Loading...
Chapter 5Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 CHAPTER FIVE - SITE ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The purpose ofthis chapter is to identify development alternatives for Kalispell City Airport, to systematically evaluate all alternatives, screen out those which have obvious shortcomings, and to select the most appropriate alternative to recommend. In determining the most appropriate alternative, a number of direct and non -direct aeronautical factors are considered. Direct Aeronautical Considerations are: • Safety and design geometry - This includes conformance with published FAA design standards, ie: Runway Safety Area (RSA) protection, Object Free Area (OFA) protection, Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) protection, approach and departure paths over populated developed area. • FAR Part 77 obstructions - Imaginary surfaces established by the FAA that identify objects that may be hazardous to air operations. • Ground objects - Ground formations that may be considered obstructions or cause other objectionable conditions to aircraft operations. • Expandibility - potential of site to add a longer runway or cross -wind runway. • Wind alignment - Runway orientation considerations for aircraft. Non -Direct Aeronautical Considerations are: • Initial development costs - Total cost to repair shortcomings at existing site or build new facility, this does not account for project phasing which may reduce initial outlay. • Environmental Concerns - Characteristics of site that may be unfavorable for environmental concerns. (le. wetlands, bird attractants, social and socio- economic impacts, etc.) • Owner/User support - Reaction of community and airport users. 51 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 ® Long term costs - long term costs associated with using and operating the airport. (ie. User costs such as vehicle expenses and travel time) In order to arrive at a final site recommendation, these factors, along with the data assembled in earlier chapters and phases of this study were reviewed and rated in a matrix format for comparative purposes. Five development alternatives have been identified for Kalispell City Airport. Each of these alternatives will be described in detail in the following section. They are identified as: Alternative #1 - "Existing alignment, B-II" alternative Alternative #2 - "5 ° re -alignment, B-II" alternative Alternative #3 - "$1 Million" alternative Alternative #4 - "Generic offsite" alternative Alternative #5 - "No development" alternative 5.1 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace A close review ofFAR Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace should be undertaken due to the proximity of radio towers, light standards and building in the city of Kalispell to the proposed and existing sites. Portions of FAR Part 77 which apply to this study have been reviewed and are summarized below. Subpart C - Obstruction Standards 77.21 Scope. (a) This subpart establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation. It applies to existing and proposed manmade objects, objects of natural growth, and terrain. (b) At those airports having defined runways with specially prepared hard surfaces, the primary surface of each runway extends 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. 77.23 Standards for determining obstructions. (a) An existing object, including a mobile object, is, and a future object would be, an obstruction to air navigation if it is of greater height than any of the following heights or surfaces: 52 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 (1) A height that is 200 feet above ground level or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of the established reference point of an airport, excluding heliports, with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in actual length, and that height increases in the proportion of 100 feet for each additional nautical mile of distance from the airport up to a maximum of 500 feet. (2) The surface of a takeoff and landing area of an airport or any imaginary surface established under 77.25, 77.28, or 77.29.(b)The standards of paragraph (a) of this section apply to traverse ways used or to be used for the passage of mobile objects only after the heights of these traverse ways are increased by: (3) Seventeen feet for an Interstate Highway. (4) Fifteen feet for any other public roadway. (5) Ten feet or the height of the highest mobile object that would normally traverse the road, whichever is greater, for a private road. 77.25 Civil airport ima ig nary surfaces. (a) Horizontal surface - a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of a specified radius from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway of each airport and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is: (1) 5,000 feet for all runways designated as utility or visual (utility runway means a runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,5001bs. maximum gross weight and less). (2) 10,000 feet for all others runways. (b) Conical surface - a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. (c) Primary surface - a surface longitudinally centered on a runway. The elevation of any point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline. The width of a primary surface is: 53 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 (1) 500 feet for utility runways having nonprecision instrument approaches. (d) Approach surface - a surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward from each end of the primary surface. (1) The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and it expands uniformly to a width of: (i) 1,250 feet for that end of a utility runway with only visual approaches. (ii) 2,000 feet for that end of a utility runway with a nonprecision instrument approach. (2) The approach surface extends for a horizontal distance of: (i) 5,000 feet at a slope of 20:1 for all utility and visual runways. (ii) 10,000 feet at a slope of 34:1 for all non -precision instrument runways other than utilities. (e) Transitional surface - these surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Of the five alternatives identified above, none have been eliminated due to obvious shortcomings. Drawings depicting each alternative are included in Appendix D. A short description of each alternative follows: Alternative #1 - "Existing Alignment, B-II" This alternative expands the existing facilities to a B-II airport standards as outlined in (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design. It would specifically require the acquisition of approximately 54 acres in order to protect runway and taxiway safety areas, runway and taxiway object free areas, and runway protection zones for a 75' x 4,700' runway (ultimate length). The FAA may require the city purchase all the land by itself, then seek reimbursement as a precondition of its participation in airport development. Some of the drawbacks of this alternative are 1) There is a residential area inside the exterior boundaries 54 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 of the ultimate RPZ of Runway 31; and 2) There are a number of businesses in the US Highway 93 corridor that would be adversely impacted by this alternative. It is presumed that the KGEZ radio towers would be either removed or otherwise positively reduced as an obstruction to air navigation. