The URL can be used to link to this page

12/02 Airport Environmental AssessmentFred A. Leistiko, Manager Kalispell City Airport P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION HELENA AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (FONSI) AIRPORT NAME AND LOCATION: Kalispell City Airport Kalispell, Montana PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION: Environmental{ approval for the following development items at the Kalispell City Airport, Kalispell, Montana. a. Acquire land adjoining the existing airport (approximately 72 acres) b. Construct staged development of 4,700' by 75' wide runway (14/32 orientation) - C. Construct tie down apron, parallel taxiway and connector taxiways, hangar access taxi lanes d. Install medium intensity runway lighting system., beacon, wind cone, segmented circle, Precision Approach Indicator (PAPI), and Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs). C. Construct perimeter fencing and airport access road. f. Removal or relocation of AM radio towers located south of the airport. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND REASONS FOR FONSI: The environmental impacts related to the proposed actions are described in the referenced Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Kalispell City Airport, Kalispell, Montana. No significant impacts on the quality of the environment were identified as a result of the proposed action. The draft EA was coordinated with affected state, local and federal agencies. Comments received from this coordination are documented in the final EA. The general public was given an opportunity to review the draft EA and a public hearing was held on October 7, 2002 at Kalispell City Hall. No comments were received at the hearing relative to significant environmental concerns as a result of the proposed project. The transcript of the public hearing is included in an appendix of the Final EA. MITIGATION REQUIRED: Air Quality: Asphalt plants and crushers producing surfacing materials for the airport project must have an air quality permit from the MDEQ Permitting and Compliance Division. The supplier of any crushed rock material needed for construction must have an air quality permit from the MDEQ. Open burning (if required) will be accomplished in accordance with state or county regulations. Water Quality: A General Discharge permit for storm water associated with construction activity under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) will be obtained from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). As a requirement for this permit, a storm water erosion control plan will be required, specifying the measures that will be employed during construction to control erosion and sediment transport by storm runoff. Floodplains: Flathead County has adopted Floodplain Development Regulations and administers the delineated floodplains for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Coordination will be undertaken during the design of the airport improvements to determine the need for a Floodplain Development Permit. Biotic Communities: The City of Kalispell will implement measures to help prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Kalispell City Airport project area. Measures will include coordinating the project with the County weed Board, promptly reseeding disturbed areas with desirable vegetation, and requiring the contractor(s) to follow the Flathead County weed Management Program, and any contract provisions addressing noxious weed control. Light Emissions. - The city may elect to install Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs). REILs typically flash as a strobe and could potentially cause lighting impacts to adjacent residences. Consideration will be given to baffling if these facilities are installed on one or both ends of the runway. Hazardous and -Solid waste: Airport development will require the acquisition of land located southeast of the existing airport. Some of the land needed for development is currently used as a vehicle -wrecking yard and is a potential source for hazardous wastes. To address potential hazardous wastes and identify remediation and cleanup needs (if any), the city will conduct an environmental due diligence audit of any properties to be acquired for airport improvements suspected to accommodate sources of hazardous materials or that have been contaminated by past hazardous material spills on adjoining lands. Construction Impacts: The provisions of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standards for., Specifying Construction of Airports (change 10), Item P--156, Temporary Air and water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, would be incorporated into the project specifications LIST OF REFERENCE DOCLfMENTS The documents listed below are included in the official files of the Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Helena Airports District Office, Helena, Montana, 59602 and are hereby made apart of the FONSI- by reference. These documents provide the basis for the environmental assessment of the proposed action. a. Feasibility/Master Plan Study for Kalispell City Airport (August 1999) and Amendment (December 1999) b. Kalispell City Airport Site Selection Study (September 2001) c. Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment (December 2002) ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING AND APPROVAL. - After careful and thorough consideration of the facts contained herein, the undersigned finds that the proposed Federal action is consistent with existing national environmental policies and objectives as set forth in Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policies Act of 1969 (NEPA), and that it will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment or otherwise include any condition requiring consultation pursuant to Section 102(2) (c) of NEPA. SUBMITTED BY: yyl W.M. 6Yaes Community Planner APPROVED: David S. Stelling, Manage Helena Airports District Office Northwest Mountain Region Federal Aviation Administration 09 /27 1171& Z (Date) (Date) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT' 4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIP3-30-0043-02 Kalispell, Montana December 2002 Prepared for - City of Kalispell and the Kalispell City Airport Board P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, Montana 59903 Prepared- 11L Robert Peccia &Associates,. Inc. 825 Custer Avenue P.O. Box 5653 Helena, Montana 59604 @2002 This environmental assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated and signed by the responsible FAA official. a,)W. /Z /7 oz espo-n- le FAA Official Date Kalispell City Air orl Final Environmental Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLEOF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................ i INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ IN-1 PART 1.0: PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 The Problem.............................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 "Critical Aircraft" Design Group..................................................................................... 1-4 1.1.2 Facility Needs Based on B -II Airport Development........................................................ 1-5 1.1.3 Summary of Purpose and Need........................................................................................1-9 . 07 C1,rrent anr�i Prrnia►rted Aviation Activity .,............................................................. 1-9 '� %.A ooiI fl R v4 . . %•o ■,r 0. Aviation %4 r. ■ � � s .. ■ ..... 1.3 Requested Federal Actions .............................. 1.4 Timeframe for the Requested Actions..............................................................................1-11 PART 2.0: ALTERNATIVES 2.1 Alternatives Considered.........................................................................................................2-1 2.1.1. Continue to Use Existing Aviation Facilities ("No Action") ............................................ 2-1 2.1.2 Reconfigure and Expand the Existing Airfield................................................................ 2-2 2.1.3 Develop a New Airport on an Alternate Site................................................................... 2-2 2.1.4 Use other Regional Airports............................................................................................ 2--5 2.1.5 Rely on other Transportation Modes............................................................................... 2-6 2.2 Planning Alternatives Eliminated......................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.1 Develop a New Airport at Another Location................................................................... 2-6 2.2.2 Use other Regional Airports............................................................................................ 2-7 2.2.3 Rely on other Transportation Modes............................................................................... 2-7 2.3 Reasonable Alternatives.......................................................................................... ............ 2-7 2.3.1 Continue to Use Existing Aviation Facilities ("No Action") ............................................ 2-8 2.3.2 Reconfigure and Expand the Existing Airfield................................................................ 2-8 2.4 Sponsor's Proposed Action.................................................................................................. 2-8 2.4.1 Land Acquisition and Relocations................................................................................. 2-10 2.4.2 New Runway.................................................................................................................. 2-10 2.4.3 New Runway Lighting................................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.4 New Taxiways, Apron, and Tie--downs.......................................................................... 2-11 2.4.5 Improvements to NAVAIDS.......................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.6 Security Fencing............................................................................................................ 2-12 2.4.7 Ground Access/Road Changes....................................................................................... 2-12 2.4.8 Building Relocations...................................................................................................... 2-12 2.4.9 Elimination of Hazard Posed By KGEZ Radio Towers ................................................. 2-12 2.4.10 Estimated Development Costs....................................................................................... 2-13 PART 3.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Location and Airport Layout................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Airport's Physical Setting ........... ................................................... ................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Existing Airport Facilities................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Previous Airport Development Planning......................................................................... 3-5 3.2 Land Uses near The Airport Site.......................................................................................::. 3-6 3.2.1 Land ownership . . .............. ............................................................................................... 3-6 lfalis ell Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment Page No. 3.2.2 Existing Land Uses and Zoning....................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.3 Future Land Uses Near the Airport................................................................................ 3 -10 3.3 Community Characteristics................................................................................................. 3-10 3.3.1 Population Trends in Flathead County and Kalispell..................................................... 3-10 3.3.2 Population and Socio-Economic Characteristics............................................................ 3-11 3.3.3 Future Population........................................................................................................... 3--12 3.3.4 Economy of the Project Area......................................................................................... 3-13 3.4 Existing Environmental Conditions.................................................................................. 3-14 3.4.1 ' Air Quality........................................................................................ . .......... r ................ . 3-14 3.4.2 Aircraft Noise................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.4.3 Surface Water Resources and Quality ..... ..... ........ .................. ........ .................. .......... .r.r 3-17 3.4.4 " ground Water Resources and Quality ................ r , ....... , ................. r ............................... . 3-17 3.4.5 Floodplains.................................................................................................................... 3 -17 3.4.6 Coastal Zones and Coastal Barriers............................................................................... 3-18 3.4.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers.................................................................................................. 3 -18 3.4.8 Biotic Communities ....................................................................................................... ' 3--18 3.4.9 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna ............................................... 3-19 3.4.10 Wetlands........................................................................................................................ 3-20 3.4.11 Hazardous Waste Sites... ................................................................................................ 3-20 3.4.12 Farmlands .................. ....... ...r.... .............. ........ ............. .....►■........ ....r. a............. .. .... .......... 3-21 3.4.13 ' Historic and Archaeological Resources......................................................................... 3 -22 3.4.14 Section 4(f) Lands.......................................................................................................... 3-22 PART 4.0: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1 Impact Categories Not Applicable to the Proposed Action .......................................... 4-1 4.2 Aircraft Noise Impacts............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action....................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative.............................................................................. 4-4 4.3 Compatible Land Use............................................................................................................. 4-4 4.3.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action....................................................................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...... ..... ..... ........ ..... .... ...... 4-13 4.4 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 4-13 4.4.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4-13 4.4.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-17 4.5 Induced Bocio-Economic impacts..................................................................................... 4-17 4.5.1 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative.............................................................................. 4-17 4.5.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ..... ..... ......... ... ...... ...... ....... 4.6 Air Quality Impacts................................................................................................................ 4-18 4.6.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ...... ... , .... .... ........ .... ........ .... 4-18 ' 4.6.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ............................................................................ 4--19 4.7 plater Quality Impacts..........................................................................................................r 4-19 4.7.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4-19 " 4.7.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ............................r.......................:...... ........... ...... 4-20 4.8 Floodplain Impacts................................................................................................................ 4-20 4.8.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4--21 4.8.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ......................................................................... 4--21 4.9 Biotic Communities.............................................................................................................. 4-21 4.9.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action............................................................0......0................. 4-21 4 ....... ..... ......... ......... .... .... ..... .9.2 Impacts of the No Acton Alternative , . .... ...... .... ... .... r . .... ... r 4-22 11 fCalis el! Cit Air art Final Environmental Assessment Page No. 4.10 Endangered/Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna .................................................. 4--22 4.10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4-24 4.10.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-26 4.11 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Resources...............................4-26 4.11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4-26 4.11.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-26 4.12 Farmlands................................................................................................................................ 4-26 4.12.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action....................................................................... . ............. 4-26 4.12.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................... . .................. ..................................... 4-27 4.13 Energy Supply and Natural Resources....... ....... 4* ....... 0 .......... 00 .............. 4#4 ....... 0 ...... 0 ...... 0 *. 4-27 4.13.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action..................................................................................... 4-27 4.13.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-27 4.14 Light Emissions......, ....... 0.0 ...... 0 ..................... N. 0 ...... v * ......... 0 .................. 00.0 ...... * 0 0 ..... 0 ....... * 4-27 4.14.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................... . ................... . ............................. . ........ . 4-27 4.14.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative............................................................................ 4-28 4.15 Hazardous Wastes and Solid Waste Impacts................................................................ 4-28 4.15.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action....................................................................................6 4-28 4.15.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ................................... . ................ . ....................... 4-29 4.16 Construction Impacts................►.................,......................►.......................................... 0...... 4-2' 4.16.1 Probable Impacts During Construction ................ . ........................ . ......... . ..................... . 4-29 4.16.2 PermitslLicenses to be Obtained During Construction.................................................. 4-30 4.17 Other Considerations............................................................................................................ 4-31 4.17.1 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objective of Federal, Regional, Mate, and Local Land Use Plan, Policies, and Controls for the Area Concerned........................................................... ....................................... 4-31 4.17.2 Any Inconsistency of the Proposed Action with and Approved State or LocalPlans and Laws.................................................................................................... 4-31 4.17.3 Means to Mitigate Adverse Environmental Impacts ...................................................... 4-31 4.1.7.4 Degree of Controversy on Environmental Grounds....................................................... 4-31 4.17.5 Proposals that Could Affect the Sponsor's Proposed Action .......................................... 4-31 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PREPARERS OF THE EA APPENDIX B: AGENCY COORDINATION AND COMMENTS APPENDIX C: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT APPENDIX D AIRCRAFT PM•10 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS FOR KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT APPENDIX E: REFERENCES CONSULTED APPENDIX F: PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES APPENDIX G: RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 28, 2002 FAA COMMENTS. ON DRAFT EA ill Ka lisp elf City A irp ort Finaf En vironmentaf Assessment LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Kalispell City Airport Topographic Map......................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2-1 Existing Airport Facilities ...... ................................ ............................................ " 2-3............ . Figure 2-2 Alternate Airport Sites.................................................................................................... 2-4 Figure 2-3 Sponsor's Proposed Acton ............................. ........................................................ . ....... 2-g Figure3-1 Regional Location Map.................................................................................................... 3--3 Figure 3-2 Property Tracts in Vicinity of the Airport ....................................... . ............................... . 3-g Figure 3-3 Zoning Classifications for Lands Near the Airport ................... .r..r....................... ....,...... 3-9 Figure 3-4 Existing Aircraft Noise Levels at Kalispell City Airport ............................................... 3-16 Figure 4-1 Future Aircraft Noise Levels at Kalispell City Airport (Without Jets) ............................. 4-5 Figure 4-2 Future Aircraft Noise Levels at Kalispell City Airport (With Jets) .................................. 4-6 Figure 4-3 Future Aircraft Noise Levels at Kalispell City Airport (No Action) ................................ 4-7 Figure 4-4 Part 77 Airspace Diagram - Proposed Airport Development ......................................... 4-11 Figure 4-5 Lands Needed For the Proposed Airport Improvements Project .................................... 4-16 Figure 4-6 Floodplain Map for Lands Near the Airport ......................................... r ........................ 4-23 LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 2-1 Summary of Proposed Improvements - Kalispell City Airport ...................................... 2-14 Table 2-2 Estimated Cost of Proposed Improvements - Kalispell City Airport ............................... 2-15 Table 3-1 Historical Population Data for Montana, Flathead, County, and the City of Kalispell .. 3--11 Table 3--2 Population Projections for Kalispell and Flathead County ............................................ 3-13 Table 3-3 Assumed- Fleet Mix for Present Year (2002)................................................................. 3-15 Table 4--1 Assumed Fleet Mix for Design Year (2022) Without Jets ............................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Assumed Fleet Mix for Design Year (2022) With Jets .................................................... 4-3 LIST OF PHOTO PLATES Page No. Plate 1 Kalispell City Airport Area Photographs....................................................................... 1-13 Plate 2 Kalispell City Airport Area Photographs...................................................................... 1--14 Plate 3 Kalispell City Airport Area Photographs .. .... .......... ........ .. 1-15 Plate4 KGEZ Radio Towers.................................................................................................... 4-10 iv KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT I11ENT PROJECT ARP 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment I � I I -ikkwj,!1w JLwj 0 L 9 1 Kalispell Cif Air ort Final Environmental Assessment INTRODUCTION Brief History of the Airport The earliest recorded aircraft operations at Kalispell occurred in 1911 when. Eugene Ely flew from the county fairgrounds in a Curtis bi-plane. In 1928, the City of Kalispell purchased 135 acres southwest of the community for the development of a municipal airport (the site of the existing Kalispell City Airport). The airport was formally dedicated on July 3, 1929. with the exception of a brief period during the 1954's when the airport was closed, general aviation activities have continuously occurred at the airport since 1929. In early 1966, a group of airport users and concerned businessmen formed the Kalispell Airport Association which then took a lease on the airport and organized and oversaw its revitalization. Prior to the revitalization, the primary use of the airport was as a. convenience strip with few permanently based aircraft. After the revitalization, more and more planes based at Kalispell City Airport, until 1979 when there were 60 to 65 aircraft were based there. In 19861, the Kalispell Airport Association dissolved in the face of financial difficulties and a lack of clear lines of authority and direction from. the City. operational and fiscal responsibility passed back to the City at that time. The City also formed an Airport Advisory Board to help manage the operation and development of the airport. Environmental Assessment Federal legislation requires airport sponsors to give appropriate consideration to the environment when undertaking airport planning and development actions. The most notable provisions relating to environmental planning for airports are contained in the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONACT, the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYACT OF 19 69 , the AIRPORT AND AIRWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1970, the UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQ UISITIoN POLICIES ACT OF 1970, and the AIRPORT AND AIRWAY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982. The AIRPORT AND AIRWAYIMPROVEMENTACT OF 1982 established the Airport Improvement Program (A][P). In 1994, the AIRPORTANDAIRWAYIMPROVEMENTACT OF 1982 was repealed and its provisions were recodified as Title 49 of the United States Code. AIP legislation has been amended several times, most recently with the. passage of the WENDAzz, H. FORD Av1A77o1v INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR 21 ST CENTURY (AIR-2 1) in April 2001. Funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund which is supported by user fees, fuel taxes and other similar revenue sources. This legislation ensures that the planning process considers environmental feasibility with the same thoroughness as airport safety, operational efficiency, and construction costs. The legislation requires that agency coordination about specific environmental concerns and public participation be documented prior to obtaining federal approvals and subsequent funding for the proposed action. IN-1 Kalis ell fit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment The FEDERAL AVIATION ADNIINISTRATTON's (FAA) Airports Program requires the Sponsor of the Kalispell Airport, the City of Kalispell, to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to thoroughly examine the potential impacts of the proposed action and to determine if the resulting impacts are significant. Guidance contained in FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook (October 8, 1985) and in FAA Order 1050.1d, Analysis of Environmental Impact Categories (June 14, 1999) indicates that the EA must contain the analysis and documentation necessary to.- 0 understand any problem(s) and identify reasonable alternatives; ■ determine the significance of potential impacts relative to specific threshold criteria for environmental categories; ■ provide the basis for the FAA's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), if the proposal has no significant impacts, or to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement is needed if significant impacts would occur; ■ identify and satisfy Federal laws, regulations, and Executive orders; ■ identify and satisfy applicable State or local regulations; ■ identify any permits, licenses, or entitlements required by the proposed action; and ■ show the Sponsor consulted with interested agencies and the public regarding the proposed action. This EA draws upon information about the recommended airport development at Kalispell generated in the Kalispell City Airport Feasibility and Master Plan and Site Selection Study and included ALP. The EA also reflects the results of new coordination efforts with involved agencies and presents the most recent information on the environment of the project area whenever possible. As a result, this document provides a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts likely to occur as a result of further development at the proposed Kalispell City Airport site. IN-2 KAL1SPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A1P 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment 0 IN Is a k W& = A rM 0 j 0 1 0 1 D:lr Ah IL "Na �='& Is l I am I I M4 =I P Kalis ell Cit A ort Final Environmental Assessment PART 1.0: PURPOSE. AND NEED 1.1 The Problem Kalispell City Airport is located on the southern outskirts of the City of Kalispell, Montana. The airport is situated favorably between whitefish, Glacier Park International, Ferndale, and Polson to capture a large portion of the Flathead Valley's general aviation activity. According to the FAA's Form 5010, sixty-four (64) aircraft are presently based at the airport and those aircraft generate some 13,600 local operations (takeoffs and landings) each year. Itinerant aircraft use of the airport accounts for an additional 14,000 operations each year. Air taxi and military aircraft operations also occur at the airport. The FAA's Form 5010 estimates the total number of annual aircraft operations at the facility to be about 35,000. This makes the Kalispell City Airport the second busiest of all general aviation airports in Montana, trailing only Hamilton in annual activity levels. Kalispell City Airport is unique in its location relative to the City (see FIGURE 1-1). In fact, one of the main reasons Kalispell City Airport is so attractive to itinerant travelers is the ease of access to the local businesses and services immediately adjacent to the facility. The airport also offers a convenient "jumping off" point for itinerant travelers intending to recreate at other locations within the Flathead Valley or wild lands in Glacier National Park and the Flathead National Forest. Kalispell City Airport also serves as an alternate landing site for some FEDEx deliveries when weather conditions are unfavorable for landing at Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA) northeast of Kalispell. PHOTO PLATES 1, 2, and 3 show the Kalispell City Airport and adjoining lands. The airport provides an important role in aviation safety and training. Several times in recent years, Kalispell City Airport has been the site for awell-attended safety fly -in. The purpose of the event is to increase safety awareness among pilots. The Montana Aeronautics Division (MAD) also bases training sessions for pilots interested in gaining mountain flying experience at the airport. The National Guard uses the airport for helicopter -related training exercises. Kalispell is located within one of Montana's fastest growing regions. Flathead County's population was 74,471 at the time of the 2000 Census, nearly 26 % higher than in 1990. During the same ten year period the State's population grew by less than 13 %. Population forecasts through the next decade suggest the County's population will continue to grow. According to projections prepared for the MDNTANA DEPARTMENT OF C omN ERCE, Flathead County's population is expected to be 90,430 by the year 2010 and may be approaching 114,000 by the year 2025. Kalispell has experienced similar growth. According to U.S. Census statistics, the City's population has increased from 11,917 in 1990 to 14,223 in 2000, an increase of more than 19%. Like the County, population growth in the Kalispell area has been sustained for the last 20+ years and forecasts call for growth in the Flathead region to continue into the foreseeable future. 1-1 r ' Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment The economy of Flathead County continues to be very diversified and strong as compared to many other counties in Montana. The county's economy remains dependent on its natural resource base that provides opportunities for timber harvesting, hydroelectric power generation, and tourism on National Forest lands and in Glacier National Park. The county is also home to high tech industry, metals refining, and forest products processing. Kalispell's importance as a regional trade center has continued to increase. Kalispell is rapidly becoming recognized as a regional center for healthcare. Considerable growth has occurred in recent years within the medical community and many key medical support facilities have been expanded in response to the increased demands for healthcare services. Improvements to Kalispell City Airport will support and help sustain economic growth within the community. The City of Kalispell is faced with a dilemma regarding future development at Kalispell City Airport. Even though the physical and economic setting of the airport is highly favorable, the facility is "dated" and requires significant design modifications to ensure it can safely and efficiently accommodate expected increases in aviation activity. The cost of such improvements will be high as the demand for and value of lands adjoining the airport (and the US Highway 93 corridor) continue to increase each year. Even though Kalispell City Airport is one of the busiest airports in the state, it does not meet current FAA standards for design and safe operations by many of the aircraft currently using the airport. The airport does satisfy design standards for most of the aircraft presently based at the airport. The current airport property is not large enough to provide acceptable distances between aircraft and the surrounding developments. Due to these conditions, the airport is not eligible to receive federal funding from. FAA for improvements or upgrades. Therefore, the operation and maintenance of the airport is completely dependent upon funding from the City of Kalispell. The City has recognized that without securing federal funds, the required improvements to the airport will be difficult to implement with limited funding. In addition to the need to make design and safety modifications, one of the primary driving forces for this improvement project is the economic activity generated by users of the airport within the City of Kalispell. The airport immediately abuts the City and U.S. Highway 93 where lodging, convention facilities, restaurants, and other service businesses exist. It is the airport's proximity to these facilities and services that in part attracts pilots to visit Kalispell. Revenue associated with additional based aircraft and hangar development has been lost to other nearby airports because it is unknown if the facility would be modified and substantially improved. Local airport board members have acknowledged that several times over the past few years, individuals or corporations have chosen to build hangars and base aircraft at GPIA or Polson instead of Kalispell. The Polson Airport has received significant increases in based aircraft and hangar development following the implementation of a recent major improvement project at the airport. A business specializing in the repair of radios for aircraft also recently relocated front. Kalispell City Airport to another nearby airport. Decisions to relocate based aircraft and aviation -related businesses reduce the City's and fixed base operator's abilities to collect fees from hangar development, additional fuel sales, repairs, and other aviation -related 12 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment N; "P-6— ,+i ' �= 'a ;i ' �' ;' • !• l ■• I +. �-�.�r'-` ^�L-.� fir• �� il..:�"`1, 3s �t �a, �,..��: � � r .. _ , .... ll �� Is SC 10. � }°---�� r �� -•��"� ,ww�twww��-�`" �•� T �i.._---�,`�,�'` �rT � i � �' ►� � ■r,....�_..._.�,•.•� S • • ; i �lii �� '�+ i�� 1• �� +•`�� 1 * 3 � � +' ■ S '' i � ar ■ i ■ r • i I rr�'+ � a 1.Ir {{FF ] ■ re o r ■� ■ F a t ' a s� i� s•r , ■ I ■ f 1 �y � • � •p f�.■ •r , ■ N��. op IP \� �� ! P ■ 'Al '! 4 a■ • # """"�`` ;77 IF ![�l8t 8 MGM D'$�:_ i f E4ting Runway �... , , . f %4t. -t�c ,pal r� ■ t 4' A 119 wages ,e 1 r &t. i a•. 1 f, rpoi �•( .f s i �` �( • ib \ d •, \ \ } ! ��F�-yam i 1 =1 �� .._� , * _ _ � � � f �► ■ � � ,mac r ,.•� f ; ; � , � � x 0 i i 7' • r ( i F_ l�. f •■ fr. 'ti Pik r ' !' ■ T ; 4 1 ` k a 0 �• De t ■•■ r ■ ■ y -ills' M '�' �� P'i� ■ � f � � :: ':� a •■ ► * � 'L ,'.. ! : _•r • 7934 e. �Ys f _y�,R� ' ...� � VJ �\'1 r, i - `�1 ' .' i . ! i �' s....._.-- _-•.n..