as water lines, sewer lines, storm drainage and solid waste collection into growth areas. (MP, p.5). 43. Within the last 18 months the City of Kalispell contracted with the firm HDR Engineering and Morrison and Maierle, Inc. to do a comprehensive analysis of existing Proposed Findings of Fact Page 10 facilities and develop a facilities plan for Kalispell. The plan was completed in July 2001 and is titled "The City of Kalispell Water, Sewer and Storm Drainage Facility Plan 2000." This plan attempts to project needs using a 20 and 50 year time line. This plan also includes an assessment of existing systems and has attempted to identify deficiencies or "bottlenecks" within the current infrastructure. Without going into the detail of this document, it is noteworthy that the property proposed for the master plan amendment and for future development of the mall and associated properties is within the potential utility service area identified in the new facilities plan. Although this document is still in draft form and has not been formally adopted by the Kalispell City Council, it is important to note that this area is identified as an area that could potentially be serviced by the City of Kalispell. It is anticipated that the facilities plan will be completed within the next three to six months. 44. Immediate annexation to the City of Kalispell and the extension of Kalispell sewer to this property is part of the overall development proposal and would address, at least in part, some of the goals and objectives of the growth management section of the plan. The extension of sewer into this area and the annexation of the site complies with the objectives of immediate annexation. 45. Master plan Goal 2 encourages the: City and County administration [to] jointly cooperate in promoting, guiding, and directing the planning jurisdiction's growth and development. (MP, p.5). 46. The master plan also states: A Master Plan is, by definition, a vision of the future. By adopting the plan, the city and county are saying that this is the future we want. (MP, p.79). 47. As stated above, substantial barriers and legal uncertainty presently mark the planning landscape between the city and county. Indeed, even now as the City proceeds in its consideration of the proposal, any one of numerous lawsuits involving the City or legal authorities addressing the same concerns could develop in such a way as to substantially determine the City's jurisdiction regarding this proposal and its authority to grant the requested amendment. 48. The proposal represents a major development and very substantial amendment to the master plan. If granted, the proposed amendment will trigger a series of subsequent development actions, including annexation, zone changes, State permits, etc. In short, the proposal is the first step in what amounts to a major revision of the master plan. Indeed, it has been accurately characterized as an "supplement to the master plan." As such, the proposal has the potential of significantly altering not only the master plan, but also the Proposed Findings of Fact Page 11 face of the Flathead Valley for years to come. 49. The city and county here have unique interests with regard to the proposal and potential development. 50. In deciding this, the potentially largest development ever seen in the area, it would be unwise and a contravention of the most fundamental master plan principles to proceed separately from the county. Unless and until some semblance of joint planning or consideration of this proposal can be restored between the county and the city, the master plan suggests that neither the city nor the county should act on the proposal. wavirl-971OUTOM 51. Master Plan Environmental goals and objectives 3(a) and 3(e) encourage strict standards for all development which occurs in environmentally sensitive or critical areas such as floodplains, lakeshores, and drainage ways. Ground and surface water quality 52. Presently there is no community system for collection conveyance and treatment of storm water in the area. Management of storm water to protect groundwater and surface water is a concern because of shallow groundwater in the area and proximity of Trumbull Creek and Spring Creek. 53. Flathead Basin Commission has concerns that the "Evergreen area east of Kalispell, given its high ground water table, highly permeable soils, proximity to the main stem of the Flathead River, dense settlement pattern and rapid growth, has long been a source of concern as these factors relate to the protection of water quality." The FBC believes the public interest is best served when the widest possible range of objective, science based information is taken into account when land management decisions are made. Attached to the referral response letter are copies of two publications that provide definitive information on the specifics of alluvial aquifer in the Evergreen area and have been included with this packet. 54. There is significant groundwater -surface water interaction between the aquifer and the Flathead River (Nobel and Stanford, 1986) (including the shallow alluvial aquifer found in the Evergreen corridor). Nutrient concentrations in the shallow alluvial aquifer were found to be highest in the urbanized areas. Fecal coliform bacteria were found to be widespread indicating both human (from septic systems) and animal pollution (Nobel and Stanford, 1986). 55. Flathead Lake serves as a barometer of the health of the Flathead Watershed. Research shows that water quality in Flathead Lake has been steadily declining since 1997 manifested by increased algal growth and decreased water clarity (FLBS 1997, Ellis et al. 2000). Flathead Lake was listed as an impaired water body by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ 303d List) in 1996 and 2000. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 12 56. Flathead Lake is governed by the water quality standards of both the State of Montana and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe. The management plan for Flathead Lake was developed under the Clean Water Act in order to establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for certain types of pollutants called "nutrients." The plan proposes a 25% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus. 57. Research indicates that lands in the North Flathead Valley contribute the highest nutrient loads to Flathead Lake. (Stanford et al., 1997) 58. The soils underlying the proposed development are alluvial soils with a very permeable, sandy and gravelly matrix. Water moves rapidly through the soils, which do not effectively filter sediments and contaminants. Further, the groundwater table is close to the surface (less than 5 feet) in many areas. Thus, contaminants from faulty septic systems and spilled toxic fluids can rapidly pollute the groundwater. 59. Impervious surface coverage, including roofing, paved roadways and parking lots, is correlated with increasing stream degradation (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). A stream is considered "protected" when impervious coverage (IC) is lower that 10%, "impacted" when IC is approximately 10-30% and degraded when IC is above 30% (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). 60. Cars, especially tire and brakepad wear, are a major source of contamination of the heavy metals copper cadmium and zinc. Copper is a contaminant of great concern because it can be acutely toxic to aquatic species even at low concentrations. 61. A study by the Flathead Lake Biological Station in the North Flathead Valley indicated that stormwater has an impact on water quality (Stanford et al., 1997). The study found that suspended solids, total iron, zinc, NO2/3, pH and total aluminum exceeded EPA benchmark values for stormwater. Stormwater may be a special concern in Ashley Creek, south of Kalispell, and at the confluence of the Whitefish and Flathead rivers, south of Evergreen. 62. A very recent scientific synthesis (Tochner and Stanford in press) of river flood plains, that typically include shallow alluvial aquifers such as occurs in the Kalispell Valley (Evergreen -Columbia Falls area) shows that these environments are the most endangered on earth. Flood plains and their aquifers occupy a small part of the earth's surface but they are inordinately important as natural flood control zones and they are hot spots of biodiversity and bioproduction. 63. There are considerable constraints associated with the 100 year floodplain, Trumbull Creek and Spring Creek channels and the small wetlands area near the south of the site. Some of these issues can be addressed through obtaining a floodplain development permit to fill, others must be addressed through policy statements associated with the development that will insure that the natural environment is not degraded as a result of any development on the site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the agency in charge of developing and maintaining the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) a measurable portion of the site has environmental Proposed Findings of Fact Page 13 constraints due to the 100 year floodplain designation. Approximately 18 percent of the site is designated as being in the 100 year floodplain. 64. According to FIRM Panels 1420 dated 9/5/84 and 1810 dated 10/16/96 there are significant areas of 100 year floodplain immediately within and around the site to the east. Trumbull Creek, which is an active channel, starts near the northwest portion of the site and travels through the site to the east. Spring Creek lies to the east of the site and converges with Trumbull Creek off -site along the eastern boundary at point about midway in the property. This too is an active channel that warrants preservation and careful consideration during construction. There is also another area on the site where the mall and the commercial center are proposed that is designated as being in the 100 year floodplain. However, it appears that his channel has been inactive for quite some time and at some points has been blocked likely for irrigation purposes. The largest area of floodplain on the site it the area where Trumbull Creek turns from the south to head east and the inactive channel continues to the south. This area is approximately 800 feet long and 1,200 feet wide, according to the floodplain map for the area. The applicants have attempted to address this area to a certain extent by designating a 5.6 acre portion of it as Public. 65. The Public designation of this floodplain area ensures that this area would not be subject to filling or intensive development. However, a policy attached to the plan amendment should require a survey of the floodplain in the area be completed to further delineate the active portion of the channel so that it is protected and preserved for flood flows. Further study of the floodplain in the area may be in order to protect the integrity of the stream and streambed. The roadway crossing with Glacier Way, the primary north/south collector for the site that is indicated on the development outline, would be subject to a floodplain development permit and the 100 year flood flows within the channel would be required to be maintained at their current rate with the installation of a culvert or bridge and any further engineering on the roadway that might be required. 66. If the developers chose to purpose a floodplain map amendment to address the apparent inactive channel, the area would need to be surveyed and modeled to determine if there would be any increase to the floodplain in the area. This application for a letter of map amendment (LOMR) would be submitted to the local floodplain administrator who would forward the information to the agency office in Virginia. The data would be studied and if FEMA agrees with the assessments, a letter of map amendment would be issued. Obtaining a letter of map amendment from FEMA typically takes six months to one year to complete. It may be noteworthy that the entire site and basically the entire are east of the BN Santa Fe railroad tracks is indicated on the above referenced floodplain panels is in the 500 year floodplain. There are no development restrictions associated with the 500 year floodplain. Wells and Water Quality 66. There are 166 wells in an area 3 km wide from the proposed mall site south to the Flathead River as depicted on the map attached (Selected RLK wells). The average well depth is 15 feet. These wells will be impacted by runoff or other water treatment activities in the proposal area. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 14 67. Resident Floyd Thomas owns property directly south of the proposed site. He testified at the public hearing on May 14, 2002 that his family uses its shallow well as the sole source of drinking water and cannot afford $15,000 to hook up to the Evergreen water system. 68. Toxic runoff from impervious surfaces and any stormwater drainage system pose a significant risk to the drinking water systems of the residents in the area. 69. An acre of an impervious surface, such as roof or roadway sheds sixteen times more rainwater than an open meadow. 70. Given the number of acres of pavement, the porosity of the soils underlying the site and the high number of domestic wells, the commercial development of the site poses a significant risk to the clean drinking water of the residents surrounding the mall. 71. Insufficient information exists in the record to ensure the safety of the drinking water of residents surrounding the mall. Wetlands 73. There is a small wetland area located near the southern portion of the site where one of the main entrances to the property is located and manifests as a small pond. This pond appears to be created from high groundwater in the immediate area. One possible alternative could be to plant the area with grasses and reeds to filter and purify the storm water before it is filtered into the ground. 74. Developers propose to fill potential wetlands on the proposed site as shown on map attached. The map depicts a seasonal Swale bisecting the proposed mall site. Fill within the flood plain may increase the risk of flood hazard to upstream landowners. There is inadequate information in the record to determine whether potential wetlands have been identified. Fisheries and Wildlife 75. A complex food chain exists naturally in the aquifer and a large, migratory are strong indicators of the high connectivity of groundwater with the river. Dr. Stanford's world renown studies of the alluvial aquifer demonstrated that pollution by septic systems, street runoff and other urbanized zones was substantially polluting the aquifer. 76. The mainstem of the Flathead River, including the braided channels in the Evergreen area, constitutes critical habitat for the threatened migratory form of bull trout. Conclusion 77. There is inadequate information in the record to demonstrate that the proposal will comply with the Master Plan requirement to avoid degrade water quality, air quality and the environment. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 15 78. As stated above, the proposal and site location implicate significant environmental concerns, mainly related to water issues. 79. Development of a large housing area at the property exposes homeowners and residents to the environmental risks inherent at the site. K� i1 4 / ' 4 80. The economic goal of the Master Plan is a "[H]ealthy, diversified economy promoted by careful planning of type, location and design of industrial areas, shopping centers and tourist facilities." Among the objectives is to "[U]ndertake activities to ensure the Central Business District remains strong and viable." (Master Plan, p. 7.) Impact on Downtown 81. The Central Business District includes the area "along Main between 5tn Street South and Washington" where Kalispell Center Mall is now located. This proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the viability of Downtown Kalispell. The applicant was quoted in the front page Missoulian article of June 9, 2002 as follows: I hate to use the word "kill," but I will cause the demise of that project [the Kalispell Center Mall]. It will have to be redeveloped in some form or fashion. 82. Bucky Wolford built a similarly sized mall in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, population 48,113 and located 127 miles from New Orleans. At the hearing before the planning board on May 14, 2002, Wolford compared Hattiesburg to Kalispell. According to the Hattiesburg Downtown Association, the existing Hattiesburg mall, "stayed totally dark for a good five years and then spent the next years slowly filling with large discounters and some telemarketing." "When the Turtle Creek mall came in ... the first thing that happened was that our existing mall died," Linton wrote in a May 30 letter to Goodman. Linton is executive director of the Hattiesburg Downtown Association. 83. Wolford currently is proposing to build a 750,000 square foot mall in Ames, Iowa, population 50,731 with mean household income of $57,954. According to the Iowa State Daily, dated May 2, 2002, Wolford Development, Inc., has not officially submitted plans to the Ames City is expected to submit an official proposal with site and building plans in June or July. Wolford, Inc. is currently conducting traffic impact surveys, studies to see how the new mall would affect current retail in Ames, market analysis studies and environmental impact studies to see the impact on storm water and water quality. 