09/01 Site Selection StudyMT
In Cooperation With:
Federal Aviation Administration
and the
Montana Aeronautics Division
prepared by:
Robert Peccia & Associates
Helena, Montana
A.I.P. 3-30-0043-02
Prepared for
Kalispell, Montana
In Cooperation wth the
Federal Aviation Administration
and the
Montana Aeronautics Division
Prepared by:
Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc.
825 Custer Avenue
P.O. Box 5653
Helena, Montana 59604
September, 2001
Copyright ® 2001
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Title Page
Tableof Contents......................................................................................................................... i
Listof Fi2ures..............................................................................................................................ii
Listof Tables...............................................................................................................................iii
Chapter 1: Airport Site Selection .......
A. Introduction .............................................
B. Potential Airport Site Locations ..............
C. Site Evaluation Criteria ...........................
1
1
1
2
1.
Airspace Obstructions..................................................................................................................2
2.
Expandability...............................................................................................................................2
3.
Wind Alignment...........................................................................................................................3
4.
Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)..................................................................................4
5.
Instrument Capabilities................................................................................................................6
6.
Proximity to Other Airports.........................................................................................................6
7.
Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage............................................................................................8
8.
Public Acceptance / Support ........................................................................................................8
9.
Consistency with Area -Wide Planning.......................................................................................10
10.
Compatible Land Use.................................................................................................................10
11.
Development / Land Costs.........................................................................................................10
12.
Surface Transportation Impacts..................................................................................................11
13.
Proximity to Kalispell................................................................................................................11
14.
Environmental Consequences....................................................................................................11
15.
Floodplains / Wetlands...............................................................................................................14
16.
Economic Benefit to Kalispell...................................................................................................14
17.
Available Infrastructure..............................................................................................................17
D. Site Ranking Procedures.....................................................................................................
18
E. Site Evaluations...................................................................................................................
21
1. Alternative #1 - Existing site with ultimate B-II standards.......................................................21
2. Alternative #2 - Existing Location, 5.6 Degree Realignment, Ultimate B-II Standards ............ 30
3. Alternative #3 - Adjacent site to the south, ultimate B-II standards..........................................39
4. Alternative #4 - Five miles east-southeast of Kalispell, ultimate B-H standards .......................48
5. Alternative #5 - Five miles east of Kalispell, ultimate B-II standards.......................................56
F. Alternative Recommendation.............:................................................................................ 64
Appendix A Wetlands Designations
B
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
Figure Number Title
Page
Figure 1
Overview of Alternatives........................................................................................following
1-1
Figure 2
Wind Rose — Glacier Park International Airport ALP............................................................
1-5
Figure 3
Composite Aeronautical Chart ...............................................................................................
1-7
Figure 4
Approximate Radar & Communications Coverage................................................................
1-9
Figure5
Road Mileage.......................................................................................................................
1-12
Figure 6
Wildlife and Waterfowl Areas..............................................................................................
1-13
Figure 7
FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map........................................................................................
1-15
Figure 8
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................
1-16
Figure 9
Alternative#1.......................................................................................................
following 1-21
Figure 10
Alternative #1 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................
following 1-21
Figure 11
Alternative #1 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................
1-26
Figure 12
Alternative #1 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ......................................................
1-27
Figure 13
Alternative #2 .......................................................................................................following
1-30
Figure 14
Alternative #2 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................
following 1-30
Figure 15
Alternative #2 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................
1-35
Figure 16
Alternative #2 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ......................................................
1-36
Figure17
Alternative#3.......................................................................................................following
1-39
Figure 18
Alternative #3 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................
following 1-39
Figure 19
Alternative #3 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................
1-44
Figure 20
Alternative #3 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ......................................................
1-45
Figure21
Alternative#4.......................................................................................................
following 1-48
Figure 22
Alternative #4 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................
following 1-48
Figure 23
Alternative #4 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................
1-53
Figure 24
Alternative #4 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................... 1-54
Figure 25
Alternative #5.......................................................................................................
following 1-56
Figure 26
Alternative #5 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................
following 1-56
Figure 27
Alternative #5 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................
1-61
Figure 28
Alternative #5 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................... 1-62
ii
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
Table Number Title Page
Table 1
Kalispell City Airport Board's Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria ..................
1-19
Table 2
Robert Peccia & Associates' Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria .....................
1-20
Table 3
Owner / Engineer Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria ......................................
1-20
Table 4
Alternative #1 — Land Costs.................................................................................................
1-24
Table 5
Alternative #1 — Associated Land Costs...............................................................................
1-25
Table 6
Alternative #1 — Estimated Development Costs...................................................................
1-29
Table 7
Alternative #2 — Land Costs.................................................................................................
1-33
Table 8
Alternative #2 — Associated Land Costs...............................................................................
1-34
Table 9
Alternative #2 — Estimated Development Costs...................................................................
1-38
Table 10
Alternative #3 — Land Costs.................................................................................................
1-42
Table 11
Alternative #3 — Associated Land Costs...............................................................................
1-43
Table 12
Alternative #3 — Estimated Development Costs...................................................................
1-47
Table 13
Alternative #4 — Land Costs.................................................................................................
1-51
Table 14
Alternative #4 — Associated Land Costs...............................................................................1-51
Table 15
Alternative #4 — Estimated Development Costs...................................................................
1-55
Table 16
Alternative #5 — Land Costs.................................................................................................
1-59
Table 17
Alternative #5 — Associated Land Costs...............................................................................
1-59
Table 18
Alternative #5 — Estimated Development Costs...................................................................
1-63
Table 19
Project Cost Comparison......................................................................................................
1-64
Table 20
Evaluation Matrix — Kalispell City Airport ..........................................................................
1-65
iii
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
.1 ' 1113121M 1
A. Introduction
This Chapter identifies and evaluates potential airport sites in the vicinity of Kalispell, Montana. Potential sites
were identified by the consultant with input from the airport board, and local planning groups. Each site was
evaluated relative to a number of airport development considerations. The ultimate goal of this site selection
study is to identify the best airport location to serve the City of Kalispell and to gain FAA approval. Financial
assistance for future airport development is dependent upon FAA site approval. Inventory, forecasts,
feasibility, and facility requirements are from the most current (1999) Master Plan. This study was conducted
to provide sufficient development alternatives to carry through to the environmental analysis.
B. Potential Airport Site Locations
The number of potential locations for an airport in the Kalispell area is limited by the surrounding mountains,
environmental considerations, and existing traffic patterns used by Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA).
To assure convenient access and better service to Kalispell than currently available through GPIA, a seven -mile
radius was drawn around Kalispell for an initial site search.
Driving issues in the site selection include:
® Continued economic benefit to the Kalispell community
® Ultimate upgrade to an airport design group B-II
® Safety improvements to remove approach surface penetrations, non -compatible use of the runway
protection zone, buildings in the object free area, and uncontrolled access to aeronautical areas.
A scale drawing of the ultimate -length runway with associated runway protection zones (RPZs) and airspace
"racetrack" was created to overlay on USGS Quad maps. Twelve possible locations that could accommodate
the airport development were narrowed down to seven locations through consultations with the Airport Board.
Two of these seven were discarded after a fly -over of the potential sites. Site selection criteria were applied to
the remaining five potential locations shown in Figure 1.
Potential property acquisition is based upon having additional safety buffers accorded by a B-H (large) airport
design standard, at the request of the FAA. Design lengths are shown for 75%, 95%, and 100% of the small
aircraft fleet (3500', 4300', and 4700', respectively) though it may be more difficult and/or expensive to
construct to ultimate lengths on some sites. Detailed alternate -specific descriptions, benefits, and drawbacks are
included later in the chapter.
The first two sites to be considered would use portions of the existing airport property. Alternate #1 would use
the existing site and alignment, but would acquire additional property to eventually widen the runway, runway
safety area, object free area, and taxiway separation. The runway 13 threshold would have to be moved 1200-
feet south to clear the north RPZ, and an ultimate length of 4,300-feet would support 95% of the small aircraft
fleet. The 4700-feet required for 100% of the small aircraft fleet would be possible only by relocating a
portion of existing cemetery. Alternate #2 would realign the current runway about 6-degrees further to the
south. This variant would move the south end of the runway west to avoid conflict with the cemetery, houses,
and higher -priced highway frontage at the ultimate 4700-foot length. Alternate #3 would move the airport
about one mile south of its current location between the old railroad right-of-way and Highway 93. This
location would move the airport to a less developed area while retaining close proximity to town. Alternates
#4 and #5 consider locations about 5-miles directly east of Kalispell in the middle of the Flathead River Valley,
both with a true north -south alignment. Encroachments would be greatly reduced at these locations, at the cost
of being well removed from the city and needing significant infrastructure development.
1-1
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
C. Site Evaluation Criteria
The development of a comprehensive set of site evaluation criteria is an essential component in any airport site
selection study and will allow a fair comparison for each site. It is not appropriate to standardize site
evaluation criteria for all site selection studies because of the variations between project areas and the fact that
such studies develop site evaluation criteria that assess characteristics that are unique to a particular study area.
The following factors will be evaluated individually for each airport site alternative.
Direct Aeronautical Considerations
Airspace Obstructions
Expandability
Wind Alignment / Weather
Airspace Assessment (conflict w/GPIA)
Instrument Capabilities
Proximity to Other Airports
Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Non -Direct Aeronautical Considerations
Public Acceptance / Support
Consistency w/ Area wide Planning
Compatible Land Use
Development / Land Costs
Surface Transportation Impacts
Proximity to Kalispell
Environmental Consequences
Floodplains/Wetlands
Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Available Infrastructure
Rating values were assigned to each of the criteria to facilitate the comparison of one site to another. Rating
value assignments range from 1 representing poor (or unfavorable conditions) to 3 for good. The following
narrative describes each evaluation criteria and its relative importance in the ranking system.
1. Airspace Obstructions
The airspace surrounding each potential airport site was evaluated to determine the desirability of the site from
an aeronautical point of view. Factors considered in this assessment included possible conflict with existing
terrain, radio & cellular phone towers, power lines, trees, and buildings. Bird attractants in the airport vicinity
can increase the possibility of bird strikes. Sites were assessed individually according to the following system.
Score Description of Ranking
No limiting or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations.
2 Moderate limitations or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations.
1 Adverse airspace factors which severely limit aircraft operations.
2. Expandability
Site expandability is an indication of the long-term growth potential inherent to each airport site. Major
considerations include land availability, topographic limitations, environmental impacts, and airspace
expandability. Significant advantages may be realized if an airport is situated in an area where additional
capacity demands can be satisfied. The Owner's current intent is to construct a "utility runway" ("...a runway
that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross
weight and less." FAR Part77, Sec 77.2). The FAA -ADO cites high levels of activity in requesting additional
safety buffers beyond the minimum design standards for activity anticipated within a typical 20-year planning
period. The "large" RPZ's, 10,000-foot radius Part 77 racetrack, and 100% runway length are considered in
1-2
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
this selection study to preserve options for expansion beyond the Owner's current intent, and provide
additional safety spacing.
There are four potential airport expansion types that could be planned for beyond the Owner's current intent:
ground -side expansion, runway lengthening, runway strengthening, and reducing approach minimums.
Building hangars, expanding hangar access taxiways, and enlarging the apron area for additional tiedowns all
may happen within the 20-year planning window. The FAA has required the Owner control enough land that
the runway could be built to it's full design length. All potential sites are considered and compared at 100%
length, even though the FAA has acknowledged the Owner may choose to construct a shorter runway. An
upgrade for heavier aircraft can usually be accomplished with a pavement overlay that strengthens the
pavement section. While a straight -in, 1-mile-visibility "non -precision" approach from the south is quite
likely, an approach with 3/a-mile or less visibility minimums and the concomitant lead-in lighting and 34:1
approach slopes will not be required within the current planning period. A 34:1 approach slope could be
included solely to provide an additional margin of safety.
Expandability for hangar development and tie downs, as well as the development and control of the interface
between air traffic and the public are foreseeable improvements. Up -front planning will preserve these options
for the future. The Alternatives will be evaluated for their ground -side development potential.
All of the Alternatives to be evaluated have an ultimate runway length required to accommodate 100% of the
small aircraft fleet, that is, airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds. The runway length shown may be
constructed as one project, phased in over time, or built only to near 75% length. There currently is strong
local sentiment to discourage large aircraft use, and recognition by the FAA that shorter runway length may be
the most effective method of discouraging use by larger, noisier aircraft. For this site selection study,
alternatives will be rated in terms of a designed runway length to serve 100% of the small aircraft fleet.
Larger airplanes require a longer runway, a thicker pavement section, and larger FAR Part 77 imaginary
surfaces. The airport owner does not wish to construct a facility that would attract larger, noisier aircraft, nor
compete with Glacier Park International Airport for this traffic. While the Kalispell City Airport anticipates
only occasional "large" aircraft use, the FAA has requested the airport provide the additional safety buffers of a
10,000-foot racetrack and large RPZ's.
Score Description of Ranking
No limitations to site expansion.
2 Moderate limitations to site expansion.
Significant limitations to site expansion.
3. Wind Alignment
Wind affects can be significant on small aircraft that typically use a General Aviation (GA) airport like
Kalispell City. Landing and taking off directly into the wind is the most desired condition. Operations with a
tail wind can substantially increase the length of runway required to land or distance required to gain altitude
when taking off. Wind blowing at an angle across the runway makes keeping an aircraft on the pavement and
aligned with the runway centerline more difficult due to "weather vane" effect. The stronger the wind and the
larger the angle of the wind relative to runway alignment, the larger the "cross -wind" component and the more
difficult the landing or take -off. Smaller aircraft are more often and more adversely effected by crosswinds.
For single -runway airports with B-II Airport Reference Codes (ARC), the runway orientation should provide a
1-3
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
crosswind component of less than 13 knots, 95 % of the time. An additional safety margin might consider the
10.5 knot crosswind component used in designing smaller aircraft airports with A -I and B-I ARC's.
Wind analysis from the 1999 Kalispell City Master Plan (1984-1993 GPIA wind data) was used to determine
acceptable runway alignments (see Figure 2). The current 13/31 alignment provides 93 % coverage at less than
10.5 knots direct crosswind component, and 96% coverage at 13 knots. Local pilot consensus is that prevailing
winds may be more southerly than this data indicates. Slight variations in wind directions may be due to the
location / elevation of the weather station relative to the airport, or there may be some variation in nighttime
winds versus the daytime winds familiar to most local pilots.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Aligned close to the most favorable winds.
2 Alignment has less than 10.5 knot crosswind component 95% of the time.
Alignment has less than 13 knot crosswind component 95% of the time.
4. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
The Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA) is about 7 nautical miles north-northeast of the city of Kalispell.
It is preferable that conflicts between the airspace and common flight patterns at GPIA and any future Kalispell
City Airport be minimized or avoided entirely.
GPIA is located within a keyhole -shaped Class E airspace as shown in the composite aeronautical chart in
Figure 3. Like an upside-down wedding cake, the Class E airspace core extends from the surface to 18,000-
feet within 5 statute miles of the airport, then from 700-feet above the surface to 18,000-feet out to 7 nautical
miles from the airport. This tiered structure is extended in a keyhole shape out to 25 nautical miles southwest
of the airport to protect the airport's precision approach. While GPIA is currently a non -towered facility, it will
soon become a VFR-towered facility. During hours of tower operation the "core" ten -mile diameter area
around the airport could be expected to become Class D airspace, with Class E extensions. The Class D
airspace would require pilots to establish two-way radio communications with the active tower before entry.
GPIA currently has two instrument approaches, an ILS-based precision approach passing a couple miles west
of Kalispell and a non -precision (VOR or GPS) approach on the east side of the Flathead River valley. The
VOR-DME is located about seven miles east of Kalispell's city center. Missed approach traffic on the VOR-
GPS approach is placed in a holding pattern above and to the southwest of the VOR-DME, possibly as low as
2500-feet above ground level (AGL).
Score Description of Ranking
Approach and traffic patterns have significant separation.
Approach and/or traffic patterns have minimal separation.
Approach and/or traffic patterns have potential safety issues.
1-4
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
v-
ALL - WEATHER WIND ROSE COVERAGE
CROSSWIND
10.5 KNOTS
13, 0 KNOTS
16, 0 KNOTS
20, 0 KNOTS
R/W 02120
97.22
99.00 q
99, 89 %
99.98
R/W 12130
91.557.
94.79 90
98.007.
99, 29
COMBINED
99.71 X
99.967.
99.99
1007.
SOURCE: NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER; ASHEVILLE, NORTH
CAROLINA, WIND OBSERVATIONS AT GPIA FROM 1984-1993.
Figure 2
Wind Rose — Glacier Park International Airport ALP
1-S
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
5. Instrument Capabilities
The Kalispell City Airport will likely develop GPS circling and straight -in instrument approaches within a 20-
year planning period. Approaches with 3/a-mile or less visibility minimums requiring approach lights, high
intensity runway lights (HIRE), a clear 34:1 approach slope, and an 800-foot wide object free area (OFA) are
unrealistic for a Kalispell City Airport at any location within the valley. Low visibility minimums will
continue to be available at Glacier Park International Airport. A nonprecision approach with 1-statute mile
visibility minimum, possibly with vertical guidance, would be a realistic planning goal for a future Kalispell
City Airport. A medium/ low intensity lighting system and 20:1 approach slopes are minimum design
requirements. Approach lights and a parallel taxiway are recommended, but not required by design standards.
The approach and missed approach slopes would have to be free of obstruction, as well as having a defined
flight path and holding patterns well clear of terrain and not in conflict with established approaches (see Figure
3 for existing approaches at GPIA). The FAR Part 77 regulations define objects penetrating a 20:1 approach
surface at utility airports to be hazards to air navigation. When an airport supports over 500 operations per year
by large aircraft the approach slopes that determine hazards would become a more restrictive 34:1. It is
important to select a site where FAA approval for terminal instrument procedures (TERPS) would be free from
hazards, and result in favorable approach minimums.
Score Description of Ranking
20:1 slopes are clear.
2 20:1 slopes are currently obstructed by an alterable obstruction.
20:1 slopes are not possible due to terrain or other unalterable obstruction.
6. Proximity to Other Airports
Investment in a new or existing airport should provide a large service base and avoid conflicting traffic patterns
with adjacent airports, whether public- or private -use fields. A well -placed field economically provides
convenience, while a poorly placed field ranges from being inconvenient to being dangerous. Existing airports
documented by the FAA or Montana Aeronautics Division (MAD) are shown in Figure 3.
The region from which individuals travel to use an airport is referred to as the airport's "service base" or
"service area." When two airports providing like services are constructed in close proximity to each other, the
service area of each is decreased. One area becomes saturated with air service, while other areas remain
sufficiently remote that they use neither airport. Ideally, airports would be fairly, evenly distributed among the
population base providing reasonable parity in airport access to all.
When airports are located too close together, approach, departure, and traffic patterns may conflict, or be
sufficiently close to adversely affect the safety of the flying public. There are a number of private -use turf
strips in the study area that could adversely affect siting of a new airport.
1-6
Kalispell City Airport- Site Selection Study
Nautical Miles
5
0 10
Figure 3
Composite Aeronautical Chart
1-7
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Score Description of Ranking
Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base.
2 Site would serve a moderate area with some overlap in service base.
Site would serve a small area and/or have significant overlap in service base.
7. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Radar used by Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control Center to track aircraft in and around the Flathead
valley is located on top of Blacktail Mountain (see approximate view in Figure 4). Instrument flight clearances
would be harder to arrange if the Kalispell City Airport is located in a radar & broadcast "shadow."
Ground -to -air communications in the Flathead Valley are all remoted through the Lakeside RCO located on top
of Blacktail Mountain (7 miles west of Lakeside). Communicating with Great Falls Automated Flight Service
Station (GTF-AFSS) and Salt Lake City Air Route Traffic Control Center (KZLC-ARTCC) requires a clear
line -of -sight transmission between an aircraft and the Lakeside facility.
Score Description of Ranking
Clear coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
2 Marginal coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
No coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
8. Public Acceptance / Support
In the case of Kalispell site selection, a close proximity to town is considered beneficial. From public meetings
and airport board meetings, the general consensus seems to be that the airport's proximity to town brings
economic activity to the community that would otherwise not exist.
Support for the airport could be eroded if a proposed siting displaces homes and businesses. The affected
parties are generally very active in opposing their displacement. It is in the best interest of the community and
the progress of airport development that condemnation of an unwilling seller be avoided if possible.
Score Description of Ranking
Excellent support and public acceptance.
2 Moderate support and public acceptance.
Minimal support and public acceptance.
Um
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
PQ
1-9
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
9. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
Kalispell's Master Plan and a county -wide master plan are attempting to steer growth in the Kalispell vicinity
in a reasonable and productive manner. Airport development should attempt to remain within the long-range
development plans for the valley.
Score Description of Ranking
Consistent with regional development plans.
Moderately consistent with regional development plans.
Inconsistent with regional development plans.
10. Compatible Land Use
Development around an airport should be restricted to "compatible" land uses to best protect the airport
infrastructure investment, minimize noise disturbances to the community, and reduce loss of life in the unlikely
event of an accident. Noncompatible uses include residential occupancy, places of public assembly, and any
tall construction. Nonaeronautical high intensity lighting can be very distracting during night-time use and
should be avoided in the airport's vicinity. Compatible land use includes farming, light industrial, business
parks, and other non -noise sensitive uses with light occupancy.
Score Description of Ranking
No surrounding non -compatible land use.
2 Moderate surrounding non -compatible land use
Extensive surrounding non -compatible land use.
11. Development / Land Costs
Development costs include airfield, terminal, ground access, and land acquisition costs. The importance of
these costs are obvious since the funding sources for airport development and operations are typically limited.
The costs of developing different sites may significantly exceed the benefits provided by the facility or they
may not be financially feasible at all. The primary determinants of development costs include land values, land
improvements, relocation costs, geology and soil conditions, accessibility, and the availability of utility
systems.
Score Description of Ranking
Less than 75% of the average development cost of all sites.
Between 75% and 125% of the average development costs of all sites.
More than 125% of the average development costs of all sites.
1-10
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
12. Surface Transportation Impacts
Surface transportation impacts involve rerouting traffic or relocating roads. Generally, when a high -volume
road is severed by an airport site a comparible road is constructed around the airport perimeter to provide a
reasonably similar connection. Low volume roads may have an alternate route constructed or simply divert the
traffic to use existing alternate routes. When an alternate route is constructed, additional land required for the
relocation is included in the required land purchase.
Score Description of Ranking
3 No surface transportation facilities are impacted.
2 Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people
impacted.
Major surface transportation impacts or many people affected by changes.
13. Proximity to Kalispell
Close proximity of the airport to town is considered beneficial. An airport near town provides readily available
services to the itinerant flyer and immediate access to the airport by existing emergency services if needed.
Roadway distances from the Kalispell city center to the proposed sites are shown in Figure 5
Easy walking access to city businesses from a general aviation airport generates additional air traffic and
economic activity in the community that would otherwise not exist. Kalispell City Airport is often a choice of
the recreational and business flier primarily because of its ready access to services.
An airport within city limits is served by city fire and police protective services. A more remote location would
rely upon the county volunteer fire department and the county sheriff. Insurance companies generally rank
municipal fire departments as a lower risk and offer lower policy premiums based on the assumption of
additional training and/or equipment. Kalispell Regional Medical Center provides ambulance service to the
entire valley, so alternative sites would vary only by trip times, not quality of service.
Score Description of Ranking
3 A short walk to local businesses. Served by municipal emergency services.
2 Slightly more removed from local businesses. Could be annexed into city's
emergency services district.
Over five minutes by car from local businesses. Served by county emergency
services.
14. Environmental Consequences
Constructing a new airport in the Flathead Valley could have minor impacts on the habitat of endangered
species or adversely affect waterfowl production areas. Construction would temporarily increase noise levels,
airborne pollutants, and sedimentation potential. Aircraft using the facility would be expected to raise noise
levels, generate emissions, and increase bird collision risks. Local designated wildlife and waterfowl areas are
shown in Figure 6.
Kalispell City
Site Selection
graphic2xdr
Glacier Park
Approx. Scale: 1" = 6000'
. .U-. - -
Road Mileage
1-12
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
graphicicdr
1-13
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
At least two endangered species inhabit the site selection study area, bald eagles and bull trout. There are
known bald eagle nesting sites at the north end of Flathead Lake, with foraging areas extending north along the
Flathead River. Bull trout populations in the Flathead River are sensitive to sedimentation that could result
from careless construction practices.
Waterfowl Production Areas within the site selection domain include: Flathead, Blasdel, Batavia, and Smith
Lake (Figure 6). While it is highly unlikely an airport would be located in the immediate vicinity of these high
quality "bird attractants" due to the increased risk of bird strikes, some site locations may increase overflights
of these areas.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Minimal or no environmental consequences.
2 Moderate environmental consequences.
Significant adverse environmental consequences.
15. Floodplains / Wetlands
Flood plains and wetlands in the Flathead Valley will be avoided if at all possible, but occasionally mitigation
of a minor encroachment is preferable to complete avoidance.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) indicate large portions of
the Flathead River Valley lie within the 100- and 500-year flood plain (Figure 7). Building in a floodplain is
generally not advisable, but if an otherwise exemplary site partially extended into a floodplain, mitigating
measures could be employed.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory shows a variety of Lacustrine, Palustrine,
and Riverine wetlands in the study area (see Figure 8 and Wetlands designations in Appendix A). While it is
possible to build in a designated wetland, it requires in -kind replacement and could significantly increase the
complexity and cost of the project.
Score Description of Ranking
3 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted.
2 Minor incursion into a floodplain or wetland with simple, economical fix
apparent.
Incursion into a floodplain or wetland requiring complex and/or costly
remediation.
16. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
A municipal airport should boost local commerce, provide connections which encourage community growth,
and assist in the flow of goods and services through the community. The City of Kalispell expects some
economic return on the infrastructure investment they are making in their airport. The effectiveness of each
proposed site will be evaluated for its potential economic benefit to the community.
1-14
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
graphic15.cdr
100-Year Flood Plain
500-Year Flood Plain
Figure 7
FEMA Flood Insurance
Rate Map
1-15
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection
M �d
O X
+"3 ID
U a CO
Z m in m m U7 m 0) LM C c� ru -0 o aa)i c c
m Q O G? '° I a ru a 0 1°
LU W tL 0 .J J a 4 :z O M � O � a�
CL CL 0- CL CL EZ iC CE: cc =1 z 0 x x 0) U a O
m Z
-"'- 74
�*
y
_ E1. a co
E - 1 �� � �E o
'ti 4
r t— o (D
t = ( W
_ )
NU
_ LLI
Z)
CO
�t
L f c
(' T, rn O
Figure 8
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory
7-----L---1
1-16
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Score Description of Ranking
3 Significant economic benefit to Kalispell.
2 Moderate economic benefit to Kalispell.
Minimal or no economic benefit to Kalispell.
17. Available Infrastructure
Infrastructure includes access roads, utilities, storm drainage, fencing, and fuel storage. Costs of establishing a
similar level of service at all proposed sites will be compared to assist in choosing a preferred site.
Since accessibility is an important consideration in the siting of a public airport, the location of each alternative
relative to existing transportation routes was evaluated. Major considerations included the distance to existing
roadways, access time from the community to the airport facility, increased maintenance costs for existing
roadways, and the need for new alternative access routes. Obviously, an airport site requiring a major
expenditure to construct a new access road would be ranked less favorably than a site located adjacent to an
existing roadway.
Preferred utility hook-ups for airport alternatives include: water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone, cable TV, and
fiber optic lines. Water and sewer can be connections to a municipal system, a community well and drainfield,
or individual drainfields and wells. Natural gas, propane, and electrical power are all possible sources for
heating systems, at least one of which must be present, with two options preferred. Electrical and phone lines
would be mandatory at any site, with buried lines providing a larger safety margin than overhead lines.
Though not required, access to cable TV and fiber optics would be a plus for any site. The Weather Channel
on cable TV assists many pilots with their "go/no go" decision. Future high level graphic weather and briefing
information, upgrading the existing DUATS system, will most likely be transmitted via a fiber optic network.
Paving an area large enough for a runway, taxiways, and an apron generates significant quantities of
concentrated runoff. A storm drainage system removes runoff while preserving the integrity of the pavement.
Fencing separates ground traffic, people, and animals from aeronautical -use areas to provide a safer facility for
those on the ground and in the air. While fencing seems a minor expense per unit length, the lineal footage
required often makes fencing the entire airport perimeter very expensive.
Fuel availability is an important asset at any airport. Credit card pay -at -the -pump systems give 24-hour fuel
availability and increase itinerant sales. Storage tanks, pumps, and control systems are an expensive ($50,000)
and important investment to retain current users of the Kalispell City Airport.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Most infrastructure elements are in place, only minor connections and
construction are required. No additional maintenance costs expected.