� '+`� .tit• - —..tv � __ w • �� i Co-�, ;f 49 44 graphOl ,cdr Figure Iml.0 Kalispell City Airport Topographic Map 1-3 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment services. There is no reason to believe that Kalispell City Airport would not prosper with the implementation of the airport improvements proposed in this document. With these considerations in mind, the City has undertaken planning activities for the airport and coordinated planned development closely with the FAA. As a result of the City's planning and coordination efforts, the FAA. has stated the City must meet a variety of safety standards and conditions before it will be eligible to receive federal airport improvement snatching funds. The FAA's conditions for receiving federal funding include: ■ Acquiring or controlling the land area sufficient to accommodate all necessary upgrades to the airport and protect airspace for the critical aircraft using (or expected to use) the facility. ■ Removing, relocating, or lowering the KGEZ radio antennas south of the airport. ■ Increasing safety spacing between the runway, taxiway, and apron areas. ■ Enacting airspace protections and land use restrictions within about 2 miles of the new airport. If this can be accomplished, the proposed airport improvements would offer a variety of benefits to the aviation community and the general public including: ■ Safer conditions for the community and for air travelers, including the removal of the existing radio towers that present an airspace hazard. ■ Eligibility for FAA funding participation (90 percent of eligible and allowable project costs) in airport improvements. ■ Improved airport facilities with less cost to the City. ■ Assured room for future facility expansion and long --term protection for the airport and its airspace. 1.1.1 "Critical Aircraft" Design Group Conditions at Kalispell City Airport were examined in detail in the Kalispell City Airport Master Plan (Monison-Maierle, Inc, 1999). The .Master Plan documented current and projected aviation activity levels at Kalispell, identified problems at the existing facility, and recommended facilities for future airport development in the community. Federal interest in funding airport development is primarily influenced by the operation of "critical aircraft" using the facility. Critical aircraft are considered to be those aircraft that regularly use the airport and because of their size and performance capabilities, require the greatest facility considerations (such as runway length, width, separation distances, etc.). Regular 1-4 Ka!is ell f.LtZ Airport Final Environmental Assessment use is generally considered to be 500 or more operations each year or about ten operations per week. Airport Reference Code (ARC) is a coding system used by the FAA to relate airport design criteria to the operational and physical characteristics of the airplanes intended to use the facility. The ARC has two components relating to airport design aircraft. The first component, designated by a letter, is the aircraft approach category and refers to aircraft approach s eed. The second component, designated by a Roman numeral, is the airplane design group and relates to airplane wingspan. The aircraft currently using the existing facility are of the A -I, B-I, and B W-II categories, with the majority of operations being attributed to A -I aircraft. The most demanding aircraft currently based at Kalispell City Airport is a Turbo Commander, a "B--II" aircraft. The B--II aircraft use is on the increase at the airport due to more frequent operations by business concerns and air ambulance operators. All of these aircraft weigh less than 12,500 pounds and have less than 10 passenger seats. The FAA considers such aircraft as part of the "small aircraft" fleet. Based on forecasted demands of aviation activity over a twenty --year planning horizon, the Master Plan concluded that the projected demands at Kalispell can be adequately met by an "ARC B-II" type airport as discussed in the FAA's current Advisory Circular No. 150/5300-13. This type of airport is designed for airplanes with wingspans of up to but not exceeding 49 feet, and approach speeds of up to 121 knots. A "B-II" airport would accommodate all of the single --engine and small twin -engine airplanes used for personal and business purposes. Additionally, such facilities can serve some small business and air taxi type twin -engine airplanes and a hand -full of the smallest jets. The FAA has advocated that planning and design work should ensure that the Kalispell City Airport be developed to meet "B--II" standards as well as being protected to a Large aircraft standard under FAR Part 77. This would require a slightly larger (wider) Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) and that a 10,000--foot horizontal surface be protected around the airport. The FAA's position is based on the belief that high performance B-II aircraft would use an improved airport and that aircraft fleets may change over time at Kalispell to include larger aircraft. The City has disagreed with the FAA over this issue since the facility may never be developed to its ultimate capabilities. However, the City has agreed that it would acquire or control all lands and airspace necessary for a B-II facility so future development options are not limited, provide potential expansion protection, and safety buffers in the runway approach areas. 1,1.2 Facility Needs Based on B-11 Airport Development With the basic assumption that future airport development should comply with at least "B-II- Large" standards, Kalispell City Airport was evaluated to determine if it could safely and adequately accommodate current and future aviation demands. Considering future aviation demands and reviews of the existing facility relative to design and safety standards, the following sections discuss major needs existing at Kalispell City Airport. The assumption was made that 1-5 Ka12 ell qity Airport t Final Environmental Assessment this airport would not be designed and constructed to accommodate "large" aircraft, other than occasional use (less than 500 annual operations). Large aircraft are considered to be aircraft greater than 12,500 pounds. RUNWAY LENGTH Based on the mean daily maximum temperature for the hottest month of the year at Kalispell and the airport's elevation of 2,932 feet above sea level, the recommended runway lengths to serve small airplanes are 3,600 feet, 4,300 and 4,700 feet. A runway length of 3,600 feet is sufficient to accommodate use by 75 percent of all airplanes in the small aircraft fleet (i.e. all small airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds with to or fewer passenger seats). A 4,300-foot-long runway is needed to accommodate 95 percent of all airplanes in the small aircraft fleet, while a 4,700- foot-long runway would be adequate for the entire small aircraft fleet. The current airport property and layout does not allow the present runway to be lengthened to meet ultimate B-II dimensional standards. Lengthening the existing runway is currently limited by airspace obstructions and development beyond each end of the runway. The choices of runway length ranging between 3,600 feet and 4,700 feet would be entirely up to the City. The City believes building to the ultimate 4,700--foot--long runway would allow many additional business jets to use the facility and may result in undesirable noise levels within nearby areas of the community. Initially, the City would build a runway of similar length to that of the present facility (most likely a runway 3,700 feet long). The new runway would be designed so that additional length could be added if needed in the future. The FAA has acknowledged that building a 3,600- or 3,700-foot--long runway would be a way to discourage use by larger and noisier aircraft. The City would be obligated to re --evaluate this EA and/or complete additional environmental analysis should the runway be extended beyond its initially constructed length. LAND ACQUISITION/FUTURE EXPANSION CAPABILITIES The current airport property and layout does not allow future development to meet ultimate B-Il dimensional standards. The existing airport property is not large enough to accommodate the required future expansion of the facility. The FAA would require the City to acquire or control enough land to allow for the ultimate construction of a runway capable of accommodating 95 % of the small aircraft fleet as a precondition for federal participation in a construction project. This also provides approach protection for the runway should the extension not occur. COMPLIANCE WITH B-II SAFETY AND DESIGN STANDARDS Currently, the airport does not meet the safety standards for a B-111 airport as described in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. The Advisory Circular identifies design criteria for runways, taxiways, and other related airport facilities. The FAA has been reluctant to admit airports that do not meet current design standards into the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports. Kalispell City Airport has "provisional" status in the NPIAS. 1-6 Kalil ell City Air orb Final Environmental Assessment Several of the key safety and design deficiencies associated with the present facility are described below. o The existing airport has several obstructions to "Part 77" operational surfaces. Two radio towers for Station KGEZ exist just east of the extended runway centerline approximately 3,200 feet southeast of the threshold for Runway 31. The pair of towers are 325 feet tali and separated by just under 1,000 feet. Guy wires extend outward about 406 feet in several directions from the base. The towers penetrate the existing and proposed visual approach surface of 20:1 approximately 108 feet and 173 feet. The radio towers were declared a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an October 5, 1999 Memorandum from the Flight Standards District Office in Helena. The FAA has established the mitigation of these avigational hazards as one of the preconditions to federal funding assistance for construction at Kalispell City Airport. Ground obstructions exist approximately 6,000 feet to the west of the airport and rise about 850- 900 feet above the airport elevation. These ground obstructions penetrate the horizontal surface about 700 feet and the transitional surface to a lesser amount. o Both ends of the existing runway do not conform to runway protection zone, safety area or object free area criteria set forth by the FAA. Runway Protection Zones (RPZ) are the trapezoidal areas beginning 200 feet beyond the threshold of each runway and extending for an additional 1000 feet. RPZ's are established primarily to protect people on the ground, and secondarily to prevent establishment of hazards to those in the air. The FAA encourages airports to own the areas encompassed by the RPZ's outright, but at a minimum, to control the areas enough to prevent "places of public assembly." A B-II RPZ is 500 feet wide on the threshold side and expands to 700 feet wide. Advisory Circular AC 150/5300--13 specifically prohibits residences inside the RPZ, it also encourages the airport Sponsor to own the RPZ entirely in order to ensure land use control in this critical runway approach area. Some of the land encompassed by the current northern RPZ is privately owned and contains residences. The City does not own the lands within the southern RPZ. However, there are no residences or other incompatible uses located within the area. An area designated the "runway safety area" is designed to support aircraft under normal (dry) conditions without causing structural damage to the aircraft or injury to the occupants, should aircraft undershoot, overrun, or veer off the paved runway surface. It provides an additional measure of safety to aircraft, as well as providing greater accessibility to firefighting and rescue equipment should the need arise. The current parallel taxiways are within the runway safety area. The size of this safety buffer needs to increase as the approach and landing speeds of user aircraft increase. The current Runway object Free Area (OFA) at 250-feet--wide, centered on the runway centerline and extending 240 feet beyond the runway threshold meets only the FAA's standard for "exclusively small" aircraft (aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds). A B-II object free area 1-7 Kalispell City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment should be Soo -feet wide and extend 300-feet beyond each threshold as required by FAA standards. The OFA is a safety buffer area where there should be no objects for an errant aircraft to collide with. The OFA should remain free of parked aircraft or permanent objects. Navigational aids, which must be placed in this area to perform their intended function, should be both lightweight and designed to easily break off at ground level upon impact. once again, the intention is to allow errant aircraft to leave the paved surfaces without significant damage to the aircraft or injury to the occupants. Improvements to the current airport would double this safety buffer. o The width of the existing runway is inadequate. The existing runway is 60-feet-wide. The design standards for a B-II airport requires the runway to be 75 feet in width. Veering and correction at higher speeds requires additional width for the same degree of safety. o The airport lacks perimeter fencing. The airport requires a complete perimeter fence to secure access onto airport property to authorized locations only. Presently, there is no continuous fence along the boundary of the airport property allowing the public and wildlife unrestricted access to the airfield. This situation creates a collision hazard for both trespassers and air traffic using the runway. o The runway lighting system needs upgrading. The runway has staked mounted low intensity runway lights (LMLs) that would need to be upgraded with future airport development. These lights are mounted on apparently non - frangible, concrete encased stakes. Should an aircraft deviate from its intended course and strike a fixed runway light, the damage to the aircraft could significantly increase the chance of injury to the plane's occupants and the liability of the airport owner. o The airport needs additional navigational aids and other minor lighting improvements. The present runway lacks Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) at both ends of the runway. Installation of PAPIs is desirable to assist pilots during landings and would benefit aviation safety at the airport. A lighted segmented circle and windsock should be installed and the existing rotating beacon should be replaced. The existing facility lacks lighting or reflectors along the edge of the taxiway and apron. These lighting improvements could significantly increase safety for night --time airport users. o The aircraft storage and parking areas at the existing airport are inadequate for present and future use. W Kalis ell City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment The required number of hangar spaces and the number of tiedowns are directly related to the number of based aircraft. The FAA's generally accepted planning guideline for sizing tie --down aprons is 300 square yards of tiedown apron per based aircraft and 360 square yards per transient aircraft. The Kalispell City airport Feasibility and Master Plan Study, showed that about twice as much apron area as presently exists should be provided at the airport. The study also showed a large deficiency in the number of tie downs available versus those that are desirable for the facility given the number of based aircraft and itinerant activity levels. Assuming that 80 percent of all based aircraft are to be hangared at the Kalispell City Airport, the current number of hangar spaces (estimated to be about 36) does not meet the current demands of about 50 spaces. Unless additional hangars are added, the deficiency in the number of hangar spaces will increase in the future as more aircraft become based as the airport. 1.1.3 Summary of Purpose and Need Based on the identified problems and concerns at Kalispell City Airport discussed above, the purpose of the proposed action is to provide safe and efficient aviation facilities at the airport over the next twenty years. To accomplish this fundamental purpose, the proposed action must: ■ provide facilities that can safely accommodate the "critical aircraft" that regularly use the airport based on recommended FAA criteria; ■ provide sufficient property so the facility can be developed with design features that satisfy FAA safety standards and dimensional criteria; ■ provide a facility capable of being developed as a B-11 airport with a non -precision instrument approach runway in the future; and ■ provide a facility capable of generating additional revenues through aviation - related activities for the City of Kalispell and enhancing economic activity in adj acent portions of the City. ■ Decrease the City's liability in the event of an accident on substandard facilities. 1.2 Current and Projected Aviation Activity Current and projected aviation activity was examined in detail in the Kalispell City airport Feasibility and Master Plan. Projections of aircraft operations to the Year 2018 were included in the .Master Plan and were based on: 1) historic activity data from FAA Master Records (Form 5010) for the Kalispell City Airport; 2) activity information for similar airports; 3) economic and populations trends; and 4) a survey of airport users. Chapter 2 of the .Master Plan contains a comprehensive review of this data and presents the assumptions used to project future aircraft 1-9 Kalis eL.CiltArrort Final Environmental Assessment operations at Kalispell. The .faster Plan projected a slow increase in aviation activity over the future planning period at Kalispell. As indicated earlier, FAA Form 5010 estimates the total current numbers of operations at Kalispell Airport to be 35,000. This total is comprised of the following: Air Carrier 0 Commuter 0 Air Taxi 63400 General Aviation - Local 13,600 General Aviation - Itinerant 14,000 Milita 1 000 'dotal 359000 The total operations forecasts for the airport from. 'fable 4 of the Master Plan are shown below. Year Total Operations 2003 37,869 2008 427089 2013 46,830 2018 52,159 This represents, an increase in total operations of approximately 1.9% per year through the year 2018. The forecasted numbers of based aircraft at Kalispell City Airport from Table 5 of the .duster Plan are shown below. Year Based Aircraft 2003 78 2008 88 2013 102 2018 119 The Master Plan indicates that the forecasts for total operations and based aircraft assume improved facilities at Kalispell City Airport. If improvements were not made, these forecasts would be optimistic. Given the current and projected aviation activity at Kalispell City Airport, it is paramount that aviation activity at the facility be acconu-nodated in the safest and most efficient manner possible. The facility is already a busy airport with marginal safety conditions. Increased aviation activity at the facility would likely further degrade safety at the airport for its users and the adjoining community. 1-10 Ixaiis e11 City Air ort Fina/ Environmental Assessrrment 1.3 Requested Federal Actions The requested Federal actions at the Kalispell City Airport are as follows: ■ Approval of an Airport Layout Plan —The Site Selection Study completed by the City in September 2001 will be further developed to reflect land acquisition and construction requirements. The ALP will be based on the development of a runway with a 5.6-degree rotation (14/32 orientation). ■ Approval of Funding for Airport Development -Federal participation in the development of the Kalispell City Airport is contingent upon the approval of the previously mentioned federal actions and the FAA's issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) based on this EA. Federal environmental approval would encompass the following development activities at the Kalispell City Airport: ■ Acquisition of land to accommodate airport development and provide easements or land acquisition for runway protection zones and other areas requiring protection. ■ (Staged) Construction of a 75-foot--wide paved runway meeting B-II standards with initial development of a 3,700--foot-long runway. ■ Construction of a single full parallel taxiway since the existing runway has two partial parallel taxiways. ■ Construction of a paved apron with an associated taxiway, tiedowns, and taxilane(s) for hangar development. ■ Provision of graded areas adjacent to the runway, taxiway, and apron area. ■ Installation of Precision Approach Path Indicator(s) (PAPI) for the new runway. ■ Installation of a new medium intensity runway lighting system. * Installation of a new windcone, associated segmented circle, and beacon. ■ Provision of perimeter fencing for the airport. ■ Development of a new access road to the facility. 1.4 Timef rame for the Requested Actions The Sponsor must have an FAA -approved ALP in order to receive financial assistance under the provisions of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as authorized by Title 49 of the United States Code, as amended. The proposed actions identified above are being considered for implementation as soon as federal funding assistance can be obtained. Assuming the necessary approvals are obtained and federal financial assistance is immediately available for the project, the Sponsor's most optimistic schedule for implementing the project is as follows: Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment Completion of Environmental Document.............................................................. Fall 2002 Resolution of KGEZ tower hazard....................................................Fall 2002Iwinter 2003 Design airport improvements........................................................................... winter 2003 Land acquisition.................................................................................... Winter/Spring 2003 Construct improvements......................................................................... Summer/Fall 2003 Dependent on aviation demand and growth at the Kalispell City Airport, other components planned as future improvements at the facility include: 0 Construction of additional taxilanes; ■ Construction of additional apron area and tiedown facilities; * Construction of additional runway length, up to 4,700 feet; * Reconstruct Cemetery Road out of the runway protection zone; • Construction of a parallel taxiway extension to a runway extension; and ■ Development of a non -precision instrument approach. The Sponsor has not established a time frame for completing these future improvements. 1 -- 12 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment graph02.cdr Rosauers grocery store was recently constructed on land immediately east of the airport once formerly developed with athletic fields. Looking southwesterly at development at the south end of the airport. Photo Plate 1 1--13 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment Photo showing conditions on the approach to the "31" (South) end of the existing runway. graph03.cdr Photo Plate 2 1-14 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment graphN.cdr One of the fixed -base operator's (FBO) facilities at the airport. Typical hangar and tie -down facilities at the airport. Photo Plate 3 1-15 KALISPELL CITYAIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment PART - 2,0;ALTERNATIVES Kalispell 2tZ__A ort Final Environmental Assessment PART 2.0.0 AL.T:ERNA.T11VES This PART of the Environmental Assessment discusses the alternatives that were considered for the proposed action. These alternatives include measures that would construct airport improvements at Kalispell, actions that could be implemented to address the identified aviation demands/facility requirements, and the alternative of doing nothing to improve the Kalispell Airport. The Sponsor's Proposed Action is also identified and described later in this PART. 2.1 Alternatives Considered The City of Kalispell considered a variety of alternatives to address identified aviation -related deficiencies and needs at the Kalispell City Airport over the next twenty years. The range of alternatives initially considered for this proposed action are described in the paragraphs below. 2,1,1 Continue to Use Existing Aviation Facilities ("No Action") This alternative involves the continued use of the existing airport near Kalispell. No new improvements or facilities would be added and only maintenance activities would be completed to ensure the Kalispell City Airport remains serviceable. Deficiencies associated with the airport as described in PART 1.0 would remain. Existing airport facilities are shown in FIGURE 2-1. Under this alternative, the configuration and layout of the existing facility would be unchanged from present conditions. The airport would not comply with FAA safety and design standards for the most demanding type of aircraft (B-11) that occasionally use the airport. obstructions to Part 77 airspace would remain, including the KGEZ towers deemed to be a hazard to aviation. No additional land or avigational easements would be acquired for future expansion or improvement of the airport. The City of Kalispell would be solely responsible for the costs of all maintenance and improvements to facility. Federal funding participation in airport development would not be possible. It is assumed that the City would invest up to $1 million already pledged as matching funds for a possible federally -funded airport project in implementing its own limited improvement project at the airport. It should be noted that the $1 million pledged by the City for improvements to the airport would be an insufficient amount to actually provide a general aviation facility capable of meeting all B- II standards. The City would likely have to incur additional expenses every few years to continue safety and security improvements and to maintain Kalispell City Airport as a viable general aviation airport. Although some conditions at the airport may be improved, it is highly doubtful that the City could fund and implement the type of major airport reconfiguration and facility improvements that are necessary without funding assistance from. the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The improvement program the City would be capable of implementing on its own would not eliminate or substantially reduce the safety concerns and potential liability 2-f Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment to the City associated with operations to and from the airport. 2.1.2 Reconfigure and Expand the Existing Airfield This alternative recognizes the fact that substantial investments in airfield facilities have already been made at Kalispell City Airport and attempts to maximize the use of such resources. This alternative would provide a facility ultimately capable of satisfying FAA dimensional criteria for a B--II airport and accommodating an ultimate expansion of the runway by the City if conditions warranted such development. Under this alternative, airport development could be stage constructed from a minimum runway length supporting 75 percent of the small aircraft fleet, up to the 4,700-foot-long runway length needed to accommodate 100 percent of the small aircraft fleet. The following actions would be associated with the reconfiguration and expansion of the Kalispell City Airport. • acquisition of land adjacent to the existing airport property to accommodate new development and provide easements for runway protection zones; ■ elimination of the obstructions to aviation caused by KGEZ towers; ■ reorient the runway from a 13/31 configuration to a 14/3 2 configuration and construct the runway to provide a paved surface 75-feet-wide and at least 3,704-feet-long; ■ installation of a new medium intensity runway lighting system. and Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) for the new runway; • construction of a paved apron with an associated taxiway, new aircraft tiedowns, and taxilanes for hangar development sufficiently separated from the new runway; ■ relocation of the existing windcone and segmented circle; • installation of fencing around the perimeter of the existing and newly acquired airport property; and • development of new vehicle access roads and/or parking accommodations. 2,1,3 Develop a New Airport on an Alternate Site This alternative involves the acquisition of land and subsequent development of a new general aviation airport for Kalispell. Potential airport sites for the community and the viability of transferring aviation activities to an alternate location were examined in the Kalispell City Site Selection Study completed in July 2001 by Robert Peccia & Associates. The surrounding mountains, environmental considerations, and existing air traffic patterns associated with the use of Glacier Park International Airport (GPIA) limit other potential locations for an airport in the immediate Kalispell area. To assure convenient access from the City and less distance to a new airport than to GPIA, a seven -mile radius was drawn around Kalispell for an initial site search. Twelve possible locations that could accommodate the airport development were narrowed down to seven locations through consultations with the Airport Board. Two of the seven were discarded after a fly -over examination of the potential sites. Ultimately, five sites, including the existing airport site, were selected for detailed evaluations. These sites are shown in FIGURE 2-2 and described in the paragraphs below. 2-2 0- 0- 3 'v 7 31 35 z 6i M A, 6 !r 7w J -S z 04 ITE cc) w 0 LD z 1 i'f 0 V .3t _.V ZALTEIAWA-tle IA' Llw i, i z > m Z)Z wz 0 0- u SM 12 16 C LIJ 0 0 NA �o kZ1 Nyz FIr kt, .. =__ . =z p 4 -L 20 A\22 j Z ia . ..... . LU -A ti 3 Ala LU tz 0 MN 17 0 NN ? 28 _Y 128 ' TAI, g ...... j L16 U) _j o LLI J UA 5z CC IL X Uj LU 7 1 0— C14 OR Mow- 711 PAGE , 4( v 2m4 5 v, 20- 2 0 �,APO 41 � Al Z" E IN F Kalls ell City Arr ort Final Environmental Assessment ■ Site Alternative #1. Airport development would use portions of the existing airport site. This alternative would retain the runway's current alignment but would relocate 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-II width and safety spacing standards. one of the two current parallel taxiways would have to be abandoned to allow room for the wider dimensions. ■ Site Alternative #2. Airport development would use portions of the existing airport site but relocate the existing Runway 13 threshold 600-feet to the south to clear the runway protection zone and rotating the current runway alignment 5.6 degrees clockwise. Additional land would be purchased and the pavements reconstructed to B-11 width and safety spacing standards. one of the two current parallel taxiways would have to be abandoned to allow room for the wider dimensions. ■ Site Alternative #3. This alternative would move the airport about one mile south of its current location between the old railroad right-of-way and U.S. Highway 93. This location would move the airport to a less developed area while retaining close proximity to town. ■ Site Alternatives #4 and #5. These alternatives would involved new airport development at locations about 5--mules directly east of Kalispell in the middle of the Flathead River Valley. Alternative #4 would lie within sections 13 and 24 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. Alternative #5 would lie within sections 1 and 12 of Township 28 North and Range 21 West. 2.1.4 Use Other Regional Airports The use of GPIA and other regional airports to relieve the forecasted aviation demands would involve shifting aviation activity to other airports in reasonable proximity (within 50 miles) to Kalispell. GPIA, located within 8 miles of Kalispell City Airport, serves all commercial airlines, has a newly commissioned control tower, and precision instrument approaches. The quality and variety of services draw most of the business jet traffic for the Flathead Valley. Aviation activity at Kalispell City Airport could be readily accommodated at GPIA. Airports with paved runways and facilities comparable to those at Kalispell City Airport include Polson and Ronan. With recent reconstruction and expansion at both of these relatively nearby and competing facilities, Kalispell has lost tenants and potential tenants and revenues from fuel sales, hangar development and repair services. Recreational airports easily accessible from. Kalispell City include: Ferndale, whitefish, and Hot Springs. These airports typically have turf strips and less developed facilities that those offered at Kalispell City Airport. 2-5 Kalispell gLtL AFinal Environmental Assessment 2.1.5 Rely on Other Transportation Modes Surface transportation modes could be relied upon for travel to and from Kalispell to replace aviation activity. The individuals, institutions, and business interests that presently use the Kalispell City Airport would be required to use ground vehicles, regional bus lines, or rail service for transportation instead of aircraft. 2,2 Planning Alternatives Eliminated The alternatives that were eliminated from consideration and the reasons for their exclusion are discussed below. 2.2.1 Develop a New Airport at Another Location As indicated earlier in this Part, the City of Kalispell completed a site selection study that included a detailed examination of five possible sites for a new airport. The following factors were considered in the evaluation of each airport site alternative. Direct Aeronautical Considerations Airspace Obstructions Expandability Wind Alignment /Weather Airspace Assessment (conflict w/GPIA) Instrument Capabilities Proximity to Other Airports Blacktail Mountain Radar Coverage Ton -Direct Aeronautical Considerations Public Acceptance 1 Support Consistency wl Area wide Planning Compatible Land Use Development 1 Land Costs Surface Transportation Impacts Proximity to Kalispell Environmental Consequences Fl o odpl ai n slWetl ands Economic Benefit to Kalispell Available Infrastructure Based on a consideration of the factors listed above, the site selection study concluded that acquiring adjacent- lands, rotating the current runway alignment 5.6 degrees clockwise, and implementing other major improvements to the existing City Airport was the most desirable airport development action. The principal factors considered in reaching this decision were the continued economic benefits to the Kalispell community; the ability to accommodate expansion to B-II large requirements; and the potential for significant new environmental impacts at other Flathead Valley locations. Detailed rankings and site evaluations developed to reach this decision can be found in the the Kalispell City Site Selection Study. 2-6 Ralis ell gib Air ort Final Environmental Assessment 2,2.2 Use Other Regional Airports The use of other regional airports to accommodate the aviation demands at Kalispell was eliminated from consideration for the following reasons: o Users of the Kalispell City Airport have a desire to originate or terminate aircraft activities at this location. Kalispell City Airport is often chosen as a recreational destination over other northwestern Montana airports primarily because of its easy access to the city. o The City of Kalispell would lose revenues from the operation of the airport and local businesses would suffer economic losses if itinerant travelers discontinued the use of the existing facility in favor of other airports in the region. 0 other regional airports cannot offer comparable facilities with the same convenience and accessibility to the City and businesses. e Use of regional airports would increase emergency response times to Kalispell and make such services less accessible to residents of the community. e The Kalispell City Airport serves as an alternate airport for small aircraft activity from GPIA. Small cargo planes currently divert to the Kalispell City Airport when the GPIA is fogged in. Some general aviation pilots would prefer to use the city airport rather than interact with GPIA's new control tower. o The alternative would result in increased use of energy and increases in vehicle --emitted pollutants due to the many vehicle trips required for Kalispell -area pilots traveling to and from other regional airports. 2.2.3 Rely on Other Transportation Modes This alternative was eliminated from consideration because it is not realistic to assume that 'Other modes of transportation could replace the aviation activity that occurs at Kalispell. Much of the existing activity involves flying aircraft for recreation and business. other surface transportation modes could not replace recreational aviation. Using surface transportation to replace long- distance emergency medical evacuations or business trips where time is of the essence would not be practical. 