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. The total and local share costs of the essential items, of this alternative are $9,764,000 and $1,513,000, (best case). Alternative #2 - "5° Realignment, B-II" This alternative also expands the existing facilities to meet FAA B-II standards and would also fulfill FAA requirements to possibly obtain federal participation for airport improvement projects. It would require the acquisition of approximately 78 acres to protect runway and taxiway safety areas, object free areas and runway RPZs for a 75' x 4700' runway (ultimate length). The Federal Aviation Administration may at its option participate in this alternative. It should be understood that the City of Kalispell may be required to acquire all land at its own expense as a pre -condition of FAA participation. The benefits to this alignment as compared to Alternative #1 are: 1) The alignment removes the residential area from the future RPZ on the south end that is included in the Alternative #1 alignment, 2) the alignment would improve the impacts to the properties along the Highway 93 corridor. It is also presumed in this Alternative, that the KGEZ radio towers would be either removed or otherwise positively reduced as an obstruction to air navigation. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. The total and local share costs of the essential items, of this alternative are $6,258,000 and $1,301,000, respectively. Alternative #3 - 1'$1 Million, B-I" The "$1 Million" alternative is based on the instructions from the Kalispell City Council to provide a list of possible airport improvements and major rehabilitation projects in the $1 million range. All improvements under this alternative are 100% city financed and presumed that after the improvements are made, the airport would meet the minimum design standards for a B-I Small Aircraft Exclusively airport as outlined in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The projects that would be included under this alternative would be: 55 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Land acquisition to meet B-I Small Aircraft criteria $204,000 Runway Pavement Rehabilitation, 60' x 3,600' $298,000 Electrical System Rehabilitation $122,000 Airport Fence S25,000 2-box Precision Approach Path Indicator S25,000 New 10,000 SY Apron $154,000 Taxiway Pavement Rehabilitation S176,000 TOTAL $1,004,000 Plus 25% for engineering and contingencies S251,000 GRAND TOTAL $1,255,000 Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. Under this alternative the Runway Protection Zones would remain unprotected, and the KGEZ radio towers would remain an obstruction in the approach of Runway 31. Alternative #4 - "Generic Location" B-II The "generic" location is a notional alternative that does not exist in a specific location, rather, it is based on the assumption that a site exists inside an eight -mile radius of Kalispell which meets all the design geometry, environmental and airspace requirements outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design and the FAR Part 77 outlined above. It presumes that such a site could be found that would be better than the existing site. It is important to note that if this alternative is favored, a complete site selection study would be to determine a specific site, which would be favorable. It also is important to note that any benefits provided by this alternative would be diluted by distance from Kalispell. The estimated cost of development at a remote site is $3,777,000, shared more or less equally between a local sponsor and the FAA. Detailed cost estimates are included is Appendix C. Alternative #5 - "No Development" The "No Development" alternative is one that is generally required in all environmental studies. In this case the "no development" alternative is characterized by limited spending at present levels to maintain existing facilities on a year by year basis. Pavement will be patched and perhaps sealed, but no overlays or comprehensive rehabilitative efforts are planned. Also the facility shortcomings noted in other chapters (OFA's, RPZ's, etc.) would remain in place. 56 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 EVALUATING CRITERIA The five alternatives were evaluated against 9 evaluating criteria, which are described in detail below. The evaluation criteria and there weight are shown below. As a Percent Evaluation Criteria Weight of the Total Safety and Design Geometry 3 14.2% FAR Part 77 3 14.2% Expandibility 1 4.7% Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell 3 14.2% Environmental Concerns 3 14.2% Long Term Cost 1 4.2% Benefits Realized 2 9.3% Initial Costs 2 9.3% Owner/User Support 3 14.2% The weighting described above was determined with input from the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee, and represents the relative importance of each of the evaluating criteria. This will be discussed further later in the report. 57 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study Auaust 1999 Safety and Design Geometry Table 17 Conformance with Standards Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing 4450 "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development" B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" Separation yes yes yes yes no Standards B-II B-II B-I20 B-II Runway yes yes yes Yes no and B-II B-II B-I B-II Taxiway width and shoulders Runway residential limited some clear some Protection area in ult. penetration penetration penetration Zones Rwy 31 both runway 13 both limited pen. Rwy 13 Runway meets B-II meets B-II meets B-I meets B-II does not meet and any standard Taxiway Object Free Areas Rank in Site 3 4 2 5 1 Matrix Safety and design geometry refers to how well an alternative meets the design criteria outlined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The specific criteria examined are separation standards, runway and taxiway width and shoulder width, runway protection zones 20Under this alternative, the Airport could meet separation standards for `B-I, Small Aircraft Only", not the more demanding `B-I" standards. 