The URL can be used to link to this page

07/01 Airport Site Selection StudySITE SELECTION STUDY A.I.P. 3-30-0043-02 Prepared for The City of Kalispell 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 July, 2001 apyrgh[ 0 2001 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selwinn Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Tableof Contents........................................................................................................................... i Listof Figures................................................................................................................................ii List of Tables..................... ........................................ Chapter 1: Airport Site Selection....................................................................................... I A. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1 B. Potential Airport Site Locations.............................................................................................. I C. Site Evaluation Criteria...........................................................................................................2 1. Airspace Obstructions...................................................................................................................2 2. Expandability................................................................................................................................2 3. Wind Alignment.... ....................................................................................... ................................ 3 4. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIA)................................................................................... 5 5_ Instniment Capahilitin....... ..................._-----------..._.................................................................. 5 6. Proximity to Other Airports.......................................................................................................... 7 7. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage............................................................................................. 7 8. Public Acceptance / Support ......................................................................................................... 9 9. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning.......................................................................................... 9 10. Compatible Land Use ......................................................................... ........................................... 9 11. Development / Land Costs.......................................................................................................... 10 12. Surface Transportation Impacts................................................................................................... 10 13. Proximity to Kalispell................................................................................................................. 10 14. Environmental Consequences..................................................................................................... 12 15. Floodplains / Wetlands ........................ ................. ............... ................................ 12 16. Economic Benefit to Kalispell.................................................................................................... 14 17, Available Infrastructure ............. ............ ....................................... ...................................... I ........ 14 D. Site Ranking Procedures.......................................................................................................17 E. Site Evaluations.....................................................................................................................20 1. Alternative #1 - Existing site with ultimate B-II (small) standards ............................................. 20 2. Alternative #2 - Existing Location, 5.6 Degree Realignment, Ultimate B-II (small) Standards.. 29 3. Alternative #3 - Adjacent site to the south, ultimate B-II (small) standards ................................ 38 4. Alternative #4 - Five miles east-southeast of Kalispell, ultimate B-II (small) standards ............. 47 5. Alternative #5 - Five miles east of Kalispell, ultimate B-II (small) standards ............................. 56 F. Alternative Recommendation................................................................................................66 Appendix A Wetlands Designations i Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page Figure 1 Overview of Alternatives........................................................................................following 1-1 Figure 2 Wind Rose — Glacier Park International Airport ALP............................................................ 1-4 Figure 3 Composite Aeronautical Chart ............................................................................................... 1-6 Figure 4 Approximate Radar & Communications Coverage................................................................ 1-8 Figure5 Road Mileage....................................................................................................................... 1-11 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 Alternative #1 .......................................................................................................following 1-20 Figure 10 Alternative #1 — Part 77 Airspace.........................................................................following 1-20 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 1-29 Figure 14 Alternative #2 — Part 77 Airspace......................................................................... following 1-29 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 1-38 Figure 18 Alternative #3 — Part 77 Airspace..::.....................................................................following 1-38 Figure 19 Alternative #3 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................ 1-44 Figure 20 Alternative #3 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................... 1-45 Figure21 Alternative #4 ......................................................................................following1-47 Figure 22 Alternative #4 —Part 77 Airspace...._...................................................................following 1-47 Figure 23 Alternative #4 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map............................................................ 1-53 Figure 24 Alternative #4 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................... 1-54 Figure25 Alternative#5.......................................................................................................following 1-56 Figure 26 Alternative #5 — Part 77 Airspace......................................................................... following 1-56 Figure 27 Alternative #5 — FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ---- .:.......................................... 1-62 Figure 28 Alternative #5 — USFWS National Wetlands Inventory ...................................................... 