Chapter 6 - Improvement AlternativesMASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Ka[ispe[[ City Airport
Chapter 6 IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATME5
6.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter, airside and landside facilities required to satisfy the demand for the long
range planning period were identified. The next step in the planning process is to evaluate reasonable
ways these facilities can be provided. There can be countless combinations of design alternatives,
but the alternatives presented here are those with the greatest potential for implementation.
Any development proposed for a master plan is evolved from an analysis of projected needs for a set
period of time. Though the needs were determined by the best methodology available, it cannot be
assumed that future events will not change these needs. The master planning process attempts to
develop a viable concept for meeting the needs caused by projected demands for the next twenty
years. However, no plan of action should be developed which may be inconsistent with the future
goals and objectives of the City of Kalispell and its citizens, who have a vested interest in the
development and operation of the airport.
The development alternatives for Kalispell City Airport can be categorized into two functional areas:
the airside (runway, navigational aids, taxiways, etc.) and landside (general aviation hangars, apron,
and terminal area). Within each of these areas, specific facilities are required or desired. In addition,
the utilization of the airport property to provide revenue support for the airport and to benefit the
economic development and well-being of the regional area must be considered.
Each functional area interrelates and affects the development potential of the others. Therefore, all
areas must be examined individually, than coordinated as a whole to ensure the final plan is
functional, efficient, and cost-effective. The total impact of all these factors on the existing airport
must be evaluated to determine if the investment in Kalispell City Airport will meet the needs of the
community, both during and beyond the planning period.
The alternatives considered are compared using environmental, economic, and aviation factors to
determine which of the alternatives will best fulfill the local aviation needs. With this information, as
well as the input and direction from local government agencies and airport users, a final airport
concept can evolve into a realistic development plan.
6.2 Airport Development C)6 ectives
It is the goal of this effort to produce a balanced airside and an appropriate landside aircraft storage
mix to best serve forecast aviation demands. However, before defining and evaluating specific
alternatives, airport development objectives should be considered. As owner and operator, the City
of Kalispell provides the overall guidance for the operation and development of the Kalispell City
Airport. It is of primary concern that the airport is marketed, developed, and operated for the
betterment of the community and its users. With this in mind, the following development objectives
have been defined for this planning effort:
vi To preserve and protect public and private investments in existing airport facilities.
a� To develop a safe, attractive, and efficient aviation facility in accordance with applicable
Federal, State, and local regulations.
Chapter 6 /inprovemen1t.41ternat1ves
Page 83
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
1<alispe[f City Airport
To develop a balanced facility that is responsive to current and long term needs of all general
aviation.
,46 To be reflective and supportive of the City of Kalispell community wide goals and policies.
To develop a facility with a focus on self-sufficiency in both operational and developmental
cost recovery.
To ensure that future development is environmentally compatible.
6.3 Summary of facility Nees
Considering the facility requirements identified in Chapter 5, the primary needs for the Kalispell
City Airport to comply with FAA design standards and development requirements can be
summarized as follows:
rid Airport Reference Code Dimensional Standards. The current airfield generally conforms to
the dimensional standards for Category B, Design Group I. Based on the anticipated fleet mix
and operations forecast during the planning period, dimensional standards for Category B,
Design Group II are recommended. To meet ARC B-II requirements, the following
improvements are required:
• Increase runway width from 60 feet to 75 feet and widen runway safety area to 150 feet.
• Increase taxiway width from 20 feet to 35 feet and widen taxiway safety area to 79 feet.
• Increase runway and parallel taxiway separation to 240 feet.
• Acquire property needed for a 500 foot wide Runway Object Free Area and a 131 foot
wide Taxiway Object Free Area.
Runway Length. The existing runway length is sufficient to accommodate 75 percent of the
small aircraft fleet and there does not appear to be any driving factors to pursue a longer
runway. However, the FAA will require that the Airport obtain the necessary land to support an
ultimate runway extension to 4,300 feet which is necessary to accommodate 95 percent of the
small aircraft fleet.
Runway Protection Zones. The current airfield does not have the required runway protection
zones necessary for Approach Category A and B. To meet this standard the following
improvements will be required:
• Acquire property on both runway ends for a 500 feet x 700 feet x 1,000 feet Runway RPZ.
• Remove obstructions within the 500 feet x 700 feet x 1,000 feet RPZ on Runway 13.
,4� Hangar Development Areas. Prepare a phased hangar development plan to implement timely
and economical expansion of private hangar areas.
Aircraft Parking Ramps and Tie -Downs. Establish areas for expansion of aircraft parking
ramps and tie -down areas.
Navigational Aids. Install new medium intensity runway lights and precision approach path
indicators (PAPIs).
Chapter 6 /mprnvementA/ternaVVes
Page 84
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kafispeff City Airport
Removal of Close -In Airspace Obstructions. Remove airspace obstructions necessary to
meet Part 77 requirements for a "Larger than Utility, Non -Precision Runway with Visibility
Minimums Greater than % Mile". Obstruction mitigation would require the following changes
at the existing airport:
• Mitigation of the transitional surface penetrations of businesses located along US
Highway 93, on the east side of the airport.
• Removal or lowering of the two radio towers located southeast of Runway 31.
• Mitigation of the penetrations of the lights at Legends Field to the 34:1 approach slope.
6A improvement Constraints
6.4.1 Runway Length, Orientation, and Location
The Kalispell City Airport is located in south Kalispell, approximately one mile south of the
downtown business district. The alignment of Runway 13/31 is on a true bearing of S33°06' 10"E
which is parallel to U.S. Highway 93 immediately east of the airport. Because the airport has been
operating in such close proximity to central business area of Kalispell for so long, extensive
development has occurred around the airport. Major development constraints at the existing site
include the following:
6.4.1.1 U.S. Highway 93 and Business Development
Development on the east side of the airport is limited because of existing businesses fronting U.S.
Highway 93. There are dozens of existing businesses in this area; some of the larger, more
significant ones include the Aero Inn, Hilton Garden Inn, Rosauers Grocery Store, and Murdochs. It
would be cost prohibitive to relocate even a few of the major business so any development
alternatives at the existing site will need to account for the existing development and issues
associated with it.
6.4.1.2 18th Street E
Development is restricted at the north end of the airport by 18th Street E. Most of the existing
Runway 13 RPZ lies north of airport property and encompasses 181h Street E and a few residences
and business on the north side of the street. To meet FAA design standards for the RPZ, the runway
will need to shift to the south to move the RPZ onto airport property.
6.4.1.3 Airport Road, City of Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Plant and Ashley
Creek
Future development towards the west side of the airport is constrained at the north end by Airport
Road and the City of Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Plant. The north -south alignment of Airport
Road constricts airport property at the north end but skews away from the runway alignment as it
continues south. At the north end, the east side of Airport Road is predominantly airport property
with hangar development; the exception being the privately owned Diamond Aire. At about mid-
field between the runway and Airport Road is the City of Kalispell's Wastewater Treatment Plant
which encompasses several acres of City property. The west side of Airport Road has a variety of
established uses including single-family homes, an apartment complex, several small businesses, and
Chapter 6 /mprovementAfrernatrves
Page 85
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
the softball fields. Although Airport Road skews away from the airport as it continues south, Ashley
Creek becomes a constraint to airport development. The creek meanders adjacent to the east side of
the airport, south of the wastewater treatment plant and constrains development in this area.
6.4.1.4 Demersville Cemetery
The Demersville Cemetery is located just north of Cemetery Road. Options to shift and extend
Runway 13/31 further south may have the potential to extend onto cemetery property. Due to
significant environmental issues that would result from construction activities occurring on cemetery
property, no improvements should be planned on this property. It also not likely that the south
runway protection zone would be allowed on this property if fee ownership of the RPZ is required.
6.4.1.5 Cemetery Road
Runway lengthening to 100 percent length requirements will require an extension to the south
(towards Cemetery Road). This will likely require the relocation of a portion of Cemetery Road to
keep the Runway Protection Zone clear of major roadways.
6.4.1.6 West -Side Apron and Hangar Development
A major apron and taxilane development project was completed in 2006. This new development
was constructed on the west side of Runway 13/31 and was in conformance to the planned
development depicted on the approved Airport Layout Plan at that time. This development included
a new aircraft parking ramp, several new taxilanes, and hangar development areas; the location and
orientation was based on the future relocation and reorientation of Runway 14/32.