2 Some infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are
required. Some additional maintenance / construction costs likely.
Few infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are
required. Significant additional maintenance / construction costs likely.
1-17
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
D. Site Ranking Procedures
The site evaluation criteria presented in the previous section of this chapter are all considered to be important
factors in evaluating an airport site. However, there are varying degrees of importance among these criteria. A
ranking system was determined to be necessary to place the evaluation criteria in its respective order of relative
importance. The following procedure was used to rank each:
Step 1. Establish a five point ranking system. The system was based on a low score of 1 to a high score of
5.
Step 2. Survey members of the Kalispell Airport Board and selected members of the City Staff to
determine their ranking assessment for individual site evaluation criteria. The average ranking of
all the members surveyed was calculated to determine the composite ranking order of the Sponsor.
The results of this survey are shown on Table 1.
Step 3. Survey the consultant's airport engineers to determine their individual ranking assessment. The
average ranking of three airport engineers was then calculated to determine the composite ranking
order of the Consultant. The results of this survey are found in Table 2.
Step 4. Average the composite ranking results of both the Sponsor and Consultant to derive the final
ranking of relative importance for each of the site evaluation criteria. The final results (ranked
from high to low) are shown at the bottom of Table 3.
Step 5. By multiplying the individual site evaluation criteria rating, outlined in the previous section of this
chapter, by the respective relative importance value established above, a total site ranking score
results. Under this ranking system, the higher the score, the more favorable the site. See Table 4
for the results of these computations for each alternative.
The above ranking system is considered to be a thorough, fair, and logical approach to analyzing potential
airport sites. This system is utilized in the following sections of this study to compare potential airport sites
and to identify the preferred site for the Kalispell Airport.
The criteria listed above will be evaluated and discussed for each Alternative. A rating value, as described in
Section C of this chapter will be assigned based on the evaluation. The sum of the products of rating values
and importance ranking gives a numerical value to each proposed alternative. The preferred alternative will
have the highest numerical score. Below is the evaluation of the criteria for each Alternative. The criteria are
evaluated in the order presented in Table 3.
1-18
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
TABLE 1
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT BOARD'S
Site Evaluation Criteria
Relative Importance
Average
Ranking
High
Medium
Low
(5)
(4)
3)
(2)
(1)
Airspace Obstructions
5
4
1
0
1
4.09
Expandability
2
2
5
2
0
3.36
Wind Alignment
1
6
3
1
0
3.64
Airspace Assessment
1
2
5
1
2
2.91
Instrument Capabilities
0
3
5
3
0
3.00
Proximity to Other Airports
1
0
1
5
4
2.00
Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
0
3
1
4
3
2.36
Public Acceptance / Support
2
5
4
0
0
3.82
Consistency w/ Area wide Planning
2
2
5
2
0
3.36
Compatible Land Use
1
3
3
3
0
3.20
Development / Land Costs
2
2
3
2
0
3.44
o
Surface Transportation Impacts
4
3
2
1
0
4.00
Proximity to Kalispell
9
0
1
1
0
4.55
Environmental Concerns
2
4
0
4
1
3.18
z
Floodplains / Wetlands
0
4
1
4
2
1 2.64
Economic Benefit
6
4
1
0
0
4.45
Available Infrastructure
2
4
4
1
0
3.64
1-19
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
1.1
Site Evaluation Criteria
Relative Importance
Average
Ranking
High
Medium
Low
(5)
(4)
3)
(2)
(1)
Airspace Obstructions
2
1
4.67
Expandability
2
1 1
3.67
y
Wind Alignment
1
2
4.33
al
Airspace Assessment
1
2
4.33
Instrument Capabilities
1
2
3.33
Proximity to Other Airports
2
1
2.67
Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
3
3.00
Public Acceptance / Support
2
1
3.33
Consistency w/ Area wide Planning
1
2
3.33
Compatible Land Use
1
2
4.33
Development / Land Costs
1
1
1
3.00
o
Surface Transportation Impacts
1
1
1
3.00
Proximity to Kalispell
1
1 1
1
3.67
Environmental Concerns
1
2
4.33
z
Floodplains / Wetlands
1
1
1
4.00
Economic Benefit
1
1
1
3.00
Available Infrastructure
2
1
3.67
*AVERAGE
Site Evaluation Criteria
Average Ranking
Airspace Obstructions
4.38
Expandability
3.52
Wind Alignment
3.99
Airspace Assessment
3.62
Instrument Capabilities
3.17
Proximity to Other Airports
2.34
Black Mountain Radar Coverage
2.68
Public Acceptance / Support
3.58
Consistency w/ Area wide Planning
3.35
Compatible Land Use
3.77
Development / Land Costs
3.22
o
Surface Transportation Impacts
3.50
Proximity to Kalispell
4.11
Environmental Concerns
3.76
z
Floodplains / Wetlands
3.32
Economic Benefit
3.73
Available Infrastructure
3.66
1-20
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
E. Site Evaluations
1. Alternative #1 - Existing site with ultimate B-II standards
Alternate #1 would consist of relocating the existing Runway 13 threshold 1200-feet to the south to clear the
runway protection zone, while retaining the current alignment. Additional land would be purchased and the
pavements reconstructed to B-I1 width and safety spacing standards. One of the two current parallel taxiways
would have to be abandoned to allow room for the wider dimensions. It lies within sections 20 and 29 of
Township 28 North and Range 21 West. The approximate elevation of an airport at this location would be
2,932 feet above mean sea level. It is depicted as Figure 9.
A. Airspace Obstructions
A FAR Part 77 obstruction map for this site is shown in Figure 10. The dimensional criteria used for
establishing the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are based on an airport reference code of B-II with an approach
minimum of 1-mile.
There is a radio tower penetrating the approach surface south of the airport, and another radio antenna passes
through the horizontal surface at the south end. Terrain penetrates over 700 feet into the horizontal surface
southwest of the field. The radio antennas have been declared a "hazard to aviation" and would need to be
removed before new airport construction.
A penetration of the approach surface warrants a low ranking. Additional significant terrain obstructions and
horizontal surface penetrations result in the lowest possible ranking for this site.
Score Description of Ranking
Adverse airspace factors which severely limit aircraft operations.
B. Ex_pandabilitX
Alternate #1 is tightly hemmed on the sides in by community development and land that is unavailable and/or
prohibitively expensive (Figure 9). Length expansion is currently limited by airspace obstructions and
residential development off both ends. Expansion to a runway length beyond 95% of the small aircraft fleet at
this site would require a highly unlikely relocation of a portion of existing cemetery.
Score Description of Ranking
Significant limitations to site expansion.
C. Wind Alignment
Using the closest current weather station with wind data, located at Glacier Park International Airport, the
Kalispell City Master Plan shows the current runway alignment with 10.5 knots or less crosswind component
93.0% of the time, and a 13 knot crosswind component 95.6% of the time. This wind data is from ten statute
miles away from the Kalispell City Airport and may show more pronounced valley currents than those
manifested at "city airport." Wind alignment is given the lowest ranking since it doesn't meet the FAA criteria
of 95% of the time having less than a 10.5 knot crosswind component.
Score Description of Ranking
Alignment has less than 13 knot crosswind component 95% of the time.
1-21
PART 77- OBSTRUCTION DATA TABLE
PART 77 SURFACE
MAMUM
DISPOSITION
NO.
DESCRIPTION PENETRATION
PENETRATION
TERRAIN HORIZONTAL
744'
NONE
RADIO TOWER Tkppo
175'
RELOCATE
HORIZONTAL
175'
--RADIO
F�.
TOWER HORIZONTAL
175'
RELOCATE
Xt
4,
ii
k�_
wl-
;?
Fx
V
J4
7:�
4N
x
no
mH
cq
N"
Ao� -_D
-;Ff
, #Z�Y',
v
Y/
v rL
-------- _41
-a / - l_'l w -i M n: 15
r
4r
:If
X
4
vZ-1
MA Q
ma
V_
IL 0
IL
_RK
AN
cc
cc
06
F!
IS
Mom m
%MAE
�mA
Ul L
> U)
Ic
J."
—nu
ft
Mai
mg ic
r
w
CC
Li
2
L
S
k, SHEET
- - - - I _x- ____ i �
%
Az& �h2m/ ii-A /7t�
m
ee_
Mwf� ��Vh V
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
The current airport site lies on the edge of Glacier Park International Airport's Class E airspace where it
extends to the ground, and is underneath GPIA's Class E extension with a 700-foot floor. An instrument
approach to Kalispell City Airport from the north would have to fly through GPIA's airspace. While the
existing airport airspaces have coexisted for quite a few years, their close proximity warrants a rating of 2.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Approach and/or traffic patterns have minimal separation.
E. Instrument Capabilities
Alternate #1 does not currently have clear approach slopes necessary for establishment of a straight -in
instrument approach. Radio antennas to the south penetrating the required 20:1 approach slope and adjacent
horizontal surface would have to be removed. Since the hazards/obstructions are removable, instrument
capabilities is ranked as a 2.
Score Description of Ranking
2 20:1 slopes are currently obstructed by an alterable obstruction.
F. Proximity to Other Airports
The current site of the Kalispell City Airport is well -placed between Whitefish, Glacier Park International,
Ferndale, and Polson to capture a large portion of the Flathead Valley's general aviation activity. It is well
placed for direct access into backcountry airports at Spotted Bear, Meadow Creek, and Schafer Meadows.
Score Description of Ranking
Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base.
G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Alternate #1 lies in a radar and communications shadow because of its close proximity to the adjacent foothills.
Score Description of Ranking
No coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
H. Public Acceptance / Support
The current location of the Kalispell City Airport with the airport in close proximity to area businesses and
easy access enjoys community support, but the required relocation of residences even to expand to 95%
coverage of the small aircraft fleet would generate resistance. Constructing to 100% coverage would displace
additional homes and require relocation of an existing cemetery, both unpopular items.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderate support and public acceptance.
1-22
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
As an existing element in the current city and county planning, minor changes and expansion at the current
airport would be in line with regional planning.
Score Description of Ranking
Consistent with regional development plans.
J. Compatible Land Use
There are existing residential developments off both ends of the Alternate #1 runway (see Figure 9). An
existing cemetery on the south end of site #1 would conflict with the Object Free Area (OFA) and prohibit
expansion to an "ultimate" runway length or require relocation of the cemetery. This proposed option would
require relocation of a number of private residences and would require the taking of an automobile junkyard. A
grove of pines would have to be removed for the runway relocation and expansion. A supermarket and offices
are immediately adjacent to the field. Typically the type and extents of development surrounding the current
site would not be the preferred airport neighbors.
Score Description of Ranking
Extensive surrounding non -compatible land use.
K. Development / Land Costs
Land costs in the vicinity of Alternate #1 are some of the highest of all options considered. The Highway 93
corridor is becoming increasingly valuable as commercial real estate as Kalispell continues to grow. This
option makes the best use of current airport property, using only an additional 66 acres for expansion (Table 4).
Relocations and associated expenses as listed in Table 5 are also very high for Alternate #1. Even with the
small taking, high land values give option #1 the most expensive ranking.
Score Description of Ranking
More than 125% of the average development costs of all sites.
L. Surface Transportation Impacts
A single road south of the current Runway 31 end would need to be relocated around the south end, only upon
expansion to ultimate runway length (see Figure 9). This road provides a second access for aviation businesses
and airport users. Its removal would increase the traffic on the north access and/or move the traffic to existing
roads further south.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people
impacted.
1-23
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
TABLE 4
ALTERNATIVE #1- LAND COSTS
Amount
Required -
Uneconomic
Remnant -
Size
Price /
Required
Extension
Remnant
Extension
Tract
Owner
(acres)
Acre*
(acres)
Price
(acres)
Price
Section 20,
T28N, R21W
1F
City of Kalispell
23.33
$0
18.37
$0
1D
Myron K. & Marilyn J. Strand et.al.
2.73
$43,560
0.01
$563
2+
Robert K. & La Dona Monk
10.78
$6,534
10.78
$70,437
2A
City of Kalispell
2.51
$0
7.03
$0
2B
City of Kalispell
6.57
$0
6.57
$0
2D
Sharon M. Torgerson
1.68
$43,560
1.68
$73,181
2E
Michael S. Barrett
0.81
$43,560
0.81
$35,284
2F
Sharon M. Torgerson
4.67
$26,136
4.46
$116,648
0.01
$331
2FA
Schlegel & Sons Contractors, Inc
2.33
$43,560
1.95
$84,834
0.38
$16,368
2G
Wayne L. & Barbara A. Ristine
1.67
$43,560
1.67
$72,745
2J
Hugh R. Louden
1.16
$43,560
1.11
$48,282
0.05
$2,248
2JA
Hugh R. Louden
1
$43,560
0.94
$40,771
0.06
$2,789
2JB
Hugh R. Louden
1.01
$43,560
0.87
$37,964
0.14
$6,031
2M
Jerry L. Karen K. Slack
0.82
$43,560
0.82
$35,719
3
City of Kalispell
26.222
$0
5.47
$0
3A
City of Kalispell
29.9
$0
29.13
$0
3AA
USA
2.07
$43,560
2.07
$90,169
3AB
Lawrence E. Betty P. Stockhill
1.51
$43,560
1.51
$65,776
5
Seiler Family Trust
3.09
$43,560
1.49
$64,859
0.12
$5,240
5B
Douglas M. & Donna Miller
3.59
$119,790
0.23
$28,030
5BB
Douglas M. & Donna Miller
1.2
$43,560
1.20
$52,272
5G
City of Kalispell
5
$0
3.98
$0
5GA
Ronald Swartzenberger
1.43
$43,560
0.13
$5,553
SGAA
Ronald Swartzenberger
0.89
$43,560
0.10
$4,416
5GB
Ronald Swartzenberger - Includes SCCB
0.91
$43,560
0.11
$4,852
5GC
Seiler Family Trust
2.97
$43,560
1.34
$58,341
1.63
$71,032
5H
Seiler Family Trust
5.25
$119,790
2.42
$290,158
5HA
R & R Development
5.21
$119,790
1.97
$235,896
5J
Seiler Family Trust
8
$108,900
3.89
$423,348
0.01
$1,460
6+
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
57.92
$6,534
0.31
$2,054
6D
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
20
$6,534
4.92
$32,134
7C
Robert K. & La Dona Monk
0.12
$43,560
0.26
$11,423
7CB
City of Kalispell
0.41
$0
0.38
$0
Section 29, T28N, R21W
5G+
City of Kalispell
5
$0
1.18
$0
5F
Johnson Trailer Parks
1.41
$43,560
1.19
$51,632
11C
John D. & Jane C. Stutzman
0.5
$43,560
0.50
$21,780
11CAA
John I. & Sandra M. Swartzenberger
1
$43,560
1.00
$43,560
11CAB
Lee A. & Fay M. Hagen
0.5
$43,560
0.50
$21,780
11CAC
John I. & Sandra M. Swartzenberger
0.5
$43,560
0.50
$21,780
11CB
Daniel Hembd
0.5
$43,560
0.50
$21,780
11CC
Peter T. Jeller - Included with 11-0
0.46
$43,560
0.34
$14,807
0.12
$5,231
110E
Peter T. Jeller
0.42
$43,560
0.42
$18,295
11CF
Robert J. Rinke
0.37
$43,560
0.03
$1,489
11F
William & Anne Russell
0.04
$43,560
0.04
$1,742
11FA
Lawrence & Vivian L. Peterson
0.52
$43,560
0.49
$21,253
0.03
$1,398
11FAA
Neil M. &Phyllis A. Bertelsen
0.11
$43,560
0.08
$3,468
0.03
$1,323
11FB
Dale & Haroldeen Witty
0.49
$43,560
0.41
$17,894
0.08
$3,451
11H
Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen
0.485
$43,560
0.01
$344
11K
Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen
0.06
$43,560
0.03
$1,247
0.03
$1,366
11KA
Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen
0.07
$43,560
0.05
$2,080
0.02
$969
l l U
Dale & Haroldeen Witty
0.16
$43,560
0.10
$4,190
0.06
$2,779
11 W
Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen
0.066
$43,560
0.02
$851
0.05
$2,024
12B
Seiler Family Trust
10.43
$6,534
5.79
$37,841
4.64
$30,309
12BA
City of Kalispell
2.57
$0
1.24
$0
52 tracts 26 Landowners Non -city owned acreage: 66.52 132.40 $2,293,520 7.47 $154,352
*Preliminary simple land value of the portion to be acquireddetermined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves an opinion of value but does not have an appraisal or an appraisal review as its
primary purpose). Hall-Widdoss and Company P.C, May 2001.