1-63 ii Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Page Table 1 Kalispell City Airport Board's Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria .................. 1-18 Table 2 Robert Peccia & Associates' Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria .....................1-19 Table 3 Owner / Engineer Relative Importance of Site Evaluation Criteria ...................................... 1-19 Table 4 Alternative #1 — Land Costs................................................................................................. 1-23 Table 5 Alternative #1 — Associated Land Costs............................................................................... 1-24 Table 6 Alternative #1 — Estimated Development Costs......................._.......................................... 1-28 Table 7 Alternative #2 — Land Costs................................................................................................. 1-32 Table 8 Alternative #2 — Associated Land Costs............................................................................... 1-33 Table 9 Alternative #2 — Estimated Development Costs................................................................... 1-37 Table 10 Alternative #3 —Land Costs................................................................................................. 1-41 Table 11 Alternative #3 — Associated Land Costs.............................................................................. 1-42 Table 12 Alternative #3 — Estimated Development Costs................................................................... 1-46 Table 13 Alternative #4 — Land Costs................................................................................................. 1-50 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............................................................................... 1-60 Table 18 Alternative #5 — Estimated Development Costs................................................................... 1-65 Table19 Project Cost Comparison ....... ............................................................................................... 1-66 Table 20 Evaluation Matrix — Kalispell City Airport .................................................... iii Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Stud Chapter 1: Airport Site Selection A. Introduction This Chapter identifies and evaluates pntential 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. 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 (small) • Safety improvements to reduce or 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 model 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 dimensions for a B-II (large) airport 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 and move the approach surfaces out of conflict with existing radio antennas. The Alternate #2 alignment would allow an ultimate length of 4700-feet. 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 I -I Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Stud 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 Non -Direct Aeronautical Considerations Airspace Obstructions Public Acceptance / Support Expandability Consistency w/ Area wide Planning Wind Alignment / Weather Compatible Land Use Airspace Assessment (conflict w/GPIA) Development / Land Costs Instrument Capabilities Surface Transportation Impacts Proximity to Other Airports Proximity to Kalispell Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage Environmental Consequences Floodplain s/ 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. laird 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. Moderate limitations or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations. 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 he satisfied. There are three potential airport expansion types which could be planned for at this time: ground -side expansion, runway lengthening, and runway strengthening. Building hangars, expanding hangar access taxiways, and enlarging the apron area for additional tiedowns all may happen within the 20-year planning 1-2 Kalispell Citv Airoort - Site Selection Stud window. The runway may be built in phases to the full design length shown over the duration of the planning window. The local community prefers the airport support only "small" general aviation, not business jets, so the runway pavement need not be upgraded to support heavier, "large" aircraft nor see the approach slopes shallowed to the 34:1 required for large aircraft. 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. It is not projected that the airport will see more than 500 operations per year of large airplanes. The runway length shown may be constructed as one project or phased in over time. There seems to be strong local sentiment to restrict large aircraft use, including building to only 3500' length. The alternatives will be rated in terms of the designed ultimate runway length. Larger airplanes require a longer runway, a thicker pavement section, larger FAR Part 77 imaginary surfaces, and a shallower approach path. Runway expansion to accommodate large aircraft is highly unlikely with the local smidinent and close proximity of Glacier Park Intenrational Airport. Expansion to a "Large" design group will not be considered in this study. Score Description of Ranking No limitations to site expansion. 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. 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. FAA criteria states that any airport serving exclusively small airplanes should provide a runway that 95% of the time will accommodate operations with less than a 10.5 knot direct cross -wind component. 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. 1-3 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study ALL - WEATHER WIND ROSE COVERAGE CROSSWIND 10.5 KNOTS 13.0 KNOTS 16.0 KNOTS 20.0 KNOTS R/W 02120 97.22 9 99,007, 99.897. 99.987. R/W 12130 91.557. 94.79 % 98.00 q 99.29 q COMBINED 99.717. 99.96 S' 99.99 100 SOURCE: NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER; ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, WIND OBSERVATIONS AT GPIA FROM 1984-1993. Figure 2 Wind Rose — Glacier Park International Airport ALP ]-4 Kalispell City Airpon- Site selection Study Score Description of Ranking Aligned close to the most favorable winds. 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 ?.500-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. 5, Instrument Capabilities The Kalispell City Airport will likely develop GPS circling and straight -in instrument approaches within a 20- year planning period. Establishing an instrument approach for exclusively small aircraft would require 20:1 approach slopes for both runway ends. It is anticipated that the Kalispell City Airport will remain an airport exclusively for small aircraft. If the community decides to support over 500 operations per year by large aircraft the approach slopes would become a more restrictive 34:1, as well as nearly doubling the part 77 airspace clearances. 