6.4.2 Airspace Obstructions — Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Surfaces
6.4.2.1 U.S. Highway 93 and Business Development
Several of the larger buildings fronting U.S. Highway 93 extend up into the 7:1 transitional surface
of Runway 13/31. There are several buildings with penetrations exceeding 10 feet including the
Hilton, Rosauers, a retail building, Penco, Murdochs, and Burton's garage. It would be cost
prohibitive to remove these obstructions so development alternatives will need to consider shifting
the runway away from the buildings.
6.4.2.2 KGEZ Radio Towers
There are two 300 feet tall AM radio towers located southeast of the airport that extend into the
existing Runway 31 approach surface and transitional surface. One of the towers extends into the
existing 20:1 visual approach surface by 173 feet; the other tower penetrates the transitional surface
by 108 feet. These penetrations increase significantly if when a 34:1 approach surface for a "larger
than utility, non -precision, instrument runway" is considered. Any development alternatives at or
near the existing airport site will require the removal or lowering of the radio towers.
6.4.2.3 Terrain
The Kalispell City Airport is located approximately one mile from mountainous terrain to the west.
This terrain rises into and penetrates the conical surface for a visual runway. The terrain
penetrations expand into the horizontal surface when a "larger than utility, non -precision, instrument
runway" is considered. Although these terrain penetrations are not considered too hazardous for
Chapter 6 ImprovementA/ternativew
Page 86
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
VFR conditions, the proximity to the airport does limit alternatives that would result in approaches
towards the terrain or approach procedures with lower visibility minimums.
6.4.3 Instrument Flight Suitability
The predominant visual approach to Kalispell City Airport is from the northwest, over southwest
Kalispell, and onto Runway 13. The alternate approach to Runway 31 from the southwest similarly
follows the valley corridor and parallels U.S. Highway 93.
Kalispell City Airport is not currently rated for IFR activity. It is a VFR facility only, although
suggestions received during the November 2010 pilot survey indicated a strong interest for a
straight -in, non -precision instrument (GPS) approach.
The width of the primary surface for visual runways is 250 feet while the width of the primary
surface for a non -precision instrument runway is 500 feet. In order for the existing Runway 13/31 to
qualify for a non -precision approach, obstructions within 250 feet each side of the runway would
have to be removed and obstructions into the 7:1 transitional surface extending upward from the
primary surface would need to be mitigated. With the current runway alignment and location, there
are no obstructions into the primary surface but there are significant penetrations into the transitional
surface on the east side of the runway. Since removal of the businesses along U.S. Highway 93 is
not practical, the most feasible solution is to shift the runway away from the development on U.S.
Highway 93 and the remove any other structures located on airport property.
6.4.4 Expandability
Chapter 5.0, Section 5.5 describes the runway length requirements to accommodate 75 percent, 95
percent, and 100 percent of smaller airplanes. Runway length is not a published FAA design
standard. Rather, required runway length at a particular airport is typically determined by evaluating
the most demanding aircraft that are frequently operating at the airport and providing a length that
safely accommodates that aircrafts performance requirements. When the most demanding aircraft
normally operating at an airport are small aircraft only, runway length can be established to meet the
capacity requirements for 75 percent, 95 percent, or 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet. It should
be noted that it is the Sponsor's ultimate decision to pursue a runway length which exceeds the
75 percent length requirements; the FAA will not require or direct a Sponsor to construct a
longer runway than the minimum requirement. However, the FAA will require the Sponsor to
acquire the land necessary for a future extension out to the 95 percent length requirement.
The existing runway length of 3,600 feet already meets the length requirements to accommodate 75
percent of small aircraft needs. If expansion to 95 percent of the small aircraft fleet is ultimately
desired, a runway length of 4,250 feet would be needed. To meet length requirements for 100
percent of the small aircraft fleet, an extension to 4,700 feet would be required.
For any runway extension considered, additional land south of he existing airport would need to be
acquired. Land required for the construction of an extension and the necessary runway protection
zone would include a combination of agriculture, residential, commercial, and industrial use land.
Development constraints are graphically depicted on Exhibit 6-1.
Chapter 6 /inprovementAfrernativem
Page 87
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kafispe[[ City Airport
6.5 Sponsor, user, and Public Participation
Open houses, public review and comment, City staff review, newspaper articles, and the pilot's
survey have been used in obtaining Sponsor, user, and local support for the selection of the
alternatives studied and evaluated in this Master Plan Update. An Open House was held on April
25, 2011 at City Hall to present a wide range of preliminary alternatives for airport development
with several options at the existing airport site and several options at multiple, alternative sites in the
vicinity of Kalispell. Public participants were encouraged to provide written comment on any or all
of the alternatives presented. Extensive comment was received and entered into the public record for
this project. Copies of the written comments are included in Appendix I.
In addition to public comment, City Planning Staff and the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Board
met independently and provided formal written comment and recommendations to the alternatives
presented. Copies of the recommendations from Planning Staff and the Advisory Board are included
in Appendix J.
6.6 Alternative Evaluation Criteria
As described in the Introduction, the purpose of this Chapter on Improvement Alternatives is to
identify potential alternatives for the Kalispell City Airport, screen out alternatives which have
obvious shortcomings, and ultimately select the most appropriate alternative. In determining the
most appropriate alternative, several direct and non -direct aeronautical factors are considered. The
aeronautical and non -aeronautical factors presented in Table 6-1 will be considered during the
preliminary screening effort and evaluated in a matrix evaluation for the final airport alternatives.
TABLE 6- 1
Alternative Evaluation Criteria
Safety -Design -Geometry
Airspace/FAR Part 77 Obstructions
Access to the Airport/Proximity to Kalispell
Environmental Concerns
Instrument Capability
Economic Benefit
Wind Alignment
Available Infrastructure
Expandabili!X
Public Acceptance/Support
Proximity to Other Airports
Owner/User Support
Initial Development Costs
Local Cost Contribution
6.7 Preliminary Alternatives
Thirteen (13) preliminary alternatives were developed and presented to the public, City staff, Airport
Advisory Board and the FAA at the April 25th Open House. Of the preliminary alternatives, six (6)
options were developed at the existing airport site and seven (7) options were developed at four (4)
alternate sites. Graphical depictions of each alternative are included in Appendix K. Each of these
Chapter 6 /mprovementAiternatives
Page 89
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
options is described in the following sections:
6.7.1 Existing Airport Site
Six alternatives were developed and/or considered for future development at the existing airport site.
Three (3) alternatives would meet FAA criteria for ARC B-Il design standards and be eligible for
federal funding. The remaining three (3) alternatives would only meet ARC B-1 design standards and
would not be eligible for federal funding. Each of these six alternatives is described in this Section.
6.7.1.1 Site 1 —Option A (Sheet IA):
This option is the original Alternate #1 presented in the 2001 Site Selection Study. Proposed
improvements are described as follows:
•� Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
Parallel offset of the runway centerline to the southwest, away from the businesses/buildings
along US 93 to mitigate airspace obstructions;
%6 Longitudinal shift of the runway centerline to the southeast to move the Runway 13 RPZ onto
airport property;
4 No rotation of the runway, orientation remains 13/31;
,4 Requires the relocation of several hangars and shops on airport property;
4. Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 40 land parcels;
4 Requires relocation of 15 residences;
�4- Would require relocation of a portion of Cemetery Road if the runway was ever extended to
100 percent length requirements.
6.7.1.2 Site I — Option B (Sheet 113):
This option is the original Alternate #2 presented in the 2001 Site Selection Study; the selected
alternative currently depicted on the current Airport Layout Plan. Proposed improvements are
described as follows:
m6 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-Il design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
+L Parallel offset of the runway centerline to the southwest, away from the businesses/buildings
along US 93 to mitigate airspace obstructions;
4 Longitudinal shift of the runway centerline to the southeast to move the Runway 14 RPZ onto
airport property;
4 Clockwise rotation of the runway by approximately 5 degrees, orientation becomes 14/32;
m6 Requires the relocation of several hangars and shops on airport property;
.. Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 23 land parcels;
4 Requires relocation of 4 residences;
Q. Would require relocation of a portion of Cemetery Road if the runway was ever extended to
100 percent length requirements.
Chapter 6 fmprovementAfrernatives
Page 90
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.7.1.3 Site 1 — Option C (Sheet 1 C):
This option is a combination of Alternate #2 and Alternate #3 presented in the 2001 Site Selection
Study. This option sites the proposed airport partially on the existing airport site, north of the U.S.