2.3 Reasonable Alternatives Two alternatives are considered to be reasonably foreseeable outcomes of this airport planning effort being undertaken by the City of Kalispell and should be evaluated in detail in the Environmental Assessment. These alternatives are identified below: 2-7 Kali ell 2LtEAirport Final Environmental Assessment 2.3.1 Continue to Use Existing Aviation Facilities ("No Action") The No Action Alternative, which provides the reasons for undertaking this airport improvement project, does not meet the City's purpose and need for this project. However, this alternative cannot be rejected because it would be the only action possible by the City should the FAA decline to participate in improvements at the Kalispell City Airport. FAA Order 5050.4A requires that the No Action alternative be evaluated for this proposed action to ensure compliance with Federal environmental regulations. If the No Action Alternative were selected, the likelihood of Kalispell City Airport surviving beyond the next decade appears uncertain. Future reconsideration of the facility's participation in the FAA's Airport Improvement Program would seem doubtful. Federal funds have already been spent to conduct various engineering studies and a site selection study, develop an airport master plan, prepare airport layout plans, and write this Environmental Assessment. This work has led the City to propose the improvements discussed in Section 2.4 Sponsor's Proposed Action below. The No Action alternative also provides a baseline against which the Sponsor's Proposed Action (or any other alternative) can be compared. The environmental effects of the No Action alternative will be discussed in PART 4.0 of this Environmental Assessment as a means of comparing and contrasting the impacts of the Sponsor's Proposed Action. 2.3,2 Reconfigure and Expand the Existing Airfield Based on a thorough consideration of the planning alternatives initially identified, one alternative for airport development, Reconfigure and Expand the Existing Airfield, was determined to be reasonable for the proposed action. This alternative, which comprises the Sponsor's Proposed Action, and described in more detail on the following pages. 2.4 Sponsor's Proposed Action The City of Kalispell, with the assistance of FAA, proposes undertaking a major project to reconfigure the Kalispell City Airport. The improvements would occur on most of the property containing the existing airport and on newly acquired lands adjoining the airport property. The reconfigured airport would provide additional margins of safety between aircraft operations and the surrounding community. The proposed improvements would include realigning and lengthening the main runway, improving navigational facilities, and adding the potential for instrument approaches. With such improvements, the airport would become eligible for FAA matching funds and the costs to the City for airport improvements and maintenance could be substantially reduced. The proposed airport improvements are shown on FIGURE 2-3. To accomplish the proposed improvements, the City would need to purchase land or easements on properties to the south and west of the current airport. Where necessary airport land iYlPI:�YYTi11111f;Ti� � j ®""„ .�py��(y�Oji7YYY1"YI Yi11111�'��rrNt�/w�dWY...W..� �� • M. • 1� • - �� . P , _ .gym j 1 _ ilYi11�3�� _ _ [ 04 loin 0 Bill man 'Y G ON LE FUTURE Rd;- i RELOCATION ATE D AY _ -DARYvi CD OF �� _ - - _ • fir. �:i ,+t �'- sy■ �. 1•i .. ®ter � � • I � I I � • a • a • .. •< art tt tt�n � � .,� _ l • a WWY VW�y 11' t� tAD _�. d y .., — �11M.rY: s Kalis ell Zit Airport Final Environmental Assessment acquisitions would leave an unusable remnant, entire tracts would be purchased from property owners. Several residences, businesses, hangars, and other buildings would likely need to be relocated or purchased for removal. Radio towers, and trees southeast of the airport obstructing flight paths in and out of the facility would also need to be removed, relocated, or lowered. The airport would initially be developed in accordance with B-II lateral separation and safety standards like building, apron, and taxiway/runway separation distances. Future development would also be staged in accordance with these standards, unless aviation demands show otherwise. Future aviation demands, political input, and the availability of funding would dictate when such improvements are warranted at the airport. The proposed airport improvements at Kalispell are shown in TABLE 2-1 and described in the text below. Note that the proposed airside and landside facility improvements were identified based on criteria contained in the FAA's Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport .Design. 2.4,1 Land Acquisition and Relocations The existing airport was originally developed on about 135 acres of land owned by the City of Kalispell. only about 73 acres remain in City ownership in a form usable as an airport. The rest of the land was sold to finance other city projects through the years, including land that is currently used for soccer and Little League Baseball fields. For this project, approximately 72 acres of land adjoining the airport must be acquired or controlled by the City through easements or other measures. Approximately thirty-five tracts of land owned by eighteen different property owners would be affected by land acquisition activities for the airport project. The City would purchase or acquire the parcels identified in the Tract Map shown on FIGURE 4-4 in PART 4.0 of this document. According to a preliminary relocation plan report by Olson Land Services (March 2002), the proposed action would displace five businesses, nine residential units (including three owner - occupied residences, two mobile homes, and four rentals), and require about twenty-three property moves. The federal relocation program required that residential occupants be relocated to dwellings that meet "Decent, Safe, and Sanitary" criteria. Subject to funding availability, the FAA would participate in the acquisition of eligible properties needed for constructing the proposed new runway to its ultimate length, large runway protection zones, taxiway, and apron. AIP funding is limited to nominal amounts for business moves in accordance with the Uniform .Relocation Assistance and .Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. 2.4.2 New Runway The proposed action would allow staged development, up to a new 4,700 -foot--long by 75--foot- wide paved runway with a 14/32 orientation by rotating the existing runway 5.6° clockwise. The runway would initially be developed to a length of 3,700 feet. The pavement would be designed to a strength of 12,500 pounds and would be adequate for the critical aircraft that use the facility. 2- 1 0 /[airs ell C Airport Final Environmental Assessment The FAA has commented favorably on designing airport pavements to an 18,000 pound single wheel loading strength, should the owner wish to pursue this action. This increased pavement strength would allow the runway to better withstand occasional use by use by larger aircraft. Again, depending on the financial outlook of the funding entities, the user needs at the time, and local input the runway may be initially developed to its ultimate length to take advantage of lower construction cost associated with a larger project. The City would be obligated to reevaluate this FA and/or complete additional environmental analysis should the runway be extended beyond its initially constructed length. 2,43 New Runway Lighting A new radio --controlled, medium -"intensity runway lighting system for Runway 14/32 would be installed with the proposed action. 2.4,4 New Taxiways, Apron, and Tie -downs Under the proposed action, a short taxiway segment would be constructed from the middle of Runway 14/32 to access a new apron area. Up to seven hangar access taxiways would also be built to facilitate the development of new hangars at the airport. Taxiways would be 35-feet-wide and designed to a minimum strength of 12,500 pounds. All taxiways and apron areas would have required pavement markings and retro-reflective markers. A full-length 35--foot-wide parallel taxiway would be constructed at the required B--H safety spacing from the runway to improve capacity and provide access to hangar developments. Runway crossings would be minimized by replacing the existing parallel taxiways with a single, full-length parallel taxiway constructed along the west side of the new runway and by restricting airport development areas to only on one side of the new runway. Additionally, a new paved apron area would be provided with the proposed action. The initially proposed apron would have an area of about 21,500 square yards and would be equipped with tie -downs for up to 52 aircraft. 2,4.5 Improvements to NAVAIDS The proposed action would also install Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) for both ends of Runway 14/32 to assist pilots during landings. Anew windcone and associated segmented circle would be installed for the facility located approximately mid -field. The existing beacon would be moved to a location in the vicinity of the new apron. The Sponsor's proposed action may also include the installation of Runway End Identifier Lights (REELs) at one or both ends of the new runway as a part of the initial or future development activities at the airport. REILs visual approach aids that assist approaching pilots identify the runway at night and are particularly beneficial in areas where runway lights are located in close 2- 1 1 Kalis e��Air ort Final Environmental Assessment proximity to a variety of existing ambient lighting associated with adjacent residences and businesses and with street and highway systems. 2.4.6 Security Fencing Approximately 15,600 linear feet of new fence around the perimeter of the airport property would be installed under the proposed action. The fencing is needed to secure the airport from encroachments by people, vehicles, or animals that could conflict with aircraft operations. 2,43 Ground Access/Road Changes About 750 feet of the current access road to the airport and treatment plant would be retained, but its alignment would be adjusted to the west to provide hangar and taxiway clearance. Cemetery Road could have a 700-foot-long section reconstructed to skirt around the "runway protection zone" if the airport is developed to ultimate length. This realignment change would be approximately centered on the western boundary of the Demersville Cemetery. However, there is clearance over the existing road for both a 20:1 and a 34:1 approach with a lower margin of safety. 2.4,8 Building Relocations Several buildings would need to be relocated with the proposed airport improvements project. These buildings include residences, businesses, and airport hangars. Existing buildings associated with the airport, primarily hangars, are not eligible for assistance under the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. These buildings may be moved, demolished, rented, sold, or otherwise by their owners. 2.4.9 Elimination of Hazard Posed by KGEZ Radio Towers As part of this planning effort, the City of Kalispell investigated a variety of options for eliminating the penetration to the airspace of the existing and future Kalispell City Airports. Technical options reviewed included lowering, relocating, or removing the towers. Lowering relies on replacing each tall tower with an array of four substantially shorter towers, called a "paran array." Relocating the towers could be accomplished by constructing a completely new set of broadcast towers or by sharing an existing radio tower and building one new tower at the same site. Removing the existing towers by outright purchase could be accomplished through a willing sale by the current owner or by condemnation. with a willing owner, the station's license could be down graded, but continue transmitting from a single tower that would open more options for relocation. The City's airport engineers have recommended that an attempt be made to purchase the KGEz towers and associated business. Should the owner be unwilling to sell, the City's next option 2- 12 (Calls ell C.LtL 6ir2ort Anal Environmental Assessment would be to pursue condemnation of this "hazard to navigation" that endangers aviators and severely limits the development of their public facility. Condemnation proceedings would result in a fair and equitable settlement for the involved parties. Meeting success on either of these fronts, the City could recoup a portion of their investment by reselling the business under the condition that all facilities are removed from the current location. 2A1 0 Estimated Development Costs The estimated costs of the proposed improvement at the Kalispell City Airport are shown in TABLE 2-2. The cost estimates presented in the table were calculated as accurately as possible and rely on summaries of recent construction bid tabulations as references. These estimates are for budgetary and feasibility purposes only since the actual quantities and unit prices could easily fluctuate during the design and construction phases of the proposed action. Land values and building relocation efforts are also seen as cost areas with a higher degree of uncertainty. 2- 13 Ka lis ell City Air ort Final Fn vironmen to l Assessment Table 29,1: Summary of Proposed Improvements Kalispell City Airport POTENTIAL EXISTING INITIAL ULTIMATE DESIGN FEATURE CONDITIONS DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PRIMARY RUNWAY 12130 - Utility Visual 14/32 - B-H (Visual) 14-32-- B-II (Non -Precision) Width x Length 60' x 3,600' 75' x 3700' 75' x 4,700' Surfacing Asphalt Pavement Asphalt Pavement No change 12,500 lb. SWL Strength 18,000--24,000 lb. SWL CROSSWIND RUNWAY None None None Width x Length Surfacing RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) Width 120' 150' Same Length beyond RW end 240' 300' Same RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE RW 13 — 250'x 450'x 1000' RW 14 - 500'x 700'x 1,000' Same (RPZ) RW 31 — 250' x 450' x 1000' RW 32 - 500'x 700'x 1,000' Same OBJECT FREE AREAS (OFA) Width 250' 500' Same Length beyond RW end 200' 300' Same TAXIWAY One full parallel Parallel Parallel One partial parallel 35' x 3,700' 35' x 4,700' APRON 68 turf tiedowns, Approx. 52 tiedowns, Approximately 112 no paved area 21,500 S.Y. area tiedowns, 46,900 S.Y. area probably 1/2 of ultimate NAVAIDS UNICOM, wind cone, beacon, UNICOM, wind cone, Same + GPS, REIL.s segmented circle beacon, segmented circle, PAPI, RER-s (possibly) HANGARS 36 hangar Not limited Not Limited LIGHTING/RUNWAY MARRING LIRL, Basic Markings MIRL, Basic Markings MIRL, NPI LAND OWNERSHIP (TOTALS) Fee 77 acres 72 additional acres No Change Lease 0 acres 0 acres No change 2- 1 4 ,valis ell 2tx6tr2ort Sinai Environmental Assessment Table 2-2: Estimated Cost of the Proposed Improvements Kalispell City Airport Item Description Quantity Unit cost Total Cost 1 Land, Improvements, and Relocation Land Purchase (72 AC) I LS $13,763,000 iLS $1,763,000 Land "Uneconomic Remnant" Purchase (4 AC) I LS $89,000 ILS $897000 Improvements Cost 1 LS $960,000 ILS $960,000 Cost to Cure 1 LS $0 ILS $0 Administrative Costs 1 LS $230,400 ILS $230,400 TOTAL: $3,042,400 2 Infrastructure Radio Tower Removal/Tower Relocation I LS $5001,0001LS $500,000 Gravel Road Relocation (24' wide) 0 LF $25 ILF $0 Paved Road Relocation (30' wide) 900 LF $50 lLF $45,000 Bury Power Lines 0 LF $20 ILF $0 Relocate High Voltage Power Lines* 0 LF $50 ILF $0 Well l Municipal water Connection 0 LS $1010001LS $0 Drainfield I Municipal Sewer Connection 0 LS $10,000 ILS $0 Propane Tanks l Natural Gas Connection 0 LS $5,000 /LS $0 Aviation Fuel Tanks and Dispensing System 2 EA $50,000 IEA $100,000 Drainage Structures 0 LF $75 ILF $0 Paved Parking Area (50 Vehicles) I LS $109000 ILS $10,000 Paved Access Road 11500 LF $30 ILF $45,000 Engineering and Administrative $1055000 TOTAL AL $805,000 3 Airport Construction Excavation and Embankment 96,000 CY $31CY $2887000 Crushed Base Course 32,000 CY $251CY $800,000 Prime Coat 175 TON $250 /TON $437750 Bituminous Surface Course 201,500 TON $30 ITON $615,000 Asphalt Cement I,435 TON $300 /TON $430,500 Drainage Culverts 300 LF $7511,F $22,500 Pavement Markings 1 LS $18,0001LS $181,000 Tiedowns and Coal Tar Sealer 108 EA $1,000 /EA $108 7000 Seed, Fertilize and Mulch 50 AC $900 IAC $45,000 Wind Cone, Seg. Circle, PAPIs, Beacon I LS $45,0001LS $45,000 Electrical and Reflectors 1 LS $150,000 ILS $150,000 Perimeter Fencing 16,800 LF $31LF $507400 Engineering and Administrative $3921,000 TOTAL: $370083150 PROJECT TOTAL: $69855,550 2-15 KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment ; PA�R 3.0:,. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Kalis ell Cil Air ort Final Environmental Assessment PART 3,.0,,* AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This PART examines the environmental conditions that exist at or around the Kalispell City Airport. These conditions will provide the basis for evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposed airport improvements project in PART 4.0. 3.1 Location and Airport Layout This section describes the location of the airport relative to the community of Kalispell, the existing facilities at the airport, and the design components of the proposed airport. 3,1 1 Airport's Physical Setting The City of Kalispell lies within Flathead County in northwest Montana. Flathead County is located in northwest Montana. Surrounding Montana Counties include: Lincoln and Sanders to the west; Lake, Powell, and Lewis and Clark to the south; and Teton, Pondera, and Glacier to the east. The Canadian Province of British Columbia abuts the County's northern edge. About 94 percent of the nearly 5,100 square miles encompassed by the County is National or State Forest Land, Wilderness, agricultural, or corporate timberlands. Kalispell, the largest town and county seat, is located about 116 miles from Missoula and about 50 miles from Polson. The community is within 15 miles of both Whitefish and Columbia Falls, and Glacier National Park is about 30 miles northeast of Kalispell. The north shore of Flathead Lake is only 8 miles from the city. U.S. Highways 2 and 93, the two major surface transportation routes in the County, intersect in the middle of the City of Kalispell. U.S. Highway 93 serves as the "Main Street" in Kalispell. The relationship between the City of Kalispell, surrounding communities, and the major transportation routes is shown on FIGURE 3-1. Kalispell is situated west of the Flathead River and is surrounded by bench lands and steep mountain terrain. Elevations in this part of Flathead County range from about 2,900 feet along the Flathead River at Kalispell to about 3,700 feet on bench lands to the southwest of the community. The City of Kalispell covers about 4 square miles; however, the developed area directly associated with the community encompasses a total of about 16 square miles. The Kalispell City Airport, which has operated at the present location for nearly 75 years, is situated in the extreme southwestern portion of the City. The airport property lies west of and roughly parallel to Z.J.S. Highway 93 and north of Cemetery Road. The existing airport facilities are located in Sections 20 and 29 of Town ship-28-North, Range-21-West, at an elevation of 2,932 feet above sea level. FIGURE 1-1 in PART 1.0 depicts the airport's location and topography near the facility as shown on the U.S. GEOLOGY SURVEY (USGS) 7.5- minute map series (Kalispell MT, 1994). 3-1 lCalis elf City Airport Final Environmental Assessment 3.1.2 Existing Airport Facilities The Kalispell Airport was initially developed on 135 acres purchased in 1928. However, only about 73 acres of the property remain in City ownership and are used for airport purposes. The remainder of the land was sold in the past to help finance other City projects and generate funding for airport improvements. There is one active paved runway, one full-length parallel taxiway and one partial parallel taxiway, hangar area and turf tiedown area adjacent to the hangar area. Aviation fuel sales, repair service, rentals, flight instruction, and charter services are available at the airport. Restroorn facilities are provided by on -site businesses. Airport facilities are further described in the following sections. ■ Runways. The Kalispell City Airport presently has one paved runway, designated 13/31 with a full parallel taxiway (on the east side of the runway) and a partial parallel (2,300 feet long, on the west side). Pavement strengths are unknown, but presumed light duty (less than 12,500 single -wheel loading (SVV-L)). Runway 13/31 is 60 feet wide and 3,600 feet long. Runway 13/31 is considered a visual approach runway. A visual runway is one solely intended for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures, with no straight -in instrument approach procedure and no instrument designation indicated by the FAA. The runway has stake mounted low intensity runway lights (LIPLs). The lighted threshold for Runway 31 has been relocated by 155 feet for nighttime operations, leaving only 3,445 feet of available runway during the night. The Runway Object Free Area (OFA) is 250 feet wide centered on the existing runway and extends 240 feet beyond the thresholds of Runway 13/31. The current OFA meets only the FAA's standards for A -I facilities. ■ Ap pro^aches. The existing visual approach surfaces at the Kalispell City Airport extend outward and upward at a 20:1 slope from a point located 200 feet beyond each threshold and at the same elevation as the threshold. A 20:1 approach means that for every 20 feet measured horizontally from the threshold, the approach surfaces rise vertically one foot. The width at the inner edge of the approach surface is the same width as and coincides with the "primary surface" (250 feet), and then expands uniformly outward for a distance of 5,000 feet to a width of 1,250 feet. The Runway Protection zone (RPZ) is a trapezoidal area beginning 200 feet from the thresholds of each runway. The RPZ's for Runway 13/31 have dimensions of 250 feet x 450 feet x 1,000 feet and are not entirely owned or controlled by the City. The RPZ at the 13 end of the runway has residences that represent an incompatible land use for aviation. ■ Part 77 Airspace Obstructions. Two radio towers for Station KGEZ exist just east of J l'Calispell City airport Environmental Assessment DCSSYr rrlrr ^!y rt■f r •.ri,c +..i,,r�..r rR�Ti�i�i A' ' '�"�``""' i RANGE r ['r { .;� , y C� +Yo+ r►1�3, +r . �� ., - '� � tar '�? View 1 ' SC 1 � �? � ►-,�.-__ + ' i1 I.++w►r o rM` �'•''•' +er. WMr tb f �[I►}t is crt C. �Sil�t► r,.r', C31e Mla � �_. _...._.__�. __ �.-•._. 1f.::rn _ �` ri��►-l+lek w. MCA � A r \ I[ ► /'► tM�-,W►r ,.1, '-j1A Fr A t r[IS V` a�egAn �[f! r � r 1; of AP rn► � C Jfltil A 1 'Y � �► ' S � !■ , Arit►ae�l ti 1 [ r !w ► r I a f ` s All, ^F11 rbeed t �1M �� , ' � + ��ACI� r' MI: R1(■+N� � .w r 0*,111 r ► it , r �� % M+ t �'i S• • [11Y � ` 6 Irr OW %i ice+ 1 i �r , ; y * ` � f + 5)1 tr AWJ" Ko�,erra; �'xR1 Itrkr!1lr.;NMI� ++ TWO.. K t�. .+ ' 14 -- fer*rr �fl r es' ►a►fr el ■ Y r f � r • a - ►" : r � w � 4" rr'r� I ~ . Yf - Vol Ce�l ram, L�M•r i�e+ttit r [ l LU+ r ,11et+ne. _ r k.� . �► �, � n c I � R t yf I.R�r % 1 �: AH :I• r +.1�,f►'��' 1a1�A�y ► ►wlrr,r+l raw - ry SP.1r �;+ ay�lli0V3Ir •1 ` u•�1M f e 1 wr►» {'fit 'Iad�I►1 rt t,►rrrr ill 1NCOLN n Aq►1/ 31 $1 4mutt rx �' tote- r Lou M��''h .S �... �,•'± Forest F sthrid sYiti r• , ur ►r �. �'� ' F Y �� h A*1 eAie•A,k A: W rr. Glxt+ ■re n.. � ' A 9re�+r►iw'GIlly ►1 ►,►►► I ' i K; for 4 4 1.►,+/r -1 K A r < h' „ r r Ce1Jek r it r rI r - v Vic. Mtge+ t ► ►►►, r _ ��y _ - _26 ► i A ■ e ■ 4 :rMr:A► NIbaVH�l s1i 1 *1�t A x -- i r t , A4rti CCty fir, , IiaBirnM+ • '' G �• ,~--- *.,► r ..a;.,,[It. H i ' r...- `c , Motu' t n rJnet� -�• rar, R13�1r�1lroV* , ., _� 4 i.• + I .7 I FLATHE.'AV I t r i L. t �a r I , , MMrwrrrwl � r r � - • � ti ' '_ � �A �, fiYAi.+4! ►A1�► I \ .,.� * ► . ti , .� Y 14Jai s A r �, [ , F ter i [ !l►i ■7r `�- - .. w V 1Mler+lA1� I . ! 1Mf. A Kalispell 5. '.i1� r+l+l w� ' �llbOd+I�` rFO[7Ir - L; "'•'-.rr+;: `AlreA i, r,tnk r �"a``�_,.[aIMCJi ►r , ? •]- 11 A a tw►r .I ,Zre+rGre►tIw ~,.. Iwr► D . ,? iS1 'Nov I � yJ•4•JLcI �� i4vi k� �+r � 3d f F77r� el *�� fad II.r� Gt6! �, _• ' 'liq� - 'ete 4t:, r �1.H 'u .l�tf•. +,nrn+•r.i .+ •,4Y ��- ,'� ■ + 't ■ 1rA Agra �, `A; r t. * 9?""i 1 :!"I*►1MIi ' 1 J I[ I ►+ - L r+. Y ; -fi�rr-� S �. E�4.M ■ .� F�1r+AMn s' [ ` 1 r►[aC7Ml' iH+1 1! i� arle'044if AW17 fN 't I•1 ;+ I• +- �� Ar.LAIr :>' eAlltrr• ..200 tij .i1.P !'J t, •33 ��. �LATHEAD j '+ �fr► r rr ►tM•t+er; - I. ►- yal 1 T 11,+[� ►. IJI. ►' i� aei r rr-. -�'+" ► E * ees ►. , �' y� It SOW ►+I. -• ,..'' r I � 7iPI �=��1 [.+ `�`t ,1"+'`�-• 1--------�' 11-- is •7 y�i r Paw R *or, i f AI M1Ar v + r tPCs r. .�.- ` it • ■ T. , 'N► s1 i� +�R - ' ` ` I., !HI ►1. t 'A 'A•IA&Ir , °� �rrarsi�. r►.S..P*. .sw+rr Los* , F e 1, 1, 610 1? r ?� ■ ft kl , ! , • •. #,* Verow w I ILA/ W ArM ! E 7 0 N ?i'! 3 r Ac ,s. . + f S A N D !F Ft 5i , � _.�� ■ ; ` r M � I yofte� .A,��ry-,1,r L. SAW I r � + v�r M�t7. ► catar+rri.' r' 94 At I !; *r Me;l � 1Na�+anr1 *%MOV7AA, { ^ , ►°�r rlM+r• �� ..... �� i� trtA+.�. iel[r t ' � , e ■ arr A A FJIMM� F''ei►► P.- � , VLSI I � in s�rR►f r ` r + .�.- ►� �- '� frreAr 7ta FQIpr 4 _ �+�' It ` ■r. 1S I 1 rrr, '.tt MfWAI1 "r. MP'a 3# ` I for. li ►A Mr! Is A mrr. I + r ;rr.W44f ►Atl A+ T iawrfl N I r r rlir+YYIM[. +: » rxa w*+ FAA, 1rCt�fCn F0!s A� ,�". PvI5on ! Clerk t �a rwr��_' �- ` :n ■ fl•' ` F,r �!Id►Ir! r#eli RMR* ItrY oaf'•',-� Al 1 fl�r. 1 .. ^7 r i....��7.� ~�� r F#AJU i7+t r ut. 1 1/ >�i JI rAl �1+4./I? +► j 1 M+i1� '�Vb? A ! aA c A � r ry A � kr'JiArIR/1A 1 ; k p,. • � ' ` �� rMIr�1 L ;.1JN1� r�,1 j AfJMr•'R+rie ► 15 1�L F�IWI ,.. y L� C*Wk�., r.,,, u Ilr,+`� .� • F f'� tii �� ` a-, '� �,-•■y A� + . -.._ - 1 +� : I � � � i � ..• +ylArMrk rw++►/M'1 t C I -"'� i- i>'�f ! ' s 1►A Inra r rrfl' 717 '1 �'+'IM a pel�l�r ••: It SANII Ir !R1►Il C.+ + Phi -r" 106 -s some 1 ti IiCMSeA►trra,�► I Fowl tirA i1E+.I 10 21 ?x � ,. Irnllt .at I 1 >rr:,,,r , ' �; le II,rIr (p• aArl►►e��1r+c*■tw . AM4.Y snrr.■ �� 7 AassnririOtn MrN i �, ' f I -r I . �IFr RytFrr 1+ /pot. -t �1 w r Lola ' '� ~' I►.uln r•Ay.r►* AN + �. IapMGirlui+►' ', :+'r"� �Nj�Rr I� R111►► `�t i7: r. 'i. �.. �. ■ r �` . #4 it r ►I + ! , r an, C*' A � -, •�r r I . :.+rre[I+rlr r t?M■ ' �, � � . q t,tAr �'.'+Itlr [111► _ ' � ,+. � t.�.._.-,'� + % . _ I - ScAy�eer • r � I r , .. �,i� Yi •IJeI , ' '+ 4+�, [, 11 r So a� 14rf • _ FAri1lt ' �•"MM1i ^ S ' � P 1 NrpoanrC 141a _ •.`` , J y , i1r 'A ► R , .. - - - - `, C L A R K r" y ` dw I 0:1 Not Y':A',rcr, 1* u'' pr, r'a I r I A�Ci RS ►iS t Ir ■A•]►7 } 7 lip .4 � Alto + a1r iy �I•fl r t,� A►t►'.A a r r ^ill► L}It►} • �i+►rrC: ■ NAM' �'j�,lltil •43A ti ' Fr_1_I►KrI I. M1SSaULA r_ - ` t A 7 MINLfiAL -�- I "L _," , Aft APft 'r-gw'fMT Xa •, Z*�c r! rt''i • "►rrsIVI+t0,41% • �� -ai j ''L 1 CV11IRWo. ' • i. r.►r� • . r. { .r+[ o di + . - 1, riser r y � ► '+ ...,.., " ' ■ C^ Fla • . f:r ;►_ Sah,erMf �Mr6I* 17 , ■- + �* • 1 r¢R+•.rirr ,� 1550U1a _ • ICMMr' a !fe!�l+ f ,,.�., �5 �. t 24 �•� •�. , ! - t .. - 5 ,�rlk+rj� ,1►E.r= ��"'�3 ?: kof, rt'i :'f+ y Car �z u s Lilo t �� rr NMI IM i , I! i. pro r ' i ■ ■+- 7; r � I /1,,a11i.,,►r [e.elal►Rr `. I r �` i rr--" c� ■`�iY r Pr }W E L. t. •�-#•�i. + 1� 1r I.K. ►' 3 M V-t V'AI ] Mccook a 1 3M1M ;A,srt r Az,rrr � 's � � � i S„�,Q,Eff ■e,4,., y(I ., AAA s� f i IA#r r, E MGQt1t f a . ,,.. GLACIER ; ; S DANIELS HI[[ FUiMEAO ! tdQlE R l I C 1"V!] 1 1 k ire 7i r' i l�vra r _ I AQOSEYEIT ' j .. ~�14A1r< ,�^�' Project Location graph06.cdr Figure 3-1: Regional location of Kalispell City Airport 3-3 Kalispell gLtZAirport Final Environmental Assessment the extended runway centerline approximately 3,200 feet southeast of the threshold for Runway 31. The towers are 325 feet tall and separated by about 1000 feet. Each tower is supported by guy wires extending out about 406 feet in all directions from the base. The towers penetrate the existing 20:1 visual approach surface by approximately 108 feet and 173 feet. The radio towers were declared a "hazard to air navigation" by the FAA in an October 5, 1999 Memorandum from the Flight- Standards District Office in Helena. Mountains approximately 6,000 feet to the west of the airport rise about 850-900 feet above the airport elevation. These "ground obstructions" penetrate the horizontal surface about 700 feet and the conical surface to a lesser amount. ■ Aprons and Tiedowns. Presently, aircraft use homemade'tie-downs to park in the grass �w...^�rr�irrw n ununiw. r along the edges of the fueling aprons. Approximately 68 tie --downs are available. There are two fueling aprons, one on each side of the runway. Red Eagle Aviation located on the east side of the runway has a fueling apron that is approximately 10,000 square feet. Diamond Aire has an approximately 45,000 square foot apron on the west side of the airport. There are two fueling islands (Diamond Aire and Red Eagle Aviation) and three fuel trucks available to service local and itinerant traffic (Diamond Aire, Red Eagle Aviation, and Eagle Aviation). ■ Navigational Aids NAVAIDS , The Kalispell Airport currently has few navigational aids for pilots to use while operating at the facility. NAVAIDS include runway lights, a rotating beacon, lighted wind cone, and a U.NICOM radio. Both the UNICOM and pilot - controlled lighting operate on a frequency of 122.5 MHz. The FAA operates a Flight Service Station (FSS) at Great Falls that provides critical weather information, flight briefings, pilot reports, en route navigational assistance, filing of flight plans, and other communications. Local contact for flight service in the Kalispell area is the Lakeside Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) at 122.50 MHz. ■ Airport Buildings and Services. There are two nested Tee hangars and eight commercial hangars (including one helicopter hangar) located at the airport. The two nested Tee hangars have a storage capacity of six aircraft each. Of the commercial hangars, Diamond Aire owns one, Red Eagle Aviation owns one (plus one of the storage hangars), one is owned by Sky Corral Service, Mountain west Helicopters leases one, Eagle Aviation leases one, and three more are owned by unknown parties. ■ ,AirportUtilities, The following utilities exist at the Kalispell City Airport: Water — the City water Department currently supplies water o Sewer -- connected to the city sewer o Electricity - Above and below ground service by the Montana Power Company o Propane 1 Gas - None o Telephone -- Below ground service by Blackfoot Communications 3-4 [%ails ell Cif .4ir orb Final Environmental Assessment o Aviation Fuel -- five fueling storage tanks ■ Ground Access Fencing and Vehicle Parkin The airport presently can be accessed from. U.S. Highway 93 on the east, from Airport Road on the west, 18'h Street west on the north, and a private road on the south. The only fencing that exists at the airport is located along portions of the airport property where adjacent lands were once occupied by Little League baseball and soccer fields. Pedestrian and vehicle access to the airfield is generally unrestricted and can occur at many locations. Parking is unrestricted on the airport. However, vehicle parking generally occurs only near the fixed base operators (FBO) or hangars. ■ Snow Removal Eciuipment. The City provides snow removal on the runway and other paved airport facilities as needed. 3.1.3 Previous Airport Development Planning The Kalispell City Airport has been the focus of three different studies within the last twenty years. The first was an abbreviated "Master Plan" prepared by T.A.P., Inc, Aviation Consultants of Bozeman, Montana in 1979 for the Kalispell Airport Association. The second study was the Airport Neighborhood Plan, City of Kalispell, Amendment to the Kalispell City -County Master Plan prepared by Montana Planning Consultants of Kalispell, Montana in 1993. The final study was the Kalispell City Airport/Athletic Complex Redevelopment Plan Analysis in 1996 by the Kalispell Planning, Economic & Community Development Office. In 1996, the City of Kalispell hired Robert Peccia &Associates to complete an Airport Layout Plan (ALP) in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular No. 150/5070-6A, Airport Master Plans. The ALP served as a planning tool for the City and demonstrated to the FAA Airport District Office (ADO) the feasibility of new development at the current airport site. The 1996 ALP showed the type of aviation facilities appropriate for Kalispell, based on current and forecast aircraft activity. The 1996 ALP identified the following major developments at the airport: • Relocating the threshold of Runway 13 (north end) 500 feet further south along the current runway centerline to protect the R.PZ; • widening the runway from 60 to 75 feet; a Ultimately developing a 4,300 foot -long runway; o Acquiring land to protect the lateral dimensions of a B-II airport; o Developing additional hangars in the vicinity of the former soccer fields; and o Installing a perimeter fence around the airport property. Recommended airport development actions for the airport at Kalispell were also examined in the Kalispell City Airport Feasibility/Master Plan Study (Morrison-Maierle, Inc., 1999) and the subsequent Kalispell City Airport Site Selection Study (Robert Peccia &Associates, 2001). 3-5 Kalis ell 2 t Air ort Final Environmental Assessment The 1999 .Master Plan Study documented aviation -activity levels at Kalispell and projected the future number and type of aircraft operations at the airport. The study also examined airport development "options," associated land acquisition, and facility improvement costs. The costs and environmental impacts associated with airport development were examined for the existing site and a "generic" airport location outside the City but within the immediate Kalispell area. Morrison--Maierle's study ultimately recommended that airport development occur at the existing site but include relocating the existing .runway threshold 600 feet to the south to clear the runway protection zone and rotating the current runway alignment 5.6° clockwise to provide the optimum configuration for the airport. The FAA. asked that the City identify and examine tangible airport development sites near Kalispell instead of a "generic" location. Consequently, the City hired Robert Peccia & Associates in 2000 to prepare a detailed site selection study for a new airport at Kalispell. The Kalispell City airport Site Selection Study examined numerous potential sites for future airport development in the community and evaluated the negative and positive aspects of development at five specific sites, including the existing airport. The Site Selection Study ultimately recommended that future airport development at Kalispell occur at the present airport site. As with the 1999 .Master Plan Study, shifting the existing runway threshold 600 feet to the south to clear the runway protection zone and rotating the current runway alignment 5.6° clockwise was recommended to the City as the "best" course of action. This site development would :meet dimensional criteria for ARC B--II, small aircraft, less than 10 passenger seats, with IFR capability of greater than 3/ mile visibility and provide expansion potential to B--II standards with Non Precision Instrument (NPI) approaches. 3.2 Land Uses Near the Airport 3.2.1 Land Ownership As indicated previously, only about 73 acres of the original 135 acres of property acquired for an airport remain in City ownership. Improvements to the existing airport and airport expansion could affect about thirty-five separate tracts of property owned by eighteen different landowners. FIGURE 3-2 shows the tracts of land in the vicinity of the existing airport. Lands in the vicinity of the airport owned by the City have been highlighted. Please note that the numbers and number and letter combinations shown on the map are tract identifications assigned by Flathead County. The tract. numbers do not correlate to a single owner. For example, all tract numbers beginning with the number "T" are not owned by the same party. The following paragraphs provide additional information on how lands near the airport are currently used or could be developed based on planning and zoning regulations. 3-5 Kali et1 2L.A ort Final Environmental Assessment 12,2 Existing Land Uses and Zoning The project area is in an urban setting that has been developed extensively by the existing airport, and by commercial, and residential uses. Extensive gravel mining has occurred on lands immediately southwest of the airport site. only a limited amount of relatively undisturbed land remains, mostly along the southern and western edges of the current airport property. The City of Kalispell and Flathead County have enacted zoning on lands including and surrounding the airport. Areas to the south and along the southwest portion of the airport are not within the City and are covered by County zoning. Lands immediately surrounding the airport are within the Kalispell Zoning District, the Lower Side Zoning District, the west Side Zoning District, and the Willow Glen Zoning District. Developments on these lands are subject to the zoning regulations enacted by the City or County for each zone. FIGURE 3W3 shows zoning classifications for lands near the airport. Kalispell City Airport lands are zoned either Public Use (P-1) or Light Industrial (I-1). The I-1 lands are designated for future hangar development and other airport -related improvements. The land immediately west of the runway is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) and P-l. The most notable land uses in this area are businesses maintained by the FBOs at the airport and the Kalispell Wastewater Treatment Plant. The land to the immediate east of the landing field is zoned for I-1, General Business (B-2), and Public Use (P-1). Several retail businesses, motels, restaurants, a state office, and the Montana Army National Guard Armory occupy these lands near the airport. within the past few years, the City sold Lot 2 of the Daley Field Subdivision to Rosauer's for a new grocery store. Rosauer's has been open for business since late summer of 2000. The land in the northern approach is zoned B-2, Low Density Residential Apartment (RA-1), Residential Apartment/Office (RA-3), P-1, and R-4 and R-5 Residential. Predominant land uses in this area include single- and multi -family residences, City maintenance shops, Rawson Field track and stadium, the Elks Club, and several retail businesses and restaurants. The residential land use in the northern approach is generally considered non -compatible and not desirable within airport approaches. The land in the south approach is zoned B--2, I- 1, Light Industrial highway business (1-1h), Residential/Professional Office (R-5), R- l Residential, and Suburban Agricultural to -acre minimum (SAG-10). These lands typically lie within the County and have been developed with several highway -oriented retail businesses, an auto salvage yard, scattered residences, a radio station, and agricultural land. Generally, land uses around the landing field are compatible with the airport. However, previous airport planning identified discrepancies between the height restrictions established in City 3-7 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment AE RIF 1 1. OTH S1 Y_jB_ 8ND OKA 4ABA 15 4 1 3 24 9 IOTH STY I ADDITION ON 0-K- I I Na 119 VIL 4ARB 4ASA 6 4AB SQU FIEL 9D 7 23 10 ELKS eDs R1, 1. 