I -24
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
i
Iwrovenient Costs
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
Single Family Residence
8
$120,000
$960,000
Mobile Home
6
$15,000
$90,000
Garage
5
$50,000
$250,000
Hangar/Large Shop
11
$130,000
$1,430,000
Relocation Expenses
22
$6,000
$132,000
TOTAL:
$2,862,000
Cost to Cure Total Cost
Tree Clearing $0
Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0
TOTAL: $0
Number of
Adninistrative Costs Landowners Unit value Total Expense
Appraisal 26 $5,000 $130,000
Review Appraisal 26 $1,800 $46,800
Negotiations 26 $6,000 $156,000
TOTAL: $332,800
M. Proximity to Kalispell
The existing site is clearly the closest possible location to town. In fact, much of the draw of Kalispell City
Airport to itinerant travelers is the ease of access to the local businesses and services. The site is within city
limits and served by municipal fire and police protection. Insurance rates for airport occupants are lower due
to close proximity and quality of emergency services.
Score Description of Ranking
3 A short walk to local businesses. Served by municipal emergency services.
N. Environmental Consequences
Environmental concerns are minimal at the current site, since this area is fairly developed already.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Minimal or no environmental consequences.
O. F000dplains / Wetlands
Alternate # 1 would be out of the 500-year flood plain (Figure 11) and have no effects on wetlands (Figure 12).
It is given the highest possible score in this category.
Score Description of Ranking
3 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted.
1-25
City Airport - Site Selection
g.phic4.cd,
See Detail For City
Flood Boundaries
�8zONE A7
(EL 2924)
ZONE B
nsrrLEV ZONE B RM1
r; r: rX
ZO
ZONE A7 NE C
ZONE B
�r —Farm Bridge
ZONE B
CiIN, of Kalispell
AREA NOT INCLUDED
ZONE C
I�ZONE B
ZONE C
4..
ZONE A7
IEL 2922)
ZONE B
RM11 —_
19
'L
2
ZONE A
2919
,I
ZONE C
CEMETERY ROAD
i
KEY TO MAP
SOON— Flood Boundary � Zen D
IOO-Year Flood Boundary
7onc Deign lrom
wo-Y-1 Fhd Bn da,y
SOO.Year Flood Boundary - - -
B: Frond El-0— une 513
Wilh Ele.ation In Feet—
fi , rl nd E —1k,a in 1 e 1 (EL 9en
,Yhac. I�n tv J
t le�at;on kel -. NI,0. RM7y
I,- D Bound ---
ki. Nrde •M1.5
"Referen,ed to the National Ga doi, Verl i Datum of 1929
t 93i
TWIN
RM109
Site I
Scale in Feet
0 1600
800
\ Site 1
DRIVE
fi
- ZONE " B
ZONE B
II
LIMITOF it
`DETAILED STUDY
II �I
VAL
I
I
--- 12 9
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996
Scale in Feet
0 1000 Figure 11
500 Alternative #1
ZONE
_y ) i
RM111/
1-26
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
i
J
1-27
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
P. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Alternate #1 would preserve the close proximity of the airport to Kalispell pilots and businesses that has been
so profitable to the community in the past.
Score Description of Ranking
Significant economic benefit to Kalispell.
Q. Available Infrastructure
Alternate #1 would use existing infrastructure developed to serve the Kalispell City Airport. It is the most
suited to capitalize on existing roads, utilities, storm drainage, fence, and fueling systems (see Table 6 —
Infrastructure).
Score Description of Ranking
Most infrastructure elements are in place, only minor connections and
construction are required. No additional maintenance costs expected.
1-28
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
i �;
Item Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1 Land, Irnprovernents, and Relocation
Land Purchase (67 AC)
1 LS
$2,293,520 /L.S
$2,293,520
Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase
1 LS
$154,352 /LS
$154,352
Improvements Cost
1 LS
$2,862,000 /LS
$2,862,000
Cost to Cure
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Administrative Costs
1 LS
$332,800 /LS
$332,800
TOTAL:
$5,642,672
2 Infrastructure
Radio Tower Replacement (Paran Style)
1 LS
$400,000 /L.S
$400,000
Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide)
0 LF
$25 /LF
$0
Paved Road Relocation (30' wide)
900 LF
$50 /LF
$45,000
Bury Power Lines
0 LF
$20 /LF
$0
Relocate High Voltage Power Lines
0 LF
$50 /LF
$0
Well / Municipal Water Connection
0 LS
$10,000 /LS
$0
Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection
0 LS
$10,000 as
$0
Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection
0 LS
$5,000 /LS
$0
Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System
1 EA
$50,000 /EA
$50,000
Drainage Structures
0 LF
$75 /LF
$0
Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle)
1 LS
$10,000 /1-S
$10,000
Paved Access Road
1500 LF
$30 /LF
$45,000
Engineering and Administrative
$83,000
TOTAL:
$633,000
3 Airport Construction
Excavation and Embankment
96,000 CY
$3 /CY
$288,000
Crushed Base Course
32,000 CY
$25 /CY
$800,000
Prim Coat
175 TON
$250 fTON
$43,750
Bituminous Surface Course
20,500 TON
$30 /TON
$615,000
Asphalt Cerrtent
1,435 TON
$300 /TON
$430,500
Drainage Culverts
300 LF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Pavement Markings
1 LS
$18,000 /LS
$18,000
Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer
108 EA
$1,000 /EA
$108,000
Seed, Fertilize and Mulch
50 AC
$900 /AC
$45,000
Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon
1 LS
$45,000 /L.S
$45,000
Electrical and Reflectors
1 LS
$150,000 /LS
$150,000
Perimeter Fencing
15600 IF
$3 /LF
$46,800
Engineering and Administrative
$229,000
TOTAL:
$2,841,550
PROJECT TOTAL: $9,117,222
1-29
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
2. Alternative #2 - Existing Location, 5.6 Degree Realignment, Ultimate B-II Standards
Alternate #2 would consist of relocating the existing Runway 13 threshold 600-feet to the south to clear the
runway protection zone, and rotating the current runway alignment 5.6 ❑ clockwise. Additional land would be
purchased and the pavements reconstructed to B-H width and safety spacing standards. One of the two current
parallel taxiways would have to be abandoned to allow room for the wider dimensions. It lies within sections
20 and 29 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. The approximate elevation of an airport at this location
would be 2,932 feet above mean sea level. It is depicted as Figure 13.
A. Airspace Obstructions
A FAR Part 77 obstruction map for this site is shown in Figure 14. The dimensional criteria used for
establishing the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are based on an airport reference code of B-H with a 1-mile
minimum approach.
Two existing radio towers penetrating the horizontal surface, but not the approach surface south of the airport
would be removed. Poles at the high school, under the north approach surface would be clear of a 20:1
approach slope, but would violate a 34:1 slope necessary to upgrade to a precision approach with less than 3/a-
mile visibility. Terrain penetrates over 700 feet into the horizontal surface southwest of the field.
Penetrations of the Part 77 horizontal and conical surfaces warrant a low ranking, but towers in the "pattern"
warrant the lowest ranking.
Score Description of Ranking
Adverse airspace factors which severely limit aircraft operations.
B. Expandability
Alternate #2 is tightly hemmed in on the sides by community development and land that is unavailable and/or
prohibitively expensive on one side, and Ashley Creek and the treatment plant on the other (Figure 13). Length
expansion to 100% of the small aircraft fleet is possible, but would have residential development near both
ends.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderate limitations to site expansion.
C. Wind Alignment
Using the closest current weather station with wind data, located at Glacier Park International Airport, the
Kalispell City Master Plan shows the 5.6-degree runway alignment with 10.5 knots or less crosswind
component 93.6% of the time, and a 13 knot crosswind component 96.2% of the time. This wind data is from
ten statute miles away from the Kalispell City Airport and may show more pronounced valley currents than
those manifested at "city airport." Wind alignment is given a medium ranking since it is an improvement over
the current alignment.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Alignment has less than 10.5 knot crosswind component 95% of the time.
1-30
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
The current airport site lies on the edge of Glacier Park International Airport's Class E airspace where it
extends to the ground, and is underneath GPIA's Class E extension with a 700-foot floor. An instrument
approach to Kalispell City Airport from the north would have to fly through GPIA's airspace. While the
existing airport airspaces have coexisted for quite a few years, their close proximity warrents a rating of 2.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Approach and/or traffic patterns have minimal separation.
E. Instrument Capabilities
Alternate #2 has clear approach slopes necessary for establishment of a straight -in instrument approach.
Score Description of Ranking
20:1 slopes are clear.
F. Proximity to Other Airports
The current site of the Kalispell City Airport is well -placed between Whitefish, Glacier Park International,
Ferndale, and Polson to capture a large portion of the Flathead Valley's general aviation activity. It is well
placed for direct access into backcountry airports at Spotted Bear, Meadow Creek, and Schafer Meadows
Score Description of Ranking
Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base.
G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Alternate #2 lies in a radar and communications shadow because of its close proximity to the adjacent foothills.
Most ground locations would be out of radar coverage, but rising to pattern altitude would allow contact.
Score Description of Ranking
No coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
H. Public Acceptance / Support
The current site of the Kalispell City Airport with the airport in close proximity to area businesses and easy
access enjoys community support. This proposed alignment would allow expansion to a runway length
allowing use by 100% of the small aircraft fleet while avoiding a contentious relocation of the cemetery and
residences.
Score Description of Ranking
Excellent support and public acceptance.
1-31
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
As an existing element in the current city and county planning, minor changes and expansion at the current
airport would be in line with regional planning. Site #2 would require the fewest changes to existing land use
and infrastructure.
Score Description of Ranking
Consistent with regional development plans.
J. Compatible Land Use
There are existing residential developments off the north runway end and to the side of the south end of the
Alternate #2 runway (see Figure 13). Site #2 would require relocation of a number of private residences and
would take a portion of an automobile junkyard and minor slices out of the backs of a number of business lots
on Highway 93. A grove of pines would have to be removed for the runway relocation and expansion. A
supermarket and offices are immediately adjacent to the field. This option reduces property takings along the
Highway 93 corridor.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderate surrounding non -compatible land use
K. Development / Land Costs
Land costs in the vicinity of Alternate #2 are some of the highest of all options considered. The Highway 93
corridor is becoming increasingly valuable as commercial real estate as Kalispell continues to grow.
Expansion to alternative #2 would require the purchase of about an additional 70 acres of land (Table 7).
Relocations and associated land costs are the most expensive of all sites (Table 8). Even though the city owns
the majority of this site, it remains one of the most expensive options.
Score Description of Ranking
More than 125% of the average development costs of all sites.
L. Surface Transportation Impacts
A gravel cut -across road south of the existing runway end would need to be abandoned (see Figure 13).
Cemetery Road south of the existing airport has sufficient clearance for a 20:1 approach slope, or could be
modified to swing around the end of the Runway Protection Zone for an additional safety buffer at ultimate
development. Cemetery Road provides a second access for aviation businesses, airport users, and minor local
access. Its realignment would increase the traffic on the north access and/or move the traffic to existing roads
to the south.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people
impacted.
1-32
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
TABLE 7
ALTERNATIVE #2 - LAND COSTS
Amount
Required -
Uneconomic Remnant -
Size
Price /
Required
Extension
Remnant Extension
Tract
Owner
(acres)
Acre*
(acres)
Price
(acres) Price
Section 20, T28N, R21W
1
City of Kalispell - winded wim trwt 8AF-Total area is shown
0.46
$0
0.40
$0
IA
State of Montana
2.00
$137,214
0.18
$24,036
1F
City of Kalispell
23.33
$0
21.54
$0
1D
Myron K. & Marilyn J. Strand et.al.