Highway 93 Alternate Route. Proposed improvements are described as follows:
q6 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
South end of airport would be located on City owned property currently used for spray
irrigation by the wastewater treatment plant;
.44 Middle portion of airport situated over an existing gravel pit;
4 Clockwise rotation of the runway by approximately 5 degrees, orientation becomes 14/32;
q6 Requires the relocation of several hangars and shops on airport property;
•�4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 22 land parcels;
+l Requires relocation of 5 residences;
4 Requires closure of a portion of Cemetery Road;
4 Requires relocation of a portion of Ashley Creek.
6.7.1.4 Site 1 — Option D (Sheet 1D):
This option provides minimal improvements to the current B-I airport facility. Proposed
improvements are described as follows:
4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-I design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways);
4 Runway reconstructed to it's current length of 3,700 feet but could be extended to a length of
4,300 feet;
4 No shift or offset of runway centerline;
.4 No rotation, orientation remains 13/31;
4 Requires the relocation of five hangars and three shops on airport property;
%6 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 16 land parcels;
4 No residential relocation required;
4. Would not be supported by the FAA.
6.7.1.5 Site 1 — Option E (Sheet 1E):
This option is provides marginal improvements to the current B-I airport facility. Proposed
improvements are described as follows:
4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-I design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways);
r4 Runway reconstructed to it's current length of 3,700 feet but could be extended to a length of
4,300 feet;
4 Runway remains on centerline but is shifted to the southeast to move the RPZ onto existing
airport property;
•L No rotation, orientation remains 13/31;
Requires the relocation of one hangar and three shops on airport property;
%6 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 19 land parcels;
4 Requires relocation of four residences and two businesses;
n4 Would not be supported by the FAA.
Chapter 6 /mprovementAfternetives
Page 91
MASTER PLAN UPDATE - DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.7.1.6 Site 1 — Option F (Sheet IF):
This option is provides significant improvements to the current B-I airport facility. Proposed
improvements are described as follows:
Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-I design standards (60 feet runway width, 150 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 25 feet wide taxiways);
Runway reconstructed to it's current length of 3,700 feet but could be extended to a length of
4,300 feet;
4 Southwesterly offset and southeasterly shift of the runway will move north RPZ onto airport
property and mitigate airspace penetrations;
,4 Clockwise rotation of runway orientation in conjunction with centerline offset will mitigate
airspace penetrations and reduce impacts to residences southeast of airport;
.4 Requires the relocation of four hangars and five shops on airport property;
r4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 21 land parcels;
4 Relocation of two residences is required;
m6 Would not be supported by the FAA.
6.7.2 Alternate Sites
There were seven (7) alternatives developed on four (4) alternate sites in the vicinity of Kalispell.
Alternate sites were selected after reviewing the original Site Selection Study prepared by Robert
Peccia and Associates in 2001 and evaluating those original sites to see if they were still viable after
10 years. Preliminary site selection criteria included the following:
Site must be located in an area that is consistent with the City's Growth Policy and be a
feasible distance to extend City utilities and provide City services.
,4 Site must provide sufficient area to construct a B-II Facility with ultimate runway dimensions
of 75 feet x 4,700 feet, a parallel taxiway separated 240 feet from the runway, and areas for
apron and hangar development.
4 Site must have suitable topography for airport construction. Existing ground topography must
not have excessive grades.
.4 Site should not be located too close to high density housing areas.
4 Site cannot be too close to the mountainous terrain west of Kalispell.
4 Site should not bisect or encroach on any major roadway that would require road closure or
relocation.
4 Site should not be located in within the flood plain, major wetland area, or wildlife
management area.
4. Site should be located a sufficient distance from Glacier Park International and not conflict
with the airspace or instrument approaches into GPI.
6.7.2.1 Site 2 — Option A (Sheet 2A):
This is the first of two options that were developed for Site 2. Site 2 is located south of the existing
airport, on the east side of U.S. Highway 93, near Old School Station. Proposed improvements are
described as follows:
4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
4 Runway orientation would be northwesterly/southeasterly;
Chapter 6 /mprovementAilrernarives
Page 92
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Ka[ispe[[ City Airport
4 Requires the closure of Dumersville Road;
+� Requires relocation of Foy's Bend Lane;
•l Located in 100 year flood plain;
%4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 13 land parcels;
v6 Relocation of two residences is required;
6.7.2.2 Site 2 — Option B (Sheet 2B):
This is the second of two options that were developed for Site 2. Proposed improvements are
described as follows:
m4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
q6 Runway orientation would be north/south;
4 Requires relocation of Foy's Bend Lane;
4 Located in 100 year flood plain;
.4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 10 land parcels;
v6 Relocation of one residence is required;
6.7.2.3 Site 3 — Option A (Sheet 2B):
This Option is similar to the original Alternate 95 (VOR Site) from the 2001 Site Selection Study.
The only difference is that the site is shifted further to the west to eliminate impacts to a newly
developed subdivision adjacent to Montford Road. Proposed improvements are described as
follows:
,16 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
-1 Runway orientation would be north/south;
.4 Requires closure of Holt Stage Road;
4 Requires relocation or burial of overhead power adjacent to Holt Stage Road;
+,4 Requires mitigation of small wetland area near the south end of the site;
4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 5 land parcels;
.4 No residences will be relocated;
6.7.2.4 Site 4 — Option A (Sheet 4A):
This Option is similar to the original Alternate #4 from the 2001 Site Selection Study. Proposed
improvements are described as follows:
-4, Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
%k Runway orientation would be north/south;
4 Requires relocation of Egan Road and two private roads;
4 Requires relocation or burial of overhead power on Egan Road;
4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 8 land parcels;
4 No residences will be relocated;
Chapter 6 /mprovementAiternativem
Page 93
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
I<afispe[[ City Airport
6.7.2.5 Site 4 — Option B (Sheet 4B):
This Option is similar to Site 4 — Option A, but would shift the airport further to the south. This
change eliminates the relocation of Egan Road and one private road identified in Option A, but
requires the relocation of one residence. Proposed improvements are described as follows:
4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
.� Runway orientation would be north/south;
.k Requires closure of one private road;
+,4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 3 land parcels;
4 Relocation of one residence.
6.7.2.6 Site 4 — Option C (Sheet 4C):
A third option, also located on Site 4 incorporates a revised runway orientation. This orientation
eliminates the relocation of Egan Road and one private road but requires the relocation of two
residences. Proposed improvements are described as follows:
4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
•l Runway orientation would be northwesterly/southeasterly;
.4 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 6 land parcels;
4 Relocation of two residences.
6.7.2.7 Site 5 — Option A (Sheet 5A):
This option is a new site situated northwest of Kalispell near the West Valley area. The site is
located near the intersection of West Reserve Drive and West Spring Road. Proposed improvements
are described as follows:
+�4 Airport facilities constructed to ARC B-II design standards (75 feet runway width, 240 feet
separation between runway and taxiway, 35 feet wide taxiways);
�4 Runway orientation would be north/south with slight counterclockwise rotation to avoid a
hill;
%6 Requires the full or partial acquisition of approximately 4 land parcels;
•14 Relocation of one residence.
6.7.2.8 Other Site Considerations
One other site was explored following comment at the April 25th Open House. A review request was
made for a site near the Sommers wastewater lagoons and treatment area south of Kalispell.
Although potentially feasible, the site is too far from the City of Kalispell to comply with the City's
Growth Policy or to extend City utilities or provide City services. Development of the site would
also require the closure/relocation of one road and the relocation of three residences. Because the
site offered no advantages to the ones previously considered, it was eliminated from further
consideration.
Chapter 6 fmprovemenrAfrernarives
Page 94
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Ka[ispe[[ City Airport
6.7.3 Preliminary Alternative Screening
After preliminary evaluations of each site and utilizing feedback obtained from public comment and
recommendations from Planning staff and the Airport Advisory Board, the majority of the
preliminary alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. A brief summary of the factors
that led to the elimination of specific alternatives and sites is provided in the following paragraphs:
6.7.3.1 Site 1 Screening
The goal in screening the options developed for Site 1, the existing airport site, was to select one
preferred alternative that would meet FAA design standards for an ARC B-Il facility and would be
eligible for federal funding and one preferred alternative that would provide, cost effective safety
upgrades to the existing airport that would not qualify for federal funding.
q6 Option A was ultimately eliminated because the runway could not be extended without
significant impacts to multiple residences on Cemetery Road, Shefferd Lane, and Wulf Lane.
The runway rotation depicted in Option B allows the extension to be constructed without
relocation of any of these residences.