58 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 (RPZ), and runway and taxiway obj ect free areas (OFA). It was presumed that B-II-' standards were more desirable than B-I standards since they provide a greater margin of safety. Separation Standards define the minimum acceptable distance between the runway centerline and the centerline of a parallel taxiway. It is assumed that with alternatives 1, 2, and 4, future facilities will be designed in accordance with these standards. Alternative 3 would require reconstruction of the runway 16-feet west of its present location. Alternative 5 could never meet this standard. Runway and taxiway width is determined by the airport reference code; for a B-I airport the minimum runway width is 60 feet, the minimum taxiway width is 25 feet, and the minimum shoulder width is 10 feet. For a B-II airport, the minimum runway width is 75 feet, the minimum taxiway width is 35 feet, and the minimum shoulder width is 10 feet. For alternatives 1, 2 and 4, future facilities may be designed to meet B-II standards. Kalispell City Airport does not currently meet the taxiway shoulder standard and will not ever meet them under alternative 5. The land acquisition programmed in alternative three would bring the airport into compliance with B-I standards. Runway protection zones are the trapezoidal areas located 200 feet from thresholds and centered about the extended runway centerline. It has two components: the runway object free area and the controlled activity area. It is desirable to clear all objects from the RPZ, and residences are expressly prohibited. Under alternative 1, there would be some penetration (buildings) by the Elks Building of the RPZ for Runway 13 and the RPZ for the ultimate Runway 31 would include some residences just off Cemetery Road. Under Alternative 2, the same penetration occurs in the RPZ of Runway 13, the county animal control facility is located in the ultimate RPZ of Runway 31. For alternatives 3 and 5, the existing shortcomings of Runway 13 would be perpetuated. For alternative 4, it is assumed that a site could be found with clear RPZs. Runway and Taxiway Object Free Areas are centered on the runway or taxiway centerline and requires clearing of all objects not required for air navigation and aircraft ground maneuvering purposes. For B-II airports, the width of the runway OFA is 500 feet, or 250 feet from the centerline, and the taxiway OFA is 131 feet or 65.5 feet from the centerline. For B-I small aircraft airports, the width of the runway OFA is 250 feet, or 125 feet from the centerline, and the taxiway OFA is 89 feet, or 44.5 feet from the centerline. Under alternatives 1, 2, and 4, facilities could be designed to meet these standards. The current facilities at Kalispell City Airport do not meet the standards for taxiway OFA for the full parallel taxiway, under alternative 3, this would be remedied by land acquisition. Under alternative 5 the present conditions would be perpetuated. Code. 21See FAA AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design, Page 4, for a discussion of Airport Reference 59 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 The rank in the Site Matrix score is the raw rank in Column I of the Site Matrix which is a relative comparison on a scale of 5 to 1 with 5 being the best. FAR Part 77 Table 18 Penetration of Imaginary Surfaces Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing 4450 "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development" B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" Approach none22 none23 none none24 none Surfaces Transitional numerous some some none25 some Surfaces Horizontal KOFI tower KOFI tower KOFI tower none26 KOFI tower Surface KGEZ tower KGEZ towers Conical ground ground ground none27 ground Surface Rank in Site 3 4 2 5 1 Matrix The primary surface is longitudinally centered on the runway centerline and extends 200 feet beyond the each threshold. The elevation of the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the 12Assumes that the KGEZ Radio Towers will be removed or reduced as an obstruction. 23Ibid. 24Assumes site can be found without penetrations of the approach surface. 25Ibid. 26Ibid. 27Ibid. •1 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 runway centerline. The width of the primary surface varies with the size of the aircraft and approach category (e.g., visual, non -precision instrument, precision instrument). For alternatives 1, 2, and 4, it was assumed that some of the aircraft using the airport would exceed 12,500 lbs and non -precision instrument approach, which would require a 500 foot wide primary surface. For alternatives 3 and 5, it was assumed that only small aircraft on visual would use the facility, which would require a 250 foot primary surface. Approach surfaces are longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline and extending outward and upward for each end of the primary surface. The inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as the primary surface and expands uniformly to a width of 1,250 feet for alternatives 3 and 5, and 3,500 feet for alternatives 1, 2, and 4. The approach surface extends 5,000 feet at a slope of 20:1 for alternatives 3 and 5 and 10,000 feet at a slope of 34:1 for alternatives 1, 2, and 4. In the study, it was judged that the larger, flatter approach surfaces were more desirable than smaller, a steeper approach surface (even though the smaller, steeper surface may have fewer penetrations) because it: 1) is safer, and 2) will preserve options for the airport (e.g., seek non - precision instrument overlay). With alternative 4, it was assumed that a site could be found that would have unencumbered approach surfaces. Transitional surfaces extend outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the extended runway centerline at a 7:1 slope from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surface. They extend outward to a height 150 feet above the established airport elevation. In all cases except alternative 4, there are penetration of this surface. However, by realigning the runway in alternative 2, the number of penetrations and potential penetrations would be reduced. It was assumed that, under alternative 4 a site could be found that would have unencumbered transitional surfaces. The Horizontal surface is a horizontal plane 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter of which is constructed by swinging arcs of 5,000 feet for alternatives 3 and 5, and 10,000 for alternatives 1, 2, and 4 from the center of each end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by lines tangent to those arcs. Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 5 have ground penetrations located 6,000 feet west of the runway. It was assumed that a site could be found for alternative 4 that would be free of horizontal surface penetrations. Conical surfaces extend outward and upward from the outer edge of the horizontal surface at a 20:1 slope for a distance of 4,000 feet. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 all have ground penetrations of this surface located 10,000 feet west of the runway. It was assumed that a site could be found for alternative 4 that would be free of conical surface penetrations. Airspace drawings for all alternatives are included in Appendix B. 61 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Expandibility The direction of the prevailing wind is generally the most important factor in siting runways. Ideally, the runway would be aligned with the direction of prevailing wind and the target wind coverage is 95%. In places where 95% wind coverage is not possible with one runway, the FAA encourages development of a "crosswind" runway which would be aligned with the second most prevailing wind. This crosswind runway may be 80% of the required length of a runway as determined in FAA AC 150/5325-4 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. Development of a crosswind runway is possible on under alternative 4. There is not enough room between US Highway 93 and Airport Road to construct a meaningful crosswind runway under alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5. The rotated alignment of alternate 2 would slightly improve the wind coverage of the Runway. Runway length is determined by airport elevation, aircraft takeoff weight, and average maximum temperature of the hottest month of the year. For simplicity, the FAA has grouped aircraft by family, and the family of aircraft which have been forecast are small aircraft (defined as grow weight less than 12,5001bs.) In order to meet the demands of 100% of this family on the hottest day of the year, the run way would need to be 4,700 feet long. It is important to note that initial construction need be only 3,600 feet long to meet the demands of 75% of the family of aircraft. Construction of a 4,700 foot runway is not possible under alternate 3 and 5. A 4,700 foot long runway is possible under alternate 1 but would require a great deal of fill in the extension, and would result in residences in the RPZ of Runway 31. A 4,700 foot long runway is possible under alternative 2, but would place the Flathead County Animal Control facility in the RPZ. It was assumed that a site could be found under alternative 4 which would allow for maximum expansion. 62 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Table 19 Possibility of Expansion Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing "5 ° "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development" B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" Crosswind no no no yes no Runway Runway yes, with yes no yes no Extension difficulty to 4,700 ft28 Apron yes yes yes yes no Full length yes yes yes yes no Taxiway Rank in Site 3 4 2 5 1 Matrix A paved apron for transient and based aircraft is programmed under all alternatives except # 5. Development of a full length parallel taxiway which meets B-I or B-II separation and design standard is possible under all alternatives except alternative #5. Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell A large airport which generates air carrier traffic and supports departing flights for long -haul routes can justify up to a 30 minute travel time for passengers departing on those long -haul route. However, general aviation airports in Montana and other western states are considered "remote" if they are more than six to ten minutes away from town. Although such a situation would still render the airport an asset to the community, its utilization would suffer. In Montana, the average distance from town of all non -air carrier airports eligible for federal assistance is two miles. Surface "FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4 Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design. Runway length is determined by airport elevation, average maximum temperature during the hottest month of the year, and takeoff weight of the aircraft. For Kalispell City Airport, for 100% of all B- II aircraft on the hottest day of the year the required runway length would be 4,700 feet. 63 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 transportation access impacts many other quantifiable factors including owner/user support, long- term and user cost, and hard to measure factors such as physical security. Table 20 Surface Access Kalispell Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing "5 ° " $1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development" B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" Distance 0.8 mile Red 0.8 mile Red 0.8 mile Red ±7 0.8 mile from Eagle Eagle Eagle Red Eagle Courthouse 0.9 mile 0.9 mile 0.9 mile 0.9 mile to center of Diamond Air Diamond Air Diamond Air Diamond Air activity 1.4 mile 1.4 mile New New Apron Apron Number of 3(2) 3(2) 2 1 2 accesses Rank in Site 4 4 5 1 5 Matrix It is customary to use a significant landmark as a point of origin for travel to and from the airport, for this study the Flathead County Courthouse was selected, even though it is understood that virtually no trip to and from the airport begin or end at the Courthouse. As illustrated in the table above, the distance of travel varies between 0.8 and 0.9 miles depending on which access is used for alternatives 3 and 5. The addition of a new midfield apron under. alternative 1 and 2 would lengthen the average distance of travel by about a half mile. Under alternative 4, the airport would be moved to a location well outside of town. The number of accesses is noteworthy only in terms of physical security. Generally, the more accesses there are, the less secure the facility. Therefore, it is desirable to limit access to a few controlled points. Under alternative 4 a new airport could be designed so that access could be limited to one point, which would make this alternative more desirable in this aspect. However, distance from Kalispell would offset the benefit. Under alternatives 3 and 5, the two existing access point would be perpetuated. .A Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Under alternatives 1 and 2, these two existing accesses would be perpetuated, and a third would be built to allow access to a new midfield apron. It is possible that one or more of the existing fixed base operators may relocate to the midfield apron, if this occurs one or both of the existing accesses could be closed. All alternatives that provide improved facilities would also eliminate the existing "through the fence" conditions. Environmental Concerns The Federal Aviation Administration will require an environmental assessment prior to any development in which they participate in. The environmental assessment will examine 20 different impact areas which are shown below in Table 2. A preliminary environmental overview has been conducted as part of this study, a quick review of those impact categories which show an advantage to one or more alternatives is in order. Social impacts are those associated with relocation or other community disruption which may be caused by the proposal. A specific analysis will be required if the proposal involves the need to relocate any residence or business, alter surface transportation patterns, divide or disrupt established communities, disrupt orderly, planned development, or create and appreciable in employment. Alternative 1 would require the relocation of nine businesses and two residences in the initial development and seven more residences in the ultimate development. Alternative 2 would require the relocation of seven businesses and three residences for the initial development. Alternatives 3 and 5 would require no relocations. It was assumed that a site could be found for alternative 4 that would require fewer relocations than either alternatives 1 or 2. FAA guidance for the assessment of air quality is changing. Generally, if an airport is in the vicinity of any declared non -attainment zone, then the airports contribution to that zones non attainment must be examined. In 1997 the Montana Department of Environmental Quality declared the intersection of US Highway 2 and US Highway 93 in Kalispell is in non -attainment for carbon monoxide, therefore any improvement at the airport at its present location would require an air quality study. Alternative 4 would not require an air quality study since it would be located at least ten miles from the non -attainment zone. Alternative 5 would by definition have no impact on air quality. Department of Transportation 4(f) Lands are any publicly owned park, recreation area, refuge, or historic site that have been determined significant by the federal, state, or local official having jurisdiction over it. In the case of Kalispell City Airport, there are soccer and baseball fields located adjacent to the airfield, which would be used for hangar and commercial development on the airport. These fields are presently being relocated north of the City of Kalispell, so they are arguably 65 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 insignificant, but since they still meet the definition of DOT Section 4(f) lands, further study may be required. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the use of these fields for hangar and commercial development. Alternative 4 could be sited to have no impacted on DOT Section 4(f) lands. Alternative 5, by definition, would result in no impact on these lands. Historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources are generally considered "show - stoppers", so therefore are considered very sensitive. Generally the Montana State Historic Preservation Office requests that a cultural resource inventory be conducted as part of any environmental assessment. In the specific case of Kalispell City Airport, the proximity of the historic DeMersville Cemetery would virtually ensure that a cultural resource inventory be conducted prior to development. Alternatives 1 and 2 would require the acquisition of part of this cemetery for use as runway protection zone. Alternative 3 and 5 would not have any impact on the cemetery. It is assumed that a site could be found for alternative 4 which would have only limited impact on historic and cultural resources. Wetlands are "those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence or vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, rivers, overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds."29 Wetlands also have the potential to be "show stoppers" because the requirement to mitigate wetlands impact by replacement on site conflicts with the requirement reduce bird attracting hazards in the vicinity of the airport. There may be wetlands as defined in Table 5.5 in the vicinity of the extended runway footprint of alternative 1 which would require a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Development of alternatives 2 avoids this area. Alternative 3 and 5 would require no development in this area. It is assumed that a site could be found for alternative 4 that would avoid wetlands impact. 29FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook, page 44. Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Table 21 Environmental Concerns Alternative 1 "Existing Alignment, B-II" Alternative 2 4450 Realigm nent B-II" Alternative 3 "$1 million" B-I Alternative 4 "Generic Location, B-II" Alternative 5 "No Development " Noise low low low low low Compatible Land Use low low low low low Social Impacts potential potential low potential low Socio-Economic Impacts low low low low low Air quality potential potential potential low low Water Quality low low low low low DOT Section 4(fl Lands potential potential potential low low Cultural Resources potential potential low low low Biotic Communities low low low low low Endangered Species low low low low low Wetlands potential low low low low Floodplains low low low low low Coastal Zone Management n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Coastal Barriers n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Wild & Scenic Rivers low low low low low Farmland low low low low low Natural Resources low low low low low Light Emissions low low low low low Solid Waste Impacts low low low low low Constriction Impacts low low low low none Rank in Site Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 67 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Long Term Costs Long term or continuing costs are those costs generally associated with maintenance of airside facilities, support facilities, and user costs excluding user fees and hangar/tiedown expenses, such as the cost of traveling to and from the facility. Table 22 Facilities Requiring Maintenance (SY) Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing 4450 "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" " Runway 30,000 SY 30,000 SY 24,000 SY 30,000 SY 24,000 SY Taxiway 16,800 SY .16,800 SY 12,000 16,800 18,750 SY Apron 13,000 SY 13,000 SY 10,000 SY 13,000 SY 0 Access Road 7,100 SY 7,100 SY 0 7,100 SY 0 Mowing 115 acres 144 acres 64 acres 128 acres 60 acres Required Expected $30,896 $32,846 $20,567 $31,806 $19,232 Annualized Maintenance Cost Estimated $144,078 $144,078 $118,830 $682,500 $118,830 Annual User's Cost Other Risks no no no no yes Rank 4 3 5 1 2 ::::j Airside and landside maintenance (Runway, Taxiway, Apron, and Access Roads): The long term cost of maintaining alternative 5 would be the least of all the alternatives, since fewer facilities require less maintenance effort and expense. Alternative 3 would have the next lowest since it would have the next least square yards of pavement requiring maintenance. Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 would require virtually identical amount of maintenance since they have virtually identical facilities. However, alternative 1 has less property to mow than alternative 4, which has less than alternative 2. Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Expected annualized maintenance costs are based on annual grass mowing and the annualized cost of pavement maintenance. The pavement maintenance would consist of fogseal and runway painting at year five and year fifteen and a 2-inch overlay at year ten. The current cost to mow 60 acres is $840 per episode, an average of five times per year. The average cost of fogseal is approximately $0.19 per square yard ofpavement. The average cost of a 2-inch overlay and painting is $3.595 per square yard of pavement. The expected cost to repaint the airport lines and numbers after fogseal or overlay $3,947. A 5% interest rate was assumed. Detailed annualized cost computations are include in Appendix I. Annual user's cost is computed on the basis of vehicle cost per mile and the cost of user/passenger time. Vehicle costs are set at $0.50 per mile and user\passenger time is valued at $30 per hour. Local flights one round trip per every 2 local operations. Itinerant operations and air taxi operations involve one driver round trip per itinerant and air taxi operations, plus two passengers round trips per 2 itinerant and air taxi operations. Chapter 2.0 Forecasts of this study indicates that the current level of use is 14,000 local operations, 13,600 itinerant operations, and 6,400 air taxi operations. Detailed annual cost computations are include in Appendix D. The "Other Risks" row in the table above reflects the additional liability the City of Kalispell would accept by maintaining an airport for public use which does not meet existing design standards for the class of aircraft likely to