2.73
$43,560
1.44
$62,619
1.29 $56,300
1DA
David J. Hoemer
0.35
$43,560
0.00
$0
0.35 $15,246
2+
Robert K. & La Dona Monk
10.78
$6,534
10.65
$69,611
0.13 $826
2A
City of Kalispell
9.91
$0
9.91
$0
213
City of Kalispell
6.57
$0
6.57
$0
2D
Sharon M. Torgerson
1.68
$43,560
1.68
$73,181
2E
Michael S. Barrett
0.81
$43,560
0.81
$35,284
2F
Sharon M. Torgerson
4.67
$26,136
4.67
$122,055
2FA
Schlegel & Sons Contractors, Inc
2.33
$43,560
2.33
$101,495
2G
Wayne L. & Barbara A. Ristine
1.67
$43,560
1.67
$72,745
2J
Hugh R. Louden
1.16
$43,560
1.16
$50,530
2JA
Hugh R. Louden
1
$43,560
1.00
$43,560
2JB
Hugh R. Louden
1.01
$43,560
1.01
$43,996
2M
Jerry L. & Karen K. Slack
0.82
$43,560
0.82
$35,719
3
City of Kalispell
26.222
$0
7.34
$0
3A
City of Kalispell
29.9
$0
29.90
$0
3AA
USA
2.07
$43,560
2.07
$90,169
3AB
Lawrence E. Betty P. Stockhill
1.51
$43,560
1.51
$65,776
5
Seiler Family Trust
3.09
$43,560
0.85
$37,213
5BB
Douglas M. & Donna Miller
1.2
$43,560
0.04
$1,561
5G
City of Kalispell
5
$0
1.10
$0
5GC
Seiler Family Trust
2.97
$43,560
2.97
$129,373
5H
Seiler Family Trust
5.25
$119,790
0.97
$116,627
5HA
R & R Development
5.21
$119,790
0.49
$59,007
5J
Seiler Family Trust
8
$108,900
1.87
$203,392
6+
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
57.92
$6,534
3.82
$24,954
6D
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
20
$6,534
8.39
$54,811
0.10 $623
0.00
0
0.00
0
Section 29,
T28N, R21W
0.00
0
5G+
City of Kalispell
5
$0
0.36
$0
5F
Johnson Trailer Parks
1.41
$43,560
2.26
$98,454
12+
Flathead County
12.71
$6,534
7.41
$48,389
12B
Seiler Family Trust
10.43
$6,534
7.95
$51,932
2.48 $16,218
13+
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
78
6,534
0.09
584
35
18 Landowners Non -city owned acreage: 72.45
145.22 $1,717,072
4.35 $89,213
*Preliminary simple land value of the portion to be acquired determined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves an opinion of value but does not have an appraisal or an appraisal review as its
primary purpose). Nall-Widdoss and Company, P.C., May 2001.
1-33
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Inprovernent Costs
Number
Unit value
Total Expense
Single Family Residence
4
$120,000
$480,000
Mobile Horne
3
$15,000
$45,000
Garage
0
$50,000
$0
Hangar / Large Shop
15
$130,000
$1,950,000
Business - Red Eagle Aviation
1
$664,000
Relocation Expenses
17
$6,000
$102,000
TOTAL:
$2,577,000
Cost to Cure
Tree Clearing $0
Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0
TOTAL: $0
Number of
Adninistrative Costs Landowners Unit value Total Expense
Appraisal 18 $5,000 $90,000
Review Appraisal 18 $1,800 $32,400
Negotiations 18 $6,000 $108,000
TOTAL: $230,400
M. Proximity to Kalispell
The existing site is clearly the closest possible location to town. In fact, much of the draw of Kalispell City
Airport to itinerant travelers is the ease of access to the local businesses and services. Site #2 would preserve
the close proximity of the existing airport and retain quick access by high quality municipal emergency
services.
Score Description of Ranking
3 A short walk to local businesses. Served by municipal emergency services.
N. Environmental Consequences
Environmental concerns are minimal at this realignment of the current site, since this area is fairly developed
already. Alternative #2 would bring the airport closer to Ashley Creek, but the only foreseeable impacts could
be avoided using good construction practices.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Minimal or no environmental consequences.
O. F000dplains / Wetlands
Alternate #2 would be out of the 500-year flood plain (Figure 15) and have minor to negligible effects on an
acre or so of emerging palustrine wetlands (Figure 16). It is given the highest possible score in this category.
Score Description of Ranking
3 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted.
1-34
l City Airport - Site Selection Study
graphic5.cdr
See Detail For City
Flood Boundaries
18 ZONE A7
(EL 2924)
ZONE B
t.lrrr.r ZONE B RM1
i"W"I h"
ONE A7 ONE C
ZONE B
--Farm Bridge
ZONE B
City of Kalispell
AREA NOT INCLUDED
l _\
ZO
ZONE C
20
171
Detail of C
ZONE A5
1^ Scale in Feet
1 0 1600
800
N \ Site 2
ONE
(EL 2922)922{
ZONE B
1
•. �`'`` f 93 i
DRIVE
TWIN ACRES
RM11
__—_
_ RM109
19
Sit 2
Niiv de
08 �1
ILEY
ZONE AI-ti'
Z
- ZONE B �\ �
� zsls
(�
LIMIT S �I \ ZONE C - - `DETAILED STUDY i
ZONE
_CEMETERY ROAD f �� LOWER VALLEY
RM111/
KEY TO MAP
500-Year Flood Boundary- -
ZONE
100-Year Flood Boundary - - - l
OZONE B
29 Z.- Designations -
100-Year Flood Boundary —
500�Year Rood Boundary-- -
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Base Flood Elevation Line 513 Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996
Wilh Ele-.ation In Feet"
Base Fiood El—H." in poet (EL 967) Scale in Feet
Where Uniform Within Zone" 0 1000
Llevl,lio,, Reference Mark RM7x 500 Figure 15
D Bnnndary - — — Alternative #2
RiverMilc •M1.5
—Referenced to the National Geodetic Vericel Datum of 1929
1-35
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
M
_
ca
`0
c Q
g x
20
_0
-w
��}
n3
'A
Q1
C W
'� Q
m
m
m
W
m
C
rq
n
ra
_0 2 a
C
Q
70 Q
Z
m
m
0
CO
m
CO
m
0
w
'A
2
M - —
=1
CQ .G
W
�y
Q
W
Li
{J}
{V
iV
c�
a
a ry ,
a
-a
J
J
OL
E
LL
CL
CL
tL
tL
m
m
1
z
CQ
M M 0
U
•1
J
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
®
�
-=_ rti
rti
_
.
t
ti
C
O
CU
1n
C
O
U
m
C
a)
E
C
O
r
r
r
ti r
f
� l r
f
{
r
f
Jose, r r
r
f Y
Y
r
r
Figure 16
YYfff USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory - Site 2
1-36
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
P. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Alternate #2 would preserve the close proximity of the airport to Kalispell pilots and businesses that has been
so profitable to the community in the past.
Score Description of flanking
Significant economic benefit to Kalispell.
Q. Available Infrastructure
Alternate #2 would use existing infrastructure developed to serve the Kalispell City Airport. It would require
relocating fueling systems, updating the access road and parking, and at ultimate development relocation of
Cemetery Road. Forecast costs are included in Table 9.
Score Description of flanking
Most infrastructure elements are in place, only minor connections and
construction are required. No additional maintenance costs expected.
1-37
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
Item Description
Land, Improvements, and Relocation
1 .161' .1
Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost
Land Purchase (72 AC)
1 LS
$1,717,072 /LS
$1,717,072
Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase
1 LS
$89,213 /L.S
$89,213
Improvements Cost
1 LS
$2,577,000 /L.S
$2,577,000
Cost to Clare
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Administrative Costs
1 LS
$230,400 /L.S
$230,400
TOTAL:
$4,613,685
2 Infrastructure
Radio Tower Replacement (Paran Style)
1 LS
$400,000 /LS
$400,000
Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide)
0 LF
$25 /LF
$0
Paved Road Relocation (30' wide)
900 LF
$50 /LF
$45,000
Bury Power Lines
0 LF
$20 /LF
$0
Relocate High Voltage Power Lines
0 LF
$50 /LF
$0
Well / Municipal Water Connection
0 LS
$10,000 /LS
$0
Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection
0 LS
$10,000 /LS
$0
Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection
0 LS
$5,000 /L.S
$0
Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System
2 EA
$50,000 /EA
$100,000
Drainage Structures
0 LF
$75 /LF
$0
Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle)
1 LS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Paved Access Road
1500 LF
$30 /LF
$45,000
Engineering and Administrative
$90,000
TOTAL:
$690,000
3 Airport Construction
Excavation and Embankment
96,000 CY
$3 /CY
$288,000
Crushed Base Course
32,000 CY
$25 /CY
$800,000
Prune Coat
175 TON
$250 /TON
$43,750
Bituminous Surface Course
20,500 TON
$30 /TON
$615,000
Asphalt Cement
1,435 TON
$300 /TON
$430,500
Drainage Culverts
300 LF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Pavement Markings
1 LS
$18,000 /LS
$18,000
Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer
108 EA
$1,000 /EA
$108,000
Seed, Fertilize and Mulch
50 AC
$900 /AC
$45,000
Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon
1 LS
$45,000 /LS
$45,000
Electrical and Reflectors
1 LS
$150,000 /1-S
$150,000
Perimeter Fencing
16800 LF
$3 11F
$50,400
Engineering and Administrative
$392,000
TOTAL:
$3,008,150
PROJECT TOTAL: $8,311,835
1-38
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
3. Alternative #3 - Adjacent site to the south, ultimate B-II standards
Alternate #3 would move the entire airport about one mile to the south-southeast. Additional land would be
purchased and the pavements reconstructed to B-II width and safety spacing standards. Alternative #3 would
lie within sections 20, 29, and 32 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. The approximate elevation of an
airport at this location would be 2,930 feet above mean sea level. It is depicted as Figure 17.
This option fits the ultimate RPZ between the highway and railroad right of ways on the south, and narrowly
misses the west edge of the cemetery on the north. One full-length parallel taxiway, a single large apron, and
hangar access taxiways would be constructed on the east side of the property, providing easy access to
Highway 93. Additional property is purchased on the north end to construct a replacement connection between
Highway 93 and the west side of Cemetery Road.
A. Airspace Obstructions
A FAR Part 77 obstruction map for this site is shown in Figure 18. The dimensional criteria used for
establishing the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are based on an airport reference code of B-lI with a 1-mile
approach minimum.
Two existing radio towers penetrating the horizontal surface, but not the approach surface south of the airport
would be removed. Two large fixed cranes for constructing log homes would be in or near the ultimate
approach, and need to be relocated. Terrain would penetrate about 100 feet into the conical surface on both
sides of the southern extended centerline. Both conical and horizontal surface penetrations would parallel the
runway on the south and west sides. The largest terrain penetration would be about 900 feet, located west-
southwest of the field.
Penetrations of the Part 77 approach, horizontal, and conical surfaces warrant the lowest ranking.
Score Description of Ranking
Adverse airspace factors that severely limit aircraft operations.
B. Expandability
Alternate #3 moves about one mile south of alternatives #1 and #2. The intensity of residential and business
development is diminished slightly, but this site could expect to see significant urbanization and inflation of
land values within the next ten years. Length expansion to 95% or 100% of the small aircraft fleet is possible,
but will require disruptive purchase & relocation of several south -end businesses (Figure 17). Eventual
expansion to ultimate runway length will bring the north end close to Ashley Creek, and the south end wedged
between highway and railroad right of ways.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderate limitations to site expansion.
C. Wind Alignment
Option #3 would be a 165-degree (true), or 15-33 runway alignment. This proposed alignment would have
about a 95.2% coverage at a 10.5 knot crosswind component, and a 97.6% coverage at 13 knots using wind
data from Glacier Park International Airport about ten statute miles from the site. The available wind data may
show more pronounced valley currents than those manifested at site #3. Wind alignment is given a medium
ranking since it does meet small aircraft standards, but is not the most favorable alignment.
1-39
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Score Description of Ranking
2 Alignment has less than 10.5 knot crosswind component 95% of the time.
D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
Site #3 lies about one mile out of Glacier Park International Airport's Class E airspace where it extends to the
ground, but is still underneath GPIA's Class E extension with a 700-foot floor. If a person argued that this
south end of the city classified as an "uncongested area," it would be possible to land and depart aircraft from
both ends of this proposed alignment without penetrating GPIA's Class E airspace, but a standard pattern
would lie almost entirely in the Class E airspace. Alternative #3 would displace the airport from FCA's
precision approach path enough to avoid significant conflict. This site's improvement over the currently
coexisting airspaces results in a rating of 3.
Score Description of Ranking
Approach and traffic patterns have significant separation.
E. Instrument Capabilities
Alternate #3 has two cranes at a log home production facility that would probably protrude into a 1-mile
minimum, straight -in instrument approach from the south. These man-made structures would need to be
removed, requiring the expense and inconvenience of relocating the construction facility.
Score Description of Ranking
2 20:1 slopes are currently obstructed by an alterable obstruction.
F. Proximity to Other Airports
This proposed site just to the south of the existing airport shares all the benefits of the current site.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base.
G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Alternate #3 appears to have radar and communications coverage to the ground on the north, but not the south
end. Pattern altitude has line of sight contact with the radar facility, though it would be near the edge of the
coverage range. Spotty ground coverage earns this site a medium rating.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Marginal coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
H. Public Acceptance / Support
This slightly more southerly site would continue to provide access to the community and area businesses that
generates much of the airport's current community support. The potential airspace conflict with the log -home
construction cranes would probably generate some local opposition.
Score Description of Ranking
1-40
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
2 Moderate support and public acceptance.
I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
Site #3 would effect several businesses on its south end and alter the connection to the west side of Cemetery
Road. This option would move the airport further out of town, but would retain easy access from Highway 93
and from an anticipated highway bypass along the old railroad grade.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderately consistent with regional development plans.
J. Compatible Land Use
Alternative #3 would move the airport into an area of primarily light industrial and commercial use (see Figure
17). There would be some surrounding residential areas, but they would be off to the sides, rather than in the
runway approaches. This proposed site would have clear runway protection zones (RPZ's).
Score Description of Ranking
No surrounding non -compatible land use.
K. Development / Land Costs
Land costs around Site #3 appear to be slightly less expensive than the prime land under the existing airport,
but much more expensive than more remote sites (Table 10). Like the remote sites, this alternative would
require acquisition of the entire parcel the airport would be constructed on -- none of this land is currently
owned by the city. Associated land costs, while not as high as the two "close -in" sites, are in the neighborhood
of two million dollars (Table 11).
Score Description of Ranking
2 Between 75% and 125% of the average development costs of all sites.
L. Surface Transportation Impacts
Paved access to the west side of Cemetery Road would have to be relocated around the north end of the site #3
runway RPZ (Figure 17). The existing road could continue to provide in and out access to the cemetery and
residences to the east of a future airport. The road relocation would probably increase traffic slightly on
Airport Road as an alternative access to the west side of Cemetery Road.
Score Description of Ranking
Major surface transportation impacts or many people affected by changes.
M. Proximity to Kalispell
Site #3 moves the airport about one mile further south of town. The airport would still be within walking
distance of a number of city businesses, although no longer a short walk. Travel between the airport and the
city of Kalispell would be a short drive and easy access.