,44 Option C was eliminated for several reasons: First, the location of the airport would require
closure of Cemetery Road, an important arterial route in the area; the airport would also
extend into an area that has been master planned for commercial and residential development;
and finally, there are environmental impacts with relocating Ashley Creek and some possible
impacts from the floodplain.
.L Options D, E and F were the three options developed that would provide minimal
improvement to the existing airport. All three options were based on
maintaining/constructing a facility that would only provide for ARC B-I dimensional
standards. None of these options would be eligible for federal funding so the burden funding
would fall entirely on the airport or City. Options E and F were eliminated primarily because
of cost. There are significant costs resulting primarily from land acquisition and higher
construction costs to provide the marginal safety benefits offered by Options E and F.
6.7.3.2 Elimination of Site 2
.. Site 2 is located within the 100 year flood plain. The City's growth policy strongly
discourages development of public infrastructure within the flood plain.
%6 Location is very close to a high -density, single family housing area.
.6 There was some public opposition against development of an airport at this site.
6.7.3.3 Elimination of Sites 3 and 4
4 Site 2 is located east and well beyond of the City's planning jurisdiction.
.J. Extension of City utilities to the site is not feasible.
4 City services would not be available at the site.
.& There was strong public opposition against development of an airport at this site.
Chapter 6 /mprovementAfternatrvem
Page 95
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.7.4 Selected Alternatives for Additional Study
The preliminary screening process led to the selection of three (3) development alternatives that will
be reviewed and evaluated in greater detail in the following section. It was the goal of this process
to select 1) a preferred development alternative on the existing airport site that would meet FAA
design requirements and be eligible for federal funding; 2) a preferred development alternative on
the existing airport site that would not be eligible for federal funding but would provide some safety
improvements; and 3) an new, preferred site that the City airport could be relocated to. In addition to
these three alternatives, a "no -action" or do nothing alternative will be evaluated as a potential
option.
6.8 Development Alternatives
There were three (3) development alternatives for the Kalispell City Airport that were recommended
for further study following the preliminary screening process; two (2) are located on the existing
airport site and the third is located at an alternate site. Alternative A on the existing site and
Alternative C on the alternate site provide for improvements which increase standards to ARC B-II
and would be fully eligible for federal funding. Alternative B, also at the existing site, will offer
minimal improvements to increase safety with minimal additional investment into the existing
airport and would not be eligible for federal funding. Exhibits of each alternative, labeled
Alterative A through C are included at the end of this Chapter along with applicable cost
estimates for each development alternative.
6.8.1 Alternative A: Existing Site with ARC B-II Standards
6.8.1.1 Summary of Improvements
75' x 3,600' Paved Runway with an Orientation of 12/34 Rated for 12,500 Pound Aircraft
(Single Wheel Gear);
m6 A 35' x 3,600' Full -Length, Parallel Taxiway on the West Side of the Runway;
N6 A Future Aircraft Ramp Expansion (296' x 682') with 17 New Aircraft Tie -Downs;
N6 Pavement Edge Drains for Runway, Taxilanes, and Ramp Areas;
N6 A Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System;
N6 Two (2) New PAPI's for Runways 12 and 34;
+6 Completion of Perimeter Security Fencing;
ARC B-II Dimensional Standards including a 150' Runway Safety Area, a 500' Runway Object
Free Area, 240' Minimum Separation Between Runway Centerline and Taxiway Centerline,
and a 131' Taxiway Object Free Area;
Land Acquisition necessary for Construction of the Improvements and a Future Runway
Extension to 4,300' including the Required Future Runway Protection Zone;
vJF Removal of the Two (2) KGEZ Radio Towers Located South of the Airport;
Alternative A would provide an increase in dimensional standards to ARC B-II at the existing site by
shifting the runway to the south approximately 600 feet, rotating the runway orientation
approximately 5.3 degrees, and offsetting the runway to the west away from the development along
Chapter 6 /mproveinentAiternerives
Page 96
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
U.S. Highway 93 to clear airspace penetrations. Alternative A would comply with FAA design
standards and development requirements and would be eligible for federal funding.
6.8.2 Alternative B: Existing Site with ARC B-I Standards
6.8.2.1 Summary of Improvements
++► Resurface the Existing 60' x 3,600' Paved Runway with an Orientation of 13/31 Rated for
12,500 Pound Aircraft (Single Wheel Gear);
Reconstruct the Parallel Taxiway on the West Side of the Runway to 25' width and 150'
Runway Separation and Extend Full Length to 3,600';
-46 ARC B-I Dimensional Standards including a 120' Runway Safety Area, a 250' Runway Object
Free Area, 150' Minimum Separation Between Runway Centerline and Taxiway Centerline,
and a 89' Taxiway Object Free Area;
,116 Land Acquisition necessary for Construction of the Improvements including the Land
Necessary for the Future Parallel Taxiway Extension and the Required Future Runway
Protection Zone;
Alternative B would provide a marginal improvement in safety at the airport by meeting the
minimum FAA dimensional criteria for ARC B-I standards while minimizing the construction and
maintenance costs. This Alternative would allow for a mill and overlay of the existing 60 foot by
3,600 foot runway in its present location which will significantly reduce the costs associated with
relocating and widening the runway to fully comply with FAA requirements as depicted in
Alternative A. The existing west -side taxiway would need to be reconstructed at further setback
from the runway centerline and to 25-feet width to comply with B-I standards. Alternative B would
not fully comply with FAA design standards and development requirements and would be ineligible
for federal funding; all costs would be the direct responsibility of the City of Kalispell and the
Airport.
6.8.3 Alternative C: Relocate to Site 5 with ARC B-II Standards
6.8.3.1 Summary of Improvements
75' x 3,600' Paved Runway with an Orientation of 17/35 Rated for 12,500 Pound Aircraft
(Single Wheel Gear);
A 35' x 3,600' Full -Length, Parallel Taxiway on the East Side of the Runway;
Aircraft Parking Ramp (502' x 457') with 39 New Aircraft Tie -Downs;
Two (2) 25' x 457' taxilanes and one (1) 35' x xx' taxilane;
A Future Aircraft Ramp Expansion (250' x 457') with 22 New Aircraft Tie -Downs;
A Medium Intensity Runway Lighting System;
+� Two (2) New PAPI's for Runways 17 and 35;
-46 ARC B-II Dimensional Standards including a 150' Runway Safety Area, a 500' Runway Object
Free Area, 240' Minimum Separation Between Runway Centerline and Taxiway Centerline,
and a 131' Taxiway Object Free Area;
Land Acquisition necessary for Construction of the Improvements and a Future Runway
Extension to 4,700' including the Required Future Runway Protection Zone;
Chapter 6 /mprovementA/ternatrves
Page 97
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — ORAFT
Kalispell City Airport
Extension of Basic Utilities including City Water, City Sewer, Electricity, and Phone;
Alternative C is a complete relocation of the Kalispell City Airport to a new site northwest of the
City of Kalispell. The new site is primarily agriculture land with one occupied residence and one
vacant residence. It is located north of the intersection of West Reserve Drive and West Spring
Creek Road. The location is close enough to the northwest fringe of the City of Kalispell that is
feasible to annex the property into City limits and extend City utilities to the site. The alternate site
would provide the necessary development area to construct a new airport facility meeting ARC B-11
dimensional standards with the additional land necessary to construct a new aircraft parking ramp
and hangar development areas and taxilanes. Alternative C would comply with FAA design
standards and development requirements and the costs associated with development of the aviation
facilities on the site would be eligible for federal funding. Costs to relocate private facilities from
the existing site to the new site and the cost to extend utilities to the site would not be eligible for
federal funding.
6.9 Non -Development Alternatives
When analyzing alternatives for development, consideration must first be given to non -development
alternatives. These alternatives include the "no -action" or "do-nothing" alternative, transferring
service to an existing airport, or developing an airport at a new location. These alternatives need to
be examined in process to determine whether future development of Kalispell City Airport is in the
best interest of the City of Kalispell and the region as a whole.
6.9.1 Alternative D - "No -Action"
The "no -action" alternative essentially considers keeping the airport in its present condition and not
providing for any improvement to the existing facilities. The inevitable result of this alternative
would be the inability of the airport to satisfy the projected aviation demands in a safe and functional
manner. A "no -action" decision would be contradictory to the activity that has occurred and is
expected to continue at the airport. Because of this activity, some improvements will continue to be
needed.