84. Owners of land in downtown Kalispell are assessed at a much higher tax rate than owners of property in Evergreen. There is no information in the record documenting the impact to the tax base of Kalispell of the new mall proposal or the impact on existing businesses in downtown Kalispell. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 16 85. City of Kalispell has made a financial significant investment in the Kalispell Center Mall. 86. While this project would invest substantial dollars in improvements to the site for the indoor shopping mall which would generate additional tax revenue to the City of Kalispell, there is nothing in the record to project the economic flight in the commercial core or the displacement of existing businesses. 87. Taxpayers have expressed grave concern about increase tax rates to cover the loss of tax base in downtown Kalispell. Employment Impacts 88. County income and employment have boomed over the last decade and while the economy is relatively diverse, the service industries employed 70% of the county workforce in 1990 and has created the majority of new local jobs since 1990. Expanding industries tend to pay low wages and the county's rate of persons in poverty grew from 9.4% in 1980 to 14.2% in 1990. The U.S. Census Bureau model -based income and poverty estimate released in November of 2000 estimated Flathead County to have a 14.2% poverty rate in 1997, representing little change from 1990. Shifts in recent decades in both the global and the national economies have played a key role in economic conditions of the local area. Local examples of these national changes include the expansion of services and tourism; proliferation of low -wage jobs; downsizing of timber mills and the Columbia Falls Aluminum Plant; and the expansion of microelectronics production at Semi -Tool. 89. The rapid economic growth of the early 1990's had mixed benefits for the local economy in terms of average wages. Most new jobs created were low -wage jobs and job growth was concentrated in the service industries, with the notable exceptions of construction and non -electrical machinery manufacturing, i.e., Semi -Tool. Retail trade, one of the lowest paying industries, created nearly three times more jobs than the second highest job -growth industry. 90. According to the Economic Study conducted in May 2001 for the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), in conjunction with the development proposal on Section 36, the general merchandise category of employment increased 82.6% from 1990-1999. 91. This proposal will perpetuate that local economic trend of creating low paying job rather than adding greater diversity to the local economy, but may provide some potential for the expansion of the tourist trade which could have a spill over effect relating to other activities in the local area. 92. Issues related to economic impacts and the benefit of conducting a market analysis have arisen regarding this proposal. One method to assess economic impacts is through a market analysis, which can be tailored to a specific area with a model for assessing potential needs and subsequent impacts in a retail, office and residential market. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 17 Impact On Valuation of Commercial and Retail Space 92. According to APA report retail markets are prone to boom cycles when space is overbuilt and bust periods when space is in short supply. The consequences of being overbuilt are costly to a city. Property values fall, disinvestment follows, and deterioration results. Cities can use retail spending per square foot as an indicator to monitor the growth of retail space and preserve existing retail shopping areas. 93. A glut of commercial space can be devastating to a city. When the market is overstocked with commercial/retail space, property values fall, followed by disinvestment and deterioration. It creates a downward spiral. When buildings are vacant, the value decreases, and the buildings become neglected. When buildings deteriorate, the neighborhood becomes less desirable and less valuable. More businesses vacate and the same cycle occurs. When values decrease, the tax value decreases. 94. In the May 7, 2002 staff report, staff noted that "even as a regional service and retail provider, Kalispell and the immediate surrounding area meet or exceed the anticipated needs into the year 2010 and beyond. It should be noted that the Kalispell Center Mall is located on approximately 20 acres; Gateway West Mall on approximately 13 acres, and the entire downtown core of Kalispell contains approximately 40 acres, and these areas are having a difficult time maintaining a stable commercial base. The need for additional general commercial land is questionable." 95. City taxpayers have expressed concerns that if the proposed development does not come to fruition or is unsuccessful, the tax burden to maintain infrastructure will be shifted to residential taxpayers. The empty Ernst building, Gateway West and Ashley Square and the Mountain Mall in Whitefish are examples of the risk that local government faces Retail Sales Analysis 96. Within the Kalispell and Flathead Valley market, there are few reliable sources for the needed baseline information that can be obtained without substantial resources to conduct a market analysis in a thoroughly independent manner. Data regarding the availability, demand and absorption rate in areas of retail, office and residential development has not been continually collected, updated or assessed in a meaningful or comprehensive manner. 97. Given this restriction, one example of a retail market study would generally consist of five components. First, the study would define the demographic and economic trends within the region or service area which would have a direct impact on the demand for and supply of retail merchandise. The second part is determining the market or trade area, whether small or large; and thirdly assessing the demand / supply relationship. This could be done by computing the projected demand for retail merchandise into a demand for retail space. This could be compared to the current supply of retail space in the market. This is directly projected and a comparison of the demand and supply produces an estimate of the unfulfilled demand. The fourth part determines the project's net capture, and the fifth part an assessment of the development's profile including the Proposed Findings of Fact Page 18 number and type of stores as well as the schedule of development. This model of market analysis can be conducted to determine the market for office and residential development as well. 98. The City of Bozeman and Wal-Mart conducted an Economic Impact Analysis of Wal-Mart Expansion in February 2001. It analyzed the demographic and economic overview, a retail sales analysis (how will the store impact existing businesses), the employment impacts (wages and net job creation) and the impact of changing retail conditions on economic development. 99. Businesses and communities routinely use market analysts to assist in making decisions regarding future needs and determining investment. Public and private interests in conducting market analyses may differ or one may come to different conclusions based on similar information. Professional companies are solicited in both the private and public arenas to do thorough market analysis that assist parties in actions that maximize efficiency and savings within their area of interest. 101. A market or economic analysis can be subjective, conclusions from multiple sources can be inconsistent and they are not presently a required element of any land use application or decision. Conclusion 103. Given the risk of significantly impacting the downtown and its tax base, and the history of failed malls in the valley, the record must include an analysis of the employment impacts, impact on commercial and retail, and retail sales analysis to substantiate the need. aJ 11.` 104. General goals and polices under the master plan section of the plan, Goal 6, Land Use, encourages the orderly development in the planning jurisdiction with ample space for future growth while ensuring compatibility of adjacent land use. Additionally, Goal 6(b) encourages that "standards for the designation or expansion of commercial areas (be) based on a compact development pattern designed to meet the needs of the intended service area and not the desires of speculation or strip developers." (MP, 8) (emphasis added). Commercial 105. The challenge of addressing future commercial development is twofold: to locate in areas where existing utilities and facilities are available and to expand from existing commercial centers. There is pressure to develop in the outlying areas because of relatively inexpensive land and the location along arterial roads. Compact development becomes important when considering the scarcity of available land. 106. At the time the 1986 Plan document was written there was approximately 590 acres of commercial property in the Kalispell plan area. However, at present there is over Proposed Findings of Fact Page 19 1200 acres if commercial land. Most of the Evergreen area was considered Suburban or Urban Residential. Additionally, the State School Section has been redesignated as a mixed -use area. There has been substantial development around the hospital and Mountain View Plaza (Home Depot) has been developed as well as several areas within the immediate Kalispell area. It should be noted that the Kalispell Center Mall is located on approximately 20 acres; Gateway West Mall on approximately 13 acre and that the entire downtown core of Kalispell contains approximately 40 acres and these areas are having a difficult time maintaining a stable commercial base. 107. Under the Land Use section of the master plan there is some somewhat dated information on page 40 regarding the amount of commercially designated land and on page 45 the amount of land that would be needed for future development. It noted there that as a regional service area Kalispell would need an additional 400 acres of commercial land over the next 25 years and that all commercial activity should be directed toward existing commercial areas either as expansion or as infill. 108. One of the issues identified by the city council in the past has been how to provide for large scale and big box commercial and if there is adequate space within the current and future market for additional retail. There are two distinctively different commercial areas in the Kalispell area which are the Kalispell commercial core area is the historical and commercial center of the community or the "downtown" which is the well - established and generally pedestrian oriented that functions as the government seat for the county and serves as a cultural center for the community. Evergreen also serves as a commercial core area and has provided an area for new commercial expansion. Most of the development in Evergreen is auto oriented and is characterized by one or two businesses on a single lot. Both of these commercial core areas serve important functions in the economic community in different, but complementary ways. 109. The challenge that faces the community is to ensure that both of the core commercial areas remain viable and stable, with opportunities for continued investment and growth and that they develop in a way that provides for complementary development patterns. One of the primary concerns of the future commercial expansion of Kalispell is the scarcity of large undeveloped parcels within the city limits. There are few to non- existent. In the Evergreen area there is less scarcity of undeveloped land and there are a large number of underdeveloped parcels, or parcels that have been zoned commercially but have not transitioned for a residential to commercial use. Some of these parcels are fairly large from two to ten acres in size. However, there are no parcels that are 15 to 50 acres in size that are undeveloped and within the commercial core. Most of the development that has occurred in the Evergreen area over the last ten years or so has been the redevelopment of residential or even once agricultural parcels. This proposal is a continuation of that trend, but on a larger scale. 110. Additionally, the land along the periphery of the site and particularly to the east of the site appear to be purely speculative in nature and intended to capture potential commercial development into the future. There is some logic to the sites located on the east side of LaSalle Road, west of the proposed mall site and commercial center being designated as Commercial because of direct access and the mall use. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 20 Housing 111. Land Use goal (h) to "concentrate medium and high density residential units in areas close to commercial services, good traffic access and open space specifically to provide efficient access to these amenities for the occupants and to provide a suitable buffer between commercial and high traffic areas and low density residential areas." 112. The property east of the mall and west of Glacier Way should be developed as a transition area between the high intensity uses of the mall and the more residentially oriented uses to the east. Development of this transition area should have the building frontages oriented to the west toward the commercial center with special attention being given to developing the commercial frontages along the interior ring road around the mall. Treatment of the rear of the buildings should contribute to the development of the north / south corridor as an area with limited access, signage and commercial flavor and providing a transition zone. 113. The area located east of the mall and commercial center and west of Glacier Way designated as Commercial in the application be designated as Commercial which could be developed in a way that provides a transition area between higher intensity commercial uses and residential uses. This would provide the needed transition to a more residentially oriented land base to the east. 114. The retail industry nation-wide continues to change and the Kalispell Economy continues to evolve. The need for additional general uncoordinated commercial development or land based on what is described above is questionable. However, the opportunity to develop a large scale mixed use development which integrates a regional commercial center and strong neighborhood components by expanding an existing commercial/industrial area provides new opportunities. 115. The site in question already contains 70 acres of industrially zoned property that allows for general commercial and mail development. The applicants propose an additional 80 acres of commercial land creating a 150 — 160 regional commercial center within a coordinated plan of public services, facilities and site design standards. In addition the proposed amendment would include 75 acres of land for office, multi -family, public and residential uses. The development, with proper design standards and infrastructure could serve to consolidate commercial development and provide an appropriately planned location for new development. 116. Page 46 of the master plan addresses Highway Commercial and General Commercial development and notes that these districts "are perceived to occur as compact expansion and infill of existing strip commercial developments occurring on Highway 93 south of 13th Street and on Highway 2 between Meridian Road and Evergreen and on Hwy 2 between Reserve Drive and the BN crossing to the north." Although some of the area proposed for the plan amendment is recognized as commercial in the plan, i.e. the area between Reserve Drive and the BN crossing to the north, there is substantially more area beyond that which is not identified in the plan document as being planned for commercial growth. However, it could also be observed that the Evergreen area was not the vital commercial component of the Valley that it is today when the plan was written. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 21 117. Today Evergreen represents an important commercial element within the community and there are few large undeveloped or underdeveloped parcels where a project of the size of being proposed would be able to locate. There is significant commercial development around and within the immediate area of the property proposed for a redesignation to a Commercial use. The intense commercial development of the Evergreen area is immediately to the south and west of this site. A redesignation of the area proposed for the regional commercial center and the mall can be considered an expansion of the existing commercially developed areas that area immediately adjacent to it, not sprawl or "strip development" which is usually disconnected, low density in nature and some distance from existing development. 