use the airport. This is important to account for, but should not be overstated. M Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Benefits Realized Table 23 Benefits Realized Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing "5 ° "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" " Saved Time 2 2 3 1 3 and Cost Safety 3 4 2 5 1 Educational 4 4 2 3 1 Benefits Civil 4 4 2 3 1 Defense Benefits Recreational 4 4 3 1 2 Benefits Total 14 15 12 13 8 Rank 4 5 2 3 1 Benefits are defines as "the services that a community hopes to obtain by developing and maintaining airports. Airports provide a variety of public benefits to the surrounding service area. The most substantial of these are the time saved and cost avoided by using air transportation. " 3° Although it is possible to assign a dollar value to this time savings, it is not the purpose of this study to compute this value. Other benefits include high levels of safety, educational benefits, civil defense benefits, and recreational benefits. These benefits cannot be expressed in dollars, but they can be explained and demonstrated. In the table below, numeric values have been assigned in a competitive ranking of each alternative for each category of benefit. 30US Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service, ADA 257 658, Estimating the Regional Economic Significance of Airports, September 1992, page 5. 70 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 In the table above a score of 1 to 5 was assigned to each alternative under each category of benefit. In the case of a tie, the lowest score was shared by each tying alternative, e.g., Saved Time and Cost, alternatives 3 and 5 tie for the greatest savings, so a 3 was awarded to both, rather than 5. This convention was used prevent artificial inflation of an alternative in this matrix. Saved time and cost was computed as part of Long Term Costs as user costs, as shown above alternatives 3 and 5 saved the most driver/passenger time and vehicle costs, as such they shared a 3 in the above matrix. Alternatives 1, and 2 shared a "2" in the above matrix because they also were equidistant from the county courthouse, which was used as a point of reference. Alternative 4 was farthest from the courthouse and provided the least transportation benefit. In scoring Safety, compliance with FAA design standards and FAR Part 77 were considered. From earlier discussion, it is known that alternative 4 ranks the highest in terms of adherence to FAA design standards and FAR Part 77. Alternative 2 ranks next, followed by alternative 1, then alternative 3. Alternative 5 is ranked the lowest since it does not meet current FAA design standards. Scoring for educational benefits was based on proximity to Flathead High School. Some high schools and community colleges offer degrees and training in aviation and aviation related topics, proximity would enhance use of the facility for these purposes. Alternative 1 and 2 would offer the best opportunity for development of such a curriculum since they would provide the best overall facilities which are closest to the high school campus. Alternative 4 would provide the next best benefit since it provides facilities which are actually superior those of the alternatives 1 or 2, but distance dilutes the benefits. Alternative 3 provides facilities which are less desirable for use as an educational facility. Alternative 5 provides the least desirable facility for educational purposes. Airports are vital civil defense facilities. They are extremely durable and aviation is a key source of relief from natural disasters such as flood, fires and earthquakes. The existing airport is often used as a base for aerial searches and forest fire detection. In general, a B-II facility is scored higher than a B-I, and closer to town is better than further. In this case alternatives 1 and 2 scored highest. Alternative 3 was scored lower due to distance from town. Alternative 3, although close, has facilities less suitable for running civil defense operations than alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Alternative 5 is least suitable for civil defense operations. About 30% of all general aviation activity is recreational in nature. In general, and nearer to town is better than farther, and a B-II facility is safer than a B-I facility. Alternative 1 and 2 are equally safe and close so they share the highest rating. Alternative 3 is next most desirable as it provides a safe B-I, close airport. Alternative 5 provides an adequate facility that is close. Alternative 4 is farthest from town and would suffer for that distance 71 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Initial Costs Table 24 Initial Development Costs Alternative 1 "Existing Alignment, B-II" Alternative 2 "5 ° Realignment B-II" Alternative 3 "$1 million" B-I Alternative 4 "Generic Location, B-II" Alternative 5 "No Development " Total Project Cost $9,955,000 $7,828,000 $1,255,000 $5,215,000 $0 Total Non -Essential ($1,378,000) ($1,378,000) $0 ($1,438,000) $0 Total Essential $8,577,000 $6,450,002 $1,255,000 $3,777,000 $0 FAA Share $6,873,000 $4,958,000 $0 $2,556,000 $0 Local Share $1,705,000 $1,492,000 $1,255,000 $1,221,000 $0 Rank based on Total Cost 1 2 4 3 5 Initial development costs are defined as those costs which are required to build the facility to ultimate development as depicted on the Airport Layout Drawing. It does not represent a lump sum which must be spent all at once, rather it is the aggregate of all separate project costs less interest expense. In a later chapter of this study, a program for capital improvement at the airport will be described, which will layout a schedule of individual projects which are required. For the purpose of this analysis, lower total cost was considered better. Non -essential Costs are those costs which planners are compelled to recommend, but need not be built to have a fully operational airport. Essential Costs are those costs which are necessary to the function of the airport. Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix C. 72 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 Owner User Support Table 25 Owner/User Support Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 "Existing "5 ° "$1 million" "Generic "No Alignment, Realignment Location, Development B-II" B-II" B-I B-II" " Kalispell 2 4 5 1 3 City Council Kalispell 4 5 3 1 2 City Airport Advisory Committee Rank 4 5 3 1 2 Owner/user support is determined by two components: the support of the Kalispell City Council and support of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. At the time of this draft, the City Council has not been polled for its support of each alternative, and in the absence of their input full weight was given to the consensus of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Council, as determined from the polling on May 12, 1999. As input from the City Council is received, this table and the Site Matrix will be updated to reflect their support. EVALUATIONS OF THE ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 - Existing Site, B-II Development The key components of this site alternative are: 1. The existing runway alignment is used and extended. 