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). It is important to select a site where FAA approval for terminal instrument procedures (TERPS) would be forthcoming and result in favorable approach minimums. I-5 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selmdon Study AFL '� i • S t � -�' yi -i � �sHiga R �� +; �i° 1k;,'I - Wh.wl O t.;rrr:olumbi• � ra � Oft�.. / tt tr t , a vl {v 1 � , // ,. a GE KAIISPI 0 Kalispell Cyly ort cra,ron u Is ij, ON 1pi I20l1 - yScdwY.. 1 As /ocario XF Yt one C.lokeadj. _ _I �48° "1r; It A ti --------- Class E (sfc)Airspace / Class E Airspace with Floor 1200 ft. or Greater Above Surface That Abuts Class G Airspace Q Public Use Airports ®© Non -Public Use Airports Nautical Miles 5 0 10 Figure 3 Composite Aeronautical Chart 1-6 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study Score Description of Ranking 20:1 slopes are clear. 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 inclose 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. Score Description of Ranking Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base. 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." Grnnnd-tn-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. Marginal coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO. No coverage by Blacktail Mountain radar and Lakeside RCO. 1-7 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Sled. 1-8 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 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. Moderate support and public acceptance. Minimal support and public acceptance. 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. I-9 Kalispea City Airport - Site Selection Study Score Description of Ranking No surrounding non -compatible land use. 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 imputtance 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 primarydeterminants 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. 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 No surface trauspuitatiun facilities are impacted. 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 S 1-10 Kalispell City Airport - Sitc Scicaion Stud graphtclWr Glacier Park International Airport (8.8 Miles to City Center) City Center Ste 7 (tit Miles to Site 2 City Center) (2.1 Miles to City Center) l Site 3 (3.1 Miles to City Center) Approx. Scale: 1" = 6000' Site 5 (G.G Miles to City Center) Site 4 (8.3 Miles to city Genter) Figure 5 Road Mileage Kalispell City Aitpon - Site Selection Study 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 A short walk to local businesses. Served by municipal emergency services_ 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. 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 Minimal or no environmental consequences. Moderate environmental consequences. Significant adverse environmental consequences. 15. F7oodplains / 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. 1-12 Kalispell City Airport Site Selection Swdy 1Kuhns r Kuhns WIdly Management Area , `P Map Not To Scale 4 � i� ncr,q 'v vsux c 7 � Selo 1 > I. �:� 1L1I fBPE rn srcn.6R .e iV.`� I Slte #5 "'[ 4L — MITI P. " ih Y1. Jh.sJM+. S m'J 'Batavi Waterfowl', - ion Area < f;- Site #17 a le >: I � Site #2- a r Lone Pine State Wildlife ment,Ar, o ,V B el ee _ P uct n Artj - ' p _ P - µN 11.1 r,l 1F •i I Smith Lake Waterfowl' Production Area - Flathead,Wateriowi' _ Production Area J� a fl �? 1 - ` Cawlrc Pox — Figure 6 0 Wildlife & Waterfowl Areas Wildlife And Waterfowl Areas Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 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 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted. 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. Score Description of Ranking 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. An important consideration in the selection of a public airport is its accessibility. The location of each site relative to existing transportation routes was evaluated. Major considerations in this evaluation 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. 1-14 Kalispell City Airport - Site Solection Study gmphiel S.Wr Site # � Flathead o Site #4 Site #2 Site #3 WON --7t7mi/12r4km r---] 100-Year Flood Plain 500-Year Flood Plain Figure 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map N a m � la c Q 7 O X QI 6 C N wq N N a U m m m G} m Z � Q m T2 O CO m fry = 7 97 N W J �j Q W LL UY J d d d d (L ILL CC w Q� =1 2 N cc CC SA U u Z DOD E❑❑❑❑■❑❑❑❑zi a ca vow U) — —. to — _ � ► �� -.. rr UN 1 i z-50 In Ill �r m 14 U c 4 Figure 8 ' _ USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 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 and base courses. 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 Airpnrt. Score Description of Ranking Most infrastructure elements are in place,. only minor connections and construction are required. No additional maintenance costs expected. 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. 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 I-17 Kalispell City Airport - Site Seleetion Study 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. TABLE 1 KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT BOARD'S RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Site Evaluation Criteria Relative Importance Average Ranking High Medium 3) Low (2) (1) (5) (4) Airspace Obstructions 5 4 1 0 1 4.09 Expandability 2 2 5 2 0 336 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 1 3 2.36 Public Acceptance /..Support 2 5 4 0 0 3.82 Consistent w/ Area wide Planning 2 2 5 2 0 3.36 Compatible Land Use 1 3 3 3 0 3.20 Development I Land Costs 2 2 3 2 0 3.44 2 Surface Transportation Impacts 4 3 2 1 0 4.00 Proximity to Kalis ell 9 0 1 1 0 4.55 Euvironmental Concerns 2 4 0 4 1 3.18 z -Floodplains lains / 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 1-18 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 2 ROBERT PECCIA AND ASSOCIATES RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Relative Importance Average Site Evaluation Criteria High Medium Low Ranking (5) (4) 3) (2) (I) Airspace Obstructions 2 1 4.67 Expandability 2 1 3.67 Wind Alignment 1 2 4.33 Airspace Assessment 1 2 4.33 Instrument Capabilities 1 2 3.33 4 Proximity to Other Airports 2 1 1 2.67 Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage 3 3.00 Public Acceptance / Support 2 1 3.33 Consistent w/ Area wide Planning 1 2 3.33 7 Compatible Land Use 1 2 4.33 Development / Land Costs 1 1 1 3.00 o Surface Transportation Impacts 1. 