1-41
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
TABLE 10
ALTERNATIVE #3 - LAND
COSTS
Amount
Required -
Uneconomic
Remnant -
Size Price /
Required
Extension
Remnant
Extension
Tract
Owner
(acres) Acre*
(acres)
Price
(acres)
Price
Section 20,
T28N, R21W
5
Seiler Family Trust
3.09 $43,560
3.09
$134,600
5CE
Seiler Family Trust
0.55 $43,560
0.55
$24,045
5GC
Seiler Family Trust
2.97 $43,560
0.96
$41,942
2.01
$87,431
6+
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
57.92 $6,534
0.86
$5,645
0.89
$5,819
Section 29, T28N, R21W
3
Josephine R. Siderius Living Trust
21.08
$6,534
8.02
$52,398
0.03
$203
3C
Flathead County
9.47
$10,890
5.20
$56,628
3D+
Patricia A. Sanders, et.al.
38.78
$6,534
4.37
$28,532
0.11
$695
3F
Top Notch Land Co.
2.01
$21,780
1.62
$35,272
5F
Johnson Trailer Parks
1.41
$21,780
28.74
$625,940
5G+
Patricia A. Sanders, et.al.
79.7
$6,534
54.69
$357,321
6.34
$41,396
12+
Flathead County - Includes 12, 12A, 12AA
24.71
$6,534
12.85
$83,933
0.50
$3,298
12B
Seiler Family Trust
10.43
$6,534
2.94
$19,223
12C
Flathead County
2.29
$21,780
2.29
$49,876
13+
Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise
78.6
$6,534
4.27
$27,889
6.36
$41,553
Section 32,
T28N, R21W
1
Treweek Family Partnership
6.4
$32,670
1.13
$36,760
1B
Brian V. & Teresa R. Cannavaro
6.52
$32,670
3.24
$105,796
1CA
Ashley Creek Ranchers Owners Association
0.56
$43,560
0.56
$24,394
1D
Kalispell Montana Log Homes
2.83
$43,560
2.37
$103,365
1FA
Treweek Construction Co. Inc
0.39
$21,780
0.39
$8,494
1FC
Top Notch Land Co.
18.64
$6,534
11.08
$72,422
6+
Betty Ann Fields Trust
63.86
$6,534
1.46
$9,547
0.30
$1,985
RoW
MDOT (?)
?
$43,560
0.60
$25,941
0.06
$2,649
22
151.27 $1,929,965
14 Landowners Non -city owned acreage: 167.87
16.60
$185,029
*Preliminary simple land value of the portion to be acquired determined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves an opinion of value bat does not have an appraisal or an appraisal review as its
primary purpose). Hall-Widdoss and Company, P.C., Map 200l.
1-42
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
11 01 11114 ► Ell 1 ^11,81 1,01,1 s ►1 or IR 1
hWrovermnt Costs
Number
Unit value
Total Expense
Single Family Residence
0
$120,000
$0
Mobile Hoare
2
$15,000
$30,000
Garage
0
$50,000
$0
Hangar / Large Shop
6
$130,000
$780,000
Business - Montana Log Homes
1
$664,000
$664,000
Relocation Expenses
5
$6,000
$30,000
TOTAL:
$1,504,000
Cost to Cure
Tree Clearing $0
Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0
TOTAL: $0
Number of
Adninistrative Costs Landowners Unit value Total Expense
Appraisal 14 $5,000 $70,000
Review Appraisal 14 $1,800 $25,200
Negotiations 14 $6,000 $84,000
TOTAL: $179,200
Score Description of Ranking
2 Slightly more removed from local businesses. Could be served by municipal
emergency services.
N. Environmental Consequences
There are few environmental concerns at site #3. The north end is an existing gravel pit, the south end is
currently developed. The middle section is farmed, so from an environmental standpoint can be considered
already disturbed ground.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Minimal or no environmental consequences.
O. Floodplains / Wetlands
Even though the Alternative #3 is within a quarter mile of Ashely Creek, it is out of the 500-year flood plain
(Figure 19). A check of the national wetlands inventory shows very limited emergent palustrine wetlands
within or adjacent to the selected Site 3 property (see Figure 20). Minor relocation of affected emergent
wetlands could be accomplished on the projected property purchase.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Minor incursion into a floodplain or wetland with simple, economical fix
apparent.
1-43
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
graphic&cdr
RM11 X`-- �_ _ RM109`�
19
�ry
V 29�1 2I Roade
ASULET I f�
ZONE A7 CREEK
ZONE* B
ZONE B
2919
\ LIMITOF !I J f
ZONE C — DETAILEDSTUDY
CEMETERY ROAD !i
30
�29
ZONE A
Sit 3
KEY TO MAP
500-Ycar Flood Boundary --- -
20rq B
_
100-Year Flood Boundary
Zone D-iFcations
-
-
I
100-Year Flood Boundary - -
ZUHE B=';
500-Year Flood Boundary —
Base I -loud Elevation Line
513
Wilh El—u iun In feet"
li,— I loud Elcv.niun iu 1 -1
IEL 987)
Wh— Unilunn Within /one`*
Ll .atlon h 1 xe b1ar6
RM7X
/ocDB. 1 v --
—
Ri,-rN1Ile
•M1.5
--Rcferrnced to the National C;eodeli, Vcrllral
Dew. of 1929
LOW
r---5
ZONE
y� ZONE B—
~
`x. ZONE B
' x•. �— ZONE B-
Iq
ZONE
Y �
RM111f
ZONE B
ZONE
-10
' 4
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996
Scale in Feet
0m1000 Figure 19
500 Alternative #3
1-44
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
(LI
-0
M
CO
M
U)
.0
<U
rJ
U-
M
V,
E
M
(n C,
U)
a
M
=
2 w
a
-00 <
UJ
<
<
w
w
w
w
w
L.
0
D
D
Z)
-w
0
M m
'
0
-0 -0
F2
—0
(D
OL
LL
L-L
i:L
OL
LL
CL
OL
LL
OL
12L
LL
w
05
cc
LC (J)
e-)
1,2
Uj
—3
0
L M
0
Ll- 1
000
0
M
0
M
0
0
0
2
C)
z
R
LD
U
cc
(D
0
c
(D
E
C:
0
c
W
C:)
co
LL
o6o
L C)
E
0 c
U) 0
Figure 20
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory - Site 3
1-45
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
P. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Alternative #3 would retain a close enough proximity to Kalispell pilots and businesses to continue bringing
tourism dollars into the local economy, and remain economical for local use.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Significant economic benefit to Kalispell.
Q. Available Infrastructure
Alternate #3 would reap some infrastructure benefits from its close proximity to town. Roads, power,
telephone, and cable TV are in -place. One or more wells would need to be drilled for community or individual
water supplies. A community drain field would be less expensive than the lift station required to transport
waste to the municipal treatment facility. Table 12 shows expected infrastructure costs for site #3.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Some infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are
required. Some additional maintenance / construction costs likely.
1-46
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
1:
Item Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1 Land, Inprovernents, and Relocation
Land Purchase (168 AC)
1 LS
$1,929,965 /LS
$1,929,965
Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase
1 LS
$185,029 /LS
$185,029
Improvements Cost
1 LS
$1,504,000 /LS
$1,504,000
Cost to Cure
1 IS
$0 /LS
$0
Administrative Costs
1 LS
$179,200 /L S
$179,200
TOTAL:
$3,798,194
2 Infrastructure
Radio Tower Replacement (Paran Style)
1 IS
$400,000 /LS
$400,000
Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide)
0 IF
$25 /LF
$0
Paved Road Relocation (30' wide)
3500 LF
$50 /LF
$175,000
Bury Power Lines
1000 LF
$20 /LF
$20,000
Relocate High Voltage Power Lines
0 LF
$50 /LF
$0
Well / Municipal Water Connection
1 IS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection
1 LS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection
1 IS
$5,000 /LS
$5,000
Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System
2 EA
$50,000 /EA
$100,000
Drainage Structures
300 LF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle)
1 LS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Paved Access Road
1000 LF
$30 /LF
$30,000
Engineering and Administrative
$117,000
TOTAL:
$899,500
3 Airport Construction
Excavation and Embankment
96,000 CY
$3 /CY
$288,000
Crushed Base Course
32,000 CY
$25 /CY
$800,000
Prue Coat
175 TON
$250 /TON
$43,750
Bituminous Surface Course
20,500 TON
$30 /TON
$615,000
Asphalt Cement
1,435 TON
$300 /TON
$430,500
Drainage Culverts
300 LF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Pavement Markings
1 LS
$18,000 /LS
$18,000
Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer
108 EA
$1,000 /EA
$108,000
Seed, Fertilize and Mulch
50 AC
$900 /AC
$45,000
Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon
1 LS
$45,000 /L.S
$45,000
Electrical and Reflectors
1 LS
$150,000 /LS
$150,000
Perimeter Fencing
16350 IF
$3 /LF
$49,050
Engineering and Administrative
$392,000
TOTAL:
$3,006,800
' G � X61ac6ilI���i
$7,704,494
1-47
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
4. Alternative #4 - Five miles east-southeast of Kalispell, ultimate B-II standards
Alternate #4 would construct a new airport about 5 miles SSE of the city of Kalispell. Land would be
purchased and pavements constructed to B-H width and safety spacing standards. Alternative #4 would lie
within sections 13 and 24 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. The approximate elevation of an airport
at this location would be 2,960 feet above mean sea level. It is depicted as Figure 21.
This site would be reached by traveling east on State Highway 35 about 5 miles, then continuing south onto
Montford Road for an additional 2.5 miles. One full-length parallel taxiway, a single large apron, and hangar
access taxiways would be constructed on the east side of the property, providing easy access to Montford Road.
This option would be surrounded by agricultural land and a few scattered farmhouses. The proposed property
boundary extends to quarter -quarter sections, rather than leave narrow strip remnants. Rerouting of traffic on
the existing network of roads was assumed where Egan Road and a smaller access road would be severed, so
additional land was not purchased for road relocation.
A. Airspace Obstructions
A FAR Part 77 obstruction map for this site is shown in Figure 22. The dimensional criteria used for
establishing the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are based on an airport reference code of B-11 with a 1-mile
minimum approach.
An overhead power line would require burial, rather than penetrate the primary surface. There are no
penetrations of other Part 77 surfaces, nor of approach surfaces.
Score Description of Ranking
No limiting or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations.
B. Expandability
Alternate #4 lies in relatively open farmland. Development options are essentially unlimited at this location as
is evident in Figure 21.
Score Description of Ranking
No limitations to site expansion.
C. Wind Alignment
Option #4 would be a 180-degree (true), or 16-34 runway alignment. This proposed alignment would have
about a 96.8% coverage at a 10.5 knot crosswind component, and a 98.7% coverage at 13 knots using wind
data from Glacier Park International Airport about ten statute miles from the site. Wind alignment is given the
highest ranking since it easily exceeds small aircraft standards, and is near optimum siting alignment.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Aligned close to the most favorable winds.
D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
Site #4 lies about one mile outside of Glacier Park International Airport's Class E "keyhole" airspace.
Standard approaches could be made to both ends of this proposed runway without entering GPIA's airspace.
Alternative #4 would be about 2 nautical miles west of the FCA VOR and GPS approach, and under the
missed approach hold pattern. Standard operating procedures would provide over 1500-feet of vertical
separation between aircraft using the two airports. This proposed location would also lie under Victor airway
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
231 coming from Missoula. Alternative #4 would lie near the outer edge of the 4 nautical -mile wide federal
airway, and have a pattern altitude below it's 1200-foot (AGL) floor. While there are some horizontal overlaps
of usable airspace, vertical separations are sufficient to insure safety.
Score Description of Ranking
Approach and traffic patterns have significant separation.
E. Instrument Capabilities
Alternate #4 has clear approach slopes in both directions. It is just a few miles from an existing VOR and has
communications and radar coverage clear to the ground with Salt Lake City Center. In short, this location is
well -suited to establishing a future instrument approach.
Score Description of Ranking
20:1 slopes are clear.
F. Proximity to Other Airports
Site #4 is about 8 nautical miles south of Glacier Park International Airport, and 10 nautical miles from
Ferndale, the local turf strip. The current VFR chart shows an additional 3 private -use turf strips within 5
nautical miles.
From the intersection of US Highway 2 and Highway 93 it is about 8.3 road miles to proposed site #4 versus
8.8 miles to Glacier Park International. Having two airports nearly equidistant from Kalispell's city center will
place them in competition for Kalispell's GA aircraft. Ferndale is about 20 road miles from Kalispell.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Site would serve a moderate area with some overlap in service base.
G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Alternate #4 appears to have radar and communications coverage to the ground, on both approaches, and in the
pattern.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Clear coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
H. Public Acceptance / Support
This "removed" site would deprive Kalispell of community and business access that generates much of the
airport's current community support. Location #4 would involve far fewer land owners than the first three
proposed sites, so would hopefully generate less opposition to land acquisition.
Score Description of Ranking
Minimal support and public acceptance.
1-49
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
Location of an airport at proposed site #4 would not harm previously planned items due to its isolated location.
It would, however, be less supportive of city planning to include an airport as a direct and integral part of their
transportation infrastructure.
Score Description of Ranking
Moderately consistent with regional development plans.
J. Compatible Land Use
Alternative #4 would move the airport to an agricultural area with the Flathead River to the south and Egan
Slough to the east (Figure 21). The water bodies could attract a few birds, but conflicts with human activity
would be minimal. This proposed site would have clear runway protection zones (RPZ's).
Score Description of Ranking
No surrounding non -compatible land use.
K. Development / Land Costs
Land costs at this proposed "rural" location are much more reasonable than the urban properties of sites 1-3.
Alternative #4 would require acquisition of the entire parcel the airport would be constructed on -- none of this
land is currently owned by the city. Land cost estimates are included in Table 13, with associated costs in
Table 14.
Score Description of Ranking
Less than 75% of the average development cost of all sites..
L. Surface Transportation Impacts
Alternative #4 would sever two unimproved roads that give local residences the option of traveling on either of
two north -south feeders (see Figure 21). The few individuals traveling these roads would be left with in and
out connections. If changes to traffic routings is unacceptable, alternate connections could be constructed with
less than 3/4 of a mile of gravel roads.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people
impacted.
M. Proximity to Kalispell
Site #4 moves the airport to about the same distance from town as Glacier International Airport. This proposed
location is about eight road miles from town. The airport would be reliant on loaner/courtesy cars for
connecting itinerant pilots with city businesses.