118. It is also notable that the current master plan document does not anticipate a regional mall and shopping center such as that which is being proposed. When assessing where such a facility might have the ability to locate within the Kalispell and surrounding area, there is a scarcity of parcels that would adequately accommodate the behemoth that is being proposed. The Tri-City Planning Office staff conducted an inventory of potential sites that would be able to accommodate a development requiring 60 acres or more and there were few sites available, and even fewer sites that had ready access to public utilities. The exception to this would be the State School Section which would have adequate utilities and space for the location and development of the mall and commercial center, but there are restrictions on the timing of commercial development on the school section site as well as an unwillingness or inability of the current developer to enter into a long term lease, as is required by the State. In essence if a regional mall and shopping center is to locate within the Kalispell area, the proposed site can be considered a logical placement because of its close proximity to the existing commercial core of Evergreen and the availability of public services to the site. 119. There is adequate land within the site to create a truly integrated mixed use community by establishing a residential component and creating a buffer area between the intensive commercial uses of the mall and shopping center with a transition area along the west boundary of the internal roadway. This could reasonably lead to the transition to a residential component to the east of the roadway. If the area to the east of the internal roadway of approximately 57 acres were designated as Urban Residential, this could logically set the stage for further residential development to the east as utilities and services become available. 120. A High Density Residential designation approximately 200 feet deep along the eastern side of Glacier Way may assist in developing the needed transition zone. No non- residential uses would be anticipated until such time as other properties in the area may have been substantially developed. 121. With population growth anticipated at approximately one to two percent per year to continue, the provision of an adequate supply and diversity of housing become a critical need within the community more so than a need for additional commercial land. There is limited available land within the city limits of Kalispell or within close proximity to services that lends itself to urban density residential development. By integrating a residential component into the overall development plan the mixed use Proposed Findings of Fact Page 22 development would fill and important need within the community as a whole. 122. While this development can, in part meet the land use goals of the plan because it provides ample space for future growth, it does not necessarily ensure the compatibility of adjacent land uses, particularly the High Density Residential component of the proposal which could place commercial buildings such as offices and apartments next to an exclusively very low density residential / agricultural area. A more appropriate land use designation for the east portion of the site would be Urban Residential that would anticipate setting the stage for the development of single family homes, duplexes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments at a density appropriate to an area that can be served by public sewer and water. 123. Additional traffic generation as a result of this type of intensive development will result in significant impacts to the roadway system in the area particularly to East and West Reserve Drive, Hwy 2 and Rose Crossing. 124. There is no information in the record regarding current traffic capacity, levels of service, intersection turning information, and accident report rates. 125. Preliminary comments from Stephen L. Herzog, P.E., Kalispell Area Maintenance Engineer, on behalf of the Montana Department of Transportation noted that based on a cursory review of the preliminary limited information provided this project will need to undergo the Department's Systems Impact Process for a thorough review. This will require a comprehensive Traffic Impact Study, which by reference in the application is currently underway. 126. The Montana Department of Transportation has had some initial but very preliminary contact with Wolford and their representatives to date. The Department's system impact process may provide that opportunity to facilitate a comprehensive transportation plan for all of the local agencies regarding the associated traffic impacts. Access 127. The proposal recommends designation of Glacier Way between Rose Crossing and West Reserve Drive as a collector for the area and dedicated to the City of Kalispell. Four accesses from the site onto LaSalle Road are indicated on the plan map, two with traffic lights. 128. According to MDT, both locations create potential problems based on the proximity to other traffic conflicts. The southerly access location may be to close to the existing signal at Reserve and US 93 while the northerly signal may be located to close to the railroad crossing. The middle access may be the only appropriate location for signalization. The other two accesses may only warrant right in or right out access to US 2. The specific need and location for each of the proposed accesses will be dealt with through the system impact process. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 23 129. A new traffic light is shown at the intersection of LaSalle and Rose Crossing. Two accesses onto East Reserve Drive are shown, one that provides a main entrance to the mall site and one accesses the new public street, Glacier Way. A new connection onto Rose Crossing with Glacier Way is also shown. All of the newly created accesses and lights would need to be reviewed and approved by the appropriate review authority, i.e. either the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) or the Flathead County Road Department and in the case of the railroad crossing, Burlington Northern / Santa Fe. 130. A traffic study is currently underway and would be used by the various permitting agencies to determine feasibility, mitigation and improvements for any or all of the proposed access points. 131. The staff recommends that consideration to maintaining a high level of integrity on Hwy 2 as a functioning major arterial should be given a priority in consideration of developing major accesses, in particular in installation of additional traffic signals. Limiting additional accesses onto LaSalle Road to the minimum number of points with a signal and requiring a well -functioning internal roadway system to handle the internal traffic flows should be developed as an important policy in reviewing this development proposal. This would then provide the development with three controlled signalized access point, one East Reserve Drive, one at Rose Crossing and a central access point along LaSalle Road. Traffic impacts at the proposed site 132. All City, State and County agencies transportation impacts should be coordinated in a comprehensive process. 133. References made on pages 8 and 11 indicate that no additional burdens will be placed on the public for new roads and that an expansion is planned for S 548 (West Reserve Drive) to 4 lanes. Presently I am unaware of any funding or programmed projects for these referenced improvements. Such infrastructure changes and the funding of such improvements will need to be addressed in the traffic study and in the systems impact review process. This may include associated signal upgrades, lane expansion and/or drainage needs. 134. A further area of concern that will need to be addressed in the impact process is what if any impacts will this project have on air quality with regard to PM-10 and CO standards. 135. Impacts to Rose Crossing and East Reserve Drive have not been fully identified, but will be part of a thorough traffic analysis. Currently both Rose Crossing and East Reserve Drive are two lane rural roads located within a 60 foot right of way. 136. The railroad crossing proposed across the Burlington Northern / Santa Fe tracks will have to undergo review and approval by that entity in addition to any improvements that may be identified as part of the traffic impact analysis and as required by the Montana Department of Transportation. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 24 137. A new roadway, Glacier Way, within the development will provide a north / south connection between Rose Crossing and East Reserve Drive and function as a collector street. This road is intended to be dedicated to the City of Kalispell and would be constructed to City standards. An additional internal roadway system will need to be further developed as part of the planned unit development review and approval process as part of an efficient transportation system for the site. 138. Flathead County Road Department's comments are that East Reserve Drive should be reconstructed to accommodate right and left turn lanes at the LaSalle / Hwy 2 intersection. Change the signals at the intersection to accommodate right and left turn lanes. Provide drainage (engineered) plans for East Reserve Drive. City annexation (of the property) be completed as soon as possible. 139. Kalispell Public Works comments are that traffic impacts would appear to be much greater than originally anticipated. A complete traffic impact analysis is required to assess current roadway and intersection capacities and the impacts created by the proposed development. Mitigation requirements must be identified. Traffic Impacts Beyond The Proposed Site 140. Because of the regional attraction of this project, traffic impacts beyond the immediate boundaries of the project are also a consideration. The need for Hwy 93 Kalispell Bypass continues to grow since this traffic route could efficiently carry traffic around the city from the south to West Reserve Drive and east to its intersection with Hwy 2, the project site. The Kalispell Bypass is a first priority project with design and engineering having been completed and the Montana Department of Transportation is in negotiations for early acquisition. Successful acquisition continues. Funding sources and design have been identified with construction phased over the next five to 20 years. 141. West Reserve Drive between Hwy 93 and Hwy 2 is identified as a second priority project in the Kalispell Transportation Plan which is currently a two lane major arterial. The plan identifies improvements to include widening to a four through travel lanes and a center turn lane. This project has not been further identified, designed or funded. Development in the area between Hwy 2 and Hwy 93 with the Mountain View Plaza, i.e. Home Depot / Target stores and the Glacier Mall development greatly intensifies the need for improvements to West Reserve Drive. 142. An additional issue that will surface in conjunction with the development of this project is the increased need for a connection between Conrad Drive and Highway 2 / MT 35 intersection. This has been identified in the Transportation element of the master plan as the LaSalle Road Extension. Upgrading Willow Glen Drive from US 93 to Conrad Drive and the creation of the LaSalle Road Extension have both been identified as first priority project in the Kalispell Transportation Plan. No project design or funding has been identified or developed at the local, state or federal level. Willow Glen Drive upgrades would include upgrading this two land rural arterial by widening the road to include paved shoulders, improved sight distances and left turn lanes Woodland Avenue and Conrad Drive. Some work was done at the Woodland Avenue and Willow Glen Drive intersection by the Montana Department of Transportation within the last year that Proposed Findings of Fact Page 25 included improving the sight distance, reducing the grade to the north and developing and left turn lane. 143. La Salle Road is recommended to be extended south of the Hwy 2 / MT 35 intersection to Conrad Drive to create a more direct connection between Willow Glen Drive and Hwy 2 and between Kalispell and Evergreen, referred to as the LaSalle Extension and as identified in the current transportation plan. This connection is needed regardless of whether or not the proposed project is developed. 144. As a provision of the master plan amendment approval, a traffic impact analysis and mitigation report will be prepared by the developer to address the specific impacts of traffic from the proposed development site. Conclusion 145. Developer must place information in the record that will establish that the proposal will not adversely impact traffic flow in the immediate and surrounding areas. There is insufficient information in the record at this time to conclude that the proposal meets the legal requirements. 146. Goal 8 calls for the economical and balanced distribution of public facilities for present and future needs. Goal 8(a) encourages the use of areas already serviced by water and sewer, fire and police, or areas which can be economically serviced. Goal 8 (c) encourages programs for equitable financing of extending public services into areas of new development. Kalispell's Extension of Services Plan states that the costs of the extension of services to new development, whether inside or outside of the city limits, be borne by developer. 147. Should this property be annexed into the city of Kalispell, City services would be available to the property owner(s) in accordance with City policies. In addressing the master plan relating to public services and facilities, the master plan. The extension of services further plan states that if upsizing is required to accommodate future anticipated users, that the City will pay the difference between the capacity required by the developer and the capacity required for future users. Potentially, a development agreement with the City can be executed to ensure that the "latecomers" onto the system repay the development costs to the developer and / or the City of Kalispell. 148. General comments from the Kalispell Public Works Department are as follows: "All water, sewer, storm drainage, roadways, or any other facilities that may be required must be designed and installed in accordance with the requirements of all regulating agencies of the State of Montana, City of Kalispell and all other local or Federal regulating agencies having jurisdiction over this project. All engineering studies, reports, analyses, plans and specifications and other documents for construction or engineering evaluation must be prepared and submitted under the seal of a Montana Registered Proposed Findings of Fact Page 26 Professional Engineer having specific expertise in the area of design or subject under evaluation." Sewer 149. Extension of City sewer to the project site is a critical component to the feasibility of the project which would involve the extension of City sewer from its closest point along Whitefish Stage Road to the site. Two alternative routes for the sewer extension are being assessed by the developer, but no clear route for the sewer extension has been determined. Sewer could either be extended from Whitefish Stage Road and east on West Reserve Drive to the site or it could be extended from Whitefish Stage Road to Rose Crossing and east to the site. Evergreen Water District could provide water services to the site which would essentially involve a petition to annex into the district and acceptance by the Evergreen Water District board. 150. According to Jay Bilimayer, the option suggested by the developer of building his own sewage treatment plant is not viable. While the physical and chemical processes could be designed, the treated wastewater from the system must be disposed of without adversely impacting the receiving waters. 151. Critical to the success of the overall development of the project would be the provision of City sewer to the site. The applicants have explored various opportunities for the extension of sewer from its closest point, Whitefish Stage Road. Sewer would be extended from Whitefish Stage Road and to the west either along West Reserve Drive or Rose Crossing. The Kalispell Public Works Department has some initial comments regarding the proposed master plan amendment. 152. Size of the proposed development is substantially greater in scope than originally presented and discussed. Our past conversations dealt with an enclosed mall of 600,000 to 700,000 square feet with an undefined amount of additional satellite development around the mall. This increase will have significant impacts in a number of areas. The present proposal suggests an initial development that could approach 1,500,000 square feet when the mall and adjacent areas are developed as indicated. 153. Wastewater flows from the mail were originally estimated by Wolford to be in the 125,000 to 150,000 gallon per day range. The current development proposal would appear to raise the potential wastewater flow substantially beyond this range. As a result, there are now concerns about the capacity of many downstream facilities to handle flows greater than those originally estimated. 154. Further, the impact of this development on the City's existing wastewater treatment capacity will be substantially different than originally presented. Treatment capacity at the existing facility is limited. As a result of the City's Facility Plan 2000 study, a major facility expansion is anticipated and preliminary engineering is beginning. But the appropriate size of this planned expansion is now in question because of the significant change from the original proposal. The developer must provide detailed engineering data regarding the amount and type of wastewater to be generated from this site so that all wastewater collection and treatment facility capacities can be assessed." Proposed Findings of Fact Page 27 155. Phasing, timing and monitoring of flows from the development may be required so that the City of Kalispell's wastewater treatment plant can keep pace with the development and meet existing obligations. Specific issues will be addressed as specific development proposals are submitted. As part of the ongoing planning process the developer should prepare an engineering report addressing the proposed flows. Water 156. Although not specifically addressed, it is understood that water service may be supplied by Evergreen Water. Kalispell Public Works Department states that "Design of facilities and flow rates and pressures must fully account for the fire needs of the development and are subject to review and approval by the City Fire Marshall because City of Kalispell will provide fire service." 