1 AKD PAC %X 4% 2 - nacres 1A 91F 33.34 22 is I VIR 2 P K AMDT 2 OPS to 37 '36 N10 \ 4AA 3 VALKER 4AAB SUBDIVISION 4A 12 39 21 NATIONAL 4AAA 14 13 29 PAW A�--A HAVEN DR GUARD 15 27 PAW 1�39 8A % \ elk I AMC" OF 61 66: 67 -J,2 63 64 65 1 66 69 L 70 71 7 IDA 25 41 14 -- ---------- oc 98 W �9(,95! 93192 91 90 175 k to 24 44 143 142 17 501 49" 40 49� 40 47 46, 45'� 8-0 76 ID 6- 23 UNIT! wo 11-77— STAG LN '718 813AA 8CA T J TAG LH sell 7 Sc lot • 102 -,�i 10-3 1 104 105 PAjew F79 19 1 20 21 160 ..... .. 2z 51 1 52 53 '54 155 L!56 5711 59 7E i 117 116/ 11.3 �79 189 __A 2AAJ7 K 2AAJA AMD PLAT GLE MILLER'S E#113 LIP— DALEY 2AAK 70AA 713F ME 2AA 70A its 121 13NE u2 KELLY RD 3AB FIELD 1 122 Lr Fy� it to 713GE 2AAF --- 125 11124 1123 2 70GC 34 SU 13 1) LI J4 7 7 -7 113 117511-14 6� 1 JAA 3A AAD A�C rr- V �5� 70B 112 —`§[ P - I [,� _L7�6171� ��63 70H I X 17 71172 167 6� ;PA 2AAB 3 16 it— --, _- J& - I 7N 176 1711 1,168 161 AMMON NIT 4 to i 701 641 7� 1 A& 1 141 5 -4" 42 4 7E 6 7,1 S 9 /58 5155 54 43 7ED COON 7EDA -- MM147 I 1 23 2 OW 'AND 7EB 2 SOUTH 21 1148A 20 7A 19 6 RUSSELL DR I 7AD 13 114 q5 2D ORETANA 3 148 17 Z 4 WODDLMD 7AF 7L 0 5 617 e 19 5CB S1 5C 2M 2 SUBDI'll 7A 5CH \11, 7AAB 5CJ 5CHA 71 2F 2 B 2C 7CD 7H 5CG SCGA 3BA 3B 2FA 2+ 7FB A AMIL PLAT MLV .2 XG L31a 2JA 2 1 3 !1 4 1 I 6 —.. ---- -.. DR 21 7C8 WIN Ac� am 2JB 4§ -4 X 2 31 6B 5B 5CDJA 5CDJ 5F 6A 15CDMA 5c" 6D 5HA 5CDDA 5CDD 5CDli 5CDC SH 5CD j 6+ SCDG 5CU8 5% OF A 51 5CDL 5CDI 5CE 5 5CE 5CDA 6+ 5GA 5CCA . .................. 5CDK 15GC 5G SCCD 5CDE SCDEA = City Owned Tracts graph7.cdr Figure 3,-2: Property Tracts in Vicinity of the Airport 3-8 /� y'�� a lf�y'} i7i ��iK! �i�} �,�,� �'rt= q� o��A�j�l o ®� C ' r+F- , hy' P' •-+R t\ �'' •+ ,-+lN> •ai•� . � s 'rdlU•� ! y�J�, ®a3Arl3 Ia £ a � .l.�a �'i«'•G y. ,'�sd�� r(t�•f'f a'If/)��/�( .S+ `?,b ;i��A fP„p� :' r E r� W.11 r�lrr /v ndM f ..47 agy I d tdt a fJ/i 'ds�agg• /a:g rdl Ry� fi,ti'1iS�"8 F 1 d>�x�s r �i 3��1' Sr S7► �„ -Ij:O/ sd ��J.'.p r ��,�i „� •® ✓- e7 py vi#' c� did/p/ �� ,/;phi �ra�d��t .,•F ' tf.� z s:apg'YPgyiy, L�;l.�j�.9Y�gs 16 r�.dQt prr?x�� r a ds m,9g; Rf� . d 15'1�'�aA`Rr�b1f LL{ A xa'act��he�TT. fix+ '�? Pa•'rq !;��lX�'� �.Cgi�i1 �� `+.�''' mb' e �9_�at� oi'�a�' 9� •#` r. P�/o �e��;?� `d ��A�' ! .�'dd�. � A!#F �i: ' � YA d x 9r/r abdy, �1't4. rt �.,l�eb. i i a"vt�p t ,y�`I,Ij#�'� �s� _AAr�-p �T djIj... Am wiy a p,- f saFf a Z,r yid' a, —� �►r�l/ I f ' t ' - -'..y, �:c.,, ... ,\•, ,�ii� 'f,.' a �AA}f.},��Si'f a��f •• ^��./ �f[[" •} .,• k TT T x..T' �t�E�, X�`�''.• +4�� ('> r ., I/ �, ��yM►AL p �. II�� =III fill Ini UM It (9& ��/dfJ ��1 � �,' � .'.T: F'. �:'( � ' �, 1 �r y L i lr ir'kr � 1S I i. ri L � r� •• •. v ! &S,�I # . 3Y.Y A T a �. Y• t 3s 1 .t •'. 1 ' ..' o'/fly*�B�`All aZy y + s��Al�l.sjl � ��!P� '� �S £ ,�,& x�'�h .�ers. �r5ci� �� r i" �` , ' �s • Dy %.�: .••�_ � e5,*f�zl�ti'�rl/t.�.v. fc'-776.`.�. .A.. .. .`.. .. _._!'.,(.''a�i`ti r�.,ss��., '� �� rxcz is ell City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment zoning regulations and height restrictions typically associated with airport development. To remedy this situation, the City redefined the perimeter boundary of the Kalispell City Airport and enacted a resolution limiting the height of buildings relating to airport areas as provided in Section 67--5-201, M.C.A., et. seq. The height restrictions listed in Montana Code substantially comply with FAA building height recommendations near airports. A copy of the resolution is provided in APPENDIX B. The KGEZ radio transmission towers penetrate the FAR Part 77 Conical Surface of Runway 31 and constitute both a hazard to air navigation and an incompatible land use under the current configuration of the airport. 12.3 Future Land Uses Near the Airport The future use and development on lands surrounding the airport are controlled by existing land use plans and zoning regulations established by either the City or Flathead County. Unless changes are enacted, any new lands on or near the airport must conform to specific requirements for public use, business, and residential zones. The Daley Field Subdivision, located immediately adjacent to the airport, was formerly the site of several Little League baseball fields. In recent years, these fields were relocated to lands on the northside of Kalispell and the City initiated efforts to sell off the lots in the subdivision. As stated earlier, Lot 2 in the Subdivision was sold to Rosauer's and a grocery store now exists on the property. Lots 1 and 3 have not yet been sold. These lands are zoned B--2 (General Business) and could be developed with a variety of commercial uses. Under the terms of a development agreement between the City and Rosauer's, the City would not allow another grocery store or pharmacy to develop on adjacent lots. To date, the City has been contacted by developers interested in building a variety of commercial enterprises on these lots including a department store, hardware store, and a mix of retail and office uses. The City also expects to assume ownership of the property housing the National Guard Armory (Tract 1B on FIGURE 3-2) in the future and would pursue adaptive reuse options for the site. The Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) plans to reconstruct U.S. highway 93 near the airport in the foreseeable future. This reconstruction would not encroach upon airport lands. MDT is considering a westside U.S. Highway 93 bypass to route through traffic around the down town area. The alignment being discussed would be nearly a mile west of the airport and would be well beyond RPz and Part 77 considerations. 3.3 Community Characteristics 13.1 Population Trends in Flathead County and Kalispell TABLE 3-1 presents population statistics for the State of Montana, Flathead County, and the City of Kalispell since 1970. 3w [ o Kali elf gityAir o Final Environmental Assessment The populations of both Kalispell and Flathead County have generally shown steady growth since about 1910. The County's population has steadily increased with its highest population being recorded in 2000. TABLE 3-1 presents population statistics for the State of Montana, Flathead County, and the City of Kalispell since 1970. Flathead County is one of Montana's fastest growing regions. Flathead County's population was 74,471 at the time of the 2000 Census, nearly 26% higher than in 1990. During the same ten-year period the State's population grew by less than 13 %. The 2000 population for the City of Kalispell represents an increase in total population of about 19% since 1990. - TABLE 3,1: Historical Population Data for Montana, Flathead County, and the City of Kalispell 1970 1950 1990 2000 POPULATIONS CENSUS CENSUS CENSUS CENSUS State of Montana 6947409 786,690 799,065 902,195 (percent change) -- (+ 13. 3) (+ 1. 6) (+ 12.9) Flathead County 399460 519966 59,218 74,471 (percent change) -- (+31.7) (+13.9) (+25.7) City of Kalispell 10,526 10,689 11,917 14,223 (percent change) -- n (+ 1.5) (+ 11.5) (+ 19.4) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, March 2001; processed by the Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Department of Commerce, Helena It is evident from the data presented in the table that the population of Flathead County has increased dramatically (nearly 88%) since 1970. Although the population of the .City of Kalispell steadily grew over the 1970 to 2000 period, the City's population was only about 37% higher than recorded in 1970. These statistics suggest that much of the Flathead County's growth has occurred beyond the limits of the incorporated limits of Kalispell and other communities in the County. 3.3,2 Population and Socio-Economic Characteristics Detailed population and socio-economic data for residents of Flathead County is periodically collected and distributed by the U.S. BUREAU of THE CENSUS and the Montana Census and Economic Information Center of the MONTANA DEPARTMENT of CflMWERCE. Based on data from these sources, the following characteristics are evident for residents of Flathead County: o Minorities comprised about 3.7% of the County's population in 2000. 0 About 13 % of the County's residents were estimated to be over the age of 65 in 2000. 3-11 Kalispell qJ:ty Lrport Final Environmental Assessment o The median household income for Flathead County residents during 1999 was $34,466. 0 The per capita personal income for County residents was $23,142 in 2000. Flathead County ranked loth highest of all counties for this income category. 0 An estimated 9.4% of all families in the County lived below the poverty line in 1999. o The average number of persons per household size was 2.48 in 2000. Socio-economic data for the City of Kalispell is also available from the 2000 Census. This shows the following characteristics for City residents: o Minorities comprised about 2.6% of the City's population in 2000. 0 About 18.3% of the City's residents were estimated to be over the age of 65 in 2000. 0 The median household income for City residents during 1999 was $28,567. 0 An estimated 10.1 % of all families in the City lived below the poverty line in 1999. a The average number of persons per household size was 2.21 in 2000. 3.13 Future Population Both Kalispell and Flathead County have shown a steady increase in population since 1970 and there is no apparent reason at this time that suggests this growth trend will change in the foreseeable future. TABLE 3-2 presents population projections for the 2005 to 2020 period for Kalispell and Flathead County. The county population projections are from Montana Population Projections prepared by NPA Data Services, Inc. and distributed by the Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center. The projections show that the County's total population could increase to more than 108,000 residents by the year 2020. Employing an annual growth rate similar to that experienced by the City over the 1990-2000 period, Kalispell's population could approach 21,000 by the year 2020. It should be noted that major changes in the socio-ecomonic conditions in Flathead County could drastically affect these forecasted populations. The annexation of developed areas currently outside the City could also have a major effect on the future population of the City of Kalispell. 3-12 Ka lile elf City A irp orf Final En vironmenta/ Assessment TABLE 3-2: Population ProJjections for Kalispell and Flathead County Key Current/Projected Year Flathead County Population Projected % Population Increase Since Previous Key Year Average Annual % Increase Current/Projected City of Kalispell Population 2000 749471 -- -- 14,223 2005 821,670 +10.9% +2.2 155630 2010 90,200 +9.4% +1.9 17J30 2015 97,790 +8.6% +1.7 18,860 2020 1057420 + 10.0% +2.0 20,720 .Sources: MONTANA POPULATION PROJECTIONS, NPA Data Services, Inc., Washington D.C., September 2001, processed by the Census & Economic Information Center, Montana Dept. of Commerce, Helena. Bold text represents RPA estimates based on 1.9% annual growth rate for'City over 1990--2000 period. 3,3.4 Economy of the Project Area The economy of Flathead County continues to be very diversified and strong as compared to many other counties in Montana. The county's economy remains dependent on its natural resource base that provides opportunities for timber harvesting, hydroelectric power generation, and tourism on National Forest lands and in Glacier National Park. The county is also home to well regarded health cMre facilities, high tech industry, metals refining, and forest products processing. According to the Going to the Sun Road Socioeconomic Study, (NPS, August 2001), key economic indicators (total employment, per capita income, and bed tax revenues) showed increases of 4--7% increases over the 1990 to 1998 period for the county. The economy of Kalispell is closely tied to that of the County. Information compiled by the BUREAU of EcONoMzc ANALYSIS suggests that the largest industries (by earnings) in Flathead County in 1999 were services, durable goods manufacturing, retail, and state and local government. The following trends are likely to characterize the economy of Flathead County and Kalispell over the next 20 years. The timber --related industry will continue to be a major occupation in the County; however, the industry's overall importance as a major employment source will likely decrease. Recreation and tourism in the Flathead region will, likely increase and result in an expansion of retail trade and service establishments and their associated employment. 3- 3 Kalis eli Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment o Kalispell, the regional trade center of northwest Montana will continue to increased in importance as the depth and variety of professional services, including medical and financial, educational services, and retail continues to expand in the community. Q Flathead County will continue to be a desirable location for second -homes and retirement, new residents will be attracted to the county because of the area's extraordinary natural resources and quality of life. 3.4 Existing Environmental Conditions 3A.1 Air Quality Kalispell City Airport is situated within the Kalispell PM-10 Nonattainment Area. Kalispell was designated as a PM-10 moderate nonattainment area in November 1990. PM-10 refers to particulate matter ten microns or less in size. Burning processes are the most common sources of particulate matter including fly ash (from. power plants), carbon black (from automobiles and , 0" diesel engines), and soot (from slash burning, forest fires, fireplaces, and wood stoves). Particles between 2.5 and 10 microns are usually associated with fugitive dust from wind-blown sand and dirt from roadways, fields, and construction sites. A PM-10 control plan for Kalispell was developed and submitted to the EwiRoNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENcy� (EPA) on June 29, 1990. The final plan (November 1991) consisted of controls on fugitive dust emissions from roads, parking lots, construction, and demolition. The State received Kalispell PM-10 control plan approval March 19, 1996. The Morrraiva DEPaxTmErrr of ErrviRorrMErrrar, QuALrry (MDEQ) has identified the intersection of U.S. Highways 2 and 93 (Idaho and Main) in Kalispell as a nonattainment area of concern for carbon monoxide (CO). The intersection is included in a Designated CO Area State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call Boundary established in August 1, 1997. CO monitoring is done at sites near the Idaho and Main intersection and Laser School. 3.4.2 Aircraft Noise Aircraft noise was analyzed to identify existing noise levels at Kalispell City Airport. Big Sky Acoustics, LLC developed noise contours for the existing and future conditions at the airport in December 2001. Airport noise exposure contours are normally presented in terms of Ldn values, in increments of 5 decibels. The day -night average noise level, L&, is a single number descriptor that represents the constantly varying sound level during a continuous 24-hour period. The Ldn includes a 10"decibel penalty that is added to noises that occur during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for people's higher sensitivity to noise at night when the background noise level is typically low. 3- 1 4 Kalil ell fit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment The noise contours were developed using the FAA's Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 6.0c. The R*;M has been the FAA's standard tool since 1978 for determining the predicted noise impact in the vicinity of airports. INM is designed to estimate the average annual noise levels due to the operations at an airport. Therefore, differences between predicted and actual noise levels may vary because important physical conditions are not modeled explicitly. The contours are based on the annual number of flight operations at an airport, and the airport fleet mix.' The FAA considers the Ld,, metric useful for airport noise studies because it uses a single number to describe the constantly fluctuating noise levels at a receiver location during an average 24- hour day. The use of Ldn. contours is meant to provide a general indication of impact and is not intended to determine the reaction of people due to individual events. The noise contours for the proposed action were developed based on the forecast flight operations provided in Chapter Two of the FeasibilitylMaster Plan study For Kalispell City ,Airport (Morrison-Malerle, Inc., August 1999), and the fleet mix and percentages of runway usage provided in the Amendment to the Final Master Plan Study (Morrison-Maierle, Inc., December 1999). These are briefly summarized in TABLE 3-3. The estimated 1.9% annual growth rate stated in the Master Plan was used to estimate the total number of flight operations in the Present Year (2002). Table 3-3: Assumed Fleet Mix for Present Year (2002) Total Flight Operations for 2002: 37,163 Aircraft Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Model of Totals of Daytime of Evening of Nighttime Group Description Operations Operations Operations Operations GASEPF Single engine propeller 68%1 88% 10% 2% aircraft, under 200 h GASEPV Single engine propeller 24%' 88% 10% 2% aircraft, Zoo to 600 h Twin engine piston BEC58P aircraft, 600 hp per 4%2 100% 0%© 0% engine or less Twin engine turboprop CNA441 aircraft, 800 hp per 4%2 100% 0% 0% engine or less Notes: 1. It was assumed that 25 % of the total flight operations for an aircraft type were approaches, 25 % were departures, and 50% were touch-and-go's. 2. It was assumed that 50% of the total flight operations for an aircraft type were approaches, and 50% were departures. It was assumed that these aircraft do not conduct touch-and-go operations. FIGURE 3-4 shows the INM calculated noise contours for existing conditions at Kalispell City Airport. The outside contour represents a noise level of 55 Ldn and the innermost contour is 75 Ld, The current noise exposure contours show the 65 Ld,o contour extends beyond the existing airport property along the eastern side of the airport and along the extreme southwestern edge of the property. There are no noise -sensitive land uses like residences located in these areas. 3-15 A L- -� ..sue`-- - .•mil - � _,..r i€ • t ! �s L - R .r ! s --s r � OL � a � s Jj(J •r i - _ 3'1 w - • i l - V 1 - - RL , a .y Lj ` % 1 �t 5 - - t i •• • 1 _ J �-s � - yI• 11 j �•F• 1 •3 {1 - 1L • 1! - �i- T- I ^� s ■ r r t 416 _ r � - C' 'rMY •� 'y'. _ •Sty •-�� ; � •�• � ! _ •�* 4 •; . _ i I >e a _• R � � 4 tA►f� _ '� Y _ - `1 � � � ! ! � � � � ' � � .\ � 4 f �t � � � � ;, �'p IL lit •ti rr -- ' R . t i � � jj I 1 i Fi i � p r � � c r 46 •�• rw f�' ,:',a `� � R_ � �• `�E � -- � 1 � {� tip' �� ! �-•". •'+ # �r � � s.-....� _ W r ► •r. « 1, , ■ S i f 1=� - ems=- :-.�'- ..�� 1 � _ '' '� � � � i 1 l� r � s ,r•;'s:r' - � � -, i/ .ter , r � j ..... _ I 1'� - _- 1 � I ! Fi' • - ...�. �*"' 45 ■ « 1 l ice. ---." - —4 ip OF 26 411 • .� -.- ;` i. ; - �u-�. —'-� , . `� - : fir•: ..._�.`-�-. +.''ti s+ it •� - , � � �� a:. �� ._ . � � � ',. a � �_ti��. �'! `•�.. 'y. � rr *}+I � .. �ti. _ar.�!''"•��5. � 41 nw� wi ■ew�f+ ■ _ _ i.,,. � �t�•-' `t �4� =l_« fI � Yi -"Zx. -.'�,: •t 1 t I +rc �, by k R !� ~v• ; 4k_�:_ a 'A%•.•sir' �: .:`1.:::' ..-... .�� !r» {'. �' +• _r ! ,� .,,, do ej .�Z �1y=�r� f e1�}F 'i •:ti •: :::y .. _:;' .. �:. �. .: :i� ::ir ..�• t. ��+ � �� • F'= lk BVe P. Stora �t �.• �'•_ �' y I I fir; •!'• ti•1- _ AREAS WITH NOSE LEVELS Rtd€? - = - EXCEEDING 65 LDN KGE '2 625 D 625 1250 FIGURE 3=4: (SCALE IN FEET) EXISTING AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT rxafis eff City Airport Final Environmental Assessment 3.4.3 Surface Water Resources and Quality The only surface water resource in the immediate vicinity of the Kalispell Airport is Ashley Creek. This stream flows alongside the western boundary of the project area. MDEQ has the responsibility under Section 401 of the Federal CLEAN WATER ACT (33 USX, 1251 B 1376) and the MoNTA.NA WATER QuALiTYACT (75-5-101 M.0 A., et seq.) to monitor and assess the quality of Montana surface waters, and to identify impaired or threatened stream segments and lakes. The MDEQ sets limits, known as Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), for each pollutant entering a body of water. TM DL.s are established for streams or lakes that fail to meet certain standards for water quality and describe the amount of each pollutant a water body can receive without violating water quality standards. The segment of Ashley Creek that borders the project site is currently on the Montana State 303(d) list (MDEQ 2000). Section 343(d) of the federal Clean water Act requires states to assess the condition of their waters to determine where water quality is unpaired or threatened; the result of this assessment is reported on the state 303(d) list. Probable sources of impairment include agriculture. Montana's waters have six beneficial uses: aquatic life, fisheries (warm/cold), drinking water, contact recreation, agriculture, and industrial. This segment of Ashley Creek in the project area has the following beneficial uses that are not fully supported by the current water quality: aquatic life, cold water fisheries, drinking water, and recreational swimming. Agriculture and industrial beneficial uses are fully supported with the current water quality. The MDEQ has established water use classifications and related water quality standards for all drainages in the State. According to the classification system established by the agency, the Flathead River and its tributaries in the project area are classified as B-2. This designation means that these waters are suitable for drinking; culinary and food processing purposes after adequate treatment, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection; bathing, swimming, and recreation; growth and marginal propagation of salmonid fishes and associated aquatic life, waterfowl, and furbearers; and agricultural and industrial water supply. 3.4.4 Ground Water Resources and Quality Ground water is used extensively in rural portions of Flathead County for domestic purposes and irrigation. Since the City has not extended municipal water service, the owners of most county lands near the airport must rely on wells as a source of water for residential, commercial and industrial development or agricultural uses. 14.5 Floodplains. Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and DOT order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, establish federal policies to avoid taking an action within the area that would be inundated by a 100--year flood. The 100-year floodplain is the area subject to a one 3-17 Kalispell 2ity_Air orb Final Environmental Assessment percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. These regulations require that every effort be made to minimize the potential risks to human safety and property damage and the adverse effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values. The elevation of the Kalispell City Airport's airport reference point (ARP) is 2,932 feet above mean sea level. Ashley Creek flows southeasterly and is located approximately 800 feet from the centerline of the extended runway. The elevation of Ashley Creek at this point is between 2,915 feet and 2,930 feet. It is possible that some lands associated with the Kalispell City Airport may be within the 10O-year floodplain of Ashley Creek. However, flooding problems are not known to have occurred in the past at either the airport or the Kalispell wastewater Treatment Plant. The FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) produced this series of maps to show delineated flood hazards within the community. FIGURE 4-6 in PART 4.0 of the Environmental Assessment shows a portion of the October 1996 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel for lands near the Kalispell City Airport. 3.4.6 Coastal Zones and Coastal Barriers There are no coastal zones or coastal barriers present in` the project area. 3.4.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers, The Wild and scenic Rivers Act (PL 90-542, as amended) describes those river areas eligible to be included in a system afforded protection under the Act as free flowing and possessing ".. . outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values." The NEddle Fork of the Flathead River, upstream from its confluence with the South Fork of the Flathead River near Hungry Horse, is the nearest Wild and Scenic River. This wild and Scenic River segment, designated as a Recreational River, is located about 20 mules northeast of Kalispell. 3.4.8 Biotic Communities Land & water Consulting Inc. performed a field survey of the Kalispell City Airport property and adjoining lands on October 1, 2001. The consulting biologists also reviewed potential wetlands sites during their field survey of the project area. In addition, published information about biological resources in the area and contacts with wildlife management agencies were completed to establish existing conditions for vegetation, wildlife, and fisheries in the project area. Little -to --no native or undisturbed ground exists on the Kalispell City Airport property or on the adjacent land. The flat grasslands adjacent to the existing runways are comprised of smooth brorne, timothy, orchardgrass, and wheatgrass. Other species_ noted on the property include spotted kn.apweed, Canada thistle, alfalfa, licorice, dandelion, yellow sweet clover, and kochia. 3- 1 8 Ka�Js el! 2 Air ort Final Environmental Assessment The Montana Natural Heritage Program records indicated there were no known locations of rare or sensitive plants within five miles of the project site. No sensitive plant species were noted during the October field reconnaissance. Based on the current data, it is expected that no rare or sensitive plants would be negatively impacted by this project. Flathead County supports an abundant diversity of flora and fauna. However, the diversity of wildlife species occupying lands within the vicinity of the Kalispell City Airport is limited by habitat availability and the airport's close proximity to other human development. Species likely to occur in the area would be those with small home ranges adapted to life in fragmented habitats near human developments. Such species include: coyote, red fox, badger, striped skunk, Columbian ground squirrel, deer mouse, and various other small mammals, songbirds, and raptors. wetland and riparian habitat associated with Ashley Creek near the airport, provides habitat for waterfowl, various songbirds, amphibians and reptiles, and other small mammals. Ashley Creek flows alongside the western boundary of the project site supports a notable fishery. The Montana Rivers Information System (MRIS) maintained by the MONTANA DEPARTMENT of FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS (MDFWP), lists fish species that may be present in Ashley Creek. According to the MRIS, The fish that may occur within Ashley Creek, from Smith Lake to the confluence with the Flathead River include: brook trout, largescale sucker, longnose sucker, mountain whitefish, peamouth, rainbow trout, redside shiner, westslope cutthroat trout, and yellow perch. Bull trout, a threatened species in Montana, are found in the Flathead River downstream of the project area, but are not known to occur in Ashley Creek. 3.4.9 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna In accordance with Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted for a list of endangered, threatened, poposed, and candidate species that could occur in the project are Montana Field Office in Helena (Wilson, 11/12/01) indicated that the Federally -listed threatened and endangered species which may occur in the project area are: Listed Species bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) gray wolf (Canis lupus) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Spalding's Campion (Silene spaldingii) Expected occurrence transient transient transient transient present in the Still water River and Whitefish River Upper Flathead River drainage Bald eagles, bull trout, grizzly bears, and the Canada lynx are listed as threatened species and the gray wolf is considered to be an endangered species in Montana. There are currently no known candidate or proposed species that may occur in the Kalispell area. The bald eagle was proposed for delisting in July 1999. However, the species remains protected until de -listing is final. 3-19 Ka lisp ell gtZ fir oirtt final Environmental Assessment Of these listed species, bald eagles and bull trout are the most likely species to occur in the general project area. According to MDFWP (1999), a bald eagle nest is located 1.5 miles east of the Airport project. Data provided by the NINHP shows bull trout are located in the Stillwater River and Whitefish River in the Kalispell area. Part 4.0 of the EA contains an assessment of the occurrence of these species in the project area and discusses potential effects of the proposed airport project on listed species. The current distribution for Spalding's Campion is believed to be restricted to Upper Flathead River drainage and Tobacco Valley. Lands near the Kalispell City Airport do not provide_ the types of specialized habitats needed to support these plants. 3,4A 0 Wetlands By definition, wetlands are lands that are either inundated with surface water or saturated with ground water for a long enough period each year to support a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands typically include such areas as swamps, marshes, sloughs, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. The wetlands ecosystem includes those areas that affect or are affected by the wetland. As stated previously, Land & Water Consulting, Inc. reviewed the existing airport property and adjacent lands for the presence of wetlands in October 2001. However, no wetlands sites were identified within the project area. 3,4,11 Hazardous Waste Sites Hazardous materials are products or wastes regulated by the U.S. ENVIxoNMEiv'rA. PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) or the NIDEQ. These include substances regulated under the Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA of Superfund), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and regulations for solid waste management, above- ground storage tanks (ASTs) and underground storage tanks (USTs). No National Priority List (NPL) or Superfund sites identified by the EPA are located near the Kalispell City Airport. Hazardous waste data is contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System. (RCRIS), in support of the RCRA. Generators, transporters, treaters, starers, and disposers of hazardous waste (as defined by the federally recognized hazardous waste codes) are required to provide information concerning their activities to state environmental agencies. RCR.IS-listed sites in the vicinity of the project area include Diamond Aire, Major Aerocraftsman Inc, MSE Environmental Inc, Montana National Guard Armory, and Stevens AeroWorks. A review of 1VIDEQ information was performed to determine if any known leaking underground storage tanks are known in the vicinity of the Kalispell Airport. The data showed that there have been instances of releases from 109 underground storage tank facilities within the community of 3-20 Kali eff LtZAr'r ort Final Environmental Assessment Kalispell since 1955. MDEQ's information shows the only leaking underground storage tank in the vicinity of the airport project was at the USDA Flathead Shop that fronts Airport Road west of the proposed runway threshold. The confirmed release from the tank at the shop occurred in May 1992. An automobile wrecking yard exists just southeast of the existing airport property. Improving Kalispell Municipal Airport would require the acquisition of some of the property now housing the wrecking yard. Automobile wrecking yards and other j unkyard businesses typically buy or accept discarded, wrecked and abandoned automobiles, trucks, buses and trailers. In general, junk vehicles remain in the junkyard for a period when all useful parts are removed and offered for sale. Junk vehicles may also be sold intact. Vehicles that remain in the lot for a long period of time are usually crushed and sent to a scrap metal facility. Junk vehicles contain hazardous waste (brake and transmission fluids, antifreeze, lead from batteries, gasoline and motor oil) that are a potential threat to ground water quality. To accurately assess potential hazardous waste concerns and identify any remediation and cleanup needs, a due diligence audit of properties affected by the proposed airport project must be completed. The audit would ensure the City does not assume the liability for contamination on lands needed for airport improvements. Environmental remediation activities (such as the removal of contaminated soils and the mitigation of leaking underground storage tanks) are activities that are not eligible for Airport Improvement Program funding. 3.4.12 Farmlands The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) authorized the U.S. DEPARTMENT of AG1uCUL`t`[7xE (USDA) to develop criteria for identifying the effects of Federal actions on the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Farmland protected by the FPPA includes prime farmland which is not already committed to urban development or water storage, unique farmland, or farmland which is of state or local importance. The NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (MRCS) in Kalispell was contacted to determine if farmland subject to protection under the FPPA exists in the area of the proposed airport improvement project. The MRCS District Conservationist provided a soil data and mapping for the project area. The MRCS identified two soils in the project area meeting the designation of "Prime Farmland If Irrigated." The designation Prime Farmland if Irrigated means that if these soils are currently being irrigated then they would be considered Prune Farmland. If they are not irrigated, then the soils do not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland. Soils meeting the "Prune Farmland If Irrigated" designation are Kalispell Loam and Kalispell Loam (moderately deep over sand). Although the existing and proposed airport property contains soils considered to be Prime Farmland If Irrigated, these lands have already been developed or are committed to. future urban development. As such the FPPA, does not apply to these lands. 3-2 1 ,Calls el! gLtZ Air ort Final Environmental Assessment 3,4.14 Historic and Archaeological Resources Ethos Consultants conducted research and inventoried the existing and proposed airport property for cultural resources during February 2002. The archaeological consultant examined the project area consisting of the existing and proposed airport facilities encompassing an area of approximately 145 acres. None of the residential or commercial structures on or near the airport within the area inventoried were of historic age. The cultural resources research and inventory failed to identify any cultural resource materials or properties within the area potentially affected by the proposed airport improvement project. The Montana STAB HlsToxIc PRESERVATION OFMcE (SBPO) concurred with the findings of the cultural resource survey report on March 21, 2002. 3.4.15 Section 4(f) Lands Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act, as amended states that, "the Secretary shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use." There are no public parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, or significant historic sites that would be directly impacted by the proposed improvements at Kalispell City Airport. It should be noted that the City formerly maintained an athletic field complex containing baseball and soccer fields on land immediately east of the airport and adjacent to U.S. Highway 93. These public recreation areas would typically be afforded consideration under Section 4(f). However, the City has relocated the athletic fields to another location and is in the process of selling the lands formerly containing the recreation facilities. To date, two parcels (Lot 1 in the Daley Field Subdivision and Haven Field) have been sold and two other lots are currently for sale. Since the City has no plans for continuing recreational uses at this location, these properties are not subject to Section 40 protection. 