2. The threshold of Runway 13 would be relocated 900 feet south along its axis, as would be the threshold of Runway 31. 3. Land is acquired to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 4. The airfield is cleared to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 5. A mid -field apron is included. 6. A frill length parallel taxiway west of the runway would be included. 7. The FAA may potentially participate in up to 90% of the costs under certain conditions. 73 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 8. The KGEZ radio towers will be reduced as an obstruction. 9. Would require relocation of a number of businesses and residences. a) Safety and Design Geometry: As discussed earlier, the B-II development that is part of this alternative makes it better alternative 3 and 5, but penetrations of the ultimate RPZ, make it less desirable than either alternative 4 or 2. b) FAR Part 77: As shown in the Airspace Drawings in Appendix B, this alternative has penetrations of the transitional, conical and horizontal surfaces. The planned approach surface is a 34:1. It was rated better than alternatives 3 and 5 because of the use of 34:1 is better than a 20:1 surface. It was rated lower than alternatives 4 and 2 because there are more penetrations to the 7:1 transitional surface. c) Expandibility. As discussed above, this alternative was rated higher than alternatives 3 and 5 because the possibility of expanding the runway to an ultimate length of 4,700 feet is possible under this alternative. It was rated lower than alternative 2 because the presence of a residential area in the RPZ of Runway 31 would complicate the runway extension. It was rated lower than alternative 4 because a crosswind runway is not possible at this site. d) Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell: This alternative was rated higher than alternative 4 since its round trip distance is much shorter from the Flathead County Courthouse to the center of activity. It is rated equal to alternative 2, since the round trip distance is the same. It was rated lower than alternatives 3 and 5, since the round trip distance is longer. e) Environmental Concerns: As stated above, alternative 1 requires further study because of potential social impacts, air quality impacts, DOT Section 4(f) lands impacts, Historic and Cultural resources impacts and wetlands impacts. It was rated the lowest of all the alternatives because the potential aggregate environmental impacts were greater then any of the other alternatives. f) Long Term Costs: Alternative 1 scored second highest behind only alternative 3, this is primarily due to it having more facilities to maintain and it being slightly longer round trip travel distance. g) Benefits Realized: Alternative 1 scored second highest after alternative 2. This is due a lower rating in safety. h) Initial Costs: Alternative 1 is the most expensive alternative proposed, therefore, it scored lowest in this category. 74 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 i} Owner/User Support: Alternative 1 scored second highest in a poll of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. The overall score will be adjusted when the Kalispell City Council is polled. Alternative 2 - 5° Realignment, B-II Development The key components of this site alternative are: 1. The runway would be realigned 5' and extended. 2. Land is acquired to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 3. The airfield is cleared to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 4. A mid -field apron is included. 5. A full length parallel taxiway west of the runway would be included. 6. The FAA may potentially participate in up to 90% of eligible costs under certain conditions. 7. The KGEZ radio towers will be reduced as an obstruction. 8. Would require relocation of some businesses and residences. a) Safety and Design Geometry: Alternative 2 scored second highest after alternative 4, because it meets B-II separation standards, runway and taxiway width, shoulders, and OFA's, but it has some penetrations of both RPZ's. Alternative 2 slightly improves the wind coverage of the runway alignment, which provides a small improvement to safety. b) FAR Part 77: Alternative 2 scored second highest after alternative 4 because it has a 34:1 approach surface but suffers some penetrations to the transitional, conical, and horizontal surfaces, however, it suffers less than alternatives 1,3, and 5. c) Expandibility� Alternative 2 scored second highest after alternative 4, because all it permits expansion to ultimate length of 4,700 feet long, construction of an apron, and a frill -length parallel taxiway, it, however does not permit construction of a cross- wind runway. Expansion to 4,700 feet is easier than with alternative 1 because the absence of residence in the ultimate RPS of Runway 31. d) Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell: This alternative was rated higher than alternative 4 since its round trip distance is much shorter from the Flathead County Courthouse to the center of activity. It is rated equal to alternative 1, since the round trip distance is the same. It was rated lower than alternatives 3 and 5, since the round trip distance is longer. 75 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 e) Environmental Concerns: As stated above, alternative 1 requires further study because of potential social impacts, air quality impacts, DOT Section 4(o lands impacts, and Historic and Cultural resources impacts. It was rated the second lowest of all the alternatives because the potential aggregate environmental impacts were greater then any of the other alternatives except alternative 1. f) Long Term Costs: Although it has the second highest long term costs, alternative 2 scored in the third highest, because, by choosing this alternative, the city avoids the potential liability associated maintaining an airport that does not meet FAA design standards. g) Benefits Realized: Alternative 2 scored highest since it combined a high safety score with close proximity to town. h) Initial Costs: Alternative 2 scored second lowest in this category, since it has the second highest initial costs. i) Owner/User Support: Alternative 2 scored highest in a poll of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. The overall score will be adjusted when the Kalispell City Council is polled. Alternative 3 - $1 Million Development The key components of this site alternative are: 1. The runway would be reconstructed in its current location to a length of 3,600 feet. 2. Land is acquired to meet B-I lateral dimensions. 3. The airfield is cleared to meet B-I lateral dimensions. 4. A mid -field apron is included. 5. A full length parallel taxiway west of the runway would be included. 6. All costs would be financed by the city. 7. No action will be taken on the KGEZ radio towers. a) Safety and Design Geometry: Alternative 3 scored second lowest because the three alternatives above it called for B-II development, whereas alternative 3 calls for development to B-I standards. b) FAR Part 77: Alternative 3 scored second lowest because the three alternatives above it called for a 34:1 approach surface, and alternative 3 requires only a 20:1 approach surface. It also had penetrations of transitional, horizontal, and conical surfaces. 