157. Currently this property is not inside the Evergreen Water District boundary, but could petition for annexation into the district. Although a referral was sent to the district, no formal response was received. In any case, the district has indicated a willingness to provide water service to the development. Storm Water Management 158. Kalispell Public Works comments regarding storm water management are as follows: "Storm water run off will be a significant problem with a development of this scope. Storm water flows from this site cannot exceed pre -development levels. The developer will be required to prepare a comprehensive storm water analysis of the current site and receiving waters and must identify the impacts of the proposed development on receiving waters. 159. Presently there is no community system for collection conveyance and treatment of storm water in the area. Management of storm water to protect groundwater and surface water is a concern because of shallow groundwater in the area, the direct connection between the aquifer and Flathead Lake and proximity of Trumbull Creek and Spring Creek. Any storm water management plan for the Glacier Mall, whether traditional or non-traditional, must ensure the water quality of the drinking water sources in the area and the potential degradation of Flathead Lake. 160. According to Jay Billmayer of Bilimayer Engineering, engineered methods to address treatment of stormwater or sewage are not reasonably available at this site. "The reality is, the community has not been assured that the floodplain modifications, stormwater, treatment and dispersal and sewage collection, treatment and disposal can be accomplished on site without adversely impacting the water quality of the aquifer. 161. Any stormwater disposal system will likely be classified as a Class V (5) well. EPA Region 8 has implemented an underground injection control program. The program analyzes for heavy metals, including copper, cadmium, commonly emitted from motor vehicles, and other heavy metals. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 28 162. Once annexed into the city of Kalispell, the Kalispell Fire Department will provide protection to the site. Providing fire protection in this area may strain the department beyond their capacity to provide adequate services. According to the American Insurance Association, a city the size of Kalispell with its level of staffing and equipment, should ideally have a maximum service area radius of one and a half miles. The fire department has made some initial comments regarding fire protection to the site that include compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and provision of commercial fire flows at a minimum of 4000 gallons per minute with the presumption that buildings will be provide with fire sprinklers. Looped systems with sufficient storage capacity will need to be provided as well as adequate fire ingress and egress to the site. Due to the potential complex nature of the development, special life safety issues and impacts are likely. These impacts may warrant the need for the developer to provide technical assistance for code compliance review as well as special construction inspectors. 163. Further comments: "The current fire station location is more than four miles to the south of the site which will cause excessive response times to the proposed development. Addition of a fire station at Whitefish Stage Road and West Reserve Drive would give the fire department a 1.5 mile response to the mall area and the west side of Reserve Drive. 164. Current City planning includes this new fire station even without the construction of this development. Staffing levels of this station will need to be studied relative to the proposed mall development as well as the additional commercial and residential construction. Timing of the mall development and fire department construction will need to be assessed." Police 165. Demands on the Kalispell Police Department will be predictably increased with a development of this nature and intensity. A much larger population than the city residents, particularly during the summer months, impacts the department. It could also be anticipated, that additional demands will be placed on the department and that it would be necessary to staff and equip the police department accordingly. 166. There is no information in the record regarding the impact of the project on law enforcement. Educational Services 167. There are a number of public and private primary and secondary schools recognized in the master plan and the community. Helena Flats Elementary School lies in close proximity to the site to the east. Donna Maddux Superintendent of Flathead County Schools has commented on the project by saying "If there is a housing component affiliated with the proposed new mall, parents of elementary age school children will find that Helena Flats is their district of residence. Students could apply to Proposed Findings of Fact Page 29 attend another elementary school, but acceptance isn't guaranteed and tuition may be expected. High school age students will attend Flathead High School or may, by interlocal agreement, request approval to attend another high school in the county." 168. There has been discussion regarding the windfall to the local school districts with a development of this size and nature. Superintendent Maddux also commented on this issue by saying "While this property will pay a substantial property tax, it will not directly benefit local schools. Local taxpayers may find the number of mills which their property is taxed to be reduced by the financial contribution of this site. For schools, however, the increased revenue goes to the State's School Equalization Fund. That fund returns money to the individual districts based on a per child formula with no extra credit given to county or districts which generated the revenue. The value for schools is the set figure of compensation per student as the housing builds out." 169. Goal 9 of the Master Plan encourages the documentation and preservation of historical and cultural heritage for present and future generations. 170. A number of remodeling and restoration projects have been undertaken to retain the character and charm of downtown Kalispell. The restored buildings convey a sense of pride and sense of place. 171. An approximately 5.6 acre area is designated on the development plan as Public which is essentially one of the major channels of Trumbull Creek, an environmentally sensitive area that warrants preservation and protection. Around the main channel of Trumbull Creek where the Public designation is proposed lays the 100 year floodplain, as previously noted. In reality the 100 year floodplain goes beyond that area designated as Public in the development plan and further delineation of the area prone to flooding should be determined and the public area possibly expanded to include environmentally sensitive area, i.e. areas prone to flooding. 172. There is additional floodplain along the Trumbull Creek channel that is not indicated on the development plan. The proposal fails to give consideration to the buffering and protection of the area within the 100 year floodplain, possibly by designating it as permanent open space or creating a recreational amenity by developing a trail available either to the public or to the future property owners. 173. The City of Kalispell Parks and Recreation Department has stated that it would be willing to assume ownership and maintenance of the Public area as a City park once it has been developed. The City would not assume the ownership and maintenance of areas simply designated as open space or as public since that does not provide a recreational amenity to the community as undeveloped parkland or open space. The application proposed that the Public area designated on the development plan would fulfill future parkland dedication requirements associated with future residential subdivision on the project site. Under the City and State subdivision regulations, this would generally be an Proposed Findings of Fact Page 30 acceptable arrangement depending on the size, density and timing of the residential subdivision proposal. 174. An open space area has been indicated near the southeast corner of the site to provide buffering between this property and the Granite View Subdivision to the east, a single family residential development. This open space area would be retained and maintained by the developer or property owners association. Although this open space does not necessarily function as a recreational amenity, it does provide some separation between the development and the residences in the area. 175. In the absence of more specific residential development plans and tax revenue associated with the annexation of the property, there is insufficient information in the record as to the effect of potentially unowned and unmaintained public space in the area, and the City's or County's future need and ability to provide such maintenance. 176. Glacier Way, the north/south collector within the project, is approximately one mile long and is proposed to have a bicycle jogging trail incorporated into its design. Since this would be a dedicated City street, the roadway would be required to be designed and constructed to City standards or as further outlined in the PUD agreement. The development of an interconnecting trail in the area could be of benefit to community particularly if it could be connected to the trail being considering in the area to Helena Flats School. 177. Nothing in the record speaks to the safety or access issues that would follow from the creation of a bicycle jogging path along Glacier Way. Especially in light of the concentration of visitors and consumers, residential area, and heavy introduction of automobiles to the area, pedestrian and bicycle safety along recreational corridors is a major concern, exacerbated if a primary purpose of the path would be to connect children in the area to Helena Flats School. -XI 178. Master plan Objective 11 states that Kalispell should: (c) encourage infilling to take advantage of existing streets and services; (d) encourage transportation energy conservation by developing pedestrian and bicycle oriented systems. (MP, p.11). 179. The proposal relocates the commercial center of the Kalispell area to an outlying area miles from the residential core of the Kalispell area. As such, the proposal depends entirely upon automobile use, and precludes energy efficient pedestrian and bicycle access to residents' commercial needs. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 31 180. Master plan Objective 5(b) states that Kalispell should: identify and conserve prime farm lands in order to retain farming as a viable sector of the economy. (MP, p.7). 181. Master plan Objective 12 states that Kalispell should: (b) recognize that highly productive agricultural lands are a finite natural resource at the local, state, and national level; (c) recognize that the agricultural usage of such prime agricultural land is appropriate and in the public interest; (i) direct growth to already established urban areas and rural areas which are not environmentally sensitive or productive agricultural lands. (MP, pp. 11-12). 182. Applicant's proposal depends upon converting large portions of prime agricultural land to commercial, high density residential, and public designation. As stated above, this property is both environmentally sensitive and prime agricultural land, which once lost as agricultural land or damaged by human factors precludes restoration of the property to prime agricultural land. As such, the proposal is not in accord with these stated goals and objectives of the Master Plan. There is not enough information in the proposal to ensure that the proposal substantially complies with the existing master plan, as required by Montana law. Specifically, it is not clear that there has been a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant consideration of the proposal nor has a public need for the proposed amendment been adequately presented. In the absence of such information, we must generally conclude that the applicant has failed to meet his burden, and that the proposed amendment should be denied, or at least tabled until adequate evidence of these elements is presented. As to whether the proposal complies with the goals and objectives of the existing master plan, we conclude that as a whole, the proposed amendment fails to substantially comply with the unamended master plan as required by Montana law. There is a prevailing lack of information in many of the areas especially in areas such as Environment, Economy, Transportation, and Public Facilities. We conclude from the information that is in the record that action on the proposed amendment would not be consistent with the stated goals and objectives of the master plan. Proposed Findings of Fact Page 32 Attorneys at Law Reynolds, Mod and Sherwood A Professional Limited Liability Partnersbip Linda M. Deola Brenda Lindlief Hall Jonathan R. Mod James P. Rejmolds Frederick F Sherwood Deborah S. Smith DavidKW Wilson,Jr, June 18, 2002 The Honorable Pam Kennedy & the Kalispell City Council P. O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Re: Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment Dear Mayor Kennedy and Councilors: 401 North Last Chance Gulch Helena, Montana 59601 (406) 44_9 3?61 Fax (406) 443 7294 We are writing you on behalf of Citizens for a Better Flathead concerning the proposed Glacier Mall, and the current proposal to amend the Kalispell City -County Master Plan to accommodate the mall. Citizens for a Better Flathead has asked us to review the legal issues surrounding he approval of the master plan amendment, and to convey to the City Council our concerns, as part of the public record in this matter. By separate cover Citizens for a Better Flathead will be making additional comments and submissions. In summary, we believe that there are several legal issues the City Council should address before approving the proposal. By way of background, in 1986 the Kalispell City Council and the Flathead County Commission jointly adopted the Kalispell City -County Master Plan, pursuant to § 76-1-601, MCA. It was intended to be a "policy guide to decision concerning the physical, social, economic and environmental development" within the Master Plan area. As such, the Master Plan was both far sighted, in that it contemplated management of growth in the Kalispell area through 2010, and insightful: The Kalispell Planning Jurisdiction is going to see growth.... This growth does not have to contribute to further degradation of the natural environment.... [T]his growth does not have to result in a deterioration of public services. The Kalispell City -County Master Plan has been developed to insure instead a viable positive future. (Kalispell Master Plan, p. 3) The Master Plan contained goals in twelve specific areas, including growth management, environment, economy, land use and agriculture, as well as specific objectives for each of these goals. Further, the Master Plan contemplated an orderly and well thought out process for Master Plan amendment. Altogether, the 1986 Master Plan contained a vision for a livable community, and a road map for how to carry out that vision. Unfortunately, the sheer scope and scale of the Glacier Mall, and the procedural questions surrounding its approval, threaten to undermine the vision of Kalispell set forth in the Master Plan. Wolford Development Montana, LLC, seeks an amendment to the Master Plan on 232 acres in the Evergreen area. They have also filed a petition to annex this area into the City of Kalispell. The proposal would amend the Master Plan from "Light Industrial, Agricultural and Residential" to "Commercial" on 170 acres, as well as change 62 acres from "Agricultural" to "High Density Residential" or "Public" (park). Approximately 70 acres of the development would be an enclosed mail. This enclosed mall alone will be substantially larger than the 40 acre core of downtown Kalispell. The City Planning staff questioned the need for additional commercial land. (May 7, 2002 Tri City Planning Staff Report, p. 11.) Indeed, in a July 31, 2001 Flathead County Planning and Zoning staff report (p. 3), the planning staff said that the development will "cannibalize downtown Kalispell commercial operations, force vacancies in existing business, and redirect growth into the unincorporated portions of Flathead County." (Emphasis added) The May 7, 2002 Staff Report (p. 12.) calls the mall a "behemoth." The planning staff (as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA]) has also identified "significant environmental constraints" (Id., p. 14) on the project as a result of the 100 year floodplain. A sizeable portion of the site is within the 100 year floodplain. The planning staff, the Flathead Basin Commission and Dr. Jack Stanford Director of the Yellow Bay Biological Research Center are on the record with concerns about the project's impacts on ground water and surface water in the area, including Flathead River and Flathead Lake. Moreover, there are a number of specific legal issues (set forth below) which we believe make it premature for the City to approve this Master Plan amendment at this stage. We urge the City, instead, to step back and conduct a more comprehensive review of this massive and controversial undertaking. 