1 1 3.O0 Proximity to Kalispell 1 1 1 1 3.67 c Environmental Concerns 1 2 4.33 Z Floodplains / Wetlands 1 1 1 1 4.00 Economic Benefit 1 1 1 3.00 Available Infrastructure 2 1 3.67 TABLE 3 OWNER / ENGINEER AVERAGE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA Site Evaluation Criteria Average Ranking Airspace Obstructions 4.38 Expandability 3.52 Y .a Wind Alignment 3.99 Airspace Assessment 3.62 0 Instrument Capabilities 3.17 Proximity to Other Airports 2.34 Black Mountain Radaz Covera e 2.68 Public Acceptance / Support 3.58 Consistent w/ Area wide Planning 3.35 Compatible Land Use 3.77 m Development / Land Costs 3.22 o Surface Trans ortation Impacts 3.50 C Proximity to Kalispell 4.11 c Environmental Concerns 3.76 z Floodplains / Wetlands 3.32 Economic Benefit 3.73 Available Infrastructure 3.66 1-19 Kalispell Ciry Airport - Site Selection Stud 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 proposal alternative. The preferred alternative will have the highest numerical score. Below is the evaluation of the criteria for each Altemative. The criteria are evaluated in the order presented in Table 3. E. Site Evaluations 1. Alternative #1 - Existing site with ultimate B-II (small) 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-11 (small) 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-H, small, with an NPI straight -in approach. There is a radio tower penetrating the approach surface south of the airport, and poles violating the north .approach surface. One other radio antenna passes through the horizontal surface at the south end. Terrain penetrates over 500 feet into the conical surface southwest of the field. 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. Expandability 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 1-20 Kalispell City Airpon - Site selection Study 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. 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 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 penetrate the required 20:1 approach slope and adjacent horizontal surface. Since it would be possible, though costly, to remove these man-made items, instrument capabilities is ranked as a 2.. Score Description of Ranking 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 Poison 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 Coveraee 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. 1-2 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 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 Moderate support and public acceptance. 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 relncation of the cemetery. This propnse.d 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 It] 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. 1-22 Kalispell City Airport- Site Selection Study Tract Owner Seetinn 20, T29N, R21 W TABLE 4 ALTERNATIVE #1 - LAND COSTS Size Price/ (acres) Acre* Amount Required - Required Extension (acres) Price 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 $0 213 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. Torgetsoa 4.67 $26,136 4.46 $116,648 2FA Schlegel & Sons Contractors, Inc 2.33 $43,560 1.95 $84,834 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 2JA Hugh R. Louden 1 343,560 0.94 $40 771 2313 Hugh R. Louden 1.01 $43,560 0.87 $37,964 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. Stockhiil 1.51 $43,560 1.51 $65,776 5 Seiler Family Trust 3.09 $43,560 1.49 $64,859 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 5GAA Ronald Swartzenberger 0.89 $43,560 0.10 $4,416 5GB Ronald Swartzenberger - Includes 5CCB 0.91 $43,560 0.11 $4,852 5GC Seiler Family Trust 2.97 $43,560 1.34 $58,341 5171 Seiler Family Trust 5.25 $119,790 2.42 S290 158 5HA R & R Development 5.21 $119,790 1.97 $235,896 5J Seiler Family Trust 8 $108,900 3.89 $423,348 6+ Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise 57.92 $6,534 0.31 $2 054 6D Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise 20 $6,514 492 .$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 I1C 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 IICAB 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. letter - Included with 11-0 0.46 $43,560 0.34 $14,807 LICE Peter T. Jeller 0.42 343,560 0.42 $18,295 I1CF Robert J. Rinke 0.37 $43,560 0.03 $1,489 I1F William & Anne Russell 0.04 $43,560 0.04 $1,742 1117A Lawrcnce & Vivian L. Petcrson 0.52 $43,560 0.49 $21,253 I IFAA Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen 0.11 $43,560 0.08 $3,468 IIFB Dale & Haroldeen Witty 0.49 $43,560 0.41 $17,894 1IH Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen 0.485 $43,560 0.01 $344 11K Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen 0.06 $43,560 U.U3 $1,247 11 KA Neil M. & Phyllis A. Bertelsen 0.07 $43,560 0.05 $2,080 11U Dale & Haroldeen Witty 0.16 $43,560 0.10 $4 190 11AI, Trea Tr P. DF. 114. A Be..,..1...,_ n nce moo ern n nn mn e. 1213 Seiler Pamily'trust 10.43 $6,534 5.79 $37,841 12BA City of Kalispell 2.57 $0 1.24 $0 Uneconomic RCMDant- Remnant Extension (acres) Price 0.01 $331 0.38 $16,368 0.05 $2,248 0.06 $2,789 0,14 $6,031 0.12 $5,240 1.63 $71,032 0.01 $1,460 0.12 $5,231 0.03 $1,398 0.03 $1,323 0.08 $3,451 0.03 $1,366 0.02 $969 0.06 $2,779 0,05 $2,024 4.64 $30,309 52 tracts 261andowners Non -city awned acreage: 66.52 132.40 $2,293,520 7.47 $154,352 *Preliminary sia le landvalueo/the portion eo be aaguireddearminedl'pan appraisal eonsutring assi%amenr(involves an opinion halve but does not have an appraisal or an appraisal review as is primary purpose} Nall-Widdoa and Company. P.C. May 2001. F\AavcQM%0soF L\GNG\IMCMAe\LA4e. 4A Atowaft-1 1-23 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 5 ALTERNATIVE #1 - ASSOCIATED LAND COSTS Improvement 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 Administrative 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 F:NR RTS LISPELV4 RT =X-W nlasocLAM=[ 1-24 Kalispell City Airport - Site selection Study Score Description of Ranking Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people impacted. 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 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 Minimal or no environmental consequences. O. Floodplains / 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 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted. 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. 1-25 Kali.pe9 City Airport - Site Selection Study g,apnkaw, See Detail For City Flood Boundaries ,ZONE A7 IEL 2924) ZONE B ONE ZONE 8 S� ONE A7 ZONE ZONE B Farm Bridge li ZONE B City of Kalispell AREA NOT INcLuor0 ZONE C )NE C %�� 20 NE A7 2922) ZONE RM11 \ 19 'tip 920 9ryY 2 ZONE A7 � ZONI ZONE B 2919 LIMI DLTAILE 171 `; d - Scale in Feet m r1J 800 Site 1 v Detail of City ZONE C CEMETERY ROAD �L� \\ iI _\\1U �� LOWER VAL( KEY TO MAP - �29 n, s9va�",rm.tl ao..... --WWI— 4V©fwi ' Source: Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, National tun. D.ar�,nmm Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 nNrmr rl..d a.mea,r 2bME.l Scale inFeet B. r1.a1 O11M0.11 LKI ,,, 0 1000 W I,I, [,ma,lon,. i of P• m rule l'Im.J [I<.,,b. 1. 