The region has experienced strong growth in all socioeconomic categories over the past few decades.
Forecasts indicate this trend will likely continue throughout and beyond the long term planning
horizon. The City of Kalispell has a vested interest in maintaining and improving airport facilities for
both recreational and business users. Without a commitment to ongoing maintenance and
improvement of the airport, regular users of the airport and potential future users of the airport
would not be able to maximize use of the airport's air transportation capabilities. Several negative
consequences would ultimately result from a "no -action" alternative:
6.9.1.1 Airport Closure
The long term consequences of the "no -action" alternative would be the gradual deterioration of the
existing airport pavements over time, ultimately leading to the closure of the airport when pavements
have failed and are no longer useable. The typical useful life of an asphalt concrete pavement is
approximately 20 years. Pavement life can be extended with periodic maintenance including crack
sealing and fog coats to decrease oxidation. Since it has been 25 years since the taxiways were
constructed and the runway was overlaid, airport pavements are nearing the end of their useful life.
With some investment in crack sealing and fog coats, the pavements may remain useable for a
Chapter 6 /mprovementAfternatives
Page 98
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
I<a[ispe[[ City Airport
period of 5 to 10 years. At that time a major reconstruction or rehabilitation project will be required.
Without any investment in pavement maintenance, there is a good chance pavements will fail in less
than 5 years.
6.9.1.2 Diminished Use
A secondary consequence of the "no -action" alternative would be the airport's inability to
accommodate a potential new group of airport users or even keep existing users. Existing users
include recreational, business, corporate/agency, and flight instruction. Without a commitment to at
least maintain the existing facilities, existing users will likely relocate to other nearby airports.
Corporate aviation plays a major role in the transportation of business leaders and key employees.
Thus, an airport's facilities are often the first impression many corporate officials will have of the
community. If the airport does not have the capability to meet hangar, apron, or airfield needs of
potential users, the City's capability to attract the major sector businesses that rely on air
transportation could be diminished.
6.9.1.3 Buyout of Tenant Leases and Business Leases
Another detrimental impact from a "no -action" alternative is that the City of Kalispell would be
legally liable to "buyout" the value of buildings (hangars) that have been privately constructed on
leased land and business leases with Red Eagle Aviation and the Hilton Garden Inn. All tenants and
businesses operating on airport property have entered into lease agreements with the City of
Kalispell. Lease agreements are necessary to protect the private investment of the tenants when they
build hangars or shops on the airport property and to protect the City's interest and control of the
airport. If the airport was no longer maintained and was forced to close, the City would have a
financial obligation to buyout the remaining terms of the current lease holders. The total estimated
value of the combined lease buyout at this time is $4.8 million and is summarized in Table 6-2.
This value of the buyout is expected to decrease over time as lease agreements near their term or
expire.
TABLE 6-2
Estimated Costs for Existing Lease Buyout
Seven Hangar Leases at Fair Market Value $1,907,262
Three Hangar Leases, 15 Year Straight Depreciation $335,136
Red Eagle & Hilton Business Leases $2600,000
Subtotal Lease Buyout Costs $4184z1398
SOURCE: City of Kalispell Airport Progress Report, Responses To Public Input Session, November 30, 2009
6.9.1.4 Loss of Potential Reimbursement from FAA for Past Land Acquisition and
Airport Upgrades
Although not a new, direct cost to the City, a "no -action" alternative would result in a loss of
potential federal reimbursement of grant money for prior land acquisition and airport development.
The City has made prior investments into the airport that would ultimately meet FAA design
standards and be eligible for federal reimbursement under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP).
The City has invested a total of $3,538,604.32 in the airport since 1999 and received FAA funding of
Chapter 6 /mprvvementAfternatives
Page 99
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kahspe(f City Airport
$213,844.00. The majority of the remaining investment would be eligible for federal reimbursement
in the future, provided the City improves the airport to required FAA standards. Table 6-3
summarizes the remaining costs that would be FAA eligible following an upgrade of the airport to
FAA standards. Under the current AIP program, the FAA would be able to reimburse 95 percent of
these costs if and when federal funds become available. This could ultimately lead to additional
grant funding coming to the City of approximately $3,100,460.
TABLE 6-3
Summary of Costs of Prior Work Efigibfe for Federal Reimbursement
Professional Services for Land Acquisition & North End Design - 2005
Unreirnbursed
$83,540.00
Purchase of Torgerson Propert_ y — 2005 _
North Ramp Taxilane Construction - 2006
$566,474.42
$1,454,530.11
_ _&
_Nort_h End Ramp & T_axilane Construction Administration - 2006
$41,582.04
of Red Eagle Aviation — 2006
$774,715.00
_Purchase
Purchase of Billmayer Property_— 2006Wµ
$230,131.42
Professional Services for Land Acquisition - 2007
$13,438.77
Professional Services for Tower Relocation Stud — 2008
$15,200.00
Professional Services for Surveys, Geotechnical & ALP Update - 2008
$68,068.00
Professional Services for Tower Relocation Review — 2009
$3,638.75
Professional Services for CIP & Bid Documents — 2009
$12,324.03
Total Cost of Work Eligible for Federal Reimbursement $3/263i642.54
SOURCE: City of Kalispell Airport Progress Report, Responses To Public Input Session, November 30, 2009
The Kalispell City Airport is also eligible to receive up to $150,000 per year in non -primary
entitlement funds provided the airport is upgraded to the required FAA standards. This entitlement
would be lost if the airport proceeds with the "no -action" alternative.
6.9.1.5 Lost Economic Benefit to the City of Kalispell
The City Airport also provides a significant economic benefit to the City and local businesses in
south Kalispell. An Economic Impact Study prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates in 2008
estimated that total economic impact resulting from the operation of the Kalispell City Airport was
$24.2 million in 2008. This estimate includes economic output of $7.3 million in direct, on -airport
activities; $7.5 million in direct visitor spending; and $9.4 million of indirect, second round spending
in the community. A copy of the Wilbur Smith Economic Impact Study for Kalispell City Airport is
included in Appendix L. Thus, an additional consequence to the "no -action" alternative is that a
significant amount of the economic benefit to the City of Kalispell would be lost. Because Glacier
Park International Airport, Ferndale Airport, and Whitefish Airport would ultimately accommodate
some of the users of the City Airport, it would not be expected that all of the economic benefit would
be lost. Some of it would naturally transfer to these other facilities.
On the positive side, once the airport is closed, the land owned by the City would be available for
other uses. The City could use the property for other City infrastructure or lease it or sell it for
development. Although the cost of demolishing and removing the airport facilities would minimize
Chapter 6 /mprovementAiternatives
Page 100
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
some of the economic benefit the land might provide.
To pursue a policy of "no -action" for Kalispell City Airport would have significant negative impacts
on not only the users of the airport but also the community as a whole. The "no -action" alternative is
also inconsistent with the development objectives outlined previously. Therefore, the "no -action"
alternative is not considered to be prudent or feasible.
6.9.2 Alternative B - Transfer Aviation Services to Glacier Park International Airport
Similar to the "no -action" alternative, is the option of immediately closing the Kalispell City Airport
and transferring existing tenants and users to Glacier Park International Airport (GPI). The primary
difference between these two alternatives is that under the "no -action" alternative, the City Airport
would remain open as long as airport pavements remained useable versus an immediate action plan
under this alternative to close the City Airport and transfer existing users to GPI.
Kalispell is the only city in Montana that has two (2) public use airports. GPI, which is only 8 nm to
the northeast, is a commercial service airport with two runways. It is thus able to provide a greater
level of aviation service than the Kalispell City Airport can provide. From discussions with GPI
staff, there are available hangar development areas with the required facilities to support the transfer
of based aircraft from Kalispell City Airport. General aviation ramp and tie -down areas may be
limited however, and a future ramp expansion may be needed to support un-hangared aircraft needs.
Glacier Park International Airport is a part-time, towered airport operating from 8:00 AM to 12:00
AM daily. It is designated as Class D airspace, the fringe of which extends up to Kalispell City
Airport. Since the City Airport does not fall within GPI's Class D airspace, there are no radio
communication requirements between aircraft operating at the City Airport and air traffic control at
GPI unless those aircraft travel through GPI's Class D airspace. Eliminating an uncontrolled airport
that is situated on the fringe of GPI's Class D airspace would reduce the potential hazard of
uncontrolled VFR flight in the vicinity of GPI.