1. Procedural Irregularities: a. Kalispell has no Authority to Act Unilaterally Ironically, at the same time that the City of Kalispell is preparing to unilaterally amend the Master Plan, it is in litigation with Flathead County challenging the County's unilateral amendment to the Master Plan in 2001. As you know, in September of 2001, Flathead County approved Resolution 790 Q, changing zoning for 144 acres in Evergreen to "general commercial" to allow for the construction of the Glacier Mall. The County, after originally determining that it needed approval of the City as well to effectuate this amendment, determined that it was merely a "housekeeping chore" to correct a map, and therefore did not require both City and County approval. The City of Kalispell, properly, challenged this unilateral action by Flathead County, stating in its lawsuit: The creation of the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and planning jurisdiction and the Kalispell City -County Master Plan constituted a contract between the City of Kalispell and Flathead County regarding the extra -territorial planning jurisdiction wherein each parry has performed in reliance upon such agreements. Therefore any amendments to the existing plan depend upon the joint action and consent of both the city and the county who are each bound by the agreement. (Unless otherwise indicated all emphasis herein is added.) The position taken by the City of Kalispell in the lawsuit is correct, and consistent with both the Master Plan as well as §§ 76-1-503, 504 and 506, MCA. (See, e.g. § 76-1-506, MCA: "[T]he boundaries may be revised from time to time by resolutions of the governing bodies.") See also § 76-1-103(3). "Governing body" or "governing bodies" means the governing body of any governmental unit represented on a planning board.' In this light, it is mystifying why the City would now take the position that it may unilaterally amend the Master Plan: it is, in essence, taking precisely the same action which it claimed was illegal when taken by Flathead County. The City apparently proceeds on the premise that the land will eventually be annexed; however, jurisdiction is predicated on fact not fiction. The City Council should be under no illusion that the actions the City now proposes to take simply constitute the City approving the same action taken by the County in September, 2001. At the time the County approved the Master Plan amendment, the proposal before it was to change the zoning designation for 144 acres to accommodate the Glacier Mall. In contrast the proposal before the City is for a change in designation for 232 acres — an almost 40% increase over the amendment approved by the County. This is not mere housekeeping; rather it is unilateral action by the City which is identical in nature, but not in kind, to the unilateral action taken by the County which is under challenge in Court. The City should seek judicial resolution of its claims against the County before it takes the very same apparently illegal action here. b. The City's "Interim Planning Board" has no Jurisdiction. On December 17, 2001, to further confuse matters, the Flathead County Commissioners unilaterally withdrew from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board. In response, the City of Kalispell then unilaterally created an "interim city planning board". It is this interim board which has considered, and recommended approval of, the Master Plan Amendment before you. The Flathead Regional Development Offices' regulations are also in accord. See FRDO Regulation, Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Procedures, p. 2. Conspicuously absent are any City regulations for amendment of the Master Plan. In the City's haste to first create this new City Planning Board and then consider amending the Master Plan, the City has apparently failed to adopt any such regulations. N However, just as amendments must be approved by both the City and the County, so too must the make up of the Planning Board be approved by both bodies. The unilateral withdrawal from the joint City County Planning Board, which did have jurisdiction over the Glacier Mall, has probably placed in legal limbo any action on this proposal by either government until a new Planning Board, created pursuant to the new provisions of § 76-1-101, et seq, MCA, and acting in compliance with the new requirements for a growth policy in § 76-1-601, et seq, MCA, is in existence. Indeed, the action of first the County and now the City have created a jurisdictional quagmire. The City purports to have now created an interim Kalispell City Planning Board and is now acting on the recommendation of this City Planning Board to amend the Kalispell City County Master Plan, specifically amending extraterritorial lands governed by the Master Plan. We do not believe the City has jurisdiction to do this. In fact, in presenting Kalispell Ordinance 1411, which established this interim Kalispell City Planning Board, the record of the special council meeting adopting this ordinance reveals that the City Attorney explained to the City Council as follows: Harball said this board will only handle planning within the city limits and simply allows applications to go forward. Kalispell City Council Minutes, Special meeting of December 26, 2001, at p. 2. Section 76-2-311, MCA, does allow a city council to enforce growth policy regulations until the county adopts a growth policy, but there are a number of explicit conditions precedent before the city may exercise such extraterritorial jurisdiction. First, the city itself must have adopted a growth policy pursuant to the provisions of § 76-1-601, et seq., MCA. The City of Kalispell has not yet done this. Moreover, the statute contemplates that "an existing city planning board" be increased to include two representatives from the unincorporated area that is to be affected. Again, the City's actions are not in compliance with the statutory requirements. In sum, while the County's unilateral actions have precipitated this jurisdictional quagmire which serves the interests of neither the County, the City, landowners, nor developers, the City's unilateral response to date is lamentably ill-founded. C. Effects of Senate Bill 97 The 1999 Montana Legislature amended § 76-1-601, et seq, MCA to require adoption of a "growth policy." The bill provided that the requirements for a growth policy would not apply until after October 1, 2001. Since that time, neither Kalispell nor Flathead County has adopted a growth policy to replace the 1986 Master Plan. There is significant controversy state-wide over whether the passage of SB 97 prohibits activities pursuant to pre-existing master plans. Specifically in this case, does SB 97 prohibit the amendment to the 1986 Master Plan requested here, pending passage of a growth policy? On March 12, 2002, the Missoula County Attorney submitted a request to the Montana Attorney General for an Attorney General's opinion on the meaning and applicability of the amendments in to § 76-1-601, et seq, MCA. It was the Missoula County Attorney's preliminary opinion that while SB 97 did not prohibit enforcement of existing zoning regulations, it did prohibit local governments without a growth policy in place from taking any zoning actions. 2 The Kalispell City Attorney, Charles Harball, on April 1, 2002, also submitted a request for an Attorney General's opinion on the same issue because of the pendency of the Glacier Mall related amendment request. Mr. Harball, in contrast with the Missoula County Attorney, preliminarily concluded that SB 97 did not apply to the City of Kalispell because it had adopted a Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance before October 1, 1999, and it was Mr. Harball's opinion that this qualified as the "growth policy" required under the new law. In a follow up letter to the Tri-City Planning Office, Mr. Harball reiterated his opinion that the existing Master Plan sufficed -for compliance with § 76-1-601, et seq, MCA, and expressed his confidence that the Attorney General would agree with Kalispell's view of the law. He went on to say "[W]e can not simply now wait for that opinion to arrive", recommending that the amendment process move forward before the Attorney General issues an opinion. Citizens for a Better Flathead respectfully disagrees with the "leap before you look" approach being advocated by the City Attorney. Given the uncertainty over the very law which is at the heart of the action contemplated by the City, and given the other procedural and substantive problems with the amendment process discussed in further detail herein, it is clearly premature at this juncture for the City to approve the proposed amendment. In fact, we see no reason why the City "can not simply now wait" for this issue to be resolved. 2. The Proposed Amendment does not Comply with the Existing 1986 Master Plan We do not believe that the City Council is involved in adopting a general policy of land use planning, which would be a legislative act, in considering the proposal advanced by Wolford Development Montana. Rather, the City Council is being asked to give special consideration to a specific tract of land for a single developer. As the Montana Supreme Court pointed out in Little v. Board of County Commissioners. of Flathead County, 193 Mont. 334, 344, 631 P.2d 1282, 1288 (1981), such activity is more of a quasi-judicial decision -making process than a legislative process. As to the substantive standards which govern your decision, Wolford Development Montana, as the applicant for the change to the Master Plan, bears the burden of proving the following: (1) that the proposed amendment is consistent with the un-amended portions of the Master Plan; (2) that there is a public need for the change, which need is based upon a demonstrable change in the character of the area; and (3) that the proposed amendment is the best way of meeting that public need. See South of Sunnyside, etc. v. Board of Commissioners., 569 P.2d 1063, 1072-73 (Ore. 1977) (relied upon by the Montana Supreme Court in Little, 193 Mont. at 345, 631 P.2d at 1288); see also, Fasano v. Board of Commissioners., 507 P.2d 23, 30 (Ore. 1973) (Fasano is also cited with approval by the Montana Supreme Court in Little, 631 P.2d at 1290.) Where the applicant fails to satisfy this burden, there is insufficient basis to adopt the requested amendment. z Flathead County apparently reached the same conclusion last year, because it unilaterally rushed through the Master Plan "map amendment" concerning the Glacier Mall prior to the October 1, 2001 effective date of SB 97. 5 Even if the City is correct that the 1986 Master Plan remains in effect, and that it may unilaterally amend that plan, then it must confront the fact that the proposed Amendment does not comply with the Master Plan, and on the basis of the current record the Amendment cannot be approved. There are numerous conflicts and inconsistencies between the proposed Amendment and the Master Plan. As set forth below, Montana Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that on the basis of the present record the Amendment contemplated here does not meet the applicable legal standards. The planning staff recognized that the Amendment must be consistent with the Master Plan. For that reason, it reviewed both changes to the area which could potentially trigger an amendment, and whether the Amendment complies with the overall goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Although the planning staff ultimately recommended approval of the Amendment, the body of the staff report (especially prior to that report's revision by the Planning Board) as well as the language of the Master Plan itself raise serious questions about compliance of the Amendment with the Master Plan, and serves to undermine the very approval the staff recommends. Since both the planning staff, and Citizens for a Better Flathead, have already pointed out on the record numerous inconsistencies between the Amendment and the specific goals and objectives of the Master Plan, we will focus here on a few of the most obvious. a. Joint Administration Ironically, the proposed Amendment departs from one of the most basic goals of the Master Plan which is "joint cooperation in promoting, guiding, and directing the Planning Jurisdiction's growth and development." (Master Plan, p. 5) One of the related objectives is that the Master Plan should be "jointly adopted and used when considering any and all development decisions." As already pointed out, the unilateral action by the City here fails to meet either this goal or objective. b. Environment The Master Plan goal for the environment is "[A]ir, water, open space and scenic vistas unhindered by pollution, blight or degrading factors." (Master Plan, p. 6.) Environmental objectives include establishing strict standards for development which occurs in environmentally sensitive areas, such as floodplains and drainage ways. (Id.) An additional objective is to "develop a citywide drainage plan which would mitigate harmful water pollution effects and reduce damage created by storm and surface water runoff." (Id.) In the May 7, 2002 Planning Staff Report, the staff opened the discussion of environmental considerations by noting that "[C]ontrary to the statement in the application that `there are no significant topographic constraints', there are significant constraints associated with the 100 year floodplain, Trumble Creek channel, and the small wetlands area near the south of the site." The Report goes on to recognize that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has noted "some severe environmental constraints due to the 100 year floodplain designation." The Report also noted concerns expressed by the public about storm water runoff, and attendant potential for groundwater degradation. Additionally, the Report notes comments 0 submitted by the Flathead Basin Commission which expressed concern with the potential for additional non -point sources of pollution associated with the proposed mall. The May 7 Report closes by stating: Impact to the local aquifer and how water moves between the surface, groundwater and underground river environment has not been fully addressed. Unanswered questions regarding non -point source pollution in the Evergreen area raises concerns. These concerns have been further described in Dr. Jack Stanford's letter of May 14, 2002 and the Flathead Basin Commission's letter of May 2, 2002, both of which were submitted to the Planning Board prior to its decision. As Dr. Stanford states in his letter, the research of the Flathead Lake Biological Station has established that the river and aquifer are one in the same in this alluvial aquifer: "We cannot enjoy healthful water supply such as we have in Flathead Lake if the river — aquifer system upstream has been disconnected by human activities. Clearly ... pollution from any source, including urban expansion, can completely disrupt the aquifer -river ecosystem. Rather than take these concerns highlighted by the planning staff and Dr. Stanford as a starting point for more detailed review, however, the Planning Board instead acceded to a number of the applicant's proposed edits to this document, and has removed most of the above discussion of environmental concerns from the final draft of the Planning Office Report (May 21, 2002) which has been given to you to guide your deliberations. This whitewashing of any discussion critical of the proposal's impact to the environment merely serves to highlight the fatal deficiencies in the review of this project to date. Moreover, the planning staff and Planning Board simply ignored the substantive comments submitted by the public — which pointed out numerous deficiencies with the proposed Amendment and which comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the Amendment. In any event, the planning staff s initial report made it quite clear that allowing this massive development to be built as and where proposed flies in the face of the Master Plan environmental goals and objectives. Finally, it is anticipated that further environmental concerns will be made of record prior to or at the Hearing. C. Economy i. Central Business District The economic goal of the Master Plan is a "[H]ealthy, diversified economy promoted by careful planning of type, location and design of industrial areas, shopping centers and tourist facilities." Among the objectives is to "[U]ndertake activities to ensure the Central Business District remains strong and viable." (Master Plan, p. 7.) The Central Business District includes the area "along Main between 5t' Street South and Washington" (Master Plan, p. 40) - - where Kalispell Center Mall is now located. Mr. Wolford was quoted in the front page Missoulian article of June 9, 2002 as follows: AA I hate to use the word "kill," but I will cause the demise of that project [the Kalispell Center Mall]. It will have to be redeveloped in some form or fashion. Missoulian, June 9, 2002, p. 6. To "cause the demise" of a major component of the Central Business District conflicts with the Master Plan's explicit objective of a "strong and viable" Central Business District. Mr. Wolford's candid admission is consistent with other information already of record. As already noted, in an early review of this proposal, planning staff said the proposed mall would "cannibalize" downtown Kalispell. July 31, 2001 Flathead Regional Development Office Planning Staff Report) In the May 7, 2002 Planning