1— IEL997, 500 Wne,o ummrm Wunin xmm•• L-0-R,•U'—muh RMTK Figure 11 'onc.N0uM1i- — --— Alternative #1 Rbu N11e •M 1.6 —Re4rm...e io tun W.onnl t.nmm,i� vctlo, omm of 1919 RM1 B 1-26 a m Q m m m Z m m 0 m 0 � Nry Q W 4 0 D D N N tf a o J J 8- C, it CL d d x w x Z J ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ U i 1 I, 5` I�4� lr r r m c Q 4 x m a c � E LU M - - m a � U lu N r°- 6Z a a iE Figure 12 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Site 1 1-27 Kalispell City Airport- Site Selection Study TABLE 6 ALTERNATIVE #1 - ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Item Description Land, Improvements, and Relocation Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Land Purchase (67 AC) I LS $2,293,520 /LS $2,293,520 Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase I LS $154,352 /LS $154,352 Improvements Cost i LS $2,862,000 /LS $2,862,000 Cost to Cure 1 LS $0 /LS $O Administrative Costs 1 LS $332,800 /LS $332,800 TOTAL: $5,642,672 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Strobe Lighting 2 EA $16,500 /EA $33,000 Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide) 0 LF $25 /LP $O 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 /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 /LS $10,000 Pavcd Access Road 1500 LF $30 /LF $45,000 Engineering and Administrative $27 000 TOTAL: $210,000 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 Asphalt Cement Drainage Culverts 20,500 TON 1,435 TON 300 LF $30 $300 $75 /TON /TON /LF $615,000 $430,500 $22,300 Pavement Markings 1 LS $18,000 /LS $18,000 Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer 108 EA $L000 /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 15600 LF $3 /LF $46,800 PROJECT TOTAL: FVIRPORTSIIWJSPEL EPORTM IXX" YiPmICOST I-28 $2,841,550 $8,694,222 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 2. Alternative #2 - Existing Location, 5.6 Degree Realignment, Ultimate B-II (small) 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 (small) 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-B, exclusively small aircraft, with an NPI straight -in approach. Two existing radio towers would penetrate the horizontal surface, but not the approach surface south of the airpnrt_ Pnles at the high schnol, 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 large aircraft. Terrain penetrates over 700 feet into the horizontal and conical surfaces southwest of the field. Penetrations of the Part 77 horizontal and conical surfaces warrant a low ranking, but clear approaches preclude the lowest rating. Score Description of Ranking Moderate limitations or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations. B. Expandability Alternate#2 is tightly hemmed in on the sides by community development and ]and 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 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° 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 Alignment has less than 10.5 knot crosswind component 95% of the time. 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 cnexisted for quite a few years, their close proximity, warrents a rating of 2. Score Description of Ranking Approach and/or traffic patterns have minimal scparatiuu. 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 Poison 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 100010 of the small aircraft fleet while avoiding a contentious relocation of the cemetery and residences. Score Description of Ranking Excellent support and public acceptance. Kalispell City Airport - Site Selecoon Study. I. Consistency with Area -Wide Planning As an existing element in the current city and county planning, minor changes and expansionat 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 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 Surface transportation is impacted with minor effects and few people impacted. 1-31 Kalispell City Aitpon - Site Selection Study Tract Owner Section 20, T28N, R21W NXI .3 aWA ALTERNATIVE #2 - LAND COSTS Amount Required - Size Price / Required Extension (acres) Acre* (acres) Price 1 City of Kalispell - ram,c a.vkuviaaAF-to,d..e,;.m- 0,46 $0 0.40 $0 IA State of Montana 2.UU $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 L" $62,619 1DA David I- Hoemer 0.35 $43,560 000 $0 2+ Robert K. & La Dona Monk 10.78 $6,534 10.65 $69,611 2A City of Kalispell 9.91 $0 9.91 $0 2B City of Kalispell 6.57 $0 6.57 $0 2D Sharon M.'IOrgerson 1.68 $43,560 1.68 $73 181 2E Michael S. Barrett 0.81 343,560 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 511A 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 0.00 0 0.00 0 Section 29, T28N, R21 W 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 13+ Douglas F. & Julia M. Wise 78 6,534 0.09 584 Uneconomic Remnant - Remnant Extension (acres) Price 1.29 $56,300 0.35 $15,246 0.13 $826 0.10 $623 2.48 $16,218 35 18 Landowners Non-cily owned acreage: 72.45 145.22 $1,717,072 4.35 $89,213 'Preliminary simple land value ofrheparriou ro be acguiredderermined by an appraisal consulting assignment (involves an opinion ofvalue but roes not have an appraisal or an appraisal review as its prano,purpou). 11a11-Widdoss and Company. P.C. May 2001. F.A. xo mnawstraxvca.�. are„nmos 1-32 Kalispell City Airport- Site Selection Study TABLE 8 ALTERNATIVE #2 - ASSOCIATED LAND COSTS Improvement Costs Number Unit value Total Expense Single Family Residence 4 $120,000 $480,000 Mobile Home 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 1.7 $6,000 $102,000 TOTAL: $2,577,000 Cost to Cure Tree Clearing Vehicle / Refuse Removal $0 $0 TOTAL: $0 Number of Administrative Costs Landowners Unit value Total Expense Appraisal 18 $5,000 $90,OD0 Review Appraisal 18 $1,800 $32,400 Negotiations 18 $6,000 $108,000 TOTAL: $230,400 F:UIPM PTMPIRIY XIC tl �rcl>NI]m� 1-33 KaLspell City Airport - Site Selection Study 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 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 Minimal or no environmental consequences. O. Floodplains / 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 No floodplains or wetlands are impacted. 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 Ranking 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 Ranking Most infrastructure elements are in place, only minor connections and construction are required. No additional maintenance costs expected. 1-34 See Detail For City Flood Boundaries ZONE A7 (EL 2924) ZONE B .hlttK aW ZONE B CREAMIL ONE A7 ONE ZONE B --farm Bridge ZONE B Cov of h;disivll u ZONE RM1 19 ZONE A7 .F.k Z d�� ZONE B 9 \UMITOF DETAILED STUDY LC�E7MEIERY ROAD KEY TO MAP' 00 Year Flood Boundary 100-Year Flood Boundary Zone Deslgnations 100-Year Flood Boundary - - ZONE a 500Near Flood Boundary— - Base Flood Euyallon Line With Elevation In Flu,— B., Flond Elevation In Feet IEL 9971 Where Uniform Within Z.one•+ E cwmion Relerenoe Mark RM7x Zone D Boundary - Rroe( Mile aM 1.5 171 20 g' 1Scale in Feet 0 1600 600 Site 2 !l. J' Detail of City RM11 Source: Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 Scale in Feet 0 1000 m 500 Figure 15 Alternative #2 8 1-35 Selection W r a d d OL s C C� � a EL a: cc D J ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ V 4 El r V.,a EV, o m v m c UJ Ct � SA C� `o C� ME Figure 16 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Site 2 1-36 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Swdy ALTERNATIVE #2 - ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Item Description Land, Improvements, and Relocation 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 /LS $89,213 Improvements Cost 1 LS $2,577,000 /LS $2 577,000 Cost to Cure 1 LS $0 /LS $0 Administrative Costs 1 LS $230,400 /LS $230,400 TOTAL: $4,613,685 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Strobe Lighting 2 EA $16,500 /EA $33,000 Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide) 0 LF $95 /1,F $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 /LS $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) I