This location would be sufficiently removed from the city to preclude municipal fire and police protection. It
would be served by a county volunteer fire department and county sheriff. Ambulance response time to the site
would be slightly longer, but would still be provided by the Flathead Regional Medical Center.
USU
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
Amount
Required -
Uneconomic
Remnant -
Size
Price /
Required
Extension
Remnant
Extension
Tract
Owner
(acres)
Acre*
(acres)
Price
(acres)
Price
Section 13,
T28N, R21W
1
Wauneta F. Roth
28.59
$4,000
9.87
$39,480
7.81
$31,241
I AB
John F. & Louis B. Hammett
26.78
$4,000
8.63
$34,532
18.15
$72,588
1C
Flathead County - Includes IA & iCC (roadway)
3.18
$8,000
0.83
$6,678
0.13
$1,071
lE
John F. & Louis B. Hammett
23.93
$4,000
10.54
$42,145
14.06
$56,223
4B
Flathead County (roadway)
4.54
$8,000
1.05
$8,409
4D
Mark & Cindy Passmore
33.82
$4,000
33.82
$135,280
4DA
Mark & Cindy Passmore
33.82
$4,000
2.48
$9,923
2.56
$10,222
Section 24,
T28N, R21W
1+
Merle J. Baldwin Rev. Trust
156.96
$3,200
34.64
$110,838
37.64
$120,445
4+
J. Larry & Ruth Passmore Trust
79.1
$3,200
36.40
$116,468
2.58
$8,255
9
6 Landowners Non -city owned acreage:
221.18
TOTALS:
138.26
$503,752
82.92
$300,045
*Preliminary
simple land value of the portion to be acquired determined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves
an opinion oj'value
but does not have
an appraisal or an appraisal
revieiv as
its primary purpose).
Hall-Widdosr and Company, P.C., May 2001.
c. J_ it:'
hwroveinent Costs
Number
Unit value
Total Expense
Single Family Residence
0
$120,000
$0
Mobile Horne
0
$15,000
$0
Garage
0
$50,000
$0
Hangar / Large Shop
0
$130,000
$0
Relocation Expenses
0
$6,000
$0
TOTAL:
$0
Cost to Cure
Tree Clearing $0
Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0
TOTAL: $0
Number of
Administrative Costs Landowners Unit value Total Expense
Appraisal 6 $5,000 $30,000
Review Appraisal 6 $1,800 $10,800
Negotiations 6 $6,000 $36,000
TOTAL- $76,800
1-51
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Score Description of Ranking
Over five minutes by car from local businesses. Served by county emergency
services.
N. Environmental Consequences
Environmental consequences would most likely be limited to construction impacts and consideration of
farmland impacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). This entire site is privately farmed,
essentially precluding 4(f), historical, and cultural resource impacts on this "disturbed" ground. The slough to
the east, and Flathead River to the south could generate some conflict with waterfowl, but probably not much
more than most of the Flathead Valley.
Score Description of Ranking
Minimal or no environmental consequences.
O. Floodplains / Wetlands
This location is on a raised section out of both the 100- and 500-year flood plain (Figure 23). The national
wetlands inventory shows no wetlands on the proposed site (Figure 24).
Score Description of Ranking
No floodplains or wetlands are impacted.
P. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Alternative #4 could significantly decrease the economic boon the Kalispell City Airport has traditionally
contributed to the community. Many local pilots would find travel to Glacier Park International easier and or
quicker than the trip to this proposed site. This alternative lacks the excellent location that has captured much
of the local GA traffic from the extensive array of services available at GPIA. Likewise, this site lacks the
close connection to Kalispell businesses that has so successfully captured itinerant tourist dollars.
Score Description of Ranking
Minimal or no economic benefit to Kalispell.
Q. Available Infrastructure
Alternate #4 would have the weakest system of infrastructure of all sites considered (Table 15). One or more
wells would need to be drilled for community or individual water supplies. A community or individual drain
fields would need to be installed. Power is available, but would likely need to be buried, at least at crossings
near the runway ends. Gas, cable TV, fiber optic lines, fences, and fuel storage would all need to be
constructed / connected to the site.
Score Description of Ranking
Few infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are
required. Significant additional maintenance / construction costs likely.
1-52
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
grcphic8.cdr
RM119
y I aAgUETTE ROAD
I RM130
I ZONE A-
KEY TO MAP
500-Year Flood-
100-Year Flood Boundary
Zone Dr ig..ations
100-Year Flood Boundary - -
ZONE A
500-Year Flood Boundary --- -
Base hood Line
513
With Ek—ttmt In Feet•"
H— Flood Etceetion rn Feet
(EL 987)
Whare Uniform Within TonN'
Elevation Rcferan<e Mark
RM7x
,one D Bou ndary -
Ri", Milc
•M1.5
-*R,f--ed to the National Grodelic V ,I-
l Datum of 1929
ZONE C
FLOODING EFFECTS I
FROMRIVER FLATHEAD 181
----
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996
Scale in Feet
om1 o00
500
Figure 23
Alternative #4
1-53
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
F7
a
M
�
M
C Q
X
mE
t
yam+
�
1.11
91
o ,n +
� C
m Q
Da
Z
z
�l
ra=
a-,U)LLI
m
CLCLCL
m
a-
O
oir
=
'°
�
a
v
cc
-_
C
CO
Crc
(U
J ❑
E3
0
❑
❑
El
❑
❑
--_.
0
4h
409
c
0
0
i'
0
m
c
0
U
m
C
(D
E
C
O
C
W
_O
o
0_ (V
N N
w �
'n LL
NW
u E
U
ci U
C
(A O
Figure 24
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory - Site 4
1-54
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
•
Item Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1 Land, Iniprovearents, and Relocation
Land Purchase (138 AC)
1 LS
$503,752 /LS
$503,752
Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase
1 LS
$300,045 /LS
$300,045
Improvements Cost
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Cost to Cure
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Administrative Costs
1 LS
$76,800 /LS
$76,800
TOTAL:
$880,597
2 Infrastructure
Radio Tower Replacement (Paran Style)
0 LS
$400,000 /LS
$0
Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide)
0 LF
$25 /LF
$0
Paved Road Relocation (30' wide)
0 LF
$50 /IF
$0
Bury Power Lines
1300 LF
$20 /LF
$26,000
Relocate High Voltage Power Lines
0 IF
$50 /LF
$0
Well / Municipal Water Connection
1 IS
$10,000 /I S
$10,000
Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection
1 LS
$10,000 /IS
$10,000
Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection
1 LS
$5,000 /IS
$5,000
Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System
2 EA
$50,000 /EA
$100,000
Drainage Structures
300 LF
$75 /L.F
$22,500
Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle)
1 LS
$10,000 /IS
$10,000
Paved Access Road
2000 LF
$30 /IF
$60,000
Engineering and Administrative
$37,000
TOTAL:
$280,500
3 Airport Construction
Excavation and Embankment 96,000 CY $3 /CY $288,000
Crushed Base Course 32,000 CY $25 /CY $800,000
Prime Coat 175 TON $250 /TON $43,750
Bituminous Surface Course
20,500 TON
$30 /TON
$615,000
Asphalt Cement
1,435 TON
$300 /TON
$430,500
Drainage Culverts
300 IF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Pavement Markings
1 LS
$18,000 /L.S
$18,000
Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer
108 EA
$1,000 /EA
$108,000
Seed, Fertilize and Mulch
50 AC
$900 /AC
$45,000
Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon
1 IS
$45,000 /IS
$45,000
Electrical and Reflectors
1 LS
$150,000 /LS
$150,000
Perimeter Fencing
16500 IF
$3 /LF
$49,500
Engineering and Administrative
$392,000
TOTAL:
$3,007,250
PROJECT TOTAL:
$4,168,347
1-55
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
5. Alternative #5 - Five miles east of Kalispell, ultimate B-II standards
Alternate #5 would construct a new airport about 5 miles east of the city of Kalispell. Land would be
purchased and pavements constructed to B-II width and safety spacing standards. Alternative #5 would lie
within sections 1 and 12 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. The approximate elevation of an airport
at this location would be 2,935 feet above mean sea level. It is depicted as Figure 25.
This site would be reached by traveling about 5 miles east on State Highway 35, then continuing south onto
Montford Road for an additional half mile. One full-length parallel taxiway, a single large apron, and hangar
access taxiways would be constructed on the east side of the property, providing easy access to Montford Road.
This option would be surrounded by agricultural land, and a few scattered farm houses. An ultimate length
runway would be bounded by Highway 35 to the north, and a small creek to the south. There are unburieable
power lines on the north side of Highway 35 (about 1300-feet off the ultimate runway end) and heading off
from the north end to the southwest. Rerouting of traffic on the existing network of roads was assumed where
Holt Stage Road would be severed, so additional land was not purchased for road relocation.
A. Airspace Obstructions
A FAR Part 77 obstruction map for this site is shown in Figure 26. The dimensional criteria used for
establishing the Part 77 imaginary surfaces are based on an airport reference code of B-II with a 1-mile
approach minimum.
An overhead power line crossing the proposed runway location would require burial rather than penetrate the
primary surface. A high voltage power line in the north approach could be relocated further north. There are
no other penetrations of Part 77 or approach surfaces. A relatively new cell phone tower lies about 2 miles
ENE of the site, and the VFR chart shows an additional dual tower about 2 miles west of this proposed runway,
but neither would penetrate Part 77 surfaces.
Score Description of Ranking
3 No limiting or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations.
B. Expandability
Alternate #5 lies in relatively open farmland. There are no impediments to development options up to a
runway length including 100% of the small aircraft fleet (Figure 25).
Score Description of Ranking
No limitations to site expansion.
C. Wind Alignment
Option #5 would be a 180-degree (true), or 16-34 runway alignment. This proposed alignment would have
about a 96.8% coverage at a 10.5 knot crosswind component, and a 98.7% coverage at 13 knots using wind
data from Glacier Park International Airport about eight statute miles from the site. Wind alignment is given
the highest ranking since it easily exceeds small aircraft standards, and is near optimum siting alignment.
Score Description of Ranking
Aligned close to the most favorable winds.
1-56
PART 77: OBSTRUCTION DATA TABLE
PART 77 SURFACE I MAXIMUM
DISPOSITION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
I PENETRATION IPENETRATION
OVERHEAD POWER
APPROACH 10'
RELOCATE
OVERHEAD POWER
I PRIMARY 30
BURY
t
— 328544
i
-�,_ , _sex_- __� • r� �_ - r _ _._ - - --- ---
,t fj
w:.
'T.
1
Y r
3185 �y
0
3085
ra
f�
f
—
�t.
n I
_-R ao >
Ld
`1 / - I .t � I `1 '€` � •I�' . 1 a _ � a,�" f . ■ �\,'• I _r as � �:� ��' ✓' - :, •�k- t° r �,
Im
���s-- 1 �'_ 2'; :g.-, :: I. -�"A ..1 .•I .. _ X' � a6_ ram'' �. ,. C, �#•;� :tS �- yy 4�
1 I' - .,,I - II =iF •: �•I I .�i-� \\.� � .r. m o it_ V
a
t
,
r
I \
R
It
g�
t
T
1 _
" f�� --___ _ _ _ t.- � 7 _ � � = _ •�-.i��n=*,'•, €-¢'. -_ •-:'.? - .� � '•li�'' it r• s�". t fwV:- _
r
.. , ;.. ! g: 4 "-4_ • �- .," J l II . . _
Jx w ..NJ i,.--.. _ ,3�, ,�_��� `�.. Cj%�rinlj:, t•�=',y�il ��: ,�k f, :.�: ��, Ilt: --7 .�=yr-��'-'- - r �.. __-... ��
a r ;•1
_ f
F
IIA
r
. .1. -- �_.. __ ' ... :' .� _` _ .3. - 1 ....?� t _,r.- �- -�-- _ .:��, � gyp.,,. rs f' •I y,f - -_4Z,
cc
�:.F. - _. 1.. ._ _Y�t Yt 2 ,fie.- 'j' r.. ■ xl E S (i -
71,
IL
Air 41"
r-
.
. : _ .... .. ......:. ': .. r• ... ... ._ __ �,: _.�.s-.r _,- ?. .. ., .__. iiJJ - .. .. �.' � \ -• (( tea' -� /'� C - -
�"' ,. „•....r: ram.- `k ..- 4 __ _ µa„_.:. .. -.. • -- • - � ``.' � > _ ,. �"-.,.
S!
-. _ . ,_: .- a'_t.� .7 �'. .- n4r. -. _# ., .• F. '_l^�.�'' � f _ � .f '.ri'a: k` y � r _ _ _ f _ _ _ __ _ _ -..X
t h -. -„- ,. - -... f •,Q r2.- ,°` -. a .i.,. r.,: I ,. r .. C'� if_ �-''� �"; - _'y`
r r
fa ul
t
` - - _•
n
... :.,. -}. ■ • •,,.. •t-. - . . ._- °+. is �zs'5;.;,i . {
1�i g
rF M
,
3•
F
v =n >
-
Ic
It
cc
SHEET
v�.
{�
3mt
� 4 .................�, 4.. - or. 4
y
Vo � ._ r 3000
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)
Site #5 lies just under the edge of Glacier Park International Airport's Class E 700-foot floored airspace.
Standard approaches could be made only to the south end of this proposed runway without entering GPIA's
airspace. Alternative #5 would be just over one nautical mile west of the FCA VOR and GPS approach, and
under the missed approach hold pattern. Standard operating procedures would provide over 1500-feet of
vertical separation between aircraft using the two airports. This proposed location would also lie under Victor
airway 231 coming from Missoula. Alternative #5 would lie under the 4 nautical -mile wide federal airway,
and have a pattern altitude below it's 1200-foot (AGL) floor. While there are some horizontal overlaps of
usable airspace, vertical separations are sufficient to insure safety.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Approach and traffic patterns have significant separation.
E. Instrument Capabilities
Alternate #5 has clear approach slopes in both directions. It is just a mile from an existing VOR and has
communications and radar coverage clear to the ground with Salt Lake City Center. In short, this location is
well -suited to establishing a future instrument approach.
Score Description of Ranking
3 20:1 slopes are clear.
F. Proximity to Other Airports
Site #5 is about 6.5 nautical miles south of Glacier Park International Airport, and 11 nautical miles from
Ferndale, the local turf strip. The current VFR chart shows an additional 3 private -use turf strips within 6
nautical miles.
From the intersection of US Highway 2 and Highway 93 it is about 8.1 road miles to proposed site #5 versus
8.8 miles to Glacier Park International. Having two airports nearly equidistant from Kalispell's city center will
place them in competition for Kalispell's GA aircraft. Ferndale is about 20 road miles from Kalispell.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Site would serve a moderate area with some overlap in service base.