Staff Report, the staff noted that the project would generate additional tax revenue for Kalispell, however, "this oversimplification does not account for potential economic flight in the commercial core or the displacement of existing businesses.",Moreover the staff recommended a "market analysis" to determine the impact the proposal would have on existing businesses. Once again, the developer sought to remove this damning language. However, the Planning Board refused to accept those changes, and reiterated the need for a detailed market analysis to determine the economic impact of the Amendment. It is clear from an economic standpoint that, at a minimum, there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed Amendment is consistent with the economic goals and objectives of the plan, and the current record indicates that it is inconsistent with those goals and objectives. ii. Prime farm lands Another objective is to "conserve prime farm lands in order to retain farming as a viable sector in the economy." (Master Plan, p. 7.) Included within the proposed mall site is an area identified as "prime farm land" by the Master Plan. (Master Plan, p. 23.) The Master Plan further directs: "direct growth to already established urban areas and rural areas which are not environmentally sensitive or productive agricultural lands." (Master Plan, p. 12(i).) The proposed Master Plan Amendment is not in accord with these stated goals and objectives of the Master Plan. d. Land Use The Master Plan contemplates "orderly development of the planning jurisdiction with ample space for future growth while, at the same time, ensuring compatibility of adjacent land uses." One of the goals is to "set standards for designation or expansion of commercial areas based on a compact development pattern designed to meet the needs of the intended service area and not the desires of speculation or strip developers." As the planning staff noted, the challenge facing Kalispell is to "ensure that both the core commercial areas remain viable and stable." At the same time, the staff noted the increase in development in the Evergreen area: "[T]his proposal is a continuation of that trend, but on a larger scale." The staff expressed concerns with the speculative nature of the development on the eastern portion of the amendment area, arguing that it was "purely speculative in nature." Further, the staff noted in its May 7 report that because of the large increase in commercial land availability since the Master Plan came into being, even as a regional service and retail provider, Kalispell and the immediate surrounding area meet or exceed the anticipated needs into the year 2010 and beyond. It should be noted that the Kalispell Center Mall is located on approximately 20 acres; Gateway West Mall on approximately 13 acres, and the entire downtown core of Kalispell contains approximately 40 acres, and these areas are having a difficult time maintaining a stable commercial base. The need for additional general commercial land is questionable. e. Transportation The Master Plan goal for transportation calls for "safe, convenient and economical access to all facilities throughout the area." (Master Plan, p. 9.) The May 7, 2002 staff report notes that "additional traffic generation as a result of this type of intensive development will result in significant impacts to the roadway system in the area, particularly to East and West Reserve Drive, Hwy 2 and Rose Crossing." As a condition of approval, the staff recommended and the Planning Board adopted the requirement that the applicant complete a "traffic analysis and mitigation report" to address traffic concerns. While it is laudable that the Planning Board has called for such a study, it is clearly premature for the City to determine whether this proposal meets the Master Plan transportation goals and objectives without this report in hand, and therefore, any decision approving the amendment would be premature as well. f. Leaal Precedent In summary, Citizens for a Better Flathead believes that the applicant, planning staff and planning board have failed to demonstrate that the proposal will be consistent with the Master Plan, and there are many indications that the proposal is inconsistent with the Master Plan. That, in turn, creates questions about the legality of approving the proposal at this point. Section 76-1-605, MCA, states that: After adoption of a growth policy, the city council ... or other territorial government within the jurisdiction of the board must be guided by and give consideration to the general policy and patterns of development set out in the growth policy in the ... adoption of zoning ordinances or resolutions. Whether we assume for argument sake that the 1986 Master Plan does qualify as Kalispell's "growth policy" or that the Master Plan is grand -fathered in and governed by the statutes in effect prior to amendment in 1999 by SB 97, the Master Plan must be followed in this instance. The Montana Supreme Court has addressed this question in a number of cases. In Ash Grove Cement v. Jefferson County, 943 P.2d 85 (Mt. 1997), the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a "local vicinity plan" specific to one industrial area within the county was in compliance with the county's master plan, either standing alone or if considered as an amendment to the master plan. The Court found it lacking in both regards. As to an amendment, the Court noted that "our prior decisions mandate that local governments consider and adhere to the policies set forth in their comprehensive plans in future land use planning decisions." Id. 943 9 P.2d at 91; citing Bridger Canyon Property Owners ' Association v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 890 P.2d 1268 (Mt. 1995). We observed (in Bridger Canyon) that the language used in the Zoning Ordinance expressly recognized the importance of the General Plan in the development pattern for Bridger Canyon and concluded, on that basis that `it makes sense that the commissioners should be required to comply with the General Plan." (cit. om.) Indeed, to require no compliance at all would defeat the whole idea of planning. Why have a plan if local governments are free to ignore it at any time? Ash Grove, 943 P.2d at 91. The Ash Grove Court went on to conclude that "Jefferson County's effort to adopt the LVP, as an amendment to the Master Plan for only a small portion of the jurisdictional area covered by the Plan, simply undermines the importance of comprehensive planning recognized in Montana statutes and our decisions." Id., 943 P.2d at 93. Going further back in time, but much closer to home, the City should also be guided by the Montana Supreme Court decision in Little v. Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County, 631 P.2d 1282 (Mt. 1981). In that case, neighboring landowners brought suit against the City of Kalispell and the Flathead County Commission challenging a decision to allow a large shopping center in a largely residential area. The Court stated: By any definition, this case involves spot zoning of the worst kind. The commissioners were about to zone as commercial a 59 acre tract of land solely to accommodate the Developers, who wanted to build a regional shopping center. The land is surrounded on three sides by City of Kalispell boundaries, and this entire area is, by the trial court's findings, 99 % residential. Further, the comprehensive plan in effect for this area recommends that the land involved be used for residential purposes. Zoning as was about to take place here is the very opposite of planned zoning. Id. 631 P.2d at 1289. The Little Court went on to find that local governing bodies must use a master plan for guidance in making zoning decisions, and that "the governmental unit, when zoning, must substantially adhere to the master plan." Id. 631 P.2d at 1293. Here, as discussed in detail above and as was the case in Ash Grove, the proposed Amendment fails in numerous ways to meet the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. And as was the case in Little, the proposal to amend the Master Plan to allow for the construction of the Glacier Mall is intended to benefit one property owner, the developer, at the expense of surrounding land owners and existing land uses. Of significance here is that the illegalities and vices of "spot zoning" are not miraculously cured by changing the name of the game, and attempting to achieve the prohibited result by amending the Master Plan. The same principles of 10 due process and fair play which apply to "spot zoning" apply with equal force to "spot planning." 3. Constitutional Guarantees to a Clean and Healthful Environment Must Guide the City's Decision. The City's decision whether or not to allow the proposed amendment cannot be made without adherence to the public's constitutional rights and the City's -- and developer's -- constitutional duties. The framers of the 1972 Montana Constitution believed environmental protection should be of paramount importance. Accordingly, the framers created what most of them believed to be the strongest constitutional provisions ever included in a state constitution. Con. Conv. Trans. Vol. IV, p. 1200. Those constitutional provisions include both rights held by citizens of the state as well as corresponding duties on the part of the government and citizens. Two articles of the Constitution contain provisions relating to the environment. Article II, Section 3 provides citizens with the "inalienable right to a clean and healthful environment." The Montana Supreme Court considers this right to be a "fundamental right": Any statute or rule which implicates that right must be strictly scrutinized and can only survive scrutiny if the state establishes a compelling state interest and that its action is closely tailored to effectuate that interest and it is the least onerous path that can be taken to achieve the state's objectives. Montana Envtl. Information Ctr. v. Dep't of Envtl. Quality (MEIC v. DEQ), 908 P.2d 1236, 1246 (1999) Article IX, Section 1 (1) provides that the "state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment." The Montana Supreme Court has noted that the duties — or "mandates" -- of Article IX, Section 1 are also "interrelated with and interdependent upon Montanan's fundamental Article II, Section 3 right to a clean and healthful environment." Cape France Enterprises v. Estate of Lola Peed, 29 P. 3d 1011, 1017 (2001) The importance of this bundle of rights and duties was underscored by the Supreme Court in MEIC v. DEQ: (W)e conclude that the delegates' intention was to provide language and protections which are both anticipatory and preventative.... Our constitution does not require that dead fish float on the surface of our state's rivers and streams before its farsighted environmental protections can be invoked. MEIC v. DEQ, 988 P. 2d at 1249. These constitutional rights and duties come into play here for a number of reasons. First, given the number or significant environmental concerns identified (but not fully reviewed) in the staff reports, it is clear that the public's right to a clean and healthful environment has been implicated by the City's proposed approval of the largest mall in the history of Montana. For example, the May 7, 2002 Staff Report notes "contrary to the statement in the application that `there are no significant topographic constraints,' there are significant constraints associated with the 100 year floodplain, Trumble Creek channel and the small wetlands near the 11 south end of the site." The staff noted the potential for groundwater degradation from storm water run-off, and expressed concerns about the potential for non -point source pollution to the Evergreen area. Moreover, as Dr. Jack Stanford has noted, "We cannot enjoy healthful water supply such as we have in Flathead Lake if the river — aquifer system upstream has been disconnected by human activities. Clearly ... pollution from any source, including urban expansion, can completely disrupt the aquifer -river ecosystem. Dr. Jack Stanford Letter, May 14, 2002. Given these potentially significant environmental impacts, and given the MEIC v. DE decision, in order to approve the proposed Amendment, the City must demonstrate a "compelling state interest and that its action is closely tailored to effectuate that interest and it is the least onerous path that can be taken to achieve the state's objectives." Id. 988 P.2d at 1246. The City cannot possibly establish that it has satisfied this test if it does not perform a thorough environmental review of the proposal. Indeed, both the staff and the developer acknowledge that further review is needed. Most telling, in response to the assertions by the Flathead Basin Commission that the alluvial aquifer will be polluted by the development of the mall, the city staff recommended, and the Planning Board approved, the following language: Additional language was proposed by the applicant which warrants integration into the staff report as follows: While the publications provided by the Flathead Basin Commission may provide important information regarding the groundwater and surface water in the area, there are additional scientific analysis that should be considered to provide a full examination of the best scientific information available. (May 21, 2002 Amended and Annotated Planning Office Staff Report, p. 19.) It should be noted that the same May 21, 2002 report also disclosed the need for a storm water management plan for the development (p. 25), as well as the need to assess economic impacts from the project through a market analysis (p. 16). Further, in the May 14, 2002 letter from the developer's consultant, Land and Water Consulting, Inc. to the Planning Board, Roger Noble notes that Land and Water was preparing a "Preliminary Design Report (PDR) for Stormwater Management". He recommends "that the Staff Report not include specific recommendations (for stormwater management) until a thorough evaluation of the Stormwater PDR has been submitted for review." The Planning Board, of course, made its decision without the benefit of that complete report, which to date has not been submitted. While it may be arguable whether the detailed environmental review required here should be in the form of an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the Montana Environmental Policy Act, it is clear that in order to meet the constitutional environmental requirements, the 12 City must perform a detailed environmental review in order to demonstrate that there is a compelling governmental interest for its approval of this massive project. Second, these constitutional provisions also affect the duties of the developer, a private party. In Estate of Lola Peed, , the Supreme Court expressly applied these constitutional rights and duties to private parties. "In light of these two provisions of Montana's Constitution, it would be unlawful for Cape -France, a private business entity, to drill a well on its private property in the face of substantial evidence that doing so may cause significant degradation of uncontaminated aquifers and pose serious public health threats." Estate of Lola Peed, 29 P.2d at 1017. Given the significant questions raised concerning the impact of the mall on floodplains and the water quality of the aquifer and Flathead River and ultimately Flathead Lake, the City and the developer have no choice but to step back and fully evaluate this proposal. 4. Public Participation The need for further review of this project by the City and the public is reinforced by the public participation requirements under Montana law. Article II, Section 8 of the Montana Constitution gives members of the public a right to participate in government affairs prior to a final decision. This constitutional requirement has been codified at §§ 2-3-101, et seq, MCA. These provisions expressly apply to "local governments" such as the City. § 2-3-1-2 (1), MCA. Section 2-3-103 (1), MCA, requires agencies to "develop procedures for permitting and encouraging the public to participate in agency decisions that are of significant interest to the public. The procedures shall assure adequate notice and assist public participation before a final agency action is taken that is of significant interest to the public." Moreover, § 2-3-111, MCA requires that public participation must include opportunities for interested persons to "submit data, views or arguments ... prior to making a final decision that is of significant interest to the public." Here, Citizens for a Better Flathead has a number of concerns about the public participation opportunities to date for this proposal, as spelled out in its May 28, 2002 letter to City Attorney Charles Harball. Those concerns include the fact that numerous members of the public were effectively kept from speaking to the Planning Board about this proposal. Further, the letter highlights another issue which I have already discussed in this letter: the fact that there is considerable information about this proposal which is either missing completely, or which will be provided by the developer to the City after the Amendment's approval. This information should properly have been available to the Planning Board and the public prior to the public hearing and Planning Board decision. Because the record is still evolving, it is premature for the City to reach any final decision at this juncture. If the developer has not submitted sufficient information for the City to adequately review this proposal, which appears to be the case, the best course of action would be to defer any decision until there is a complete record before the City — and the public. Only in this manner can interested citizens exercise their right of public participation and the City Council make an informed decision on this massive proposal. 