Transferring services to Glacier Park International Airport would have similar financial and
economic impacts as the "no -action" alternative. First, there would be a similar lease buyout cost to
the City to terminate leases at the City Airport of approximately $4.8 million. There would also be
the lost potential reimbursement of $3.1 million from federal AIP funds for the land and
improvements already invested into the existing site. A partial loss of the economic benefit the
airport provides to the community is another negative consequence of this alternative. Another
financial consideration on the positive side would be the value of the land, less the cost of
demolishing the facilities, that the City would benefit from if the airport was no longer operating on
this site.
6.10 Comparison ofAlternatives
6.10.1 Aeronautical Criteria
All of the direct aeronautical criteria evaluated in this section were fully described in Chapter 5 of
this document. Aeronautical criteria specifically address an airport facility's capability of safely
accommodating the aviation activity expected at that facility.
Chapter 6 ImprovementA/ternadves
Page 101
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.10.1.1 Safety -Design -Geometry
Safety and design geometry refers to how well an alternative meets the design criteria outlined in
FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The specific criteria examined are separation
standards, runway and taxiway width and shoulder width, runway protection zones (RPZ), and
runway and taxiway object free areas (OFA). Although the Kalispell City Airport could continue to
operate as a less stringent B-I facility, operations are significant enough from the larger B-11 type
aircraft to warrant the increase in dimensional standards. The FAA has also indicated that they will
not support funding of the Kalispell City Airport unless it is developed to the higher standard. Based
on these conclusions, a general comparison of each alternative's conformance to FAA Design
Standards is provided in Table 6-4.
TABLE 6-4
Conformance with FAA Design Standards
A
B
C
D
E
E, x. Site
Ex. Site
New Site
No
Relocate
B-II
B-I
B-I1
Action
To GPI
B-1
B-11
B-II
No
R/W — Yes
Yes
Yes
Separation Standards B-I1
R/W & T/W Widths
B-11
B-I
Clear
T/W — No
No
Yes
R/W Protection Zones
Clear
R/W 13-No
R/W 31-Yes
11-1
B-11
ern
R/W & T/W OFA's
B-11
Yes
Rank
-2
r
6.10.1.2 Obstruction - FAR Part 77 Surfaces
The airspace surrounding each alternative was evaluated to determine the desirability of the site for
compliance to FAR Part 77. Factors considered in this assessment included possible conflict with
existing terrain, radio and cellular phone towers, power lines, trees, and buildings. Alternatives A
and C were developed with FAR Part 77 Surface (airspace) requirements for "non -precision
instrument runway, larger than utility and visibility minimums greater than 3/4 mile"; Alternative B
was developed for a "visual, utility runway" and is similar to Alternative D, the no -action
alternative. Based on these considerations, a general comparison of each alternative's conformance
to FAR Part 77 Surfaces is provided in Table 6-5.
6.10.1.3 Instrument Capability
A significant consideration when determining the feasibility of development alternatives is
evaluation of the of the approach potential for instrument flight procedures. The critical approach
surface to the runway ends is the Threshold Siting Surface (TSS) and/or the Glide Qualification
Slope (GQS) as described in FAA Order 8260.313, Terminal Instrument Procedures (TER -PS) and
Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Change 10. The GQS is a surface used to evaluate
approach procedures with positive vertical guidance. The GQS limits the height of obstructions
between the decision altitude and runway threshold. If these surfaces are penetrated, the approach
Chapter 6 /mprovementAfternatives
Page 102
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
procedure is either not feasible or some mitigating action must be taken. The applicability of the TSS
and/or GQS is further dependent on the primary runway for departure and evaluation of the
Departure Surface (DS). Dimensional Standards for the TSS for different runway types that should
be evaluated with consideration of airside alternatives and the DS and the GQS, are identified in
Table 6-6 with keyed dimensions presented on Exhibit 6-2.
TABLE 6-5
Penetration of Imaginary Surfaces
A
Ex.. Site
B-II
B
Ex. Site
B-I
C
New Site:
B-II
D
No
Action
E
Relocate
To GPI
Approach Surfaces
Transitional Surfaces
None'}
Tower
Numerous'
None
Terrain
None
Norio
None
None
Tower
None
One
Numerousl''
None
Horizontal Surface
Terrain/Tower
None
None
Conical Surface
Terrain
Terrain
None
Rank
1
1 4
r
f
NU I-LS: (1) Radio Towers will be removed under Alternative A.
(2) Obstructions from existing buildings along U.S. Highway 93 will not be mitigated.
TABLE 6-6
Approach/Departure Requirements for Category A and B Aircraft("
41
Approach End of Runways Expected To Support
Instrument Straight -In Night Operations, Serving 200 200 1,900 10,000 20:1
ADDroach Cateaory A and B Aircraft Only
Approach End of Runways Expected To
Accommodate Instrument Approaches Having
200400
1,900
10,000
_0: I
Visibility Minimums > 3/a but < 1 Statute Mile,
Day or Night
Approach End of Runways Expected To
Accommodate Instrument Approaches Having
Visibility Minimums < 3/4 Statute Mile, or
200 400
1,900
10,000
34:1
Precision Approach (ILS, GLS, or NILS), Day or
Night
_
Approach End of Runways Expected To
'/2 Width
Accommodate Approaches with Positive
0
of Rnwy
760
10,000
30:1
Vertical Guidance (GQS)
+ 100
Departure Runway Ends for All Instrument
0
NA
\.h NA •117. [
Operations
"Airport Design", FAA Circular 15015300-13, Appendix 2.
(2) Reference Dimension Key to Exhibit 6-2.
Chapter 6 /mp8ovemen1t,4&er72atives
Page103
4M
C
x
❑ E
THRESHOLD
2B _T
_ _ - 2C
A-r�
THRESHOLD
A-�
101,011011
SLOPE
OBJECT
DISPLACEMENT NOT NECESSARY
D
ISPLACED THRESHOLD
2B
A�
,DISPLACED
THRESHOLD
SEEngineering
Planning
Consulting
5relling
Engineers, ENE.
614 Park Drive South 1372 Airport Road
Great Falls, MT 59405 Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406)452-8600 Phone: (406)755-8602
Fax: (406)452-8700 Fo (406)755-8710
e—mail: mail@stellinginc. corn
Y END
SLOPE
Y EN D
FIXED OBJECT
ED OBJECT
DISPLACEMENT NECESSARY
EXHIBIT 6-2
KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT
APPROACH DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENTS
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
Each Alternative has been evaluated for instrument approach potential based on the runway type
criteria summarized in Table 6-2. For an instrument approach to be feasible, the obstacle clearance
slope (OCS) must be clear of obstructions. Table 6-7 summarizes the approach potential for each
alternative.
TABLE 6-7
Summary of Clearances to GQS/DS
A B
MINVIIH
C
D
E
Ex. Site Ex. Site
New Site
No
Relocate
1341 B-I
B-11
Action
To GPI
RW 14/32 RW 13/31
RW 17/35
Straight -In Night Ops,
Serving App. Category A
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes
and B Aircraft Only
Visibility Minimums >_'/4
but < 1 Statute Mile, Day
No/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes
or Night
Visibility Minimums <'/4
Statute Mile, or Precision
Approach (ILS, GLS, or
No/Yes
No/No
Yes/Yes
No/No
Yes
MLS), Day or Night
No/No
No/No
Yes/Yes
Yes/No
No/No
Yes
Approaches with Positive
Vertical Guidance (GQS)
Yes/Yes
Departure
No/No
No/No
Yes
Rank
3
2
1i
Ideally, the Kalispell City Airport will pursue a GPS circling or straight -in instrument approach
within the 20- year planning period. Non -precision approaches with 3/4-mile or less visibility
minimums, requiring approach lights, high intensity runway lights (HIRL), a clear 34:1 approach
slope, and an 800-foot wide object free area (OFA) are not very practical 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 non -precision 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 for existing approaches at GPIA.
6.10.1.4 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 the
Chapter 6 /mpravementAIternativew
Page 105
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
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 affected by crosswinds. For single -runway
airports with B-II Airport Reference Codes (ARC), the runway orientation should provide a
crosswind component of less than 13 knots, 95 percent of the time. An additional safety margin
might consider the 10.5 knot crosswind component used in designing airports for small aircraft
conforming to ARC A -I and B-I categories.
Wind analysis from the 1999 Kalispell City Master Plan (1984-1993 GPIA wind data) was used to
determine acceptable runway alignments. 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 or 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.