LS $10,000 /LS $10,000 Paved Access Road 1500 LF $30 /LF $45,000 Engineering and Administrative $35 000 TOTAL: $268,000 Airport Construction Excavation and Embankment Crushed Base Course Prune Coat 96,000 CY 32,000 CY 175 TON $3 $25 $250 /CY /CY /TON $288,000 $800,000 $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 I 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 and Administrative PROJECT TOTAL: F.IA c,ssvd,en 1-37 $3,008,150 $7,889,835 Kalispen City Airport - Site Selection Study 3. Alternative #3 - Adjacent site to the south, ultimate B-II (small) 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 (small) 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-1I, exclusively small aircraft, with an NPI straight -in approach. Two existing radio towers wmild penetrate the horizontal .cnrface, but not the approach surface south of the airport. One large fixed crane for constructing log homes would be in or near the ultimate approach, and need to be relocated. An additional fixed crane would be immediately adjacent to the approach, penetrating the 7:1. It would be best to move this obstruction as well. Terrain would penetrate about 120 feet into the horizontal surface south of the field, and conical surface penetrations would parallel the runway on the west side. Penetrations of the Part 77 horizontal and conical surfaces warrant a low ranking, but the ability to remove the cranes and clear the approaches preclude the lowest rating. Score Description of Ranking Moderate limitations or adverse airspace factors impeding 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 Moderate limitations to site expansion. C. Wind Alignment Option #3 would be a 165-degree (true), or 15-33 runway alignment. 'Phis 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. 1-38 ' �- HIM 11111 'IIIIII Ing MEMO Di hi 1Ile �� ' Site selection Score Description of Ranking Alignment has less than 10.5 knot crosswind component 95% of the time. D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIAI 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 GPM'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 world prohahly protrude into a straight -in instrument approach from the south. These man-made structures could be removed, but would require expense and inconvenience of relocating the construction facility. Score Description of Ranking 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 bcucfus of the current site. Score Description of Ranking Site would serve a large area with little overlap in service base. G. Blacktail Mountain Radar Coveraee 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 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 1-39 Kalispell City Anport - Site Selection Study Moderate support and public acceptance. 1. 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 Moderately consistent with regional development plans. J. Compatible Land Use Alternative #3 would move the airport into an area of primarily light indusuial and cuunumcial 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). Senre Description of Ranking 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. 1-40 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study Tract. Owner Section 20, T28N, R21 W TABLE 10 ALTERNATIVE 413 LAND COSTS Amount Required Size Price / Required Extension (acres) Acre* (acres) Price Uneconomic Remnant - Remnant Extension (acres) Price 5 Seiler Family Trust 3.09 $43,560 3.09 $134,600 SCE 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 5.2c $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, R21 W 1 Treweek Family Partnership 6.4 $32,670 1.13 $36,760 1B Brian V. & Teresa R. Cannavino 6.52 $32,670 3.24 $105,796 1CA Ashley Creek Rauchcra 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 IFC 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 0.36 $1,985 RoW MOOT (?) ? $43,560 0.60 $25,941 0.06 $2,649 22 14Landowners Nan -city owned acreage: 167,87 151.27 $1,929,965 16.60 $185,029 •Prdiminary simple land valve ofunportive un be acquired determined by an appraisal cw,ndang ussignmenr (invohms an opinion of value but does nothave an appraisal or an appraisal review as usprimary purpose). Hall-Widdassand Company.P.C,May2001. F\AInVQ'115\Wy15FFl\DYJG\inACt1MV\tAl(INa<aL Am u- 1-41 Kalispell City Airport.- Site Selection Study TABLE 11 ALTERNATIVE #3 - ASSOCIATED LAND COSTS Improvement Costs Number Unit value Total Expense Single Family Residence 0 $120,000 $0 Mobile Home 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 Administrative 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 r:NIRPoRIT�F..iLISPEI[RE�RN1AiR1X.%LS p3azwcLANnw[t 1-42 Site selectJOD Score Description of Ranking 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 Minor incursion into a floodplain or wetland with simple, economical fix apparent. 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 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 Some infrastructure elements are in place, connections and construction are required. Some additional maintenance / construction costs likely. gmphic6.cdr 19 ZONE ZONE 8 zero LIMITOF (l ZONE C DETAILED STUD%\ 11 I 30 \._ ZONE A •• KEY TO MAP' _ 500-Year Flood Boundary- — rl 100-Year Flood Boundary Zane Dedgr'stions 100-Year Flood Boundary - 500-Year Flood Boundary Base Flood Elevation Line 513 •--^-•-- Wllh Elavanao In reel" Base Flood Elevation In Feel IEL 9871 Where Uniform Within Z..- -Elevation Reference Mark RM7x Zone D Bouadery, Riper VIft eM1.6 "Referenttd to the National Geodetic Verilcnl Datum of 7929 RM11 ZONE e SH6 3 ZONE s ZONE 8 P2 ZONE B ZONE B LIMtTOF DETAILED 6TUDV ZONE C 33 Source: Federal Emergency ManagementAgency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 Scale in Feet O 500 Figure 19 Alternative #3 1-44 Kalispell City Airport Site Selection Study N L � G Q � L3 x I C c m m 4 4 Q 4 t3 m c '0 ra ^ a w v< Z to W O [n [n ua m m of a m��c , a Q 0- lL 0- C7 a s d rL n n a ail- z 0 w ac U) U �, E o cao Ui 'I f 'I T-� ,l14 �r k � 2:a CO zr m r pCp V C m E c 2 w- � U N �2 :? a } /x > ca r A v c t° O ,I Figure 20 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Site 3 1-45 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 12 ALTERNATIVE #3: ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Item Description Land, Improvements, and Relocation Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 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 $L504,000 /LS $1 504 000 Cost to Cure 1 LS $0 /LS $0 Administrative Costs 1 LS $179,200 /LS $179,200 TOTAL: $3,798,194 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Strobe Lighting 2EA $16,500/EA $33,000 Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide) 0 LF $25 /LF $G Paved Road Relocation (30' wide) 3500 LF $50 /LF $I75,000 Bury Power Lines 1000 LF $20 /LF $20,000 Relncste High Voltage Power Lines 0 IF $50 /LF $0 Well/Municipal Water Connection ILS $10,000/LS $10,000 Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection I LS $10,000 /LS $10,000 Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection I LS $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 Acccss Road 1000 LF $30 /LF $30,000 Engineering and Administrative $62 000 TOTAL: $477,500 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 Culycrts 300 LF $73 /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 I LS $45,000 /LS $45,000 Electrical and Reflectors 1 LS $150,000 /LS $150,000 Perimeter Fencing 16350 LF $3 /LF $49,050 PROJECT TOTAL: a,n jcoa $3,006, 800 $7,282,494 1-46 Kalispell City Airport - Site Seleefion Study 4. Alternative #4 - Five miles east-southeast of Kalispell, ultimate B-II (small) 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-II (small) width and safety spacing standards. Alternative #4 would lie within sections 13 and 24 of Township 28 North and Range 2I West. The approxinlate elevation of au 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 IIighway 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 Momford Road. This option would be surrounded by agricultural land and a few scattered farm houses. 