13 Conclusion Based on the current record, Citizens for a Better Flathead does not believe that the Glacier Mall Master Plan Amendment meets the legal requirements for approval, and respectfully request that the City Council not approve the proposal at this time. cc: Citizens for a Better Flathead Sincerely, A /.' 'f vid K. W. Wilson, Jr. REYNOLDS, MOTL AND SHERWOOD Roger M. Sullivan McGARVEY, HEBERLING, SULLIVAN & McGARVEY, P.C. 745 South Main St., Kalispell, MT 59901 14 .1 9 see • • • " 21 In the April 27 Daily Inter Lake, Mark Brechel had an article regard- ing the mall annexation. I have tried every planning board number available to speak with him. So, Mr. Brechel, let me say it was a lovely and very explicit letter. You certainly have done a lot of home- work. Keep it up. Also, not all the area people feel as do, but quite a few of my friends who. are retired and lived here all their lives, believe it to be impractical for this valley to support three malls. Home Depot doesn't have clothes, jewelry, shoes, etc., rm told — mostly for fixing your home or building one. I'm not planning on visiting the store ever. Much prefer my neighborhood stores which prior to Wolford were meeting all the people's demands for carpets, paint, lumber, hardware, dresses, jewelry, etc., for many a year. Whitefish residents feel their town will go down the drain and are wor- ried, so rm told. I hope Wolford's greed doesn't blind folks to what it might be 10-15 years in the future. If politics takes us into a World War III, ole man Bucky will go down the drain, too. Keep up the good work, Mr. Brechel, and Gad go with you. — Helen Barnard, Kalispell Mega -mall not right for Flathead Valley Should residents support a mega - mall project in Evergreen? I don't think so. Supporters project new jobs. Some shoppers go to bigger cities for a better selection or lower prices. Wouldn't we like more jobs, lower prices and better selection here in the Flathead? Maybe their projections are accu- rate, but judging by past projects, I'm ..� not convinced. We should already be in nirvana if the rosy projections of the Kalispell Center Mall, Gateway West Mall, Ernst, and Home Depot had come true. But it looks to me like we're slow- ly trading the small town I grew up in for a sprawl of box stores. Maybe not so slowly. We can only blame ourselves. I like low prices, and I shop at the big chains stores, too. But I miss the B&B, Zauner's, and the Sky Jordan Restau- rant. Heck, I miss Alton Pearce Drug. But apparently, we voted with our dol lars for their competitors, so now they're gone. We haven't created many jobs in the malls; we've just traded jobs in our locally owned businesses for them. When you walk into a big box store, you know it's bigger. It isn't as easy to measure some costs. Things like extending sewer lines, fire protection, roads, etc. Not to mention trading open space and wildlife habitat for more traffic. Maybe it's because I've been reading "The Foal Revolution" by John Rob- bins. Can we change the world by how we spend our money? Last week I bought some bird houses and a com- posting barrel. I'd like to vote for more birds, more dirt and less asphalt in the Flathead. Let the mayor, the Kalispell City Council, and city manager know your feelings about the mega -mall before their May 14th meeting (see www.Kalispell.com for contact infor- mation). Better yet, attend their hear- ing May 14 at 7 p.m. ---Chuck Cum- mings, Kalispell A developer's cash cow? For years, Kalispell city government has been a cash cow for developers. The time has come to call a halt. The proposed development at Reserve and U.S. 2 East would place a drain on the financial resources of the surrounding area. The projected strain on the public services required from the present city of Kalispell portend to become enor- mous, possibly nearly insurmountable, yet all for the benefit of outside corpo- rate interests. The accomplishment of this pro- posed development, undoubtedly, would earn the sobriquet of "Kalispell East." Possibly, in four to five years the Flathead would be more receptive to this proposed project. Ed Johnson, Kalispell -, -- i lacked foxes' lL C ty 1g , I would like to address the Inter Lake's editorial on Aprils 9, "Addressing the cost of growth." I should think that the city's leadership through. { the years would have had the r. foresight that increasing devel- opment of commercial busi- nesses, subdivisions and hous- ing units would add to the need of additional fire protec- tion, water and sewage trans- mission and disposal needs. However, it appears they have not had the foresight to establish a trust hind to sup- port the additional facilities f. and plant expansion that the �> fire and water and sewage dis- posal. departments would need.;; A surcharge should be attached to each new develop- ment that the city decides to support. I'm sure our leaders can devise a suitable and fair financial scale to bring this about. Established tax payers should not have to subsidize new or future growth. —foul Houlberg, Kalispell s • f Pursuant to the letter writ- ten in an earlier edition regarding Home Depot hurting the locally owned and operated lumber yards and hardware stores, I would like to add my opinion. When a new store or restau- rant comes to town — there is always a high level of anticipa- tion for something new. Many people go to see and experience the hyped newest thing in town. I as well have done this with Home Depot, mostly for the sole purpose of seeing the store and to price shop. What I discovered was that many more times than not, they are not always the cheapest. My job is to shop building materials for several customers locally and nationwide, so I feel I have a fairly good touch with reality in how things are priced. Let's support our local busi- nesses by shopping with them, price compare if neces- sary, develop relationships with the knowledgeable staff and owners of these establish- ments. There will always be competition, that is great, but will there always be the jobs and income necessary to build and maintain our community. We owe it to our local busi- nesses to not jump ship and watch them fade away. They have been with us through good times and bad. Let's commit to giving each of them an opportunity to serve us with professionalism and price. — John Hegenbarth, Kalispell on downtown stiR not o By A.J. KING Mark Brechel's column on April 27 appeared well thought-out and should provide concern to everyone living or operating a business within the city lim- its of Kalispell. Likewise, there are a number of county residents and business- es located south and west of Kalispell who should alsa.be concerned. " Prior to the November elections I took the occa- eS$ . sion to voice my concerns Opinion with our successful may- oral candidate, the execu- tive secretary for the Kalispell Chamber of Commerce and our superintendent of schools. It was my thinking that each of these individuals should require assure' Aances a decision to support a-newitzral Z mall complex would not jeopardize exist- ing school funding and city services — funding which could be vital to schools, law enforcement agencies, road and sew- er maintenance, fire protection, etc. It seemed to. me each of these'entities would want to compare the future tax revenues to be obtained from a compet- ing retail/wholesale service area vs. the. tax revenues generated from the core area of the city of Kalispell applying your idea of what may be lost. To date, I am not aware anyone has undertaken the effort to ascertain the total dollar tax base of the core area of Kalispell, all or a portion of which may be at risk. Admittedly, no one can guess the immediate effect on core -area businesses. However, most assuredly, the core area would lose a figure which could be esti- mated at 10, 20, 30, 50 percent or more of its businesses including the Kalispell Center Mall. Each of us should keep in mind that when a few businesses close within an area, there will continue a downhill spiral with ongoing losses of area businesses. Kalispell real-estate val- ues will most likely drop precipitously. At my point of beginning, there was no intent to oppose the construction of a mall. I only felt it was good business to know what the effect may be on tax rev- enues necessary for services. I also think the convenience of services should also be recognized. A majority of Kalispell tax- payers live near the city center. All peo- ple are not capable of going two or three miles outside the city to shop. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr. Brechel again for his fine column. A.J. `Jack" King of Valley Bank is the for- mer president of the Independent Bankers Association of America. development is as iarge as Kalispell is from Center Street south to Seventh Street, and from Woodland Avenue on the east to Fifth Avenue West. Hey, I don't live in Kalispell so that I can become a tour guide for a 21st century ghost town. That's not the kind of answer I ,want to give my out-of-state friends who believe I live in God's country. _ Bottom line, what I need, and frankly what all of us need, is a thorough analysis of the Malys impact to be made by the city and Wolford Associates so that all of us can be winners. Taylor is a Kalispell resident , S Don't let developers pave our paradise Regarding Mr. Brechel's column on mall annexation, I have always said that: "God made man and woman — but the other guy, he made the devel- oper." If we keep allowing them to develor our beautiful valley — within a few years it will ho longer be the "The Last Best Place." God's country will be gone lining the pockets of the developers while they move on to destroy another pristine place. They have no conscience or pride in their country — they only care about mon- ey. Wake up, Flathead Valley. We already have a higher crime rate. No one pays attention to the speed limits, and the animals are being destroyed by drivers as well as their country being taken away from them. Big Sky Country — we will be a valley full of smog — our beautiful Glacier Park full of smog — so someone can shop? How crazy is that? I have a friend who says it like it is — "It used to be you would drive by someone and wave — now all they do is give you sign language." Our valley is being ruined. Don't from Aspen come in, line their pock- ets, and then leave us to live with the big -city atmosphere and all that goes with it How I despise people who say they moved here to get away from it and then bring it with them. Imagine "Road Rage" in Montana. I watch deer try to cross roads and these peo- ple lay on their horns instead of wait- ing for them to cross. Who was here first and where do they think they live. We cherish our wildlife and beautiful valley; don't let them destroy it. Wake up before it is too late. Stop these malls and over -development — Kay Landon, Whitefish Big -box store could hurt local merchants It's already started. Yesterday a good friend called and told me about the paver bricks he bought for his new project Where did he get them? Home Depot Why? Because, of course, they were cheap- er than the same .thing at a local masonry shop. All I could say was, "well, there ya go•" I was sadly reminded that Home Depot can and probably will have a strong effect on our locally owned hardware stores, lumber yards, nurs- eries, masonry shops and those that specialize in selling paint, tools, pow- er equipment, windows, doors, appli- ances, carpet and other goods. And it could happen fast I'm a native Montanan, but I lived in Calgary for three years. In that short time I saw all the smaller hard- ware and lumber stores go belly up. After that, you had to drive miles across the city to buy a stick of wood or a bag of drywall screws at a new superstore with a parking lot the size of Bigfork. Do we want to be stuck with noth- ing but Home Depot? Not I. Do we want to see our local businesses become vacant rotting carcasses? Not L Can Home Depot employ all of those store owners and their employ- ees? No. We, the consumers alone have the power to keep our local mer- chants thriving. Please give them your business even if the price is a lit- tle higher. Must we worship the almighty pocketbook? Think about it — Steve Sellars, Kalispell Z .11 O. v F7 11 O O O �D• I !F'i (5 ;ZO'Q O O• (D � 'y -L (C9 'C CEO O� .C.pOq. cn R o'apoq CD cogs r-L Ch O O I . �rC' O n_ R Clj UQ S p�q r� g CD CD f D R• (KD �y. �,�• r* may; 9 o sv (p �ii� V 9cpx O LC1, CIDC Cr CP FL y � o°Z Soo oc U, o a�x ICo �CD m C 42o�(D-5o�x�c O O o (OD � W o M cD tr.m • n � (ODD 2 O 6" R0 f°O-r-N� 'moo ° cn 't E P o ° F .°) O C O M m O C �C •` _IZABETH JONES sm writing to note my sition to the proposed i-mall project in Ever- �en. I was born and raised ?alispell, and I currently Ld college in Missoula. I that Kalispell officials ll make better planning e >ions than Missoula has x atly. L.ke many residents, I have itched with concern the t expansion of urban iwl Missoula has experi- LCd in recent years. I admit at I initially anticipated the '7al of discount stores in ,oula, such as T.J. Maxx, ss Dress for Less, and Old ivy. However, we have .d that the mega-stripmall 'iomenon of Reserve reet has only resulted in rrible service, poor prod- ucts, and a traffic nightmare. Many Missoula residents regret the influx of big chain stores in Missoula and long for the community of inde- pendent businesses we once embraced. Kalispell has the opportunity to act before it is too late. Soon, I hope to live in the Flathead Valley again, and I care very much about the type of town I return to. Young pro- fessionals want to move to a place that is beautiful, inter- esting, and unique. Not a city with empty cement buildings and mega -malls. I fear this project will detract from the community character that makes Kalispell a desirable place to live. Go to www.Kalispell.com and tell elected officials to do what is right for the community. Jones writes from Missoula. the scenery, not the shopping . 0 0 By L.E. HARRINGTON Most of us seem to have a somewhat dysfunctional rela- tionship with our state. We look across the valley on a rare sunny spring day, sigh at the sun reflecting of the snow on the mountains and forget about the blizzard last week, and say, "Isn't that beautiful! That's why we live in Mon- tana!„ Let's face it, we are not here, most of us, so that we can get rich; we're here because we love the scenery. Ask any- one... That's what they say. The new proposed mall has lots to offer, lots of stores, lots more low -paying jobs, lots of pavement, but it lacks what we are here for... the.scenery! And oddly enough, I guess that's why other people come here too, just to visit the scenery! Not to shop! Although there's been a tizzy of consumer fever over the opening of Home Depot, and the soon -to -be -built Tar- get, this consumerism is not our way of life, obviously, or we wouldn't be here. We are not about spending money we don't have, for stuff no one should buy, we are about the scenery! The planning board is sup- posed to make a decision at a meeting Tuesday night at Cit�- Hall. Although this is not a public hearing, we hope our voices will be heard. Contrary to popular myth and rumor, the mall is not a "done deal" yet. We don't need another place to spend money... at least not that much money. The profits would mostly go to out -of state businesses, not the folks who live here. Before we run head- long into something that will change our region so drasti- cally, and so irrevocably, let's have some solid answers about the traffic, the sewer/water issues, the per capita feasibility for this size of commercial "temple", prop- erty values and taxes, and anything else that affects our quality of life in our beautiful state. Let's take the time to make sure this is what we want and what we need. Harrington is a resident of Kalispell threatenWWI mall . o , ualityl The hearing held on May 14 regarding the Glacier Mall made me proud to be a citizen of Kalispell. Though there were propo- nents and opponents, the pub- lic input was civil and very sincere. Obviously the people who spoke had given serious thought to their remarks. Water quality issues came up several times and I share this concern. As a member of this community, I feel that we have the right to be assured that storm water runoff will not adversely affect the water quality in Flathead Lake. In William Spence's article in the May 16 issue of the Inter Lake, he quotes Mr. Wolford.as saying "a report on how storm runoff will be treated and con- trolled will be available in ear- ly June." However, the City Planning Board was asked to recommend the approval of the amendment to the Master Plan on May 28, before the storm water report is avail- able. Does this seem appropriate? Who is running the show here? Is it the developers or the citi- zens of this community? — B.J. Carlson, Kalispell Look to the tuture before voting7on mall The decision concerning the Ever- green Mall merits careful considera- tion and a long look into the future of the Flathead Valley. A Soviet quotation "A capitalist is a man who would sell rope to his hangman," rather accurately describes this proposal. It may be good business to bring big box stores with their greater selections and low- er prices to our residents. But good business for whom? For interests based out of state? This has been the history of Mon- tana... we sell our resources (and our unspoiled environment is indeed an intangible resource) to