G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage
Alternate #5 appears to have radar and communications coverage to the ground, on both approaches, and in the
pattern.
Score Description of Ranking
Clear coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO.
H. Public Acceptance / Support
This "removed" site would deprive Kalispell of community and business access that generates much of the
airport's current community support. Location #5 would involve only a handful of landowners, so would
hopefully generate less opposition to land acquisition.
I -57
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
Score Description of Ranking
Minimal support and public acceptance.
I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning
Alternative #5 would be less supportive of city planning to include an airport as a direct and integral part of
their transportation infrastructure. This proposed site would be remote enough, it would not run counter to
existing development
Score Description of Ranking
2 Moderately consistent with regional development plans.
J. Compatible Land Use
Alternative #5 would move the airport to a rural agricultural area with the Flathead River and Shaws Slough to
the northwest, and McWenneger Slough to the north (see Figure 25). A small creek with associated palustrine
wetlands would pass just to the south of the runway. The water bodies and wetlands could attract a few birds,
but conflicts with human activity would be minimal. At ultimate development length, a B-II (large) RPZ
would overlap several feet into the U.S. Highway 35 right-of-way in order to clear the creek and wetlands to
the south.
Score Description of Ranking
No surrounding non -compatible land use.
K. Development / Land Costs
Land costs at this proposed "rural" location are much more reasonable than the urban properties of sites 1-3
(Table 16). Alternative #5 would require acquisition of the entire parcel the airport would be constructed on --
none of this land is currently owned by the city. Associated land costs would be limited to appraisal, review
appraisal, and negotiation expenses (Table 17).
Score Description of Ranking
Less than 75% of the average development cost of all sites.
L. Surface Transportation Impacts
Alternative #5 would sever Holt Stage Road, requiring local residents to travel north one half mile to Highway
35, or one mile south to Jaquette Road (Figure 25). There are so few individuals traveling these roads, that
rerouting the travelers would be an acceptable option. If necessary, alternate connections could be constructed
with less than one mile of gravel roads.
Score Description of Ranking
No surface transportation facilities are impacted.
M. Proximity to Kalispell
Site #5 moves the airport just slightly closer to town than Glacier Park International Airport. This proposed
location is about six and one half road miles from town. The airport would be reliant on loaner/courtesy cars
for connecting itinerant pilots with city businesses.
w0i
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
TABLE
ALTERNATIVE #5 - LAND COSTS
Amount
Required -
Uneconomic
Remnant -
Size
Price /
Required
Extension
Remnant
Extension
Tract Owner
(acres)
Acre"
(acres)
Price
(acres)
Price
Section 01, T28N, R21W
3+ Mark & Cindy Passmore
43.79
$4,000
22.67
$90,692
21.12
$84,468
3H+ Logan Farms
45.11
$4,000
14.45
$57,816
30.66
$122,624
6 Logan Farms
9.9
$6,500
0.73
$4,744
9.17
$59,606
6C Mark & Cindy Passmore
3.58
$8,000
2.79
$22,348
0.79
$6,292
Roadway Holt Road
1.7
$8,000
1.70
$13,600
Section 12, T28N, R21W
2+ Dan L. & Judith A. Gorton
78.88
$3,200
64.69
$207,005
14.19
$45,411
3+ Pauline G. Miller, Trustee
154.38
$3,200
23.73
$75,942
7 5 Landowners Non -city owned acreage:
206.69
TOTALS:
130.77
$472,147
75.92
$318,401
*Preliminary simple land value of the portion to be acquired determined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves on opinion of value but does not have an appraisal or on appraisal revien• as its
primary purpose). Hall-Widdoss and Company, P.C., Map 2001.
ra .. • ` -►� •�. �•
Improvement Costs
Number
Unit value
Total Expense
Single Family Residence
0
$120,000
$0
Mobile Home
0
$15,000
$0
Garage
0
$50,000
$0
Hangar / Large Shop
0
$130,000
$0
Relocation Expenses
0
$6,00D
$0
TOTAL:
$0
Cost to Cure
Tree Clearing $0
Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0
TOTAL: $0
Number of
Administrative Costs
Landowners Unit value
Total Expense
Appraisal
5 $5,000
$25,000
Review Appraisal
5 $1,800
$9,000
Negotiations
5 $6,000
$30,000
TOTAL:
$64,000
This location would be sufficiently removed from the city to preclude municipal fire and police protection. It
would be served by a county volunteer fire department and county sheriff. Ambulance response time to the site
would be slightly longer, but would still be provided by the Flathead Regional Medical Center.
Score Description of Ranking
1 Over five minutes by car from local businesses. Served by county emergency
services.
1-59
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
N. Environmental Consequences
Environmental consequences would most likely be limited to construction impacts and consideration of
farmland impacts under the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). This entire site is privately farmed,
essentially precluding 4(f), historical, and cultural resource impacts on this "disturbed" ground. The sloughs
and Flathead River to the north, and wetlands to the south could generate some conflict with waterfowl, but
probably not much more than the remainder of the Flathead Valley.
Score Description of Ranking
3 Minimal or no environmental consequences.
O. Floodplains / Wetlands
This location is out of both the 100- and 500-year flood plain (Figure 27). The national wetlands inventory
shows palustrine wetlands just off the south runway end (Figure 28). The runway could be built to a length
sufficient for 95% of the small aircraft fleet without affecting the stream or wetlands, though for safety's sake
the stream could be directed into a culvert on the final approach path. Expansion to an ultimate proposed
length would require diversion of the stream into a culvert off the runway end and relocation of the associated
wetlands.
Score Description of Ranking
2 Minor incursion into a floodplain or wetland with simple, economical fix
apparent.
P. Economic Benefit to Kalispell
Alternative #5 could decrease the economic boon the Kalispell City Airport has traditionally contributed to the
community. Some local pilots could find travel to Glacier Park International easier and or quicker than the trip
to this proposed site. This alternative lacks the excellent location that has captured much of the local GA
traffic from the extensive array of services available at GPIA. Likewise, this site lacks the close connection to
Kalispell businesses that has so successfully captured itinerant tourist dollars.
Score Description of Ranking
Minimal or no economic benefit to Kalispell.
Q. Available Infrastructure
Alternate #5 would require significant infrastructure development. One or more wells would need to be drilled
for community or individual water supplies. Community or individual drain fields would need to be installed.
Power is available, but would require some relocation and conversion to underground lines. Gas, cable TV,
fiber optic lines, fences, and fuel storage would all need to be constructed / connected to the site (Table 18).
Score Description of Ranking
Few infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are
required. Significant additional maintenance / construction costs likely.
•/
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
.cdr
RM118
0
O
�. Site 5
i
Q 1 _l 2--
KEY TO MAP
500Ncar Flood Boundary -
.......
ZONE 0 -
100�Y-f Flood Boundary - - -
Zon' D-ignmiom --
100-Yaar Flood Boundary
500-Year Flood Boundary - ---
Base Flood I_Iceatln, Line
513
wish Ele, vino In Frey*
Bat' Flood Elr-tion Iu I e'I
lEL 987)
whrro Uu'(' n Wuhin %on'-'
LI,- ion KO—o- Wul,
RM7X
Lono D Bomtdary -
Ri— Mdr
•M1.5
"Iic(rr Cil Crd to In, National C— ud li, Vertical
Datum of 1929
3:'3
RM130
ZONE C
F4 2
I
16
ZONE A —
Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National
Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996
Scale in Feet
0 1000 Figure 27
500 Alternative #5
1-61
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
IV
M
ra
4
M
♦LJ.1
V
LT
r
Li
Q
CL
Li
CL
D
Q
CL
n
<
CL
<
W
CL
f 1
W
LL
L-
W
CL
<
�
CL
C
ww
0
LL
f�
W
CL
J
N
x
C
s
1
u
0
z
® ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ FA
-•
a�
`m
C Q
O X
(E �
C C
Vi
'O
O
M
2
C
C
M
a�
c
U? x
x
d
m
n (II
C
O
m
N
N
C
O
U
m
c
m
E
c
0
c
W
_o
2 o
U_ (V
L
(D m
U) 2
w �
N
>D LL
> U
060
.c U
.N W
E
N
� N
N U)
G N
� C
0
O C
fn 0
Figure 28
USFWS National Wetlands
Inventory - Site 5
1-62
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
Item Description
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total Cost
1 Land, Improvents, and Relocation
Land Purchase (131 AC)
1 LS
$472,147 /LS
$472,147
Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase
1 LS
$318,401 /LS
$318,401
Improvements Cost
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Cost to Cure
1 LS
$0 /LS
$0
Administrative Costs
1 LS
$64,000 /LS
$64,000
TOTAL:
$854,548
Radio Tower Replacement (Paran Style)
0 LS
$400,000 /L.S
$0
Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide)
0 LF
$25 /LF
$0
Paved Road Relocation (30' wide)
0 LF
$50 /LF
$0
Bury Power Lines
1300 LF
$20 /LF
$26,000
Relocate High Voltage Poor Lines
1000 LF
$50 /LF
$50,000
Well / Municipal Water Connection
1 LS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Dramfield/Municipal Sewer Connection
1 LS
$10,000 /LS
$10,000
Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection
1 LS
$5,000 /LS
$5,000
Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System
2 EA
$50,000 /EA
$100,000
Drainage Structures
300 LF
$75 IF
$22,500
Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle)
1 LS
$10,000 IS
$10,000
Paved Access Road
2000 LF
$30 /LF
$60,000
Engineering and Administrative
$44,000
TOTAL:
$337,500
3 Airport Construction
Excavation and Embankment
96,000 CY
$3 /CY
$288,000
Crushed Base Course
32,000 CY
$25 /CY
$800,000
Prime Coat
175 TON
$250 /TON
$43,750
Bituminous Surface Course
20,500 TON
$30 /TON
$615,000
Asphalt Cement
1,435 TON
$300 /TON
$430,500
Drainage Culverts
300 LF
$75 /LF
$22,500
Pavement Markings
1 LS
$18,000 /LS
$18,000
Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer
108 EA
$1,000 /EA
$108,000
Seed, Fertilize and Mulch
50 AC
$900 /AC
$45,000
Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon
1 LS
$45,000 /LS
$45,000
Electrical and Reflectors
1 LS
$150,000 /LS
$150,000
Perimeter Fencing
16800 LF
$3 /LF
$50,400
Engineering and Administrative
$392,000
TOTAL:
$3,008,150
PROJECT' TOTAL:
1-63
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
F. Alternative Recommendation
To determine site rankings, the projected total and relative costs of the projects are listed below in Table
19.
TABLE 19
PROJECT COST COMPARISON
Alternatives: #1 #2 1 #3 1 #4
Land, Improvements, & Relocation
Infrastructure
Airport Construction
TOTAL:
Percent of the Average:
$5,642,672 $4,613,685
$633,000 $690,000
$2,841,550 $3,008,150
$9,117,222 $8,311,835
136%
td n
$3,798,194
$880,597
$899,500
$280,500
$3,006,800
$3,007,250
$7,704,494
$4,168,347
115%
— Cn
CD
#5
AVERAGE
$854,548
$3,157,939
$337,500
$568,100
$3,008,150
$2,974,380
$4,200,198 $6,700,419
62% 63%
The site selection matrix compiles rankings for the five proposed sites in each of the evaluation categories,
weights each by the average importance from Table 3, and computes the weighted rankings. Summing
weighted rankings will give the best site the highest score. Table 20 indicates Alternative #2, the Current Site
with Modified Alignment is the preferred site with a score of 143.2, followed by Alternate #4 with 139.7
points. See Table 20 for the ranking matrix and comparative scores of other sites.
After careful evaluation of all the Alternatives considered for this location, it was recommended that the
Kalispell Municipal Airport be located and positioned as depicted in Alternative #2.
Following this recommendation, the Airport Board will publicly advertised and invite written public comments
before continuing with the Environmental Assessment portion of this Site Selection Study.
1-64
Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study
i
�+
v
kn
�O
to
t`
V)
M
-+
O
N
W)
V) oo
O
O
"t
t—
o0
t—
.
Cr
oo
.
.
--i
.
O
.
M
.
- {
.
M
.
In
.
'I
�
.
to
.
V�
.
[�
.
"°
.
�°
�
\C
Cr
N
�t
Ln
It
Vn
O
Wn
t`
O
M
O
oo
O
O
in
t`
t,
C,
M
00
t—
\.O
M
M
V
O
-+
O
oo
to
In
O
O
-t
dt
M
M
O1
w
O
M
M
O
N
M
N-
O,
-+
In
r-:\)
It
N
oo
t`
"It
M
O
00
O
N
M
t`
00
v)
M
O
Ln
Wn
It
N
*k
M
rn
N
0
Wn
I'D
O
M
Vn
N
o,
t`
O
O��
M
N
r-
O
O
t—
O
ON
\0
d'
rl
.-1
.-1
1
1-4
4
ri
00
00
�
N
M
00
O
N
t—
t—
00
Wn
Ln
O
to
Wn
N
O
M
O.,
N
In
M
\O
O
M
t`
N
•-+
C�
4
O
OC�\
N
N
-It
M
t-
M
1.0
CV
t—
N
M
-+
O
t_�
t�
O
Cr
M
IN
bA
+='
00
00
N
N
r
00
M
EGA
M
Cn
�°
�
•-�
�
M
U
a
4
M
M
M
M
cal
cV
7
wi
-+ "0 M V,) 00 O Wn N N
East
5 Miles
East Southeast
5 Miles
South
1 Mile
Current Site w/
Modified Alignment
Current Site w/
B-II Expansion
C
0
0
U
o
m
o
co
a.a
Con
.�
o
:�
°
U
a
¢
C4
-
0
0
0
4
a,U
Uw4
Aeronautical Non -aeronautical
1-65
Kalispell City Airport — Site Selection Study
141WIDMI J, 1143 4-re", 1,11-1444MMA
M M ANDIM WR COM"CH"L .174 01111M
LIUB = Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom
L2AB = Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed
PAB = Palustrine, Aquatic Bed
PENT = Palustrine, Emergent
PFO = Palustrine, Forested
PSS = Palustrine, Scrub -Shrub
PUB = Palustrine, Unconsolidated Bottom
PUS = Palustrine, Unconsolidated Shore
R2UB = Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom
R2US = Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Shore
R3UB = Riverine, Upper Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom
R4SB = Riverine, Intermittent, Streambed
Upland = Upland; Non -Wetland Area