3-22 MCA LISPELL CITYAIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment -kl LTJ I sale] 1 14 Ilk k fil 4 Kola 4 Kal 2 ell City Air o Final Environmental Assessment PART 4m.00- ENVIRONIMPACTS The Airport Environmental Handbook (FAA Order 5050.4A, October 8, 1985) requires that various environmental impact categories be examined to determine if the proposed airport improvements may result in significant impacts. FAA Environmental Order 1050.1d - Change 4, (June 14, 1999) also provides specific guidance regarding the procedures that should be followed to analyze the potential effects of planned airport development according to each environmental impact category. The FAA's environmental assessment process requires that consultation with agencies that manage or protect specific environmental resources be undertaken and documented. Additionally, the Airport Environmental Handbook identifies "threshold" conditions for each impact category. If the impacts of the proposed action exceed "threshold" conditions, then further analysis is needed to determine its significance. The likelihood of potentially significant impacts, may suggest the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The following pages evaluate the potential impacts of the Sponsor's proposed action at the Kalispell City Airport and the Igo --Action alternative according to the environmental impact "thresholds" identified by the FAA. where appropriate, measures to mitigate adverse impacts are discussed. 4.1 Impact Categories Not Applicable to the Proposed Action Paragraph 47(e) of FAA order 5050.4A, lists the specific environmental impact categories that must be addressed in Environmental Assessments. Based on the evaluation of existing conditions within the project area presented in PART 3.0, the following environmental impact categories do not need to be addressed for the proposed action at the Kalispell City Airport. ■ wetlands ■ Wild and Scenic Rivers ■ Coastal Zone Management Program • Coastal Barriers These impact categories will not be evaluated in this PART because such resources do not exist within the area of potential effect for the proposed airport improvements. 4.2 Aircraft Noise- Impacts The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 required the FAA to establish a single system for determining the noise exposure at properties in the vicinity of airports, and the FAA was required to set up a standardized airport noise and land compatibility planning program. . With the adoption of FAR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, the FAA established that noise exposure contour maps would be used as a planning tool to determine if land located 4-1 Kali ell City Airport final Environmental Assessment near airports is compatible with the operation of the airport, and to determine if noise -sensitive locations near airports would be negatively impacted by changes to an airport or its operations. This document determined that residences and schools should not be located within the Ldn 55 or greater contour associated with an airport. The FAA's Airport Environmental Handbook does not require a noise exposure contour analysis for the Kalispell City Airport since its projected annual flight operations twenty years from now (56,237 flight operations in 2022) do not exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations. Even though this threshold is not met, the Sponsor chase to conduct a detailed analysis of future aircraft noise levels for the Proposed Action since the analysis would provide information beneficial to the Environmental Assessment. 4.2.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The noise contours for the proposed action were developed based on the forecast future flight operations provided the FeasihilitylMaster Plan Study For Kalispell City .Airport (Morrison- Maierle, Inc., August 1999), and the fleet mix and percentages of runway usage provided in the Amendment to the Final Master Plan Study (Morrison-Maierle, Inc., December 1999). The operational data presented in the documents was adjusted using a 1.9% annual growth rate for the airport, to determine the total number of flight operations twenty years from the present. The Amendment to the Master Plan also determined that if the runway were lengthened, then a some small business jets would be able to utilize the airport. Contours were developed for the Design Year (2022) with the small jets included in the fleet mix and without the jets in the mix. The Amendment also indicates that for all aircraft, 30%a of the flight operations use the Runway 13 direction, and 70% use the Runway 31 direction. TABLES 4-1 and 4-2 show the forecasted data that was input into the INM model to calculate the noise contours for the project. .. Table 4-1: Assumed Fleet Mix Design Year (2022) 'Without Jets Total Flight Operations for 2022: 56,237 Aircraft Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Model of Total of Daytime of Evening of Nighttime Group__Description Operations Operations Operations erations GASEPF Single engine propeller 68%1 88% 10% 2%v aircraft, under 200 h GASEPV Single engine propeller 24%' 88%a 10% 2% aircraft, 200 to 600 h Twin engine piston BEC58P aircraft, 600 hp per 4% 2 100% ❑% 0% engine or less Twin engine turboprop CNA441 aircraft, Soo hp per 4%2 .00% 0% 0% engine or less 4-2 Kal 2 ell Zit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment Table 4-2: Assumed Fleet Mix Design Year (2022) With,Jets Total Flight Operations for 2022: 56,237 Aircraft Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Model of Total of Daytime of Evening of Nighttime Group Description Operations— Operations Operations Operations GASEPF Single engine propeller 67 % ' 8 8 % 10% 2% aircraft, under 200 h GA.SEPV Single engine propeller 23 %' 8 8 % 10% 2 % aircraft, 200 to 600 h Twin engine piston BEC58P aircraft, 600 hp per 4% 2 1.00%0 0% 0%v engine or less Twin engine turboprop CNA441 aircraft, 800 hp per 4%2 100% 0% 0% engine or less MU3001 Business jet with small 2%2 100% 0% 0% turbofan -...engines Tables 4-1 & 4-2 Notes: I. It was assumed that 25% of the total flight operations for an aircraft type were approaches, 25% were departures, and 50% were touch-and-go's. 2. It was assumed that 50% of the total flight operations for an aircraft type were approaches, and 50% were departures. It was assumed that these aircraft do not conduct touch-and-go operations. The predicted noise contours for the Proposed Action (with and without small jets included in the fleet mix) are shown on FIGURES 4-1 and 4-2, respectively. It is typical for the Ldn 65 contour associated with a general aviation airport to be located on airport property and near to the runway, and the noise contours of the Kalispell City Airport shown on the FIGURES 4-1 and 4-2 indicate that the L& 65 contour for the Proposed Action would be located within airport property. The INM predicted the Ldn 65 contour would be located about 250 feet from each end of the runway and a maximum of about 450 feet from the centerline of the runway along its proposed length. Assuming the fleet mix and number of flight operations used for the analysis are reasonably accurate, the Ldn 65 contour line is predicted to be within the airport property over the next twenty years with the implementation of this project. Therefore, adverse noise impacts should not occur (with or without small jet use) on properties in the vicinity of the airport according to the FAA criteria. The proposed action would shift the runway south sufficiently that even with the projected jet traffic, all residences in the runway's approaches remain clear of the Ldn 65 contour. The proposed reconfiguration of the airport would shift some aircraft noise associated with run- up and taxiing activities from the east side to the west side of the airport where a new apron and 4-3 Kalispell City Air ort Final Environmental. Assessment since most lands to the west of the airport are sparsely developed, occupied by the City wastewater treatment facilities, or developed with commercial or industrial uses that are not particularly noise sensitive. The north end of the new runway would be shifted nearly 600 feet south of the north end of the existing runway and further from residences located along Airport Road and 18th Street west. 4,2,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Noise contours were developed for the No Action Alternative using the forecast future flight operations, fleet mix, and runway use assumptions presented in TABLE 4-1. The No Action Alternative assumes that improvements to the airport would not be made but that the number of annual operations would continue to increase. The predicted noise contours for the No Action Alternative (assuming no small jets would be included in the fleet mix) are shown on FIGURE 4-3. The No Action Alternative was not analyzed with jet traffic because physical constraints at the existing airport generally preclude jet landings. The figure indicates that the Ldn 65 contour for the No Action Alternative would extend beyond the existing airport property at the same locations as predicted under present aviation activity levels, but the area encompassed by the Ldn 65 contour would expand considerably at these locations. Similar to the Proposed Action, the INM predicts the Ldn 65 contour would exist about 250 feet from each end of the runway and a maximum of some 450 feet from the centerline of the runway. Adverse noise impacts would not be expected on noise -sensitive properties in the vicinity of the airport. 4.3 Compatible Land Use The compatibility of existing and planned land uses near an airport is usually associated with the extent of noise impacts and safety concerns in close proximity to the airport. The effects of the proposed action must also be evaluated according to thresholds for other environmental impact categories related to land use. 4,3.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action Residential developments exist off the north runway end and to the side of the south end of the proposed runway. The Proposed Action would require relocation of a nine residential units (owner -occupied residences, mobile homes, or rental structures) and would encroach upon a portion of an automobile salvage yard and require minor amounts of land from the rear (western portion) of several deep lots with frontage on U.S. Highway 93. A grove of pines would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed runway relocation and expansion. There would be no effects to an existing supermarket or other offices and businesses adjacent to U.S. Highway 93. As described previously, the KGEz radio towers located about a mile southeast of the Kalispell City Airport represent a "hazard to air navigation." The towers are about 325 feet tall and separated by about 1,000 feet. Including the supporting wires for each tower, the present towers WE tt .T 7 _ 1 L ..., at _ f L - w - 5 _ � h r - _t i - -1 � E i 47-711 _ r i r - •' L 4 � Fes.•' ••�x. ■� i s i { •L �S - i .r - - t +: S.. _ 1 h •i 1 s 4� i - a ! x '1 ! .1 I ■ -AL10 1 16 a low lk IF 1 * �1: ��'�'_- .'f' _-��. �- � • � Lc� 1 � r ,~ 1 fit' Pit' • ..mow ^r� ` i f' [ .s 06, eC 9-30kFo �� ?!l i •,.�-� � r ,', � I � ` 11' r.--llii� ~~, •s �_ _ � 1.��.^ .� •_ ,, -. - . I �`-` I , yam.. .f !` ! V i E'• � ! r f� � • � + • � .� , �' .. 'k•-. _ lc=i� ' ~'9�• i lop IF �' �•e.J r . 1-�L.t i•L . �.i If k i1i �,-, ..ter•. ❑ i t7 . �=� -:..:. i - '�-__. � -- . 4 t`. '•4. {$� Jam' �...:-: _ � . _....... , - .J - .; i --�- - ,� 'may �.' _ _ '; •� .��'Z. � -" • � �' � _ �-' - • ' itl �'' �. �;..•• r 00 420 .w[[� rr�w �. _ .�`� . � L r' • � •. .i` t , , a .. -� • •.•� 19— g { it —f ■ C� - ii • e.� `' r • s i 'k ff Zv- r s ... - 1 "_ . L. .r'`•n ''L , �� • ' ••w `.r � •- • :... \y, .. ...: , r�_ : �! ': i . ` �,. /-' '" ti � IF tt r» i Q IK tora �.��-ate �_�::.---� w� 4 r , + •y � AREAS VIf1TH NOISE BEVELS KG r - m EXCEEDING 65 SON ,...,s. FIGURE 4o1: 625 ❑ 525 1250 FUTURE AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT KALISPELLE CITY AIRPORT (SSE I FEET) WITHOUT JETS ] m 1.-.� .^--,,..:: ��.. - -�'• ! M ! �y i r+ - _ •t 1 . � •ti .E 4 roo L :* t ►.-�•-^j 71. u # • �• r '�r+C 1 f 3 �t 4 1 .f _ • # ti - 1 r i a s s - 1 ..i _ 1 ai S4` F t IN ! ♦ i f •1- F- t ' 7�A r �y / • If . � A - - ..s 6 ;:► - f - �1 r S f" - ram. :/sx f y �_ i •L i' R :�. - R � J 3' • f■�+�`1r�i '•rw� 4nwn--^ -'a E. w r' � i_ w a 't • - - I 1 R. 4 C �' ::�. - < i M R Z♦ I. ! R Cam' I Is40 it • K [ . 3. _ :s: ` i . - �' ( ] •6dff 49 Ic Uk 40. Fodtfi 100 e :` .� � �` � t � ._ �..�. - y� ; s� . Y fir: . 3� l'. 1 I• � � . ' r • r r'��,,,.-. � ,lam-'..�... � _� _ �� ''t• �'�^'� . _._ . _ J•�� L Y5 s ,t 'y} :;• + -'..� �"r'= "-z �' �• • j _ :t i � '`� ~meµ=' T�A . , _.r•�ry.. _ .:�..~`'•� - •�i� � ��`• •� � III � � •+ . � �. 00 Q'• ' 20- s it AL BM r - r __ •, �' f - r.r, • ! Sri w e �_ r } 2 R f' • wiw -i�r•= Rom. - j� , .. � •- = it � •• �' ::...: :: ..... ..... '• ._... .. ;� �w-=--- ��:_- � • •�• ` ,•r r t - ell do �L � .._i-l- ram•` - .' � •: �ti�•.::•-':n.a� -.•'. ......• .. ._�.'•s +• .- - l• .t' 'i� iL. w � •Jr`, � r'• ..... T, 'll !.r f• y^\ r ay: --: t_.. ! ` :' : • , �• t 4 w! �ij�. ..^ :tip•,.•.:.. ;•;:. ::..t..:''��'<=•--:r .: :;• ;.� ,!• , ! si i;}4 � •• :•�... 1�• w' � �~ti .�....._��._ . �j. = 4 •r:t � r•r �as r 29■2am6 Storage BE ^E � ` s ..�- E � ; � + _•� i t •i ;; r R i ...; S KG AREAS WITH NOISE LEVELS_. EXCEEDING 65 LON - ' `"� 2929P Radia • t•, �► • � �� ' i T 1►+�a•A7aJ FIGURE 4-2: 625 U 625 1250 FUTURE AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT (SCALE IN FEET) WITH JETS ! •.: _ :. ram-. ....•..'. � i ��,.-._.-._ ■ ]�--�' - - 1. '� ■ - i 1 •r r + jjjj 1 r - 1 - 7 - s •t- `� i .tM1~ t= f - i �f _ - • 1 as } -- i - - J AF s � w - t -,..:' • _ `� ■ JOr Ili 4J { 7 � - �, ate^•.-f--." - i _ a 1 4 t L; ■ 1 •h ■ 1t ••f r - - tS •i.�1 L � ' � taj � - F •^ 1 _ r s _. - S 1ii i + x i 4 i �•'•., . < - - � _ � .;.ter . -� ' - ► • � _ _ :� -k ! ,� \ � � I 40 mj 40 - r n J W s i :•y f L1 y T 3 f• ` .S E1 ~1 - t Y� l r� l' -t Jr41#- r JL 1�.• _ `1•+ cS _ L -a N .S •'1 � f 1 r L � { 40 t is 'r• - r✓" i •1.r' ■ - � Fi '�� - , ry �-�. � � rrr - `�� 1 { 1 1 � ■ � {401�� * �r t �� r � ■ .; ��}' � � ■ ! i; s ► ,a x•, w qb 64 + IIII r t i k o a 11 ■ 1Ask ��.""""�'"�{�� r ' # ■ # � #. i # # , It I`.' � � •`; 0.�1•_ t ' , � l � # �„�„f•��.. �# r : � �. k � : � -� * � :`� ;3 - i s 't'•~', - .�• ram '. , : - • 2 9�0,000 f. f. f f` ■ . ricig r. �' '1 � -- M1•�-•ter. -� - ' • ` '^ � `y :'_• iJ •• I rV �•� `h �� t. +�. f•� iii - � �.. � ! � � 'r�.:. a .e. a L S ■ _ ,� 1! .�•,./ . ,:� . � �-.ec-M - ^� fir— -� • Ik .�V.. ,. ti..• �� - --�w_ _ _-•- •tip , € • �-��^ter 1, `�--��-- -- _� _.._ri_ ti,4^ :.�-- - _ }�':k-1 ;-.., ;�. ` � ` w.= `��.-- �=""; -_'r=•^=- _'`�. , � _..-tip _ .:-.r:�--�+•..�, s• �� _ � qq •-.ust•^ � : } i � (:l it __�_ _ �'�-- '�..,_ - .-..,... ,L t � �t ,� YF � \ ' � � �. ...._ _.._ _`.:-•.IyJ*'1'r`:� r ■..� a • - Tom. � 's• � .t\ sue` .Sewe jjw tS Vv �1 - r 0 i .ter. �•:�i-i- - �_�="" _ - 4 + J�r ` Y• �.��w11- '•# '' 29 �! t3��•L �5 1 `29, 36..•:•... •^' -tee .r •. "', ��,.-. r �! low 1�� 1 �__:� ►. :�i ram; _.. -:.'.•: - ' ■ i` � f ! . �.ln-� ti.._ _ 1..�_ a ..-.....,.r.•... r... ., .. ..--�.".»-_". f _ ' 10 IFI �• f ! L 1rM1 Tk1 �• .. • _ ••'•, ., .....-~ ., '��s• �� +y. - f, `,[r�,t,��37�.�•y�F`} � f� � R r �� ,'�■ r4 . • • : ti_•'. ` e al i •t k ; :ti11'l iyL `3 `Fi }'; � .• -.;: »:.. -•l• Y s~ �. :•• .: �: t..: �'.... .. •.1., �. .. �• f � • avie IL In -= AREAS WITH NOISE LEVELS ti rj— _.- - EXCEEDING 65 LDN 77 FIGURE 4.3: 625 0 625 1250 FUTURE AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS AT IfALISPELL CITY AIRPORT SCALE IN FEET NO BUILD (WITHOUT JETS) Kal ell C t Air ort Final Environmental Assessment have a "footprint" of about 35 acres. The existing towers have been constructed on land leased from the property owner. The paired towers in an alignment of 240-degrees from true north allow a directional broadcast signal that more efficiently covers the length of Flathead valley. PHOTO PLATE 4 and FIGURE 4-4 show KGEz towers and their locations relative to the airport. As a condition of receiving FAA funding to implement the Sponsor's Proposed Action, the hazard presented by the towers must be eliminated. Several options for addressing the radio towers penetration into the present and future airport's airspace exist including: 1) replacing the towers with shorter towers; 2) relocating the towers; and 3) completely removing the towers. The FAA has stated that installing strobe lights on the existing towers would not be acceptable. Using shorter towers would involve replacing each tall tower with an array of four substantially shorter towers, called a "paran array." Relocating the towers could be accomplished by building a new set of broadcast towers or by sharing an existing radio tower and building one additional tower. Completely removing the existing towers would first require that the City purchase the radio facilities from the station owner at a mutually agreeable sale price or at a court -determined settlement price if condemnation was pursued. once the City owned the lease for the tower sites and radio station facilities, the towers could be removed. These options are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. ■ Replacement with Short Towers The towers would need to be lowered to less than 150 feet to avoid penetrating the Part 77 surfaces. An array of four, short (100-feet tall) towers could be used to replace each of the taller towers. The "par -an array" would provide nearly identical broadcast coverage, but without the height of the present towers. The two current towers operate together to produce a directional broadcast signal that could theoretically be duplicated by two such arrays that would not encroach on Part 77 airspace. Research conducted by the Sponsor's engineer shows that the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS ComwsSION (FCC) views broadcasting using "paran" arrays as an experimental technology. To date, the FCC has licensed only two non -directional broadcast stations using "paran" antennas (personal communication with Edward Labatsl i, FCC, 12/13/01). The stations are licensed as "day time only," though they broadcast with less power during the night. However, the FCC "has not authorized directional use of "paran" antennas to date" (personal communication with Son Nguyen, FCC, 12/18/01). FCC officials also indicated that lengthy review periods (6 to 12 months) have been associated with applications for licensing such "experimental" broadcast arrays. While a directional broadcast by "paran" antennas is theoretically possible and could eliminate the hazards currently presented by the tall towers, the City does not consider this to be a practical ,mitigation option. The City's position is based on the fact that such facilities are viewed as experimental technologies and have not been generally accepted by the FCC. 0 Tower Relocation. Tower relocation involves building one or two towers approximately Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment 300 feet high at a site outside the proposed airport's Part 77 airspace. Two possibilities are associated with tower relocation --- constructing one new tower and sharing an existing radio tower elsewhere in the Kalispell area or constructing two new towers on a totally new site. with either possibility, the towers must be sited within a very specific portion of the Flathead Valley to ensure a similar broadcast pattern. A tower sharing arrangement would be less costly than building two new towers. However, costly "diplexing" equipment would be needed to allow KGEZ to broadcast from its current station via a shared tower. A detailed study by a broadcast engineer would be required to estimate the costs associated with such a broadcasting arrangement. To share an existing tower requires an acceptably located tower and willing radio station owners. Only one tower, owned and operated by KOFI FM, is located within a suitable valley broadcast location for a sharing arrangement with KGEZ. The owners of KOFI were contacted by the Sponsor's engineer and expressed a marginal interest in a shared broadcast arrangement with KGEZ. The KOFI tower site, located about 2.5 miles northwest of Somers, has limitations for locating another tower(s) due to extremely rocky terrain and an adjacent residential subdivision. Moist soil conditions are favored conditions for locating broadcast towers. Two new towers could be built elsewhere in the Flathead Valley but this poses several new concerns including: creating a new hazard to aviation, introduction of a new visual intrusion into the landscape, and the practical problem of duplicating KGEZ's current broadcast capabilities. In the past, the owner of KGEZ has indicated a willingness to relocate the towers to another location in the valley. However, the station owner would expect to be fairly compensated for the required tower relocation and related expenses incurred due to moving the towers. KGEZ would have to be reasonably compensated for its existing lease and impacts to its broadcasting services. The 35 to 50 acres of land required for the two new towers would have to be chosen carefully to avoid a number of existing airways and flight patterns associated with Kalispell City Airport and GPIA. Total costs for new towers, engineering expertise, and a microwave link and broadcast equipment modifications for KGEZ would likely approach $500,000. While tower relocation options cannot be ruled out at this time, the City does not favor this option due to a great number of uncertainties about where a new tower(s) might be located and problems associated with land acquisition and public acceptance of building new towers elsewhere in the valley. Such an action would likely generate a great deal of public concern, and possibly strong opposition, from residents living near any selected tower site and from others in the community. Hiring a broadcast engineering consultant to conduct a detailed study of possible alternate rKa/ispell City Airport Environmental Assessment graphMcdr View of KGEZ towers looking southeasterly. U.S. Highway 93 is at right of photo. View of KGEZ towers looking northwesterly at the airport. U.S. Highway 93 is in the center of the photograph. Photo Plate 4.0 KGEZ Towers 4-1 a Kalis elf Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment tower sites and evaluating the potential environmental impacts and gauging public acceptance of a new tower site would be necessary if the City chose this option for remedying the KGEZ tower issue. Studying alternate tower sites and identifying a preferred location for replacement radio towers is beyond the scope of this Environmental Assessment. ■ Tower and Business Removal. The preferred course of action for remedying the obstructions posed by the KGEZ towers would be to negotiate with the station owner and pay a mutually accepted price for dissolution of the business. As an initial step in attempting to remove the towers, the City would hire a real estate consultant to appraise the business and establish a fair market value. The City could then approach the station owner and begin negotiations to buy the business based on the appraised value. If negotiations were unsuccessful, the City may choose to initiate condemnation procedures since the radio towers have been identified as airport hazards. State law provides for such "takings" to ensure the general health and welfare of the public with reasonable compensation to the owner. The owner of KGEZ leases the land on which the existing towers have been built. Currently, the station owner and the property owner are involved in a legal action to determine the scope of their existing lease agreement. The station owner contends that the lease covers all 160 acres of property surrounding the two towers. The property owner's position is that the lease only applies to the portion of the property where the towers are built and that the lease unduly limits the property owner's ability to develop his land for other uses. The proximity to the City and frontage on U.S. highway 93 mares the land highly attractive for new commercial or residential development. Since removing the broadcast towers from the property could also benefit the property owner, the potential exists for the City and the landowner to work together to remove the towers and fairly compensate the station owner. Therefore, the City can either work individually or together with the property owner(s) to accomplish the removal of the KGEZ towers. If the City purchased the KGEZ business outright, the potential exists to recoup a portion of their purchase price by selling the broadcast license and/or any other real property acquired through the transaction. It should be noted that the costs of removing the business may be equal or greater than those associated with installing shorter towers or relocating the towers. The proposed action would install perimeter fencing around the airport property and provide an access road to the new apron, hangar area, and vehicle parking area. These activities would cause minor changes in local travel patterns and would help control public access to the airport property. Critical areas for compatible land use are typically the runway protection zones, approaches and lands underlying the traffic pattern at the airport. To the extent possible, the proposed runway has been situated to minimize flight activity over the City of Kalispell and existing residences and businesses near the airport. 4-12 Kali ell gLtZ Airport Final Environmental Assessment As indicated in PART 3.0, land uses around the landing field are generally compatible with the airport. However current zoning regulations permit building heights of up to 40 feet within 530 feet of the runway centerline, and within 1,000 feet of the runway threshold in the approach. Without enacting more stringent requirements to existing zoning regulations, structures of the permitted height located this close to an active runway would conflict with FAR Part 77 protected surfaces. Appropriate actions (including the adoption of zoning laws) would be undertaken to the extent reasonable, to restrict the use of land adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities that are compatible with normal airport operations. The establishment of an airport influence area and other measures like building pen -nit disclosures identifying close proximity to the airport and release of liability from future noise claims are also ways to ensure compatible land use. 4.3,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative The No Action alternative would not cause land use changes near the Kalispell City Airport. The KGEz broadcast towers would remain a hazard to air navigation at the airport. Perimeter fencing to restrict access to airport property would not be installed unless the City chose to undertake a project without federal funding. The Airport Advisory Board believes there is a good chance that Kalispell City Airport may no longer be viable over the next ten years or so under the No Action Alternative. This belief is based on the high probability that the City would face large expenditures to upgrade and maintain the airport and increased public pressure to close the facility and convert the property to other forms of development that could be sold or leased to generate income for the City. Planned improvements to U.S. Highway 93 near the airport will be implemented in the near future that could serve as a stimulus to redevelopment along the highway corridor and other adjoining lands on Kalispell's south side, including the existing airport property. 4.4 Social Impacts/Environmental Justice The proposed action may cause social impacts if it causes the relocation of residences or businesses; substantially alters surface transportation patterns; divides or disrupts established communities; disrupts orderly, planned development; or creates an appreciable change in employment. 4.4,1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action would not cause adverse social impacts. Executive order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low -Income Populations, signed by President Clinton in 1994 has been followed for this proposed project. This proposed action would not have any significant impact on the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the 4-13 Xci is ell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment Land Ac uisitlons and Relocations. About 77 acres of additional land must acquired or controlled for the proposed improvements at the Kalispell City Airport. The lands needed for expansion of the airport are privately --owned and must be acquired in fee from the owners or avigational easements must be obtained on some properties. FIGURE 4-5 shows the lands needed for the proposed airport and identifies property improvements that may be affected. According to the Land and Improvement Value Analysis Report prepared in May 2001 by Hall Widdoss and Company, a real estate consulting firm, the estimated cost of acquiring the land needed for the airport would likely exceed $3 million. This preliminary figure includes the cost of acquiring necessary land and improvements and administrative costs. In March 2002, Olson Land Services of Helena prepared a preliminary relocation plan for the Proposed Action to identify required relocations and the associated costs .of such relocations. The report was based on a visual inspection of the affected properties and information on possible relocations and property value estimates compiled previously for the proposed airport project. Nine residential units would require relocations for the Proposed Action. These residential units are listed below by Tract Number and presumed occupancy status. Owner -Occupied Residential Units Tenant -Occupied Residential Units (Rentals) Tracts 5 and SJ Tracts 5 and 5J Tract dD Tract 5 GC Tract d+ Mobile Home Relocations Tract 5 GC (two mobile homes) Based on the average population per household estimate (2.2 persons per household) for the City of Kalispell from the 2000 Census, the residential relocations necessary for the Proposed Action could affect about 20 residents. The proposed airport improvement project would be unlikely to isolate or divide existing residential areas or cause a disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects on any social or ethic groups, handicapped, elderly, or low- income populations. Olson Land Services also reported that as of March 2002, there were more than 235 dwellings on the real estate market in the Kalispell area with listed prices ranging from $75,000 to $200,000. Additionally 45 mobile home properties listed at between $40,000 and $159,900 were on the market. Based on this information, there would appear to be sufficient replacement dwellings available to residents displaced by the Proposed Action. Five business relocations would also be necessary to accommodate the proposed airport improvement project. The tracts containing the impacted businesses are identified. below: Tract 1D (two relocations) Tract 2F Tract 2FA Tract 2JA 4-14 Kal 2 ell 2tj Air ort Final Environmental Assessment Residential and business relocations would be accomplished by the City according to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. As required by the Act, affected residents will be relocated to replacement dwellings meeting federal "Decent, Safe, and Sanitary" criteria. Affected business owners will be offered assistance in finding a location and reestablishing the business. The business relocations would not be expected to cause an appreciable change in employment in the Kalispell area. AIP funding is limited to nominal amounts for business moves in accordance with the Act. Olson Land Services report indicated that in addition to relocations, 23 moves of personal property would be necessary from lands affected by the Proposed Action. This total includes moving numerous existing hangars and other airport buildings and personal property located on an auto salvage yard near the airport. It should be noted that the removal of contaminated soil or other environmental cleanup activities on lands needed for the proposed project cannot be funded through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The total cost of the proposed relocations and property moves (including administrative costs) would be about $355,000. It should be noted that actual relocation costs depend on the timing of project implementation and could vary due to changes in property values and the availability of replacement dwellings. Assuming federal funds can be obtained for the proposed airport improvement project, the FAA would cover 90% of the relocation costs. Hangars would not be eligible for relocation assistance from the FAA. As indicated previously, the costs associated with removing or relocating the KG-EZ radio towers could exceed $500,000. Because eliminating the hazard to navigation was identified as a precondition of receiving federal funding, the City would be totally responsible for all costs related to tower relocation or removal. Opportunities may exist to share these costs with the owner of the property where the towers exist or for some costs to be recouped if the City purchased the business outright. Surface Transportation Chan es. The Proposed Action would move the principal access for Kalispell City Airport from the east side of facility to a newly developed approach on west side of the airport. Users of the facility currently have the ability to access airport property from several approaches along U.S. f.ghway 93 and from Airport Road. Under the Proposed Action, the primary access to hangars, aprons, and vehicle parking areas would be from Airport Road. An existing gravel road south of the existing runway end would need to be abandoned to allow for the construction of the proposed runway. Severing this road would not be expected to create traffic problems at intersections to the north or south of the airport or result in substantially f higher traffic volumes on Airport Road. Sufficient clearance for a 20:1 approach slope would exist at Cemetery Road under the development initially proposed for the airport. However, a portion of the road may need to be shifted further south to provide an additional safety buffer at ultimate development. Cemetery Road provides a second access for aviation businesses along the west side of the current airport, airport users, and minor local access. Its realignment would increase the traffic on the north 4-15 Kakis 0 Cit A ort Final Environmental Assessment access and/or move the traffic to existing roads to the south. 4.4,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Existing patterns of land use, access, or development in the vicinity of the Kalispell City Airport would not be altered if no action were the chosen course of action. This alternative would not require the relocation of any residences or businesses. No changes would be required to roads in the vicinity of the airport. 4.5 Induced SoclowEconomic. Impacts Induced socioeconomic impacts are the induced or secondary impacts on the surrounding community that result from the airport development. These impacts are typically measured by determining shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands, and changes in business and economic activity to the extent influenced by the airport development. Induced impacts will normally not be significant except where there are also significant impacts in other categories, especially noise, land use or direct social impacts. 4,5,1 Impacts of the Preferred Alternative The proposed action would not cause major shifts in the patterns of population movement and growth, extensive demands for public services, or substantial changes in business or economic activity. However, temporary beneficial economic impacts are foreseen due to construction spending within the community, and increases in visitor expenditures may indirectly result from the improvement and future use of the new airport. The socio-economic benefits of the proposed airport improvements include jobs, wages, and expenditures on the airport, and the multiple and induced effects these have within the community. The proposed airport improvements at Kalispell City Airport could result in about $7 million of direct capital expenditures for construction of the new airport plus additional indirect expenditures within the community by construction workers on food, lodging, and recreation when the project is built. Local construction workers could be expected to spend the majority of their earnings in the community while itinerant workers would spend a portion of their earnings in Kalispell on food, lodging, and entertainment during the construction period. These induced impacts would have a positive impact on the local economy. The provision of an improved aviation facility could generate additional operations and attract new visitors and business interests to the Kalispell area. Economic benefits would be realized within the community as the numbers of transient air travelers increase and these travelers make purchases of aviation fuel, food, and lodging at nearby businesses. As indicated earlier, some aviation activity formerly based at Kalispell City Airport has been lost to other nearby airports due to the uncertainty about when improvements would be made at the facility. Airport improvements may attract new users interested in building new hangars that 4-17 Kalis e!1 Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment could produce revenues for the City. Improvements would also enhance conditions for aviation - related services at the airport. The acquisition of property necessary for the proposed development of the new runway and its associated airspace would remove a minor amount of land from the property tax base of the City of Kalispell and Flathead County. 