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-II, exclusively small aircraft, with an NPi straight -in approach. There are no penetrations of Part 77 surfaces nor of approach surfaces Score Description of Ranking No limiting or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations. B. Exl2andability 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 Aiinment 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 Aligned close to the most favorable winds. D. Airspace Assessment (conflict with GPIAI 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 V OR and GPS approach, and under the missed approach hold pattern. Standard operating procedures would provide over 1500-feet of vertical separation between 1-47 l7if MTA TY ,7 !1 �N1 Ss am I Z, L5 li Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study aircraft using the two airports. This proposed location would also lie under Victor airway 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. Whilc 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 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 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. 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 muve 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. 44 would sever two tmimproved 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 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 Intemational Airport. This proposed location is about eight road miles hum 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. I-49 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Stud TABLE 13 ALTERNATIVE #4- LAND COSTS 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 IAB John F. & Louie B. Hammett 26.78 $4,000 8.63 $34,532 18.15 $72,588 IC Flathead County- Includes IA& 1CC(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 Passmorc 33.82 $4,000 2.48 $9,923 2.56 $10,222 Section 24, T28N, R21W l+ Merle J. Baldwin Rev. Trust 156.96 $3,200 34.64 $110,838 37.64 $120,445 4+ J. Larry & Ruth Passmore Trust 79A $3.200 36.40 $116,468 2.58 SR,255 9 6landuwners Non -city owned acreage 221.18 TOTALS: 138.26 $503,752 82.92 $300,045 'Preliminary simple land value ofrheporrian is be acquiredde... mm,d by an appraisal om,.lring assignment(Involver an opinion ofvalue but does nor have an appraisal or an appraisal review as irsprimary purposel. Hall-Widdoss and Company, P.C., May 2001. F:\ARPJIi14\rAL6PEl\VNf\rMRMh°\iApi`Ye<tlt N,Bm�Xve< Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 14 ALTERNATIVE #4 - ASSOCIATED LAND COSTS 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 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 F:IIX RTS GLISPnI MRWUMX.X N<azwcLANDcast 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 hoth 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 cumributcd to the conununity. Many local piluts wuuld 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 grwhicil cdr 19 ZONE C ZONE` I FLOODING EFFEOT9 FROM FLATHEAD ft1VEfl 13 -- --� If—FAIRMOMROAO I N N 132.NIIILI EWAN__ _ RO ¢ I el I itU 13 II II •. II .. I° Site 4 ® /r \ I I 24 19 I o / VA G E KEY TO MAP I �� 500 Year Flood Boundary — ZONE 8 DD-Year FIaoO boundary Zone Dtslgcations 100-va,1 Flmd 8—,1d ry ZONE B 500-Year Flood Boundary — Base Flood Efevallon Line 513—^^^- With Elevation In Feet*- Base Flood Elevallun in Feel IEL 9871 Where Uniform Within Zone"* Elevation Refeten®Mark RM7X zone D 0o„nda11 — - R6or Mile •Mi.5 "Referenced to the Nallanal Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1999 Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 Scale in Feet 0 1000 Figure 23 5500 Alternative #4 1-53 97 m W g 4 w w a al a a s(L a x m a N m Q O _ X � C E 4A D W N Q Z v 2 Figure 24 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Site 4 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 15 ALTERNATIVE #4; ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Land, improvements, 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 I LS $0 /LS $O Cost to Cure 1 LS $0 /LS $0 Administrative Costs I LS $76,800 /LS $76,800 TOTAL: $880,597 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Strobe Lighting 0 EA $16,500 /EA $0 Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide) 0 Ll' $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 Power Lines 0 LF $50. /LF $O Well / Municipal Water Connection 1 LS $10,000 /LS $10,000 Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection I 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 /LF $22,500 Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle) 1 LS $.10,000 /LS $10,000 Paved Access Road 2000 LF $30 /LF $60,000 Engineering and Administrative $37,000 TOTAL: $280,500 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 Sccd, Fertilize and Mulch 50 AC $900 /AC $45,000 Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPls, Beacon 1 LS $45,000 /LS $45,000 Electrical and Reflectors 1 LS $150,000 /LS $150,000 Perimeter Fencing 16500 LF $3 /LF $49,500 Engineering. and Administrative $392,000 TOTAL: $3,007,250 PROJECT TOTAL: $4,168,347 F:V.IRPo SWALISPELl4EP MIAIAX= N4PMjCOSi 1-55 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study 5. Alternative #5 - Five miles east of Kalispell, ultimate B-II (small) 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 (small) width and safety spacing standards. Alternative #5 would lie within sections I 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, a school, 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, exclusively small aircraft, with an NPI straight -in approach. There are no penetrations of Part 77 surfaces nor of 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. Score Description of Ranking No limiting or adverse airspace factors impeding aircraft operations. B. Exoandability 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 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 ever one nautical mile west of the FCA VOR and GPS approach, and under the missed apprnarh 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-font (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 #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 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 I 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 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 land owners, so would hopefully generate less opposition to land acquisition. 