76 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 c) Expandibility: This alternative scored second lowest because expansion to an ultimate length of 4,700 is not possible, and construction of a cross wind runway is impossible. This alternative did allow for the construction of an apron and a full parallel taxiway. d) Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell: This alternative was rated higher than alternatives 1,2, and 4 since its round trip distance is much shorter from the Flathead County Courthouse to the center of activity. It is rated equal to alternative 5, since the round trip distance is the same. It was rated higher than alternatives 1 and 2, since the round trip distance is shorter. e) Environmental Concerns: An environmental assessment may not be required under this alternative since no federal money is involved, but development may fall under Montana environmental codes. The areas that may require further study are air quality and DOT Section 4(f) lands. This alternative scored third highest. f) Long Term Costs: This alternative scored highest since its long term and user costs are second lowest and the city avoids the potential liability of maintaining an airport that does not meet the minimum design standards. g) Benefits Realized: This alternative scored second lowest since it was not as safe as alternatives 1,2, or 4, nor did it provide all the facilities that those alternatives provide. It was more safe than alternative 5. h) Initial Costs: Alternative 3 scored second highest in this category, since it has the second lowest initial costs. i) Owner/User Support: Alternative 3 scored third highest in a poll of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. The overall score will be adjusted when the Kalispell City Council is polled. Alternative 4 - Generic Location B-II Development The key components of this site alternative are: l . The runway would be sited to match the prevailing wind. 2. Land is acquired to meet B-II lateral dimensions and 4,700 foot length. 3. The airfield is cleared to meet B-II lateral dimensions. 4. A mid -field apron is included. 5. A full length parallel taxiway west of the runway would be included. 6. The FAA may potentially participate in up to 90% of eligible costs under certain conditions. 77 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 a) Safety and Design Geometry Alternative 4 scored the highest in this category since it was assumed that a site could be located to that would be better than the present location. b) FAR Part 77 Alternative 4 scored the highest in this category since it was assumed that a site could be located to that would be better than the present location. c) Expandibility: Alternative 4 scored the highest in this category since it was assumed that a site could be located to that would be better than the present location. d) Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell: Alternative 4 scored the lowest in this category since it is assumed that any site that meets the requirements of design geometry, FAR Part 77, and Expandibility would have to be at least 7 miles from the County Courthouse. However, security of the site improves this characteristic, but is outweighed by the distance factor. e) Environmental Concerns: Alternate 4 scored the second highest since it was assumed that a site could be found that would minimize the environmental impacts. Only the No Development would have less impact. f) Long Term Costs: Alternative 4 scored lowest in this category since it is has the highest user costs. g) Benefits Realized: This alternative scored third highest in this category since it provided the best facilities but their positive effects were diluted by distance. h) Initial Costs: Alternative 4 score third highest because its initial costs were the third lowest. i) Owner/User Support: Alternative 4 scored lowest in a poll of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. The overall score will be adjusted when the Kalispell City Council is polled. Alternative 5 - No Development The key components of this site alternative are: 1. The runway may be repaired in its present location. 2. No additional land would be acquired. 3. The airfield would not meet any federal standards. 4. All costs would be financed by the city. 5. No action will be taken on the KGEZ radio towers. 78 Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 a) Safety and Design Geometry Alternative 5 scored lowest because the FOUR alternatives above it called for B-II development, whereas alternative 5 calls for no development. b) FAR Part 77: Alternative 5 scored lowest because the four other alternatives addressed FAR Part 77 concerns, this alternative did not. c) Expandibility_ This alternative scored lowest because by definition no expansion is possible or programmed. d) Surface Transportation Access to Kalispell: This alternative was rated higher than alternatives 1,2, and 4 since its round trip distance is shorter from the Flathead County Courthouse to the center of activity. It is rated equal to alternative 3, since the round trip distance is the same. It was rated higher than alternatives 1 and 2, since the round trip distance is shorter. e) Environmental Concerns: This alternative scored highest since no development results in no impact. f) Long Term Costs: Although the computed long term costs were lowest of all alternatives, it also exposed the city to the liability associated with maintaining an airport that does not meet minimum FAA standards. g) Benefits Realized: This alternative scored lowest since all benefits were reduced by not meeting FAA design standards. h) Initial Costs: Alternative 5 scored highest in this category, since it has the lowest initial costs. i) Owner/User Support: Alternative 5 scored second lowest in a poll of the Kalispell City Airport Advisory Committee. The overall score will be adjusted when the Kalispell City Council is polled. 79 (n 0) ca Q � m H U) Q X m Z Uu O = Q W 0 F— Z LOO O CO 0— Q L z xUp C) —j W x Q W Q J W U U W F- cnvo ©©oio r T r H O O O O Lo Ln Lo T H LD M M T T 1H--1 H N N N Cfl H O) I` 00 N H It CO d T TI- lf) mci Z MOM M ©oe©i iS ti 911111111 N r � LO LO N r LO N O m L N N r C70 M Ccf` r O CO O N LO 0 a) O illi I I LO O L T co Cl r I- T Co M r Co CoLn Q) E r N "C7 O co CD f` C'7 CA co T N 1 O p O rt U) U C 4- U O CD a) a) r 4) C co) LO N m N d' M m Ln • f a) r N O E E t-- t` ti C) Lfl O O r .LO V (0 L . ` N U) L L O .+1 co 4- co LO N Ln co O co L O C r Il- LO o) co "t O N co Lo i) N= O C',aj Lo COLca 't T LO " t• d' M M C) ' r Cv C a O O L C a) _ cu E C !, O o Q" Q Q U m m Q L in 2 Q Cu - X O T U II .0 U 0 J a) --a U M cn U E m "O C i O 5 X� X .0U m J O) U N 'm Q O Q- S� .� U 4- p O U >� J Q O F— cB cn x C � � co C Ca 4- U C6 L F- J Y ; a> O Q O ` C 0O � Z Z rn U U O i— U L Q) Z w p «S C Q J J u, O O cq Q w m E 0 7 z a= Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study August 1999 RECOMMENDATIONS For reasons stated above, and since it scored highest in the matrix, Alternative 2 - 5 ° Realignment is recommended above the other alternatives.