4,5,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative There are no notable induced socio-economic impacts associated with the alternative of taking no action to improve the Kalispell City Airport. However, the potential does exist for a future decision by the City to close the airport and undertake actions to redevelop the existing airport land for other uses. Converted property could be sold or leased to generate revenue for the City. If such a decision was made to pursue redevelopment of the airport property, the City (in association with developers) would likely incur costs to undertake new planning for the area and install required infrastructure to accommodate new land uses. Subsequent private development on the former airport lands could result in new property tax revenues for local government. 4.6 Air Quality Impacts FAA guidance states that projected activity levels at a general aviation airport must be examined to determine if an air quality analysis is necessary. FAA Order 5050.4A requires an air quality analysis only if the forecasted annual operations at a general aviation airport exceeds 180,000 during the planning_ period. Since the forecasted number of annual operations at Kalispell is not expected to exceed 57,000 within 20 years, a formal air quality analysis is not necessary. The proposed action is subject to the General Conformity Rule for air quality because Kalispell City Airport is located within an EPA designated nonattainment area for PM-10. 44.1 impacts of the Proposed Action To comply with air quality impact and conformity requirements, the Sponsor's consulting engineer coordinated the proposed action with the MDEQ Permitting and Compliance Division. Coordination efforts included involved several agency contacts and a meeting with NIDEQ staff to discuss PM-10 emissions analysis methods and conformity requirements. Guidance materials were obtained from NIDEQ including a methodology from the EPA for estimating emissions from aircraft and pertinent sections from previous air quality documents prepared to predict PM- 10 and CO emissions in the Kalispell area. Based on this guidance, current and future PM-10 emissions from aircraft were calculated. Key inputs to the emissions analysis were estimates of annual current and future landing and takeoff (LTO) cycles and a composite emissions factor for aircraft (0.36 lbs per LTO cycle). The results of the PM-10 emissions analyses were provided to the MDEQ for a use in determining 4-18 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment conformity with the SIP. A copy of the PM-10 aircraft emissions analysis for this proposed action can be reviewed in APPENDIX D. MDEQ determined that the existing and future PM-10 emissions from aircraft do not meet the applicability threshold for PM-10. Because the current and future emissions levels at Kalispell do not approach or exceed threshold levels for air quality impacts, it can be concluded that emissions levels associated with the proposed action would not be locally or regionally significant. Therefore, the emissions from aircraft are considered de minimis and will not cause or contribute to violations of PMW-10 standards in the Kalispell PM--10 nonattainment area. Projects with that have little or no emissions impacts are considered to be neutral or "de Minimis" and are exempted from the Transportation Conformity requirements under the federal Clean Air Act. No further conformity determination is required for this proposed project. An April 29, 2002 letter from NIDEQ regarding the PM-10 emissions analysis and conformity can also be found in APPENDIX D. 4,6,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any significant air quality impacts in the Kalispell area. PM--10 emissions levels associated with increased aviation activity at the airport over the foreseeable future would not cause or contribute to violations of PM-10 standards in the Kalispell PM-10 nonattainment area. 4.7 Water Quality Impacts Water quality impacts may occur if the proposed action causes a substantial degradation of water quality from direct discharges into surface water or infiltration into ground water. Potential sources of impacts are from surface runoff, erosion and sedimentation of disturbed areas, or spills of fuel or other contaminants. Impacts are determined by evaluating the predicted levels of various water quality parameters with State water quality standards. Other criteria considered in the evaluation of water quality impacts are the need to dredge or place fill material in streams or wetlands, effects on sole source aquifers, or the need to discharge storm water into surface waters. 4,7.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The existing airport at Kalispell and adjacent lands where development activities are proposed are located in relatively flat terrain which is not subject to extensive erosion due to surface runoff. The proposed airport construction would cause minor changes to local topography by lowering high areas and filling low areas to provide safe terrain adjacent to the runway, connecting taxiways; and iaxilanes. The disturbance of areas to facilitate expansion and realignment of the runway would increase the potential for surface erosion and sediment transport during construction. The design of the proposed airport facilities would ensure that 4-19 Kalispell gLtZ Airport Final Environmental Assessment ponding does not occur on paved areas after intense storms and would include measures to convey and/or retain storm water on the airport property. Construction would not be required in or around flowing water in Ashley Creek. The potential exists for temporary decreases in water quality if major precipitation events occur during the construction of the project and sediment -laden runoff discharged into surface waters. However, the proposed action would not be expected to have any long --term adverse effect on the water quality of the Kalispell area. No surface disturbance would occur in or adjacent to any surface water bodies such as streams, lakes, ponds, or wetlands. The design of storm drainage facilities for the airport runway, taxiways, and other paved surfaces would be designed to adequately handle anticipated runoff without causing problems on adjoining properties. The storm drainage plan would consider existing topography and drainage patterns . The proposed action has the potential to affect a storm drainage conveyance and detention facility being developed by NIDT as part of their planned reconstruction of U.S. Highway 93. Plans are currently being developed by MDT to construct a storm water detention basin between the existing airport property and Ashley Creek. Storm drainage piping could be built across lands needed for expansion of the airport's runway. The contractor for the proposed project would be required to follow FAA guidelines for protecting water quality during construction activities. Since this project would involve more than 5 acres of clearing, grading or excavation, a general Discharge Pen -nit for Storm. water Associated with Construction Activity would be required from the MIDEQ Permitting and Compliance Division. This permit requires that an erosion control plan specifying measures to control erosion and restrict the transport of sediments to receiving waters. Implementation of erosion control pleasures would ensure that the water quality in the area is protected. No direct effects on groundwater would be expected from the proposed action since cuts and fills would not expose aquifers or affect springs. 4.7.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not excavate or place fill material in streams or wetlands, affect groundwater sources, or alter current stormwater discharge patterns. 4.8 Floodplain Impacts A "significant" encroachment on the floodplain would cause one or more of the following impacts: 1) the action would have a high probability of loss of human life; 2) the action would have substantial, encroachment -associated costs or damage, including interrupting aircraft service or loss of a vital transportation facility; or 3) the action causes adverse impacts to effects to natural and beneficial floodplain values. 4-20 Kali eff qity Air ort Final Environmental Assessment 4,.8.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action FIGURE 4-6. shows the proposed airport layout superimposed on the FEMA floodplain map lands in the project area. The map shows that a hangar and apron area and taxiway for the proposed airport would be near, but not within the designated 100-year floodplain of Ashley Creek. Without a detailed survey of the local topography and a design for the airport facilities, a conclusive determination cannot be made as to whether the 100-year floodplain of Ashley Creek would be affected by the proposed action. However, the design of the proposed airport can be developed to avoid any encroachment on the floodplain. The proposed project would comply with Executive Order No. 11988 by not promoting or encouraging development within the floodplain or increasing flood liability hazards. Airport development outside the base floodplain has a minor potential to affect natural and beneficial floodplain resources and values. The additional paved area of the runway and apron area would cause minor increases in the amount of runoff from the airport. However, the increased amounts of runoff would not be substantial enough to make downstream flooding more severe. Flathead County has adopted Floodplain Development Regulations and administers the delineated floodplains for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Coordination would be undertaken during the design of the airport to determine the need, if any, for a Floodplain Development Permit. 4.8.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative This alternative would have no impacts on floodplains since the existing airport property is not within the designated 100-year floodplain associated with Ashley Creek. 4.9 Biotic Communities Impacts on wildlife are considered to occur if the proposed action removes or substantially alters wildlife or waterfowl habitat, displaces wildlife species, or substantially changes the use of habitat by wildlife species. Impacts to water resources, vegetation, wetlands, and threatened or endangered species may also be indicative of impacts on wildlife. 4.9,1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The project area is surrounded commercial and residential development. Very limited native vegetative habitat exists in the project area due to this use. According to the Biological Resources Memorandum prepared for this project by Land & Water Consulting, Inc., the project area does not provide critical habitat for any wildlife species. Impacts to wildlife species in the project area due to the planned airport improvements would be temporary displacement during construction and the loss of minor amounts of habitat. Some displaced species (particularly bird 4-2 1 Kalispell gtZ Airport Final Environmental Assessment species and small mammals) would be expected to return to airport lands following the completion of construction. The proposed action would cause no long-term negative impacts or irretrievable losses to wildlife or habitat. Cumulative impacts of this proposed action and other developments in the area would not result in a decline of wildlife species or numbers. Unnecessary disturbance beyond the construction zone would be avoided to minimize adverse impacts on local wildlife habitat. Noxious weeds often flourish in areas of newly exposed soils; therefore, the spread of noxious weeds is a concern due to the relatively large surface disturbances anticipated on the existing and proposed airport property. once noxious weeds become established, they are often extremely difficult and very expensive to eradicate or control. Of the 23 listed or proposed noxious weeds in Montana, 18 have been identified in Flathead County over the last twenty years. Executive order No. 13112 addresses the responsibilities of federal agencies with respect to invasive species. In accordance with the Executive order, the Sponsor would implement measure with the proposed action to help prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Kalispell City Airport project area. These measures would include coordinating the project with the County weed Board, promptly reseeding disturbed areas with desirable vegetation, and requiring the contractor(s) to follow procedures to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. This proposed project's contractor must follow the requirement of the County Noxious Weed Management .Act (7-22-2101, M.C.A.), the Flathead County weed Management Program, and any contract provisions addressing noxious weed control. 4,9.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative This alternative would not impact existing wildlife habitat or native plant communities. There would be no change to the existing use of habitat by wildlife species in the project area. 4.10 Endangered/Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna Threatened and endangered species include those species listed or proposed for listing by the USFwS as threatened or endangered. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, activities conducted, sponsored, or funded by federal agencies must be reviewed for their effects on species federally listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Impacts to endangered and threatened species present in the project area may occur if the proposed action destroys or causes adverse modifications to habitat determined to be critical for such species. A biological assessment is needed to determine whether such species are likely to be affected by the proposed action and what the effects would be. Consultation under Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act is required if a potentially significant impact is likely. 4 22 V,-, Ka/ispe// City Airport Environmental Assessment --ZONE A5 See Detail For City Flood Boundaries Rj ZONE A7 ZONE B 17 ZONE B < ZONE A7 ZONE C -ZONE B —ZONE B ZOZONi N ZONE B .ZONE C �.+.. 20 !ONE A7 F' 2 9 22,; ZONE B AA 0 9' 2 Site19C, Pr., t I e ZONE A7 Scale in Feet 0 1600 x 800 Aram} Site 2 7. Zz Detail of City Ai ZONE B L DE, VAILED ISTUDY ZONE C ZONE 4� FRY RGAjD L 0 KEY TO MAP ZONE 9 s ZONE 0 graph 10 . cdr Cr, ZONE B Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Map, October, 1996 Scale in Feet 0 1000 I i 500 Figure 4-b: Fioodplain Map For Lands Near the Airport 4-23 FCafis ell Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment 4,10.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The identification of threatened and endangered species and evaluation of potential effects was conducted in accordance with the Endangered Species Act. Based on coordination with the USFwS, the following threatened or endangered species could occur in the Kalispell City Airport project area: o Grizzly Bear — Threatened species; Q Gray wolf -- Endangered species; o Bald Eagle — Threatened species; 0 Bull Trout — Threatened species; o Canada Lynx -- Threatened species; and 0 Spalding's Champion — Threatened species. Impacts to threatened and endangered species can be categorized as direct or indirect effects and such effects may be short-term or long-term.. Direct effects are results of the proposed action. Direct effects may include loss of habitat and mortality of individuals. Indirect effects are effects caused by the proposed action that are reasonably certain to occur. Primary indirect effects include potential disturbance and displacement of individuals, decrease in reproductive success, and habitat degradation. For many species, the magnitude of effects would depend on the timing and duration of construction activities. The potential impacts associated with improving the Kalispell Airport to bald eagles and bull trout with are known to occur in the general vicinity of the airport project are described below. ■ Bald Ea des. Bald eagles historically occurred in most of North America and continue to be widely disturbed throughout the U.S. and Canada. Human encroachment and the use of pesticides resulted in the eagle's range being substantially reduced to less developed areas across North America causing its listing as an endangered species in 1975. Population increases over the years have resulted in the species being down --listed from endangered to threatened in 1995. In July 1999, the USFwS proposed that bald eagles be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species. Bald eagles are year-round residents throughout Montana. Correspondence from the USFwS indicates that bald eagles may occur in the Kalispell area as transients (migrants) in the area. The main food source for bald eagles is medium to large fish (caught and carrion), but they will also eat small to medium sized mammals, birds, and big game carrion. Bald eagles use riparian, lake, or reservoir areas year round and usually nest in large trees within one mile of shorelines. The nearest known Bald Eagle nests are at least 1.5 miles east of the Airport project and occur along the Stillwater River system. The proposed action is not near any other known nests or territories for bald eagles. Bald Eagles are not expected to use or traverse through the project area for the purposes of roosting, nesting, or feeding. Direct impact to bald eagles as a result of the proposed airport improvements would be 24 Kali ell Cif Air orb Final Environmental Assessment minimal since new facilities would be at least one-half mile from the riparian corridor of the Stillwater River System. None of the activities associated with the proposed project action would remove riparian vegetation that could be used as foraging, roosting, and/or nesting sites. The project would not encroach upon the nest site area, primary use area, or home range of the existing bald eagle nest located along the Stillwater River. The power lines present some potential for electrocution of bald eagles and other raptors. This adverse indirect effect could be mitigated if any overhead power lines requiring relocation as a result of the project are raptor -proofed. The proposed action would not have any cumulative impacts on bald eagles or increase any existing negative effects on local or regional populations of such species. Based on the above information, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle. ■ Bull Trout. Ashley Creek occurs adjacent to the Kalispell Municipal Airport, but outside the project area flows. According to the Montana Natural Heritage Program., there are no known occurrences of bull trout throughout Ashley Creek from Ashley Lake to its confluence with the Flathead River. Therefore, it is determined that implementation of the proposed project will not affect the bull trout. ■ Grizz1y Bear. Although the Kalispell City Airport falls within the distributional range of the grizzly bear, the project site and nearby surroundings do not contain habitat for the grizzly bear. There are no known occurrences of grizzly bear at or around the project site. The Kalispell airport and its surroundings do not contain native habitats and are not capable of supporting grizzly bear. Therefore, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action will not affect the grizzly bear. ■ Canada L n. As with grizzly bears, the Kalispell City Airport falls within the distributional range of the lynx. However, the project site and nearby surroundings do not contain habitat for the lynx. Lynx require habitat consisting of dense, mature or old - growth lodgepole pine, Douglas -fir, Engelmann spruce, or subalpine fir forests with a well -developed understory. The airport and its surroundings do not contain native habitats and are not capable of supporting lynx. Therefore, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action will not affect the Canada lynx. ■ Spalding's Campion. There are no known current or historical occurrences of Spalding's 11111 II I NII IPI II III II.IIIII.1 Campion within a five mile radius. In addition, the project site and its.nearby surroundings do not contain habitat for the threatened plant. Therefore, it is determined that implementation of the proposed action will not affect the Spalding's campion. The USFWS concurred with the above assessments of potential effects to threatened and endangered species and their habitats in correspondence dated September 19, 2002. A copy of the USFWS's concurrence letter can be found in APPENDIX B . 4 25 Kali ell 2LtL Air- ort Final Environmental Assessment 4.10.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative This alternative would not change the habitat that presently exist on or near the Kalispell City Airport or affect the use of habitat important to federally -listed or candidate species. 4ol 1 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Impacts would occur if the proposed action affects historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural properties on or determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRBP). If such resources are present, the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.3) must be applied to determine if the proposed action would directly or indirectly affect the characteristics of the property that qualified it for inclusion in the NRHP. 4,11.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action A cultural resources consultant researched and conducted a field inventory of the area of potential effect for the proposed airport improvement project at Kalispell City Airport. Based on this work, there were no cultural resources or properties identified within the area affected by the proposed action. The Montana SHPO concurred with this conclusion in correspondence to the FAA dated March 21, 2002. 4,,11,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Since the no -action alternative involves no further development of the site, impacts to cultural resources are unlikely. The continued operations and maintenance of the airport would not affect cultural resource properties that have been recorded in the area. 4.12 Farmlands The proposed action would affect farmland if the project requires the acquisition of farmland that will be converted to nonagricultural use. Impacts to lands that meet the definitions of prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of state or local importance are of interest to the USDA.. If such farmland is affected, it must be determined if any of the lands are protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). 4,12,1 Impacts of the Proposed Action Information obtained from the MRCS shows that two soils meeting the "Prime Farmland, If Irrigated" classification, would be affected by the proposed improvements to Kalispell City Airport. however, this Prime Farmland is already in or committed to urban development. According to 7 CFR 658.2(a), such farmland is not subject to the FPPA. The preparation of a Farmland Conversion .impact Rating form. (AD-1006) was not necessary. 4-26 Kalis ell git Ar"r ort Final Environmental Assessment 4,12.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not impact any new areas of soils meeting prime, unique, or important farmland classifications. 4al 3 Energy Supply And Natural Resources Impacts on the energy supply and natural resources may occur if changes in the stationary facilities at the airport cause a measurable effect on local supplies of energy, if the proposed action causes increased consumption of fuel by aircraft and ground vehicles, or if unusual materials that are in short supply are needed for the proposed airport improvements. 4,13,1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The forecast of airport use at Kalispell indicates that aviation activities are expected to slowly but steadily grow over the foreseeable future. This projected increase in aviation activity would cause minor increases in aviation fuel consumption but would not substantially change the use of other natural resources. The proposed improvements would not cause any major changes in ground access to the airport that would substantially increase energy consumption. No natural resources needed for the construction of the airport improvements are in short supply. 4,13,2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Increased aviation activity and related minor increases in the consumption of aviation fuel are expected at Kalispell in the future with or without the proposed improvements at the airport. The No Action Alternative would not cause notable changes in the use of energy or natural resources. Maintenance activities at the airport would continue to consume minor amounts of fuel and require small amounts of natural resources in abundant supply to construct or repair airport pavements or buildings. 4n14 Light Emissions The proposed action would have an impact if the beam angle, intensity, color, or flashing sequence of airport lighting would create an annoyance for people in the vicinity of the airport. 4.14.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action A new radio -controlled Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) system would be installed along Runway 13131. Additionally, the proposed action would replace the existing beacon and install a lighted wind cone on the new site near the center of the airfield. Retro-reflective markers or lights would be installed along the taxiways. The only other lights visible at the airport would be security lighting for the apron area, hangars, and other private facilities. 4-27 Kaiis ell Cit Ar'r on Final Environmental Assessment As indicated previously, the Sponsor's proposed action may include the installation of runway end identifier lights (REELs) at one or both ends of the new runway. REILs would benefit pilots approaching the facility at night, particularly because the runway would be located in close proximity to ambient lighting associated with a variety of adjacent land uses and highway and street lighting. MILS would help to better identify the runway against the back drop of existing lighting in the area. R.EILs typically flash as a strobe and could potentially cause lighting impacts to some adjacent residences. To minimize or avoid such effects, REILs can be baffled or consideration can be given to installing the lighting features at one end of the runway end as opposed to both ends. The above -mentioned improvements would essentially be replacements for the existing system.. The newer components would likely have a slightly higher intensity than the existing ones. Light emissions would not be of the type or intensity to hinder traffic on nearby roads or create new annoyances for people near the airport. The lighting associated with the proposed action is considered comparable to that of the existing facility and therefore would not be expected to create any new impact for land uses near the airport. 4,14.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative There would be no change from the existing conditions at the Kalispell City Airport. The existing LIRL system for the runway and a lighted beacon would remain in service at the airport. 4,15 Hazardous Wastes and Solid Waste Impacts Solid waste impacts may arise if the location of existing solid waste collection, control, and disposal facilities are within 5000 feet of the runway because birds or other wildlife frequenting the refuse site may create a hazard for aircraft. 4.15.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action The proposed action would not have any direct relationship to solid waste collection, control, or disposal other than that associated with construction of the airport improvements. Sanitation pickup services or disposal services would be available through Flathead County or the City of Kalispell. The Kalispell wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the vicinity of the proposed airport improvements. The FAA considers these types of facilities hazards when they exist within 5,000 feet of an airport because of their attractiveness to birds. Although the City's wastewater treatment facility is within the 5,000 feet of Kalispell City Airport, the entire facility is enclosed and is not considered an attractant. As indicated in PART 3.0, several generators, transporters, treaters, starers, and disposers of hazardous waste listed on the state's Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) exist on lands adjoining or near the airport. Information from the MDEQ (UST/LUST fxalis ell Zit Lrport Final Environmental Assessment lists) did not identify any likely sources of contamination from underground storage tanks on lands needed to improve the airport. However, improving Kalispell Municipal Airport as proposed would require the acquisition of some land southeast of the existing airport now housing a wrecking yard containing vehicles that are a potential source of hazardous waste. The fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and related items associated with the vehicles and equipment needed for constructing the airport improvements also represent a potential source of hazardous wastes for this proposed project. The contractor would have to take precautions to minimize the effects of construction operations and to prevent leakage or spilling of fluids from construction equipment. Disposal of non -salvageable and leftover materials would be in accordance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including the Montana Solid waste Management Act (75-10-203, M.C,A.). To address potential hazardous waste concerns and identify remediation and cleanup needs (if any), the City will conduct a due diligence audit of any properties to be acquired for airport improvements suspected to accommodate sources of hazardous materials or that have been contaminated by past hazardous material spills on adjoining lands. The audit will be completed prior to the acquisition of required lands. As discussed earlier in this Part, the FAA cannot fund environmental remediation activities (such as the removal of contaminated soils and the mitigation of leaking underground storage tanks) through the Airport Improvement Program. If such activities were necessary on lands required for the airport project, these cleanup costs would have to be borne by the City and/or the affected property owner. 4.15.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative This alternative would not cause any solid waste impacts or affect any hazardous waste sites. 4.16 Construction Impacts 4.16.1 Probable Impacts During Construction Construction of all new facilities would shut down the existing airport for about four months. A wider runway would be built and accessed from a single parallel taxiway. New airport businesses and services, hangars, and tie -downs would be limited to one side of the new runway. Construction activities would cause specific environmental impacts that are adverse in nature but localized to the project site. These impacts would be temporary and their degree of adversity would be reduced as construction activities are completed. The following impacts are anticipated during the construction of the proposed improvements at the Kalispell City Airport: Temporary increases in noise levels due to the operation of construction equipment. Temporary and minor impacts on air quality due to vehicle emissions from construction equipment and generation of particulates (dust) from the operation of heavy equipment and paving. 4-29 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment n Temporary displacement and minor loss of habitat for some small mammals and birds. 0 Increased traffic volumes on airport access roads and other routes due to workers and equipment traveling to and from the airport site. o The temporary disturbance and/or loss of vegetation from areas where airport development activities would occur. 0 The generation of waste products from workers and construction activities on the site. The provisions of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10, Standardsfor Specifying Construction of Airports, (change 10), Item P-156, Temporary .Air and water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, would be incorporated into the project specifications. other FAA guidance concerning airport drainage, environmental enhancement, and construction controls would be evaluated for provisions that may be incorporated into the contract specifications to minimize the potential impacts of construction activities. Necessary permits for compliance with Federal and State air and water quality statutes would be required. 4.16.2 Permits/Licenses To Be Obtained During Construction The following permits must be obtained during construction of the proposed airport improvements at Kalispell. obtaining these permits would be the responsibility of the Contractor selected to construct the airport improvements or the supplier of materials needed for the project. Air ualit -Related Permits. Asphalt plants and crushers producing surfacing materials for the airport project must have an air quality permit from the MDEQ Permitting and Compliance Division. The supplier of any crushed rock material needed for construction must have an air quality permit from the MDEQ. Any open burning must be accomplished in accordance with state or county regulations for such action. Construction activities are also required to control fugitive dust with water trucks in residential and commercial areas. Water -Related Permits. A General Discharge Permit for Storm water Associated with Construction Activity under the Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MPDES) must be obtained from the MDEQ. As a requirement for this permit, a storm water erosion control plan specifying the measures that would be employed during construction to control erosion and sediment transport by storm runoff. If determined necessary during the design of the airport, the Proposed Action would also be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (404 Permit), the NIDFWP (124SPA or 310 Permit), and Flathead County (Floodplain Development Permit). 4-30 ftal 2 ell qky Ar ort Final Environmental Assessment 4al 7 Other Considerations 4.17,1 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls for the Area Concerned The proposed action would not disrupt or divide the community, impede its orderly development, and does not conflict with the land use planning and goals of Flathead County or the City of Kalispell. 4,17,2 Any Inconsistency of the Proposed Action with Approved State or Local Plans and Laws The proposed action would be consistent and in compliance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and environmental standards. 4,17,3 Means to Mitigate Adverse Environmental Impacts Measures to mitigate both short -terra and long --term effects of the proposed action are discussed as appropriate elsewhere in this PART. The discussion includes actions to minimize construction impacts of adverse nature. 4.17.4 Degree of Controversy on Environmental Grounds To date, no Federal, State, or local agencies have opposed the proposed action. The general public has expressed little opposition to the planned expansion of Kalispell City Airport up to this point in the project. Concerns have been heard from the owners properties adjoining the airport that may be affected by the project. The majority of the comments heard relate to the valuation of affected property, the protracted nature of the project, and changes in access. Implementing the Proposed Action has the potential to generate additional controversy with adjoining landowners if efforts to acquire lands needed for the project result in condemnations. The resolution of the KGEz tower issue also has the potential to create conflict between the owner of the radio station and the City. If tower relocation occurs, identifying and locating a site for new broadcast towers may be controversial within the community. 4,17,5 Proposals that Could Affect the Sponsor's Proposed Action The FAA recently conducted an aeronautical study concerning a proposal to site a new radio antenna tower within the northeast portion of the City of Kalispell. A group identified as Broadcasting for the Challenged has proposed to construct a new 636--foot-high broadcast tower. 