1-57 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection study Score Description of Ranking Minimal support and public acceptance. I. Consistency with Area -Wide Plannine 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 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-11 (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 (Tahle 1 h)_ 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 wituectivas could be wristuutcted with less than one mile of gravel roads. Score Description of Ranking No surface transportation facilities are impacted. 1-58 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 16 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, R21 W 3+ Mark & Cindy Passmore 43.79 $4,00D 22.67 $90,692 21.12 $84,468 311+ Logan Feu ens 43.11 $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 Roadwav Holt Road 1.7 $8,000 1.70 .$13,600 Section 12, T28N, R21 W 2+ Dan L. & Judith A. Gorton 78.88 $3,200 64.69 $207,005 1419 $45,411 3+ Pauline U. Miller, trustee 154.38 $3,200 23.73 $75,942 7 5Landowners Non -city owned acreage: 206.69 TOTALS: 130.77 $472,147 75.92 $318,401 Vreliminary simple land value a/the portion in be acquired determined by an appraisal coisulting assignment (involves an a➢ation ofwlue but doer not haw an appraisal aran appraisal review at irzprimarypurposel. Nal4Widdassand Company. P.C. May2(lal. f\MtNals\VA�ffL\GY<'\rnACfAVA\iW1Wa.b ub,rg6vo5 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study TABLE 17 ALTERNATIVE #5 - ASSOCIATED LAND COSTS 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 $6,000 $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 5 $5,000 $25,000 Review Appraisal 5 $1,800 $9,000 Negotiations 5 $6,000 $30 000 TOTAL: RFa nnn FMRTSY LISPELIREPORI MX.X XSuv¢LANpcon 1-60 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Stndy M. Proximity to Kalispell Site #5 moves the airport just slightly closer to town than Glacier Park Intemational 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. This location would be sufficiently removed from the city to preclude municipal fire and police protection. It would be served by a county vnhmteer fire department and county sheriff. Ambulance respnnse time to the site would be slightly longer, but would still be provided by the Flathead Regional Medical Center. 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 sloughs and Flathead River to the north, and wetlands to the south could generate suine conflict with waterfowl, but probably not much more than the remainder of the Flathead Valley. Score Description of Ranking 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 Intemational 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. 1-61 i I �3 ZONE r ry-------- p� I 16 mile I � I `_ter I I I I I �. Site 5 I \ 112---- -- ��I I ID I I KEY TO MAP 5001 Flood Boundary— - -- ZONE 0 100-Near Fiaai Boundary Zone DesiRnaticns N- 100-Vem Flood Boundary - 5o0-Year Flwd eeunda,y— - Base Flood Elevation Line 513---^-- With Elervation In FeetY- Base Flood Ele•atlon in Feet (EL 9871 Wuem undnm, Within zone" Ehvation Refewce Mark RM7x Zone D Boundary— — Kim Mile •M 1.5 —Rolerenced to the National Geodelic Vertical Datum of 1929 11111311 I ZONE C ZO%A6h. Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 Scale in Feet Om1000 500 Figure 27 Alternative #5 1-62 M Z�y m m D J a a (L a a IL (L a s CL cc M a LU lima E m a o u �o m c U7 � CC Ul U A 1 M c 0 C6 Z N 0 c O U Figure 28 USFWS National Wetlands Inventory - Site 5 1-63 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study Q. Available Infrastructure Alternate#5 would require significant infrastructure development. One or mnre wells would need tohe drilled for community or individual water supplies. Community or individual drain fields would need lobe 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. 1-64 Kalispell City Airporz - Site Selection Smdv TABLE 18 ALTERNATIVE #5: ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 1 Land, Improvements, and Relocation Land Purchase (131 AC) 1 LS $472,147 /LS $472,147 Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase I LS $318,401 /LS $318,401 Improvements Cost I LS S0 /LS $O Cost to Cure I LS $0 /LS $0 Administrative Costs I LS $64,000 /LS $64,000 TOTAL: $854,548 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Strobe Lighting 0 EA $16,500 /EA $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 Power Lines 1000 IF $50 /LF $50,000 Well/Municipal Water Connection ILS $10,000 /LS $10,000 Drainfield / Municipal Sewer Connection I LS $10,000 /LS Propane Tanks / Natural Gas Connection 1 LS $5,000 /LS Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System 2 EA _ $50,000 /EA Drainage Structures 300 LF $75 /LF Paved Parking Area (50 vehicle) 1 LS $10,000 /LS Pavcd Acccss Road 2000 LF $30 /LF $5,000 $100,000 $22,500 $10,000 $61J,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 $900,000 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 Di aivagc 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 TOTAL: $3,008,150 PROJECT TOTAL: $4,200,198 F V.IRPORTSW.ALISPEMN RT AVXW M5PmjC0U 1-65 Kalispell City Airpon - Site Selection Smdy F. Alternative Recommendation To determine site rankings, the projected total and relative costs of the projects are listed below in Table 19. PROJECT COST COMPARISON Alternatives: #1 #2 Land, Improvements, &Relocation $5,642,672 $4,613,685 Infrastructure $210,000 $268,000 Percent of the Average: 135% mn �� o= a a P °o E F 8 a #3 #4 #5 $3,798,194 $880,597 $854,548 $477,500 $280,500 $337,500 $7,282,49411 $4,168,347 113% 65% $4,200,198 65% �m AVF.RAGF. $3,157,939 $314,700 $2,974,380 $6,447,019 The site selection matrix compiles rankings for the five proposed sites in each of the evaluation catagories, 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 147.6, 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. Fallowing this recommendation, the Airport Board publicly advertised and invited public comment and participation before continuing with the Environmental Assessment portion of this Site Selection Study. 1-66 Kalispell City Airport - Site Selection Study V1 lU V1 'V V1 O t/1 M O M o6 .-� did 6 07 N i ".L 'O O t6 G- O M M C „0 m r 6 t` � vl [� C O M Ooo O � 3 w r r t-- c) N� ti m m <Y N M co C * M Q\ N V1 M Vr O 7 bA G rn w p o0 0o N N oo M O N l— ^-� r V1 r l0 � --� O r- M O oo O O Cn r,- [� [� C1 O 01 M [-- V C, O, M N, O t m�� 0 0 7 7 t� M N -r C\ r- V tt � N M O h M V Vr M N Ih 0 0 CT d' O O O, V 7 NMI �orlroc;M C V M Ci M M M M M M C1 N M M M M M -- •-+ M N I N M N N M East 5 Miles I East Southeast � 5 Nlilvc G "'N N N .-n . N N M —I M M N M .-i N. I M M^ M N M M M M M N N M M N M M N G �ry U ❑LOo h c V y w G a U U d F AC p .0 U A o O W Qp iU W Dn-aeronautical South 1 Mile N Current Site w/ Modified Alignment Current Site w/ B-II Expansion 1 1-67 APPENDIX A WETLANDS DESIGNATIONS LIUB = Lacustrine, Limnetic, Unconsolidated Bottom L2AB = Lacustrine, Littoral, Aquatic Bed PAB = Palustrine, Aquatic Bed PEM = 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