Alternatives B and D have the current runway orientation and are therefore essentially equal with
respect to wind alignment. These two alternatives meet the 13 knot coverage requirement but do not
meet the 10.5 knot coverage. The clockwise rotation of Runway 14/32 on Alternative A, although
minor, is towards the perceived southerly wind direction noted by the pilots using the airport. This
orientation will likely provide a slight improvement in wind coverage but not likely enough to meet
the 10.5 crosswind component. Similarly, the orientation of Runway 17/35 on Alternative C is
moving closer to the southerly wind direction reported for the area. This orientation will likely
provide the preferred 10.5 cross wind component 95 percent of the time and is therefore the
preferred single runway coverage of the alternatives. Of course, Alternative E, relocation to GPI,
will have the best wind since GPI has both a primary runway and the cross wind runway.
6.10.1.5 Expandability
There are potentially four types of expansion that could be planned for at the Kalispell City Airport:
ground -side expansion, runway lengthening, runway strengthening, and reducing approach
minimums. Ground -side expansion is typically needed for building hangars, expanding hangar
access taxiways, and enlarging the apron area for additional tie -downs; essentially accommodating
future growth at the airport for both based aircraft and itinerant aircraft.
Runway length is determined by airport elevation, aircraft takeoff weight, and average maximum
temperature of the hottest month of the year. For simplicity, the FAA has grouped aircraft by
family, and the family of aircraft which have been forecast are small aircraft (defined as grow weight
less than 12,500 lbs.). In order to meet the demands of 100 percent of this family on the hottest day
of the year, the runway would need to be 4,700 feet long. It is important to note that initial
construction need be only 3,600 feet long to meet the demands of 75 percent of the family of aircraft.
The FAA has required the Owner control enough land that the runway could be extended in the
future to the length required to accommodate 95 percent of the small aircraft fleet however.
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 3/4-mile or less visibility minimums and the required
lead-in lighting and 34:1 approach slopes will not be required within the current planning period. A
Chapter 6 /mpravemenr.41Wrnatives
Page 106
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
34:1 approach slope could be included solely to provide an additional margin of safety. Based on
these criteria, a general comparison of each alternative's conformance to Expansion is provided in
Table 6-8.
TABLE 6-B
Potential for Expansion
A
Ex. Site
I341
B
Ex, Site
&I
C
New Site
I3-II
D
No
Action
E
Relocate
To GPI
Ground -Side
Yes
No(l)
No(')
Yes
1 4,700
Yes
1-Mile
No
No
No
No
Yes
NA(3)
Runway Extension
4,300")
Pavement Strength
Yes
Yes
NA(3)
NA(3)
Approach Potential
1-Mile
No
Rank
4
r
S
NOTES: (1) Land acquisition requirements were minimized in Alternative B; expansion is feasible if additional land is acquired.
(2) Extension to 4,700 feet will require relocation of Cemetery Road which is not desired or needed.
(3) Facilities and GPI exceed the expansion requirements at Kalispell City Airport.
6.10.1.6 Proximity to Other Airports
Development of a new airport or improvement to an existing airport should provide a large enough
service base and avoid conflicting with air traffic patterns from adjacent airports. A properly located
airport will provide convenient use and access, while a poorly located airport may be inconvenient
and/or dangerous to operate on or near. Existing airports, public and private, documented on the
Great Falls Sectional Chart dated June 30, 2011 are shown on the Overall Site drawing in Appendix
K.
The area 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. Ideally, airports would be fairly evenly distributed
among the population base providing reasonable parity in airport access to all. Presently, there are
only three airports in the area with paved runways Kalispell City Airport, Glacier Park International,
and Polson. There are also two unpaved public airports in the area: Whitefish and Ferndale.
From an air traffic perspective, airports which are located too close together may have conflicts with
approach, departure, and traffic patterns; or be sufficiently close to adversely affect the safety of the
flying public. In addition to the public use airports in the area, there are a number of private -use turf
strips in the area that could adversely affect the safe operation of aircraft at a new airport location.
The current location of the Kalispell City Airport represented by Alternatives A, B and D is located
at a sufficient distance from GPI, Ferndale, Polson, and Whitefish that air traffic conflicts are
generally minimal. There is a minor conflict at this site with the Runway 13 approach intersecting
the precision approach for Runway 02 at GPI but that approach procedure was developed with
consideration of the City Airport. The current site is also well situated in the area to service the
south end of Kalispell and northern areas of Flathead Lake. Alternative C relocates the airport to the
Chapter 6 Improvement A/ternatives
Page107
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — ORAF'T
Kalispell City Airport
northwest end of Kalispell and much closer to GPI. There is a greater potential at this location for
air traffic conflicts and a decrease in capability to expand the service area of the airport. Alternative
E ranks in the middle on this criterion: air traffic conflicts are eliminated by closing the City Airport
but the service area is decreased by losing this facility in south Kalispell.
6.10.2 Non- Aeronautic Criteria
6.10.2.1 Access to Airport/Proximity to Kalispell
A general aviation airport that is in close proximity to the population center of a city or town is
considered beneficial. An airport near town provides easy access for the itinerant flyer to community
businesses and services and quick response to the airport by existing emergency services if needed.
Even more beneficial is walking access to city businesses from a general aviation airport. Airports
this close to the community's business district generate additional air traffic and economic activity in
that would otherwise not exist. The Kalispell City Airport is often a frequent choice of the
recreational and business flier primarily because of its ready access to services.
Access to the Airport/Proximity to Kalispell is exceptional at the existing site and would be the same
for Alternatives A, B, and D but is substantially different for Alternatives C and E. Alternative C is
somewhat of a remote side, located approximately one mile west of the City boundary. It would not
be considered to be in walking distance to nearby businesses; it would however be annexed into the
City and would therefore receive service from police, fire, and emergency medical. Alternative E,
relocating to GPI, is not within walking distance of City businesses either. Although the terminal at
GPI does have car rental agencies that can easily provide transportation. Glacier Park also has
emergency response providers at the airport and provides security, fire, and emergency medical at
the airport.
6.10.2.2 Environmental Concerns
The Federal Aviation Administration will require an environmental assessment prior to any
development in which is federally funded. The environmental assessment will examine 20 different
impact areas which are shown below in Table 6-9. In order to effectively evaluate and compare
alternatives, a preliminary environmental screening of each of the impact areas is warranted.
Social impacts are those associated with relocation or other community disruption which may be
caused by the proposal. A specific analysis will be required if the proposal involves the need to
relocate any residence or business, alter surface transportation patterns, divide or disrupt established
communities, disrupt orderly, planned development, or create and appreciable in employment.
Alternative A would require the relocation of five hangars on the airport but only two businesses and
three residences (trailers). Alternative B would require the relocation of only four hangars; no
businesses or residences would be impacted. Alternative C would require the relocation of one
residence although there is a second home site on the property which is presently abandoned.
Alternatives D and E have no social impacts.
FAA guidance for the assessment of air quality is changing. Generally, if an airport is in the vicinity
of any declared non -attainment zone, then the airports contribution to that zones non -attainment
must be examined. There are two sites declared in Kalispell as non -attainment for carbon monoxide:
the intersection of U.S. Highway 2 and U.S. Highway 93 and a second site located further east at the
Laser School. There are also two sites declared for particulate matter: one site is downtown
Kalispell on Main Street and the other site is at the Evergreen Fire Station on U.S. Highway 2.
Chapter 6 improvementA/ternerives
Page108
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — ORAF7'
Ka[ispell City Airport
Improvements at the existing site (Alternatives A and B) and Alternative C would require an air
quality study since both locations are within 10 miles of the non -attainment zones. Alternatives D
and E would not require an air quality study since by definition they would have no impact on air
quality.
Noise
Compatible land use
Sound Impacts
Social Impacts
Air Quality
Water Quality
DOT Section 4(f) Lands
Cultural Resources
Biotic Communities
Endangered Species
Wetlands
Floodplains
Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Barriers
Wild & Scenic Rivers
Farmland
Natural Resources
ight Emissions
Solid Waste Im
Construction Irn
TABLE 6-9
Environmental Concern Comparison
A
ACR B-II
Exist. Site
low
low
potential
low
potential.
low
low
J low
f low
n/a
n/a
low
low
low
low
low
low
B
ACR 134 tL` B-11
Exist. Site t Site
low � w
low tential
low w
potential potential
low
low i low
low4wv
low w
low
low ow
low low
n/a n/a
n/a n/a
low low
low Jow
low
low
low
low low
D D
No -Action Relocate
to GPI
low
low
1
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
law
low
n/a
n/a
low_
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
n/a
n/a
low
low
low
low
low
none
Rank r 3 l 4 S
Department of Transportation 4(f) Lands are any publicly owned park, recreation area, refuge, or
historic site that have been determined significant by the federal, state, or local official having
jurisdiction over it. There are no parks, recreation areas, refuges, or historic sites at either the
existing airport site or alternate site 5. There are no impacts to 4(f) lands under any of the proposed
altematies.
Historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources are generally considered "show -
stoppers", and are therefore considered very sensitive. Generally the Montana State Historic
Preservation Office requests that a cultural resource inventory be conducted as part of any
Chapter 6 Improvement Alternatives
Page109
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
environmental assessment. In the specific case of Kalispell City Airport, the proximity of the
historic DeMersville Cemetery would virtually ensure that a cultural resource inventory be
conducted prior to development. Alternative A would require the acquisition of part of this cemetery
for use as runway protection zone. Alternative B would not have any impact on the cemetery.
Alternative C, located at a different site, does not appear to have any cultural, architectural,
archeological, and cultural resources present on the site but would require a cultural resource
inventory prior to development. Alternatives D and E would have no impact.
Wetlands are "those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient
to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence or vegetative or
aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for
growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas
such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, rivers, overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. Wetlands
also have the potential to be "show stoppers" because the requirement to mitigate wetlands impact by
replacement on -site conflicts with the requirement to reduce bird attracting hazards in the vicinity of
the airport. There may be wetlands in the vicinity of Ashley Creek however, none of the
development under Alternatives A and B would extend into these areas. There also does not appear
to be any wetlands in the vicinity of Alternative C which is generally higher ground without any
surface water in the area. Alternatives D and E would have no impact.
6.10.2.3 Economic Benefit
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.
Alternative A has the greatest potential for economic benefit to the community. The existing site is
in a very favorable location to encourage commerce generated through aviation activity. If the
airport improved to increase safety and the condition of facilities, the upgrade would likely attract
more local users and itinerant users from other areas. Alternative B, being at the same location,
would still benefit from the location, but would not likely increase in activity. Alternative D would
provide some economic benefit to the community while the airport is still operating but would
eventually decline as the airport facilities decline. Alternatives C and E, being located further from
the City center, would tend to offer the least economic benefit, although Alternative E would benefit
some from the rental care agencies located at GPI.
6.10.2.4 Available Infrastructure
Infrastructure includes access roads, parking lots, hangars, utilities, storm drainage, fencing, and fuel
storage. Costs of establishing a similar level of service for each alternative will be compared and
evaluated.
Since accessibility is an important consideration in the location 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,
Chapter 6 improvement Alternatives
Page 110
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
cable TV, and fiber optic lines. One of the preliminary screening criteria was that any feasible site
be located sufficiently close to Kalispell for connection to municipal utilities.. 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.
Obviously the existing airport site has the infrastructure in place to support the facility. This
location is close to the City center and easily accessible. It has all the necessary services readily
available. Alternative A, by realigning the runway and taxiway, would better conform to the hangar
and taxilane development completed in 2006.
6.10.2.5 Public Acceptance/Support
Generally, an airport in close proximity to town is considered beneficial. From responses received at
several public meetings and public comment provided at City Council meetings, there are diverse
opinions and differing viewpoints about the existing airport location. Those that support the current
location because the airport brings economic activity to the community that would otherwise not
exist. Those that do not support it claim the airport generates significant noise, poses a safety risk to
residences in the area, and is not a valid public service that should be supported with local tax
dollars. The affected parties are generally very active in opposing their opinions.
6.10.2.6 Owner/User Support
Owners and users of the airport utilize different criteria than the general public with regards to the
benefits or issues of an airport since they are the group actually using the facility or maintaining the
facility. The Owner group would include City officials and staff as well as the Airport Advisory
Board. Users would be area residents that base aircraft at the facility, businesses and employees
operating at the airport, and itinerant pilots visiting Kalispell.
From discussions with City staff and the Airport Advisory Board, Alternative A is the preferred
alternative follow by Alternative B. Alternative C had moderate acceptance while Alternatives D
and E had no support.
Chapter 6 Improvement Alternatives
Page III
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.10.2.7 Initial Development Costs
Initial development costs are defined as those costs which are required to build the facility to
ultimate development as depicted on the Airport Layout Drawing. It does not represent a lump sum
which must be spent all at once, rather it is the aggregate of all separate project costs less interest
expense. In a later chapter of this study, a program for capital improvement at the airport will be
described, which will layout a schedule of individual projects which are required. For the purpose of
this analysis, lower total cost was considered better. Non -essential Costs are those costs which
planners are compelled to recommend, but need not be built to have a fully operational airport.
Essential Costs are those costs which are necessary to the function of the airport. Detailed cost
estimates for Alternatives A through C are included at the end of this Chapter.
Obviously there are no direct development costs under Alternatives D and E since there would be no
development conducted by the City. In respect to Alternatives A, B, and C, Alternative B has the
lowest initial development cost followed by Alternative A and Alternative C.
6.10.2.8 Local Cost Contribution
Two of the alternatives developed would be eligible for federal funding, while the other three would
not receive any federal funding. There is also the potential federal reimbursement to the City on past
investment that could be recovered if the City proceeds with a development alternative that is
supported by the FAA. Finally, there are significant costs to consider in the form of lease buy-outs
that the City would be financially obligated. Table 6-10 summarizes the local cost contribution the
City of Kalispell would be obligated to for each of these alternatives.
TABLE 6-1 O
Local Cost Contribution
A
Ex. Site
B-11
B
Ex. Site
B-1
C
New Site
B-II
D
No
Action
E
Relocate
To GPI
Initial Development
Lease Buy -Out
$505,840
$0
43,100,460
42,594,620
$2,723,500
$0
SO
$2,723,500
$1,543,517
$4,842,398
$0
$6,385,915
$0
$4,842,398
$0
$4,842,398
$0
$4,842,398
$0
Lost reimbursement
Total
$4,842,398
Rank
S
2
1
6.10.3 Summary of Alternative Comparison Criteria
An evaluation matrix has been prepared for all of the aeronautical and non -aeronautical criteria
discussed in this section. The Alternative Evaluation Matrix compiles rankings for the five proposed
alternatives in each of the evaluation categories, weights each by importance, and computes the
weighted rankings. The importance factors were based on the importance weight assigned during
the Site Selection Study in 2002; new categories were assigned a weighting by the Consultant.
Table 6-11 indicates that Alternative E has the highest score with a ranking of 357 followed closely
by Alternative A with a 334.
Chapter 6 /mprovementAlternatives
Page 112
1
t
2
C
O
Q1
[�
W)
[
�O
O
O
N
00
�t
m
00
~
v)
N
N
N
O
00
`�
�
[
00
C'-
`Q
Wn
�
t%
-�
N
-
.-.
-
00
..
M
V7
1 %n
V-)
to
Wn
N
N
d
to
N
W'�
N
W)
"
[��k
rf)
In
rr7
�'-�
tI')
tiD
N
Oti
04
005
O+
['fi
i!1
r-
00
[�
00
^
rr7
'[t
M
r+'i
m
M
•--•`fl
N
1�-
: o
f')
N
00
00
1�
n
M
Cry
V)
rr,
lO
to
d
C--
C-
00
C'-
C•
C-
M
V"1
0�0
C:�
Nt
.^
C-
C-
CN
`!?
W)
-
dt
C>
�r-y
o"
r-
C4
00
CN
r-
r-
\0
r-
"01 4
of
110
v.
ON
Wn
a
y-
M
a
00
I-N
❑9
C\
Q
1-
o
M
N
00
47
r-.
00
,
C l
rr1
.-- . M
M
M
N
M
M
Ln
N
W)
W)
N
kn
N
Ln
f,7
00
00 00
r-
00
N
M
M
Vn
00
Ln
N
ON
kn
m
C`
�
kn
N
I
�N
�I
O
U
O
✓� 1
O
y�
0
4.1
U
m
U
N
e
U
r
I=.
r
03
9n
(:d
a�
a�
p,
o
c
o
Qa�
~
O10
.��
�
o
•-.
0�
cn
w
a
d
W
w
d
P.
0�
V
C7
Z
MASTER PLAN UPDATE — DRAFT
Kalispell City Airport
6.1 1 Conclusion
To be completed following the draft master plan review.
Chapter 6 Improvement A/terna mom
Page 114