4-3 1 Kal efl gLt 6Lrport Final Environmental Assessment Kalispell City Airport property is located approximately 6,000 feet from the proposed antenna site. Evaluations of the proposed tower's location shows that the new tower would cause significant penetrations of the Part 77 surfaces for the existing and proposed airport facilities. Such penetrations would have serious consequences on the safe operation of the current or future Kalispell City Airport. The tower proposal could also jeopardize future development plans for improving Kalispell City Airport. The proposed tower has the potential for creating electronic interference with the precision instrument approach facilities at GPLA.. On June 21, 2002, the FAA determined that the proposed tower would have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and traffic patterns at Kalispell City Airport. The FAA concluded that the proposed structure represents a hazard to air navigation and forwarded their findings to the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) for consideration in making a future licensing decision. The FAA completed an aeronautical study for a second tower proposal, a 195--foot-high broadcast structure proposed near the center of the City in August. This proposal, submitted in July 2002, would have placed a tower almost immediately north of Kalispell City Airport and within the Part 77 surface of the existing and proposed airport. The FAA initially issued a Determination of No hazard to Aviation but later cancelled the determination on August 20, 2002. The Sponsor is aware that the FAA received a third tower proposal in August 2002. This proposal is for a structure identical in size and location 4to the tower proposal submitted in July and acted upon previously. The FAA is presently accepting comments on the proposal before making a determination with respect to its effects on air navigation in the Kalispell area. The receipt of these tower proposals suggests the need for the City to consider the benefits of enacting airport zoning to ensure that airspace at Kalispell City Airport is protected from such incompatible land uses. 4-32 KALISPELL CITYAIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Final Environmental Assessment DICES APPEN ... ......... ...... Kal 2 ell Cit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment la ■ r#ill gl[EAll 3A11=0 ■ ■ Kali ell fit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX A: PREPARERS OF THE EA Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Planners, and Designers, located in Helena, Montana provided the transportation, civil and environmental engineering analysis contained in this Environmental Assessment. The Federal Aviation Administration and the Montana Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division offered technical expertise and policy guidance during the preparation of the EA. Additionally, the City of Kalispell and the Kalispell City Airport Board provided local expertise and review comments for this airport development action. The following persons were responsible for providing technical support and/or review comments on this Environmental Assessment. Federal Aviation Administration Dave Stelling, Manager, Airports District office, Helena Dave G abbert, Manager, Airports District office, Helena (Retired) Gary Gates, Community Planner, Airports District office, Helena Montana Department of Transportation, Aeronautics Division Deb Alke, Administrator Jim Griel, Aviation Representative, Airport/Airways Bureau City of Caan n s Chris K.ukulski, City Manager Mike Baker, Director of Parks and Recreation, Airport Manager Kalispell City Airport Advisory Board Gib Bissell Art Thompson Keith Robinson Tom Weaver Fred L.eistiko Nli.ke Manion Scott Richardson Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. The qualifications of the personnel from Robert Peccia & Associates directly responsible for preparing this Environmental Assessment are as follows: Philip Porrini, P.E., Montana #4731PE B.E. Civil Engineering/1974 Phil Porrini joined Robert Peccia & Associates in 1992 and is the Airport Division Manager for P-1 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment the firm. Mr. Porrini provides overall project management and quality assurance for airport projects done by the firm. He has 28 years of engineering experience in the State of Montana and has been involved with the planning, design and construction of air carrier and general aviation airport improvement projects throughout the Northwest. Mr. Porrini has served as Project Manager on over 35 Airport Improvement Projects over the last seven years, including the Kalispell City Airport Improvements Project. He provided technical reviews of this Environmental Assessment. Bill Burkland, P.E., Montana #12845PE M.S. Applied Mathrnatics of Science and Engineering/1993 B.S. Civil Engineering/ 1997 Since joining Robert Peccia & Associates 5 years ago, Bill Burkland has designed and inspected pavement maintenance projects at Ennis, Lewistown, and Glasgow. He has assisted Glasgow and Lewistown with airport zoning projections. Mr. Burkland coordinated the 2000, 1998-99, and 1997 Montana Aviation System Plans that have included inventories, forecasts, and Pavement Conditions Indexes (PCI). He has inspected pavements at 42 of Montana's 59 NPIAS GA airports and inspected earthwork, paving and other airport construction at Lewistown, Fort Benton, Dillon, and Liberty County (Chester) Airports. Mr. Burkland was also the principal author of the Kalispell City .Airport Site Selection Study. Fhs understanding of the proposed layout for the proposed Kalispell Airport facilitated the analysis of potential environmental impacts at the site. Daniel M. Norderud, AICP, Certified Planner #013117 B.S. Earth Sciences/1978 Dan Norderud is an transportation/environmental planner and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, and the Montana Association of Planners. Mr. Norderud has 24 years of experience in preparing environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, and other documents for airport and highway improvement projects. His responsibilities for the Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment included being one of the document's principal authors, coordinating the project with involved management agencies, analyzing the impacts of airport construction, identifying appropriate mitigating measures for impacts, and participating in public involvement activities. Trisha M. Jensen B.S. Biological Sciences/1998 Trisha Jensen is an environmental planner for Robert Peccia & Associates and has experience writing environmental assessments and other environmental documents for airport and highway improvement projects. Her responsibilities for the Kalispell City Airport Improvements project included being a contributing author to the environmental assessment, coordinating agency involvement, and analyzing the impacts of airport construction. P-2 Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment RPA Subconsultants for the EA Ethos Consultants John Brumley John Brumley is a consulting archaeologist and historian based in Havre, MT with more than 30 years of experience. Mr. Brumley owns and operates Ethos Consultants and has prepared numerous cultural resource inventory documents for highway and airport improvement projects in Montana. Ethos Consulting performed all field investigations and research necessary for the cultural resources inventory for the Kalispell City Airport project. Mr. Brumley also serves as the Curator of Archaeology at the H. Earl Clack Museum in Havre. Land &. rater Consultina, Inc. Mark Traxler, wildlife Biologist/Wetland Scientist B.S. wildlife Biology Mr. Traxler conducts vegetation and wildlife baseline studies, environmental impact analyses, wetland delineations and functional assessments, and mitigation planning and design. Prior to joining Land & water, Mr. Traxler worked for the Montana Department of Transportation, where his work focused on environmental impact analyses and mitigation planning and design. He has experience in stream and wetland restoration design, fish passage design through culverts and the use of wildlife crossing structures for maintaining habitat connectivity. Mr. Taxler has prepared numerous Biological Resources Reports and Biological Assessments for inclusion in various environmental documents. Big Sky Ac ❑ u stt c ri ,i. L L.rlllll,1 Sean Connolly, P.E. Master of Mechanical Engineering/1995 B.S. Mechanical Engineering/1992 Mr. Connolly formed the acoustical consulting firm in 1999 and has been an acoustical consultant since 1995. As an acoustical consultant, he has been directly responsible for design and project management in environmental noise assessment and control. Mr. Connolly's experience includes measurement, assessment and prediction of noise levels to determine negative impacts at noise -sensitive locations, comparison of noise levels to guidelines, ordinances, and regulations, and preparation of written reports, and the noise sections of environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. His environmental project experience has included site assessments to determine the impact of noise due to highway traffic, railroads, airports, industrial facilities, power generation equipment, and mechanical system equipment such as fans, condensers and cooling towers. P-3 Kali ell Airport Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B: AGENCY COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ICalis ell Air o Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX B: AGENCY COORDINATION AND COMMENTS List of Agencies and Persons Consulted Federal Agencies: Gary Gates Federal Aviation Administration Airports District Office 2725 Skyway Drive, Suite 2 Helena, MT 59602-1213 John Dalberg, Area Manager Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Northwestern Land Office 2250 Highway 93 North Kalispell, MT 59901-2557 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 100 North Park, Suite 320 Helena, MT 59601 U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Kalispell Service Center 30 Lower Valley Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901--7921. Earl Appl.ekamp U.S. Department of Agriculture Flathead National Forest Kalispell, MT State A encies: r.irrinnnnni -- riin..w^nnunn.�o� Steve Welch, Administrator Department of Environmental Quality Permitting and Compliance Division P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Dan Vincent, Regional Supervisor Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Region 1 490 North Meridian Rd. Kalispell, MT 59901 Walt Timmerman Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Parks Division P.U. Box 200701 Helena, MT 5 9 620-07 01 State Historic Preservation Office Montana Historical Society P.O. Box 201202 Helena, MT 59620-1.202 Bob Hab eck Department of Environmental Quality Planning, Prevention, and Assistance Division P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Local interests or concerns: Forrest Sanderson, Director Flathead County Planning & Zoning Office 723 5t' Avenue East, Room 414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Flathead County Commissioners 800 S. Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901-5400 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Creston Fish and Wildlife Center 780 Creston Hatchery Road Kalispell, Montana 59901 September 19, 2002 Mr. Daniel Norderud Environmental Studies Division Manager Robert Pecca and Associates P.O. Box 5653 825 Custer Avenue Helena, MT 59604 Subj: Preliminary Environmental Evaluation for the Improvement Project at Kalispell City Airport located in Flathead County, Montana. Dear Mr. Ward. - This is in response to your letter dated September 5, 2002, requesting comments and concerns regarding the subject project. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) does not believe any species listed, or proposed listed, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), are present within the action area- of the project and concurs with your assessment of no effect to listed species. Therefore. unless the project area changes or a new species, is listed this concludes any actions pursuant to the Act. The Service values open discussion- regarding listed species and values -your efforts,to e any impacts. Should you have any questions regarding the Act or the consultation process please Ball Paul Hanna at 406 758-6871. Sincerely, Tigiothy B o durtha Kalispeff office -Supervisor SEP 3 0 2002 ITES i - City of Kalispe-1-1 . ... .. ......... ... . ... . ......... Font Office Box 1997 --- Kahspell. I1►d.ontaTm 59903-1997 --Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(4 6)758-7758 To: PHM PORRINI, PECCIA. & ASSOC, FROM; PJr SORENSEN, ZONING ADMUffSTRATOR DATE: J UNE 13, 2002 ICE: KALISPEX.. L Crff AI"ORT EA In referencc to Section 3.2.E "Existing Land Uses and Zoniniz " I would hce to clarify a few points. Ffis4 and most importantly, the City ofKaHspell has enacted a Tesolution lfin g the height of bu &ags as provided in Section. 67-5-20I, MCA, et �„ rela i g to airport areas. Those sections substantWly ME'l or the FAA regulations_ A copy of our resolution (Resolution No. 4451) is attached. Second, areas to the south and along the southwest portion of the airport are not within the city limits and are covered by county zoning. Paragraph 2 and several other paragraphs cazY be read to indicate that the City has zoned those properties, which is not the case. Fbmlly, paragraph 3 indicates that the airwrt sands are zoned P-1. It shoWd be noted that a substantial area owned by the City and designated for hangers and other airport related improvements is zoned i- I. �o�IoNiJ w _4451- A RESOLUTION 'AMMDING RBSOL13TION No, 3306 BY REDEFINING TZZ PERTER BOUNDARY of THE LAMING FIELD of TI 111 I€ALISPELL CITY AIRPORT. wHEREM , the, City of Kalispell established the perimeter boundary of the Yza l i spe 1.1 City Airport through Resolution 3306 on September 8, 1980 and wHREAS, Phase I of a feavibility study for the Kalispell City Airport has recently been completed, revealing certain discrepancies between the height restrictions established by Resolution 330t and height restrictions desired by the Federal. Aviatiau Administration as past of an upgrade to the airport; and WHEREAS. the height of build lang'!u and other structures surrounding the airport should be subJ ect to such regulation as to promote the public order, health, and safety, and to help ensure the airport and surrounding u.s e s are compatible with a potential upgrade of the airport facilities. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of KALISPEM , moNTANA r AS FOLLowS IRCTIO�: That Resolut ion 3 3 0 � is hereby amended by . deleting all paragraphs begi4ning with '"Now THEREFORE r BE IT RESOLVED9 and replacing said paragraphs with the following ' Bz=XnM I . That for purposes of Section 6 7 - 5 - 2 0I M.C.A. * . the established perimeter boundary, as distinguished from the actual boundary of the Yca-l-ispel.l City Airport,, shall be defined as a Iine located on each side of the rmnway at one hundred twenty-five (3.25) feet from the runway center 1 i ne and extending two hundred (2 0 o) feet beyond. -each end of the runway, with the northwest ends of each such segment connected by a straight line two hundred fifty (2 5 0) feet in length and the southeast es of each such segment connected by a stra4.ght line two hundred f i f ty ( 2 5 0) feet in length 4451 airport iundaxt . wpd I That a scale draw'img of said established perimeter shall be prepared and made aval labs. e f or publ is inspection in the off ice of the City Building Department showing references and distances to established roads and other landmarks in the vicinity of the Kalispell. City A rport . The City Building Official shall use such scale drawing for reference purposes in issuing or denying building permits i� the enfoarcement of Title 67, Chapter 5 . Montana Code Annotated . ,w This Resolution Shall be come of fectiVe immediately upon its paseage by the City Council PASSED AID APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF TI CITY OF KALIS PELL , MO TANA, THIS DAY �� i. 1999.M WM,E,b(3hDrS)f1 . Wm. E. Boharski Mayor Attest: - 1; -0000 Tlieres a White Clerk of council 4451 airport boandary.wpd 2 LIAR, -28' 02 (THU) 09:37 AIRPORTS MST OFFICE TEL:406 449 5274 P. 001 .WOF F** U. S . D ep artxnent AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE FA " c� �' Transportation `,; , �= r.�'�' .'-, FAA Building, Suite 2 -: ' .9725 Skyway Drive Federal Aviation Helena, NIT 59602 14 March 5, 2002 r i• � 1 •• r r• A. Late Historic Preset-vation Office CONCUR Montana Historical Society NO PROPERTIES ON DR ELIGIBLE 1410 8th Avenue FOR NRHP APPEAR LIKELY To P_0. Box 201202 EXIST WITHIN PROJECT IMPACT ARER Helena,MT 59620--1202 M O N YA NA SHPO OATFZ1 SIGNE Dear Sirs: We are writing with regards to the Cultural Resource Inventory that was conducted by Egos Consultants for the Kalispell City Airport Environmental Assessment, Robert Peccia and Associates (RPA) who is the lead consultant on the project, had hired Ethos to perform the inventory and survey. RPA had submitted ,a letter to your office dated February 14, 2002 summarizing the findings of the Inventory and included a copy of the cultural resource inventory report. we have reviewed this report and agree with the conclusions reached by Ethos. The inventory and research efforts by Ethos Consultants Failed to identify any cultural resources materials or properties within the proposed project area. Please review the referenced material and advise us as to your concurrence or comments. If you have amy questions, please call me• at 449-52 30. Sincerely, )01 V 40' Gary M. Gates Community Planner GG: Daniel Norderud, Robert Peccia and Assoc. RECF1VVrn MAR 2 6 2002 oPnow& FORM ss (7-00) FAX" TRANSMITTAL of pages ■ Tc From d avii-►ems Phono # Fax # Fax 0 K 1-317-736B GENEFIAL N Record of Phone Conversation To: Project File From: Daniel M. Norderud, AICP CC: Date; January 28, 2002 Re: KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT EA Summary of Conversation: iu�..w.nr-nrrr. rrr.rwwrw�..�rs As a follow-up to a phone message left for Phil Porrini, I called Earl Applekamp of the USFS Forest Service -Flathead National Forest (Kalispell) (406) 758-5268. Earl had found a letter and notice in his in basket discussing a public meeting (in November) to be held and had a few questions about the project and its potential effects on USFS property. The USFS has a shop complex on a parcel located adjacent to the northwest portion of the airport. He said the drawing we provided showed a minor encroachment on the property and he wanted to get a bit more information about what was proposed. I told Earl that the drawing was very preliminary and that whatever the USFS wanted done (taxiway development into the property or avoidance) could be included in the project. He said that he wanted us to be aware that sale of this government property would be difficult due to all the required processes and that there might be a better chance of arranging for a land exchange if the property was essential for the project. I asked Earl how the property was used at present and he said their lot was fenced and they currently don't have direct access to the airport -- and would not need to have any access in the future. The USFS does arrange for flights from nearby services but there is no need to have any kind of taxiway developed onto their property. I mentioned that it would likely be very easy for us to avoid the need for encroaching on the USFS property. Follow-up Actions Required/Taken: Continue to keep Earl informed of meetings and ensure that the he receives a copy of the EA when its available. F:IA[ R PORTS\KALiS P EL\Envi m mt\Corresp\Phone2.doc Record of Phone Conversation To: Project File From: Daniel M. Norderud, AICP CC: Date: January 8, 2002 Re: KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT EA Summa of Conversation: I received a call today from Deb Dils, of the MDFW P in Helena. Deb called in response to the letter we sent out (at the FAA's request) during December 2001 asking for comments on the alternate sites under consideration for the Kalispell City Airport. Deb indicated that MDFW P had looked at the alternate sites and saw no conflicts with Section 4(f) or Section 6(f) LWCF funded recreational properties. She indicated that this call was being made in lieu of writing a letter to us conveying the information. I explained that her message would suffice and told her that the development of alternate sites was not likely since the existing airport had been identified as the preferred site in our site selection study. Follow-up Actions Re uiredlTaken: NONE. F:\AIRPORTS\KALISPEL\Envimmt\Corresp\Phonel.dot 1 Montana Department of Transportation David A. Galt, Director ser"ag_W-U with pryo�-' Aeronautics Division Judy Martz, Governor 2630 Airport Road PO Box 5178 Helena. MT 59604-5178 November 13, 2001 Robert Peccia and Associates Attn: Pall Porrini P.o, Box 5653 Helena, MT. 59504 Subject: Kalispell City Airport Project Dear Mr. Porrini: In regards to your request for comments relating to the Kalispell City Airport Project, the Montana Aeronautics Division offers the following comment: The Montana Aeronautics Division fully supports the outlined project and the continuing development of the Kalispell City Airport. our Division has already granted several thousands of dollars to the Kalispell community in support of this project through our airport loan and grant program. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or would like any additional information. Sincerely, 400( James R. Creil, Chief Ai rports/Airways Bureau Montana Aeronautics Division Cc: MDT Director's Office Kalispell City Airport File Frank Bass, Moore Craig Denney, Park City JoAnn Fisenzimen Cascade Lanny Hanson, Glasgow Phone: (446) 444-2506 Fax. (406) 444--2519 Aeronautics Board John Rabenberg, Fort Peck, Chairman An Equal QpAorWnhy Fmplgyer lima ' � �, `* � .��, ��; ., � �• '�' '.? NOV 1 5 ?001 Will Metz, Laurel Bob Palmersheim, Fromb&V Kenneth Tolliver, Billings George Warner, D111on T7-Y. (800) 335 7592 Web Page: www. mdt state. mt. us/aeronautial V, AnsIN .�4 . 4� MONTANA HISTORICAL SOCIETY 225 North Roberts � P.O. Box 201201 o. Helena, MT 59620-1201 (406) 444-2694 o. FAX (406) 444-2696 c. www. montanahistoricalsociety. org o December 7, 2001 Daniel M. Norderud Robert Peccia & Associates PO Box 5653 Helena, MT 59604 RE: KA.LISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. SHPO Project ##: 2001101002 Dear Mr. Norderud: Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the above -cited project. I conducted another file search for the preferred airport development site as well as searches for the alternate airport locations. There are currently several previously recorded historic sites within most of the proposed airport locations. In addition to the sites there have also been a few previously conducted cultural resource inventories. A review of these reports would indicate that none of them covered the potential airport sites. Given this lack of previous survey in the project areas and the ground disturbance that is required for this project we feel that this undertaking has the potential to impact known or unknown cultural properties. We, therefore, recommend that a cultural resource inventory be conducted in order to determine whether or not such sites exist and if they will be impacted. If you have any further questions or comments you may contact me at (406) 444-7767 or by e-mail at amurao ,state.�nt. us. Sincerely, Damon Murdo � Cultural Records Manager File: USIFAAJ2001 fn .2,; 4 tia-z rL ROBERT PECC K " T*"'-- 3, � A STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE c. 1410 s Ave � P.O. Box 201202 � Helena, MT 59620-1202 .cr (406) 444-7715 o. FAX (406) 444-6575 4 4' gym • United States Department of the Interior • FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE R►�cH 3�MONTANA FIELD OFFICE 100 N. PARS., SUITE 320 HELENA, MONTANA 59601 PHONE (406) 449-5225, FAX (406) 449-5339 M.29 November S, 2001 Daniel M. Norderud, AICP P.O. Box 5653 Helena, MT 59604 Dear Mr. Norderud: This is in response to your request received on October 10, 2001, requesting information on listed species in the vicinity of the Kalispell City Airport Improvement Project. Below is the current list of federally listed threatened (T) and endangered (B) species that may be present within the vicinity of Kalispell in Flathead County, Montana. We are providing this information to assist you in determining possible impacts of species of federal concern. Should there be future federal agency involvement with this project (through funding, permitting, licensing, or other authorization), then the involved agency will be required to assure its responsibilities under Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, (Act), are met. Listed S ec6 grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)(T) gray wolf (Canis lupus)(E) bald eagle Waliaeetus le"ccuepha?us)iT) bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)(T) Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)(T) Spalding's Campion (Silene spaldingii)(T) Ex ected Occurrence transient transient transient present in the Stillwater River and Whitefish River transient Upper Flathead River drainage and Tobacco Valley - open grasslands with rough fescue or bluebunch wheatgrass If you have any additional questions in regards to threatened and endangered species or the habitat requirements of these species please contact us by mail at the address above or call Leslie Kubin (406)758-6881. Your interest and cooperation in meeting our joint responsibilities under the Act are appreciated. Sincerely, r R. Mark Nilson, Montana Field Supervisor Copy to: Kalispell suboffice ppopp"401 Montana Department of E UALffY Judy H. Martz, Governor AVERO Q P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 (406) 444-2544 www.deq.state.mt.us October 26, 2001 Daniel M. Norderud, AICP Robert Peccia and Associates P.O. Box 5653 Helena, MT 59604 RE: Kalispell City Airport Improvement Project Dear Mr.'Norderud: Thank you for requesting the Department of Environmental Quality's input on potential permitting requirements for the proposed expansion and improvement of the Kalispell City Airport. Based upon information provided in your October .s' 2001, letter, I can identify only the Stormwater Discharge permit as necessary for the referenced project. To obtain additional information on this type of permit, please contact Brian Heckenberger of the Water Protection Bureau at (406) 444-5310. Thank you again for informing the Department of your project. Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Ist ve Welch Administrator Permitting and Compliance Division C. Bonnie Lovelace, Bureau Chief, water Protection Bureau Brian Heckenberger, Water Protection Bureau { s� . .. OCT 3 o 2001 ROBERT PECCIA Centralized Services Division • Enforcement Division • Permitting & Compliance Division - Planning, Prevention & Assistance Division * Remediation Division From: 'Susan Moyer" <smoyer@kalispell.com> To: <dan@rpa-hln.corn> Subject: Kalispell city Airport Improvement Project Date sent: Sat, 20 Oct 200 15:25:34 -0600 Organization: Kalispell Community Development I'm sorry about the delay in responding to your October 8th letter, I had just left on the 4th for a much needed vacation, As I am sure you are aware, the city within the past few years sold Lot 2 of the Daley field subdivision to Rosauers for a new grocery store. This store has been operational now for approximately a.year. We currently have Lots I and 3 up for sale through the RFP process. The only thing I know that cannot go on these sites is another grocery store or pharmacy per the City's development agreement with Rosauers. Todate this office has given out five RFPs on both sites and know that interest is ranging from a Ross's Department Store.. a hardware store, to miscellaneous office and retail mix. In the event the City is unsuccessful with disposing of these sites through the current RFP process, the City will then prepare a RFQ for a real estate commercial broker to handle the disposal of the property. Recently the City was contacted by David Horner of Red Eagle as to interest in buying his property. Under Urban Renewal law, the city is not in a position to acquire property without a development project in the wings that would accomplish the resale of the site in a timely fashion. Therefore, we declined interest in obtaining Mr. Horner's property, If you haven't contacted Mike Baker, Parks and Recreation Director, as to what he anticipates to be the adaptive reuse of the Armory site and when he feels the city will assume ownership. The city also has been asked to partner with Big R Ranch Supply, Penco, Tom Wiggin's building that currently houses DPHHS on a frontage road between these sites and the new highway construction. I believe Jinn Hansz has the square footage involved with the potential frontage room and traffic light as well as MDOT has concerns at the entrance area to the proposed light and additional footage needed to prevent stacking of cars. If there is anything else I can assist you with, please either email r Dan Norderud Mon, 22 Oct 2001 08:38:43 me at smoyer@kalispell.com or call me at 758-7743. Again, I apologize for the delay in responding, but I just carve back to work this past Thursday. Susan Moyer Dan Norderud -- 2 -- Mon, 22 Oct 200 08:38:43 Xali ell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX Cm. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT nalis ell 2L.A ort Final Environmental assessment APPENDIX Co. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 1. Early Project Notices Robert Peccia & Associates published a notice advertising the public hearing on the proposed airport development project in the Kalispell newspaper. The notice appeared in the "Valley" section of the November 4, 2001 and November 11, 2001 editions of the Daily Inter Lake. A public service announcement was sent on November S, 2001 to eight radio and television stations broadcasting in the Kalispell area. Copies of the notice and public service announcement are included in this Appendix. Letters to each registered owner of land that could be affected by the project were sent out on November 1, 2001 to advise of the public hearing and request for input into the development of the Kalispell City Airport Improvements project. 2. November 14, 2001 Meetings Two public meetings were held on November 14, 2001 to identify issues relevant to this Environmental Assessment. The meetings were held at 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in the Kalispell City Hall. Both meetings began with an introduction by Phil Porrini of Robert Peccia &Associates (RPA) summarizing the proposed project. Phil Porrini discussed that RPA was hired by the City to determine the feasibility of a General Aviation airport for Kalispell that meets FAA criteria and can be funded. RPA performed a site selection study with specific sites in the Flathead Valley that expanded on earlier Airport Master Planning. The purposes of the public meetings were to present technical and economic information and obtain feedback from the community on the selected site. The meeting also served as an opportunity to identify issues that should be considered in the Environmental Assessment. A site selection study completed by RPA has chosen a runway with the north end moved about 600' south of the current runway, and the south end rotated about 6 degrees to the southwest. Total costs for the facility are estimated to be about $8 million. The FAA has accepted and approved the site selection study, and allowed the Environmental Assessment to proceed. Bill Burkland of RPA summarized the site selection study undertaken for the project. The site selection study considered potential airport sites in the vicinity of Kalispell. The Airport Advisory Board worked with RPA to identify existing private airports, potential public airport sites, a selection criteria matrix, and an importance ranking for each selection criteria. RPA flew over eight potential sites and selected five for further study. The five study sites were evaluated using a weighted average of aeronautical and non- aeronautical considerations. The ultimate goal of the completed site selection study was to identify the best airport location to serve the City of Kalispell and to gain FAA approval. Kalispell City Airport is one of the busiest airports in the state but it does not meet current FAA standards for design and safe operations. The current airport property is not large enough to provide acceptable distances between aircraft and the 1Caiis e1i City Air ors Final Environmental Assessment surrounding developments. The FAA is requiring a Kalispell City Airport to meet the following FAA safety standards and conditions before it will be eligible to receive federal airport improvement matching funds: Acquire a land area 7,100 feet long by 700 feet wide sufficient to accommodate all necessary upgrades to the airport and protect airspace. Remove, relocate, or lower antennas south of the current airport. Increase safety spacing in a number of areas Enact airspace protections and land use restrictions within about 2 miles of the new airport. The proposed airport improvement s would offer a variety of benefits to the aviation community and the general public. These benefits are highlighted below. Safer conditions for the community and for air travelers, including removal of hazardous radio towers. Eligibility for FAA funding (90 percent of project costs) derived from aviation fuel taxes. Improved airport facilities with less cost to the City. Assured expansion and long-term protection potential for the airport and its airspace. Dan Norderud then informed the audience that RPA, on behalf of the City of Kalispell and the FAA, has begun work on an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed improvements at the Kalispell City Airport. Completing the EA is a requirement of the FAA and is necessary to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and FAA guidance for completing the document must be followed. Several specialized consultants are presently helping RPA identify and analyze the potential impacts to biological resources, wetlands, cultural resources, historical sites, and identify existing and projected aircraft noise levels. Dan Norderud said RPA is interested in collecting public comments on the proposed airport improvements at this time to help guide the "scope" and direct work on the EA. The EA will identify issues relevant to the project, present the alternatives under consideration, and analyze the environmental impacts of each reasonable alternative. The general schedule for completing the EA and for holding future public meetings was presented. RPA intends to have the Draft EA available for review and comment during the Spring of 2002. If the FAA, concludes from the EA that significant environmental impacts are likely, the City may be obligated to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prior to undertaking the project if impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated. Dan requested comments and questions from the attendees, and asked those who would rather not voice their opinions to send us written comments. Project summary information sheets and comment forms were passed out to all present. Questions and Comments from the 3:002.m. session: Question: Is the FAA requiring the airport be developed to the extent that it would be regularly accessible to business jets? 1Calis ell Cif Air ort Final Environmental Assessment Answer: No. The FAA is advocating purchasing or controlling land (leases, easements, etc.) for an airport that would accommodate the entire small aircraft fleet. However, the City could build a shorter runway or stage construction of additional runway length over time, if that's their desire. Two lengths being discussed are 3500' (supporting 75% of the small aircraft fleet) and 3700' (the current length), both of which would significantly discourage jet traffic. Building to the "ultimate" 4700' (100% of the small aircraft fleet) would allow many additional business jets to use the facility. The choice of runway length ranging between 3500' and 4700' will be entirely up to the City. Comment: An affected landowner feels IiPA has grossly underestimated the cost of acquiring the land necessary for airport improvements. He thinks the report's $5M is more likely to be $16M to $20M. Claims a Montana Department of Transportation (NMT) purchase for Highway 93 bypass right-of-way went for $6.50/SF,. Response: Preliminary costs were based on historical sales in the immediate region. Four costs for typical property types were estimated, then properties were pigeon --holed by type to provide good quality relative prices, but are by no means assessments of the property values. valuations of affected property will be more accurately established based on future work by real estate specialists on RPA's project team. Question: Has the FAA set an upper limit for their financial participation? Answer: Not a hard dollar figure, but they will set a "common sense" limit. They routinely spend $lM-$2M for complete reconstruction or new airport construction. They probably will not dedicate $10M to this or any other single airport improvement project. Question: Are FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds allocated for Montana spent exclusively in Montana? Answer: Yes. Question: Can FAA AIP funds be used to purchase land for the airport? Answer: Not up front. The FAA prefers that all of the property be under airport control, then have the airport owner request an FAA grant for reimbursement. This way the FAA knows what the final costs are, rather than being committed to a "moving target." They need not be involved in what sometimes becomes a protracted acquisition process until it is complete. Comment: MDT is currently planning a settling pond near Ashley Creek (near where the apron is shown on the proposed site drawing) with a storm drain pipe connecting underneath the planned runway. Response; Collected contact information for coordination: K. C. Yahvah, Hydraulics Kalis ell Cif kr orb Final Environmental Assessment Division, MDT, 444-7654 or Larry Brazda from MDT's Kalispell office. Question: will the current private access road running just south and west of the current runway, connecting Highway 93 to Cemetery and Airport Roads be cut off? Answer: Yes. The proposed project would purchase the land and relocate most of the businesses/residences using this road. Comment: Loving the North threshold 600 feet to the south is a badly needed improvement. Comment: Participant alleges there has been illegal filling of the flood plain. near Ashley Creek that has adversely affected the drainage of the land proposed for airport improvements. Asked that the project address appropriate drainage along the historical flow route. Response: Noted participant's recollection of historical drainage on drawings. A thorough site survey and plans for drainage facilities will be part of any design process. Question: what are the next critical steps in the process? Answer: Public information gathering to help establish the scope of the EA, determination of environmental impacts and the need for