out-of-state interests. The increased jobs and mar- ket opportunities are crumbs com- pared to what we are losing. Is it good business to trade the pollution of our crown jewel, Flathead Lake, by the runoff from a 252-acre mall in order to give the visitors to our valley more of what they find everywhere for a few more dollars afloat in our economy? We must remember this will be supported by our existing city busi- nesses who, even as they face decreased revenues, will be required to foot the increased bills for street, water and sewer services. Progress will come. But should it be taken in such large bites and does this plan provide any progress or is it just a step to mediocrity, a leveling device to make us look like Anytown, USA? Much has been stated in news media and public forums, but the watch for the best interests of our community must continue. We must plan carefully for our future and remember the desirability of our love- ly valley to attract other businesses or develop our own will not go away. — Delores Swanberg, Lakeside New mall would kill downtowli, old mall What we are seeing today in the Flathead Valley is not unique or spe- cial. There are numerous communi- ties, large and small, having the same discussions we are having here in the Flathead. Across the United States, competi- L1Ud1 U111011g L11C IJCUIJ1C URIL UU.11U 11CW malls is fierce. All the good spots for malls have already been developed. "Mall developers now find themselves fighting tooth and nail over marginal markets. The Flathead is certainly a marginal market. How can it possi- bly make sense to build a new mall in a community that already has one sleepy little mall and a dead mall? And they are not talking about build- ing a simple everyday, run-of-the- mill mall but a mega -mall, the largest mall in Montana. A shopping com- plex that is four times larger than our downtown business district that has taken over 100 years to grow and develop. This project does not pass a simple sanity test. It will not create new jobs, it will steal them. It will not create new business, it will steal from existing businesses. Existing businesses that are owned and oper- ated by our neighbors, not by multi- national corporations that ship their profits out of state. This project will strain every dimension of city and county services: police services, fire protection ser- vices, sewage, water, storm drainage, snow removal and roads. It even promises to dramatically increase pol- lution levels in Flathead Lake, which has some of the cleanest water on the planet. Everyone wants a shiny new car, but this is one new toy that we cannot afford the payments on. As surely as the Kalispell Center Mall killed the Gateway West Mall, this new mall will kill the Center Mall and the downtown area. —Jim Watson, Kalispell Mall plan should not be supported by locals City planners should hold off on their decision about the go-ahead of the Glacier Mall. This is a big and dangerous step. In my opinion, we have ample places to shop here in Kalispell. We do not need any more retail outlets as I believe we are headed for overkill. Home Depot was enough, and their prices are not that cheap. Downtown is dead and will become deader if this mall becomes a reality, and I myself do not like the idea of paying more taxes on something this valley does 1dVL 11CCU. I cannot believe that some people think that agriculture is not a big thing. What will happen when there is no place to grow food for us to eat, only asphalt? Also think about this: if this mall gets built, it will not benefit me because I won't have any money to shop because the planners will have all my money — in taxes. So who will benefit from this mall? I came from a city that has done just what you are talking about doing. Prime agriculture land dug up for more concrete and places to shop. I can see the same happening here. We need this land for eating purpos- es, not shopping purposes. I believe we are drowning in a sea of material- ism which will destroy us. I guess the only way to protest is not support it. If the people here in Kalispell would just stop supporting all these things it might make a dif- ference. But I know in my heart this mall will be a reality, no matter what I say, because they have an agenda. The master plan means just that, Master Plan. I hope we can all live with this. I pray I won't have to say I told you so. — R. Curtis Schroeder, Kalispell `�� o >�, P4.� voi �o6a ° CDU �� n °'fir obi o cap 0 3 c�O �' o ai (3) ':5 En (2) ai o�� Apo a o�U w cca ocpnisi c cn= � N u u S� p= V O O w� cn� a>`a+, cn U O• w ��." �T3 023 ca cg a?S~a ch3°cn � U o""a��+- v°Jia- �.°aim ti23 cn a) UG a, N2s cc c�•'- s°M o a cn U ot« y°o tot 72� CZ cs 'cs � s.�Uacz�tefsue,o C) p Et UE- a p N 00 °� N f- a� r� ,p . •� cn M v)cn O ^cs -.,ai a asp. a>U(�cn 41 4.1 U cam a� n,cuz° IM4o �'� CZ � a �.� o a� ci �"� toU o `z o ow > 3 ¢ o �z m o.r a a)caU) U `na>+ ctsa� T u° x. v i+ �� R cti N w O� N U O a> O R. a� c� O �•� O O 5 � C, .oa�"i �a�oa�a�a� vip��m��V.Oo�.'vo E cz i a=P4 3c o°A>,p2U +�$� zs� ° ocisa'oo°a+aai U ¢+ °o U, o °�� •� �� m tea' p d sue. cz tw o a' a � x:z oa°'ai �aa)(Bcn co v J a) A. CZ a� cn cn cn a> w m� a §'5.acz a�i _ °�"a) a �a Qv and to� a°i �cz o asi ° o �. a� in acn'a Ooai c ° �.-OEn � � a>a�c��+�ME O w Is it fair to me, a city resi- dent, to fund the increased tax- es? And, by the way, what is the tax impact to me? Would it be a 5 percent increase, or could it double what I pay now? I plainly don't know. No one has been forthcoming with the analysis and answer to these questions. Third, are we as a community blind to the image non-residents have when they talk about our great unspoiled country? Up to now, I've always thought Kalispell was in a kind of balance... a place where resi- dents can stroll into town and expect it to.be there tomorrow and tomorrow's morrow. But, if I read the press releases correct- ly, the 270 acre Glacier Mall development is as large as Kalispell is from Center Street south to Seventh Street, and from Woodland Avenue on the east to Fitch Avenue West. Hey, I don't live in Kalispell so that I can become a tour guide for a 21st century ghost town. That`s not the kind of answer I avant to give my out-of-state friends who believe I live in -, God's country. Bottom line, what I need, and frankly what all of us need, is a thorough analysis of the mail's impact to be made by the city and Wolford Associates so that ,-Ul of us can be winners. Taylor is a K.alisaell resident We can't afford mallproposal By GEORGE TAYLOR Recently, the Inter Lake ran an article by a member of the planning board, Mark Brechel, entitled "Speak up about mall annexation." This is my speak - up. First, I simply do not under- stand why a developer is not asked to pay for Guest the infrastruc- i n 1®n ture costs. Is it p fear on the part of our communi- ty? Fear that if we don't give major developers "a break" there'll be no develop- ment? If it is fear, it should be labeled for what it is, paranoia. I cannot envision ANY devel- oper who brings the vision of a multi -million dollar investment to a community as attractive as ours being put off by paying his awn way. If you are serious about investing in a communi- ty, paying your dues to that community is not a burden. It's respect. Secondly, judging from what I read in the papers and rear what people say, we, the residents of Kalispell would rear the brunt of the increased taxes the mall would require in order to provide the fire, police, and health services, road construction and mainte- nance, snow removal, in fact all of the services provided by the city. Clearly, the mall is intended for all the residents .of Flathead Valley, as well as for travelers from out of coun- tY, indeed even for our Canadi- an friends. The word "fair- ness" comes to mind. By BILL MILNER Watch out Kalispell! You're not the first to follow the path to down- town desertion. I've seen this before. For over 20 years I traveled throughout one of Guest the fastest growing states in the country. Opinion I was employed as a communications engineer building shopping malls, schools, hospitals, hotel/motels, big box stores, etc. I watched the face of large and small towns change. Flori- da's growth was so fast that in one year alone, we built 66 schools, seven shopping malls, 100 plus motels and over 300 apartment complexes. For over two decades, I worked in the big cities (Miami, Orlando, Tam- pa) and many little rural commum- ties. I watched the big cities grow out of control and smaller towns explode But hey, we'll have more money in our pockets! At least, i some of you argue that mil- lions of dollars will come pour- ing into the valley. I believe millions will be pouring all right, directly into the coffers of corporations far from here, Bucky's being one of those cof- fers. I'll grant we will have a 4 few more jobs, but that won't add up to millions. With the large affect on our valley of Bucky Town, I would like to suggest not leaving the ` decision up to a handful of cur- ` rent residents elected to office, some of whom have question- able problem -solving abilities. A. So, as a solution to the ques- tion, "Bucky Town: to be or not to be?" I propose we put the project up for a vote of the r' entire valley, because it will have impact on the entire val- ley. Let the people have their say, not just a handful of us, but all of us. Now, I know we tried to do that with taxes, but maybe the teachers union will stay out of this one and not take us to court, which is another letter. from cozy populations of less than Soukup is a resident of Big- 10,000 to crowds of 30,000-50,000. In fork. many big cities downtown was home to problems (crime, drugs, homeless) and the smaller cities followed that lead. What happened to the small home grown atmosphere of the little towns? Many small to medium downtowns died. Most of the retail businesses went out to the edge of town to the new mall and near the new box stores. New by-pass roads lessened traffic on the roads and on the sidewalks. Left behind in town were empty buildings and low rent housing, a haven for crime. Seaside tourist towns were unaffected but the "working towns" with new malls watched their downtowns turn into ghost towns. Why would Kalispell be any differ- ent? It's not new lights and sidewalks alone that bring a warm, welcoming feeling to downtown, it's the atmo- sphere of strolling through cafes, clothing and shoe stores and special- ty shops. However, the lure of the mall is big. Soon, instead of strolling the sidewalks of downtown, cus- tomers will "hang out at the food court." As one politician once asked, "Do you hear that sucking sound?" That's the mall pulling the customer base from downtown Kalispell. Beware city council and committee members, this might be your legacy. Like the Florida seaside towns, the tourist towns of Whitefish and Big - fork are insulated by out of town dollars and will be just fine ... what about downtown Kalispell? Atten- tion school board members, Carp Diem! The existing mall will also die with the downtown. With some redesign you'll have a school build- ing at foreclosure pricing. Unfortu- nately, it might take two or three years for death to be complete. If you are a shop owner, I suggest you make plans to get a storefront in the mall early, when the rents are at their lowest (they won't stay that way long). You'll want to be where the people are and that won't be downtown. Maybe there's some hope: some- times downtowns recycle and reopen as the "in place" to visit, with coffee shops, trendy boutiques, sidewalk cafe's, restaurants, art studios and wine bars. Timeline: 10 years. Real estate speculators: wait eight years and buy up downtown at 25 percent and later watch the values skyrocket. As I look in the rear view mirror, I just might see Kalispell's future. Change is a comin'. By DEBI SOUKUP Do we want a handful of peo- ple deciding the future of our valley? In regards to Guest Bucky Mall: It isn't just a Opinion mall! Using fig- ures from this papers April 17 front page, we will end up with a business area 20 acres larger than the current core business area of Kalispell, and a mall. 535,000 square feet larger than the current mall. Sounds to me like Bucky is building us a new downtown. Believe me it isn't because of altruism. By the way, I've been read- ing that other cities have dis- covered these business areas are counter -productive to maintaining a healthy down- town (duh!) and are abandon- ing them. Which is why Bucky from Chattanooga has to come this far north to make his liv- ing. A whole, new, readymade town, bigger than what is cur- rently here will at least quadruple our population. Explosively, as opposed to gradual, sustainable, steady growth, which is what is cur- rently and naturally in process in our valley. The impact of that many peo- ple on the valley will increase traffic, pollution, crime rates, garbage both in the landfill and beside our roads, and I hate to say, but probably our taxes! After all, when have you heard government say: "We have enough money, thank you"? Me either. In fact, the paper has been full of infras- tructure funding problems: for schools, police, fire depart- ments, roads, ad infmitum? We do have excellent law enforcement in the valley, but more and more crimes will happen and go unsolved with more and more people. We wiL no longer know our neighbors. or the parents of the friends of our children. Knowing these people is the only way we have of combating crime and rais- ing children. AA;1.,l,.;o o r ir%nf of Whifafich Iowa State Daily - EDITORIAL:New mall won't help Ames' local businesses 6/19/02 2:37 PM IWIWA STATE DAIS, <� ONLINE EDIT10N Wednesdav, June 19, 2002 COLUMN:Ignoring hunger will backfire COLUMN:What I'd like to tell myself EDITORIAL:Mavor not overstuffed LETTER:A trip down memory lane LETTER:Democrat digs Bush's post -Sept. 11 leadership EDITORIAL:New mall won't help Ames' local businesses „ i lour by Editorial Board Iowa State Daily April 08, 2002 James "Bucky" Wolford of Chattanooga, Tenn., wants to build a gargantuan new mall in Ames. His company, Wolford Development Inc. proposed the new complex to city leaders in mid -March and must make an amendment to the city's Land Use Policy Plan before it can begin construction. LETTER:O'Bryan is right I He hopes to build a 700,000-square-foot enclosed regional mall at the northeast about the dangers of comer of Interstate 35 and 13th Street. The new retail complex is almost double solicitation the size of the existing North Grand Mall. LETTER: Proposed mall plan only good for A new mall is not something Ames needs. North Grand Mall and the Main Street developers and Campustown districts are more than sufficient for a community of about 50,000 people. The Ames community is in need of revitalization on Main Street, Poison Ink Campustown and other local commercial areas. Why not invest in local Letters Policv community businesses? Kurt Carlson, general manager of the North Grand Mall, said that it could have negative effects on the area. "The problem the industry has seen in the past is areas being overbuilt," he said. "When you have too many businesses and not enough customers it can be a hindrance to a community." The Wolford, Inc. said it was attracted to Ames because of its size and income level. According to the North Grand Mall Web site, the total market of Ames is 132,200, and primary market is 85,000. In addition, it lists the median income of Ames as $52,000. North Grand has 48 stores, along with the three anchor stores of Sears, Younkers and JCPenney. The plan calls for four anchor stores and about 75 specialty stores, including possible sub -anchors such as Old Navy, a movie theater and a Barnes and Noble book store. The project's estimated cost is about $60 million with completion as early as fall 2004, Wolford said. But more problems lie to the south. Des Moines is planning a very large new mall/entertainment complex. The Jordan Creek complex proposed for Dallas County is slated to be a megamall that would be Iowa's biggest. Valley West and Merle Hay malls unsuccessfully sued the new mall developers over public funds for improving the area with West Des Moines dollars. This new complex in West Des Moines, it is said, will adversely affect any attempt to bring 750F hi / 670F to Search the daily t'on Advertisement : A mind is a terrible thing to - waste. 0 www.uncf.org 14 1is CROSSWORD' W"_ iv Sign Up for the Iowa State Daily News Update (enter email address) 0 m2Lt_t!pk privacy policy http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/04/08/3cb11b014fabe?in_archive=1 Page 1 of 2 Iowa State Daily - EDITORIAL:New mall won't help Ames' local businesses major anchor stores to central Iowa 6/19/02 2:37 PM The developers claim that Ames could become a commercial center for the area It is difficult to see the "local" benefits to such a complex. Although the sales tax revenues are something to consider, the majority of the money will be heading right back out of the city, county and state. The anchor stores and developers will be the big winners. Not locals. This sort of rampant commercialism from out-of-state businesses is something that is best kept out of the city and out from under the veil of a benefit to the community. editorialboard: Andrea Hauser, Tim Paluch, Michelle Kann, Charlie Weaver, Omar Tesdell IN rn cflckfora printable version ® email this article to a friend © 2002 Iowa State Daily Back I Back to Too TY digifalf partners network Archives j Get 1t to Go! ak �li.k here fa the PDA version. http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2002/04/08/3cb11b014fabe?in_archive=l Page 2 of 2