mitigating pleasures, public review and comment on the EA, FAA Finding of No Significant Impact (if appropriate), then land acquisition. Question: what is the soonest possible start of land acquisition? Answer: The Environmental Assessment is cheduled for completion in .Spring of 2002. FAA review would likely tale until summer 2002, then we anticipate 2 months to one year for appraisal, review appraisal, negotiations, and land acquisition. Construction of airport could be phased in as allowed by the City budget after that time. Comment: (by Gib Bissell and Dan Willis) The City has only $1M to spend on this project. That is a hard cap. Question: Is part of that $1 Million allocated toward developing the utility corridor on Highway 93? Answer: As airport consultants we are not sure what the City's plans are for funding the utility corridor along Highway 93 South. The $1M has been the commitment given by the City toward airport improvements Question: How many properties and owners are affected? Kalispell gLtL,ALr2ort Final Environmental Assessment Answer: There are proposed takings, or partial takings, from 35 parcels owned by 18 different parties. Comment: If a group of landowners put together a "package" for land acquisition, it is possible to satisfy the federal relocation assistance regulations and get the "best deal for everyone." .Response: Any method of acquiring the land that satisfies the federal Uniform Relocation Act should be eligible for FAA reimbursement. Question: How much would the radio towers need to be lowered? Answer: The towers are 325 feet tall and would need to be lowered 175 feet to alleviate their calculated penetration of the proposed airport's horizontal surface. Ouestions and Comments Qom the : oo L. session: Question: what issues were raised at the meeting earlier today? Answer-: RPA staff and others with interests in the project provided a brief summary of the items discussed at the 3:00 meeting. Question: Will John Stokes ( the radio tower owner) be cooperative? Answer: We have met with Mr. Stokes to discuss options that would produce acceptable outcomes for both the city and the station owner, but no compromise solution has yet been reached. Question: What happens if a landowner doesn't want to sell? Answer: If the project progresses, the City must demonstrate the "need" for the affected property, have the property and improvements appraised, and have the appraisal reviewed by a second appraiser. A reconciled appraisal and review appraisal determine the "fair market value" for the property and improvements. If the landowner is unwilling to sell, the City could then take the case to court for condemnation. If "need" is demonstrated by the City and accepted by the Court, the land can be used for the better public good. "Value" would then be subject to a second phase of the Court's review and the outcome would be to pay the court determined costs for any residences or businesses affected by the condemnation. Question: If this ends up being a protracted, multi -year project are we assured of continued funding? Answer: The FAA doesn't "pull the rug out" from under ongoing projects. The City would be expected to complete an FAA grant pre -application that would show a planned phasing of the project over time. The FAA would have the option of committing Kal 2 ell 2tZ Air ort Final Environmental Assessment and/or requesting changes. FAA grant monies are awarded annually on a competitive basis, they are not guaranteed to any airport. The state FAA office has been very good about continuing support for multi -year projects. Question: what happens if this project doesn't proceed? Answer: Maintenance, repairs, and construction at the current airport will continue to be entirely the City's responsibility. A portion of the land the current airport occupies was given to the City on the condition that it be used as an airport. If the City became unable or unwilling to maintain the airport, there is a question whether the gifted property would remain City -owned or revert to its original ownership. Question: And if the project does proceed? Answer: The airport will be eligible on a competitive basis for FAA 90% funding assistance in perpetuity. This could substantially reduce the City's costs as well as improving the facilities. Comment: The runway was overlaid last year, but the taxiways are in terrible condition. Comment: The City of Kalispell has been told by the FAA that they have to own the land under the Runway and Taxiway, but only control the remainder of the property (by Zo-year lease, easement, etc.). The City has placed a hard cap of $1M on the airport project. Comment: Pam Kennedy, the Mayor elect was introduced. Question: Are there or can there be restrictions on landing directions? For example, to require: use of the airport only from the south rather than over the city? Answer: No, it is not possible to effectively enforce landings and take -offs in only one direction. It is common to have winds from the south that would require landing from the north and visa -versa. Question: what obstacles would exist off each end? Answer: Radio towers to the south would have to be removed or lowered for this project to proceed. The lights at the high school stadium are the closest objects to the approach path on the north end. These lights do not violate the current or proposed approach path. Question: would development of a new facility change the types of usage? Answer: If the runway was constructed at or near the existing length, use by heavier, noisier aircraft would continue to be restricted. Additional runway length would improve access for additional faster, heavier aircraft. xalis ell Cif Airport Final Environmental Assessment Question: Is Glacier Park International Airport supportive of development at the Kalispell City Airport? Answer: Yes. Most of GPIA's revenue comes from their commercial operations, not from GA activity. Kalispell City Airport serves as a reliever airport for small .aircraft.. activity at GPM. Small cargo planes currently divert to City Airport when GPIA is fogged in. Some portion of General Aviation pilots will prefer to use the city airport rather than interact with GPIA's new control tower. Question: what is the minimum length runway the FAA will allow? Answer: The FAA has not mandated that the airport be constructed to serve 100% of the small aircraft fleet (4700' length), only that the City control enough land to build to that length should they wish. The FAA has acknowledged that building to 3500' (75% of the small aircraft fleet) or 3700' (current length) would be a way to discourage use by larger aircraft. Comment: A study completed several years ago calculated the economic benefit to the community of the Kalispell City Airport to be on the order of $2M per year. Pilots using the City Airport were asked to complete a form detailing how much money they spent while in Kalispell. Comment: The plan is to make the new airport self-supporting using hangar fees, fuel flowage .fees, etc. Comment: we have all been contributing to the AIP pot of monies through fuel taxes, I think it's time for some of that money to be spent here in Kalispell. Comment: In just the last couple years, 5 multi -thousand dollar hangars have been built elsewhere when their owner's first preference was Kalispell City, because of the undecided status at the city airport. Question: what is the future of General Aviation? Answer: we are experiencing a renaissance in general aviation. After changes in the manufacturers liability laws, we are once again manufacturing aircraft in the US. Sales of new and used aircraft are increasing. The numbers of student pilots and flight instructors are on the rise. Comment; The City could fund and improve the airport as it stands. Response: Without modifications to meet FAA standards, this airport will not be eligible for federal funding assistance. The $1M commitment by the City would only provide a finite lifetime to the airport. Question: What is the chance of lowering/removing the radio towers without a fight? Kalispell 2tZ.Air ark Final Environmental Assessment. Answer: That is unclear at this time. The Environmental Assessment will evaluate the possible disposition of the towers. Question: 'What is the minimum, runway length the FAA will allow? Answer: The 3500' necessary to support 75% of the small aircraft fleet is probably the shortest the FAA would consider. They would readily allow the current length of 3700'. Question: why not just maintain the current facilities? Answer: The current airport does not meet standards necessary to qualify for federal assistance from the Airport Improvement Program (a pool of money collected from taxes on aviation users). Upgrading the facilities to meet these standards could provide better quality facilities for a significantly smaller long --term commitment from the City. 3. Planned Public Involvement Activities A Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment and planned date for a Public Hearing on the Kalispell City Airport project will be advertised in local newspapers. The notice will inform the general public of the hearing. The date of the Public Hearing will be advertised at least fifteen days in advance of the meeting. At the public hearing, the general public will be given the opportunity to provide official comments on the proposed action. Written comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment will be received for at least thirty (30) days following its distribution. After the close of the official comment period, comments received on the document will be reviewed and the text of the Draft Environmental Assessment will be modified as required. If no significant impacts are identified, the Sponsor will submit a Final Environmental Assessment to the FAA and request that the agency make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The FONSI will then be attached to the Environmental Assessment. If significant impacts are found, then the Sponsor and the FAA must determine if an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared to advance the proposed action. Contact: Phil Porrini, P.E. P.O. Box 5653 Project Manager Helena, MT 59604 Robert Peccia & Associates (406) 447-5000 For Immediate Release KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED The City of Kalispell and -the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are considering a major improvement project at the Kalispell City Airport. Meetings outlining the proposal and seeking public comment will be held on November 14' at 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. in City Hall. The proposed airport improvements would realign and lengthen the runway and provide additional margins of safety between aircraft and the community. Such improvements would make the facility eligible for FAA matching funds, significantly reducing the City's airport capital improvements and maintenance costs. To accomplish the project, the City would need to purchase land or easements on properties to the south and west of the current airport property. Several residences, businesses, hangars, and other buildings would likely need to be relocated or purchased for removal. Radio towers, and trees southeast of the airport obstructing flight paths in and out of the facility would also need to be removed, relocated, or lowered. Construction of all new facilities would shut down the existing airport for about four months during the summer. A wider runway and a single parallel taxiway would be built. New airport businesses and services, hangars, and tie --downs would be limited to one side of the new runway. The new facility = would be accessed from Airport Road and the perimeter of the airport property would be fenced. A number of forces are driving the consideration of major improvements to the airport. Kalispell City Airport is one of the busiest airports in the state but it does not meet current FAA standards for design and safe operations. The current airport property is not large enough to provide acceptable distances between aircraft and the surrounding developments. FAA funds collected from aviation fuel taxes could be available to finance 90 percent of the desirable improvements if the City and FAA agree on a concept for redesign of the facility. otherwise, the costs of future improvements and major maintenance actions will continue to be the City's responsibility. Robert Peccia & Associates (RPA), a consulting engineering firm hired by the City, is collecting public comments to help guide the development of an Environmental Assessment for the proposed airport project. Presently, the firm is working to identify and analyze the potential impacts- to biological resources, wetlands, cultural resources, and noise levels. The Environmental Assessment should be available for public and agency review next spring. The public is invited to comment on this project at the November 14 meetings at City Hall or by sending your comments to: Kalispell City Airport Project, c/o Robert Peccia & Associates, P. o. Box 5653, Helena, MT 59604. =ION ' z5 alu 1' 1 lusty , YY CJL �i 0 u M LjLb ",%,W -nomic growth, more use of fos- - • - W and anti -NATO banners near sil fuels due to colder Breather Rome's central train station. and a drought that impeded Bracing for possible terror hydroelectric power generation. attacks, authorities banned Carbon dioxide produced from flights over the capital and .buming fossil fuels is the most sealed oil` subway stations and prevalent of the so-called green- streets. house gases, whose grooming con- Associated Press (LL QLLi Vll 111 l.l1G [i LL11VJI,/l1G1 G�.W g1t t0 be warming the earth.any scientists believe the warming, if not stopped, will cause severe climate changes over the next century. Charges dropped against firefighters NEW YORK —Authorities are dropping charges against all but one of the 1-8firefight- ers arrested after a raucous protest at the World Trade Center site, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said Saturday. The firefighters were arrest- ed after five police�officers were injured during a Nov. 2 rally, in which firelighters protested their numbers being reduced at the site. The one case that will not be dropped, Giuliani said, involved a firefighter accused -of hitting a police officer. The other cases IMF Mq�flc Diamond Casino V L alispellCenter' Ma I ►-NOW Serving a S cent keno Hour_ favorite mixe U eSSIve 6 Ott • drinks. 0'6• Iacflt Players receive a tarts at 1600.0 Pr well drinks and or Novembe ra beer US Games Pro essive Reno lac&ipot always at 8000.00 EgliMell's highest 'ack ots COUPON BELOW - --.f•d �-.y- /1 � ..{v: �� ..lr. . [n�`., `9:. n��•'A.ti+.;0.`�.'v`• . f-•. i•i� .. ;.\::4 i7.: ` � :;: •'; �Na-:v^: {T}��i' 7Y.:?f�^�E r �� rr....-�,i • Sc;�=i'•'^.°'i'� . FREE 5 for 5 M tc la for all new members. ::.One ver versoid. Valid at Ma c s. Diamond Casino IZalis e-H Center f; o )Ka6spel Wa1-Mart 1150 E Idaho St 755-1389 K&pel 1282 Hwy 2 E (next to Staples) 257-2355 Pro jest 2001Sheef -November wr�r�r7r What Benefits Would Come from the Proposed Project ? Whe proposed airport improvements would offer a variety of benefits to the aviation community and. the general public. These benefits are highlighted below. ❑ Safer conditions for the community and for air travelers. ❑ Eligibility for FAA funding (90 percent of project costs) derived from aviation fuel taxes. ❑ -Improved airport facilities. ❑ Reduction of the City's airport expenses., o 'Removal of radio towers comprising "hazards to air navigation." o Assured expansion potential for the airport. ❑ Assured long-term protection for the airport and its airspace. 44 ,•`3,� + �.�,F ` fir- �. � .=� "r�.�'_ w ;.;>: `_. � _ .. ' ' � • • .r - i Update of Progress on this Project A 1998 study considered a number of on -site changes compared to "no change", and a new airport located at an unspecified location in the Flathead Valley. Upon completion of this study, the FAA insisted specific sites within the Valley be considered and the cost of development be evaluated by -the City. Robert Peccia &Associates (RPA), a consulting engineering firm, prepared this valley -wide site selection study during the past year. Five possible sites for a new airport (including the present facility) were identified and evaluated as part of the study. RPA identified -a preferred site for the .City Airport , based on .input.from the local aviation community, fly- over inspections-, and a -detailed review -of lWe eronautical limitations -and economics. The site lection study concluded that acquiring adjacent lands and implementing major improvements to the existing City Airport•was the most desirable, airport development action. . a • a 1 i .. ; ..�- -fit•..-....� _-,.., ».a _ _ _.....-y. :.. .-.W_.j. - � _ _ i � � F `4. k i ' ,. .._i"_-»-..-... .. ....-. ._,, ,......_._ «_ -_. .-. _ ..»...«. .-.-..r ...u`-...�,.....--..-. _._... - ....t..... ,»:. - ._� ....emu. ��_, ....-.».�.._ __..._.-.. _•-..-.i. [ •r i i I i r +•ter } i ! I 1 7 i •i . :�:-:��'' is � �_ - •�� ; .. ........:. t I r E [ i 1 J / _r or; y i } .. ...... .....:..._ ., .. _ .. _ :. .......�� . _.� r . ,. _...-. .:..._ ...._ _ .... _ _ .... _ _ ._.- ...... . » ...-... _ _ .. ... .. a - -i . .. a ..... .. - .. j. - -• - . r i , s 1 ��.^' ._ • I_ ...C�l�.�..' • � •{ - ...... ..1,..6.._ _ ........ ... .. _ r iyr 3 r - i , _ ! - [•, - -i � i 1 I - j � r..f � i . i v } - i - - - Fr• x i =�III........ .. . ....... II... . .. . .... III...... .. . . ...... jk .4e. i 1 i s , S 1 yr i •F [/ � _ _ Ss ��.../ ii! � �_._._. ..ice <-• r .- r-....-_.�_ - �1 ' i ,L�•-#:•.�'" __._. .-._._.._...mom._. _r ._..W. ...._ ..Y....._ r�...��.__�._.�w��.__r : - . •�••• it i _ y ; s,A I44//' j y �..�...�-..r4._..;.._.�........-....�. _.�.�-_;.,..1.�-�:..._ :."..�••C.CJf.'.r � . I ..... . . ... IIIIII4 I i I JJJ t i i [ : '{ i i i • i � i l fr: i ! i .ram.► �•' e 5 ! = i r -Comment -Sheet have the following comments or questions about the Kalispell Cit Airport Improvements project* r 7 .^ . . . ............. - ------------------ - 7 ------ ---------- - --- - --- - ---------- - --- - - -------- --- - - ----- ............ 6'se, ' d d Name _Vt�'_s .1-e-ch-,a Tease foldl take or sta tA, *Y&I, pf, Address topriate postag-le, an m .. _.-app mail' form Phone 4L. the_.,a'ddr:eSS'0'n. the batik. (Above Information Is Optional) z Coro -went -Shoot .. :x ..:. rre .....:e IN 10 3 Me (:... � . y. 1. • -ate • ve the to in comments or questions about the Kalispell City Airport Improvements protect. g --- 4--iA-144 F r ti 2 ! ! J ca* &M fdA. 1 �OXZ_W_ri, 14a_ aw C i4m-rell-4el-, ZPA ------ fa, --lope ACKC-i V f.r tr 1 • r 4 y v. -- --- --' OE IrJ'' irk + 1z _ _ �_ . _ c .,� � r +CAI __ - _...-�4 -- GL& ------- ___L0_V 4W .. . ............ - ---- - ----- ame Pease fold, tape :ortape :dos e1::add': Address 4F .1- _. -'approp late, postage -:and mail phis. f orm to the address on- the back: Ph ne f (Above Information Is Optional) Prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates - Helena, Montana November 15, 2001 Phil, Porrini, P.E. Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 5653, Helena, MT 59604 Thank you for the informational meeting held November 14 about the Kalispell City Airport project. Congratulations for a very professional presentation. As a newly elected councilman, it was of great help to me to get better knowledge of the project and hear the concerns of the landowners to be affected. My suggestion is that consideration be given to stepping outside of routine and treat land acquisition as the MOST important phase of this development. Please do not do like the Department of Transportation did on the proposed truck bypass around the west side of Kalispell - designate a route and then go home. once that route v as shown on various maps, it essentially destroyed the property values ofthe owners along the designated route. The property owners were left "twisting in the wind" while at least one individual wishing to get on with his life had to hire an attorney to be made reasonably whole . Once the footprint of the property needed for the project is firm, I urge you to then get together with the City Council AND the property owners to, openly and together, work out a strategy for land acquisition. I know several of the landowners and they are hard working, honest individuals who will probably be cooperative if they are treated fairly, but also people who will probably not hesitate to do what ever is necessary to defend their livelihood. It has always been my contention that affected property owners should not only get the appraised value for their property, but also an added amount for relocation expenses and disruption of life. These added costs above appraised value are probably significantly less than litigation expenses and construction delays. Sincerely, Robert Hafferm.an 1337 Third Street west, Kalispell, MT 59901 752-1341 e-mail: robertt@,montana.com -* C-) 20�1 r ROSERT R` [A Kalil e11 fit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX D: AIRCRAFT PM=10 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS FOR KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT Kal ell Cif Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX D.m AIRCRAFT PMm10 EMISSIONS ANALYSIS FOR KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT Background Kalispell City Airport is located on the southern edge of Kalispell, Montana. Kalispell City Airport is one of the busiest airports in Montana but it does not meet current FEDERAL AVIATION ADmmsTRATION (FAA) standards for design and safe operations for general aviation airports. The City of Kalispell is currently considering a project to better accommodate current and anticipated future aviation demands by realigning and lengthening the runway and provide additional margins of safety between aircraft and the nearby community, improving navigational facilities, and adding the potential for instrument approaches. with such improvements, the airport would become eligible for FAA snatching funds and the costs to the City for improvements and maintenance could be substantially reduced. Kalispell City Airport is located within a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. A PM-10 control plan for Kalispell was developed and submitted to ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) on June 29, 1990. The final plan (November 1991) consisted of controls on fugitive dust emissions from roads, parking lots, construction, and demolition. The State received Kalispell PM- 14 control plan approval March 19, 1996. The City of Kalispell retained RosERT PEccLA� & Assocuus, INC. (RPA), consulting engineers from Helena, to prepare planning documents and an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed airport improvement project. As part of the EA development process, the overall effects to local air quality must be reviewed and the proposed federal activity (airport development) within the Kalispell PM-10 Nonattainment Area must be verified to conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). As part of efforts to comply with air quality impact and conformity requirements, RPA coordinated analysis requirements with Bob Habeck of the MoNTAtvA DEPP,1tTTErrr of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALrrY (MDEQ). As a follow-up to early coordination efforts, Dan Norderud of RPA met with Bob Habeck and Deb Wolfe at NIDEQ on April 3, 2002 to discuss PM-10 emissions analysis methods and conformity requirements for this project. Guidance materials were obtained from NIDEQ during the meeting. These materials included a methodology from the EPA for estimating emissions from aircraft and pertinent sections from previous air quality documents prepared to predict PM-10 and CO emissions in the Kalispell area. Current and Projected Aviation Activity As a first step in the PM-10 emissions calculation for the proposed project, records of aviation activity levels and projected future operations at Kalispell'City Airport were reviewed. Historic and current aviation activity for Kalispell City Airport is available from the FAA's Master Records (Form 5010) for the airport. According to the Form 5010 (dated 2/21/02), sixty-four (64) aircraft are based at Kalispell City Kalis ell City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment Airport. Aircraft operating within 50 miles of the airport generate some 13,600 operations each year. In addition to this local aviation activity, itinerant aircraft use of the airport accounts for an additional 14,000 operations each year. The FAA form also shows 5,400 operations per year by air taxis and 1,000 operations per year by military aircraft. Together, the current total number of annual aircraft operations at Kalispell City Airport shown on the 5010 for is 35,000. It should be noted that "operations" as defined by the FAA include takeoffs and landings and touch--and--go activity by pilots during flight training. Each takeoff or landing accounts for one operation. A "touch and go" practice landing is counted as two operations. For the purposes of this analysis 35,000 operations is assumed to be the base year or current activity level at Kalispell City Airport. The 1999 Kalispell Airport .Master Plan included projections of future aviation activity at Kalispell City Airport. These forecasts were developed based on historic activity data shown on Form. 5010 for past years at Kalispell, activity information for similar airports, economic and population trends, and a survey of airport users. In general, the total number of aircraft operations at Kalispell is expected to increase at about 2% per year over the foreseeable future. . Using a 2% annual growth rate, the total operations are expected to be about 52,000 by the year 2018. Estimated Landing Takeoff Cycles (LTOs) at Kalispell City Airport The EPA methodology used to predict emissions from aircraft considers landing and takeoff cycles (LTOs) not total annual aircraft operations as presented on the FAA's Solo forms. LTOs are common units of normal flight operations and include descent. and approaches, touchdown, landing, taxiing and idling on the ground, takeoff and climbouts. Since LTOs do not correlate exactly to the number of operations shown by the FAA, it was necessary to develop some estimate of current aviation activity in terms of LTOs that can be used in the emissions calculation. Based on work for a previous CO emissions inventory for the Kalispell City Airport prepared by the NIDEQ in 1997, a total of 1,840 LTOs were estimated to occur during the 92 days (in November, December, and January) comprising the "CO season" in Kalispell. This figure was equivalent to 20 LTOs each day during the CO season. in 1995 (the based year considered in NIDEQ's analysis). RPA's review of this daily activity estimate (20 LTO/day) and our understanding of annual trends in aviation at the airport suggest the need for a modification to this figure. Aviation activity at Kalispell City Airport vanes significantly throughout the year. The busiest time of the year occurs during the summer months (June through August) and the slowest period for aviation at the airport is during the late fall and winter months. The 20 LTO per day figure can be viewed as twenty aircraft taking off and landing at the airport each day. Although no actual counts of daily aviation activity are performed at the airport, anecdotal information suggests that this figure is too high for the winter but may be appropriate for the summer months at Kalispell City Airport. Therefore, RPA adjusted the number of daily LTOs to better reflect current activity levels and the seasonal variations in the use that occur at the facility. Our adjustments to daily LTOs are as follows: Kalispell 2LA ort Final Environmental Assessment 20 LTOs/day June through August (92 days) 10 LTOs/day March, April, September, October (153 days) 5 LTOs/day November, December, January, February (120 days) Using these adjusted daily LTOs, the total number of annual LTOs at Kalispell City Airport were calculated. This calculation is shown below. 92 days x 20 LTOs/day 1,840 LTOs 153 days x 10 LTOs/day 11530 LTOs 120 days x 5 LTOs/day 600 LTOs Total Current (2001) Annual LTOs = :3 70 LTOS The number of LTOs at Kalispell in the future can be estimated by applying a 2% annual growth rate to the current annual LTO total. The period of interest for the Kalispell City Airport project is twenty years; however, the predicted LTOs for other future years are also presented. 2005 1.024 x 3,970 = 4,297 (4,300 LTOs) 2010 1.029 x 3,970 = 4,744 (4,740 LTOs) 2015 1.02" x 3,970 = 5,238 (5,240 LTOs) 2018 1.0217 x 3,970 = 51559 (59560 LTOs) 2020 1.0219 x 3,970 = 5,784 (5,780 LTOs) Aircraft Categories Using Kalispell City Airport Kalispell City Airport is a general aviation airport and most aviation activity is related to recreational flying. Commercial aircraft (those used for scheduled service transporting passengers, freight, or both) do not use the facility. General aviation aircraft is the only category of airplanes using the facility. General aviation includes most other non-military aircraft used for recreational flying, personal transportation, and various other activities. Other aircraft using the airport include air taxis and other business aircraft, and military aircraft (a helicopter is based at Kalispell). Air taxis fly on demand carrying passengers and/or freight but usually are smaller aircraft and operate on a more limited basis than the commercial carriers. Business aircraft support business travels usually on an unscheduled basis. PM-10 Emission Factor and Anticipated Aircraft Emissions CURRENT ANNUAL PM-10 EMISSIONS FROM AIRCRAFT Although aircraft exhaust emissions may vary considerably depending on the category of aircraft and the resulting typical flight profile, all the aircraft using the Kalispell City Airport have been combined under general aviation aircraft for the purpose of this emissions analysis. This assumption was made because the aircraft typically have similar size, use frequency, and operating profiles. Small business jets have landed at the airport in the past, but their use has been veer infrequent and such aircraft typically use Glacier Park International Airport due to its Kalispell 2tzAirport Final Environmental Assessment length of runway, instrument landing and navigation facilities, and other support facilities. A 1991 PM-10 emissions inventory provided by MDEQ for the Kalispell PM-10 Nonattainment Area used a composite factor of 0.36 lbs1LT0 to estimate particulate emissions from aircraft exhaust. R.PA also reviewed the publication titled " Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation," Volume IV: Mobile Sources (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation EPA420-R-92-009, December 1992) was reviewed for a more current particulates emissions factor for aircraft engines. However, as indicated on pages 139-140 of the publication (Section 5.1.1.2 Pollutant Emissions), "It is particularly difficult to estimate the emissions of this pollutant. Direct measurement of particulate emissions from aircraft engines typically are not available, although emission of visible smoke is reported as part of the engine certification procedure." Particulate emission factors for only a few aircraft engines are included in the EPA publication. But none of the emissions factors are for engines on aircraft that use the Kalispell City Airport. Therefore, in the absence of other information, the 0.36 lbsILTo emission factor was used to calculate annual PM-10 emissions from aircraft using the Kalispell City Airport. Current Annual PM-10 Emissions = 0.36 lbsILTo x 3,970 LI'os =1429.2lbs 0.71 tons FUTURE ANNUAL PM-10 EMISSIONS FROM AIRCRAFT In addition to the expected increase in aircraft operations, it is possible that the types of aircraft using the facility may change slightly. A fully developed airport might better accommodate use by business jets. While the fleet mix (the types of aircraft using the facility) might change slightly from current conditions, operations by business jets are still expected to be infrequent and to comprise only a very minor portion of the annual aviation activity at Kalispell City Airport. One would expect improvements to be made in the future to aircraft engines reducing their emissions. Since the proportion of higher performance aircraft capable of using the facility would likely increase in the future, any reductions in aircraft engine emissions might be offset. Therefore, the same composite PM-10 emissions factor for aircraft (0.36 lbsALTO) was used to estimate future PM-10 emissions at Kalispell City Airport. Anticipated total annual PM--10 emissions from aircraft for various future years are shown below. 2005 0.36 lbsILTo x 4,300 LTos = 1,545 lbs (0.77 tons 2010 0.36 lbsIL O x 4,740 LTos = 1,706_lbs (0.55t,ons 2015 0.36 lbslLTo x 5,240 LTos = 1,886 lbs (0.94 ton 2015 0.36 lbsILTo x 5,560 LTos = 2,002 lbs (1.00 tons 2020 0.36 lbs1LTo x 5,750 LTos = 2,081 lbs (104 tons Montana Department of EONNEWAL OUAMW Judy H. lYlurtx, Governor P.O. Hnx 200901 * licleI w, NIT-596211-090 1 * (406) 444-2 544 +a Wwhsile; w►►'►�.��c�.e�:tiG. m #.11� APTiY 29, 2002 D anicl M. NorderudS AICP P,obert Peccia & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 5653 Helena, MT 59604 Subiect: Kaligpelli Ai ort Expngion I'ro`ect Dear Dan, Regarding the Kalispell City Airport expansion pro j ect, your evaluation of existing and potential PM- 1. 0 emissions from aircraft do not meet the applicability threshold for PM- 10. Emissions FTom aircraft at City Airport are considered do rninimis and will not cause or contribute to violations of PM- 10 standards in the Kalispell PM-ai o nonaL'tainment area. Wherefore, no further general conformity detenninati on is required of this project. If you should have any questions regarding this fording, please call me at (406) 444-7305. Sincerely, Robert Habeck, Supervisor Air Quality Planning & Standards ttiI)EQ.,M CT PRIIUSRICH?3Ui \Wlirt \KolisFiell—PM1�CM.itSlAirluin C'On IbrMilYAM capirallud -4ervivDivision * EnrnrUffildnt ni*hiul+ v I'itrmiliisig & Compliudct llivilli+i:I - 1'I�r�ntA�E 1"Rry�•r�rl�r� ,� i„i��tin�� t�irl�rinn � l��rrii�tl�� ivi��q FCafis eff CLt Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX E: REFERENCES CONSULTED lVIn xcz �e// City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX E.m REFERENCES CONSULTED Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc., .Kalispell City Airport Site Selection ,Study, September 2001 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., Kalispell City Airport FeasihilitylMaster Plan Study, Helena, MT, August 1999 Morrison-Maierle, Inc., Amendment to the ,Final .Kalispell City Airport FeasibilitylMaster Plan Study, Helena, MT, December 1999 Olson Land Services, Relocation Plan Kalispell Airport, Helena, MT, March 14, 2002 Ethos Consultants, A Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Kalispell City .Airport Project, Final Report, Havre, MT, February 2002 Land & Water Consulting, Inc., Kalispell City Airport Improvements Project -Biological Resources Memorandum, March 5, 2002. Big Sky Acoustics, LLC, .Kalispell City Airport Noise Contour Analysis, Helena, MT, December 18, 2002 Dail-Widdoss and Company, PC, A Land Value Analysis in A Summary Report Format for Five .Kalispell Airport Locations, Missoula, MT, May 1, 2001 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration: • FAA Order 5050.4A, Airport Environmental Handbook, October 8, 1985 ■ Advisory Circular 15015070-6A, Airport Master Plans, June, 1985 ■ FAA Order 1050.1 d, Analysis of Environmental Categories (June 14, 1999) ■ Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, September 29, 1989 ■ Advisory Circular 15015325--4A, Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design, September 29, 1989 • Advisory Circular 150/5370--10, Standards far Specifying Construction of Airports, (change 10), Item P-156, Temporary .Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control ■ National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 1985-1993, August, 1985 • Report Number FAA-AEE-97-03, Runway Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases Length Requirements for Airport Design, April 1997 Kalispell 2tj Airport Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: 7CFR657 -Prime and Unique Farmlands and 7CFR658 - Farmland Protection Policy Act (1-1-00 Edition) Montana Department of Environmental Quality • Citizens Guide to Air Quality Montana Department of Commerce, Census and Economic Information Center • Montana Population Projections -- All Counties (NPA Data Services, Inc.), 2001 ■ Population of Counties and Incorporated Places (Cities/Towns) in Montana, 1890-2000; 2001 • Census 2000: Persons by Race, Age, & Sex; Households and Families by Race and By Types, 2001 ■ Z.T.S. Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program, 1999 Estimates Montana Natural Heritage Program - Species of Special Concern website U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Going to the Sun Road Socioeconomic Study, August 2001 Kalis ell qity Air ort final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX Fo. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Kali elf City Air ort Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX F.0 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT, COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 1. Public Hearing Notice Legal notices were published in the September 7, 2002 and October 4, 2002 editions of the Daily Inter Lake announcing the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed airport improvements project. The notice also specified the scheduled date, time, and location for the Public Hearing to receive comments on the proposed action and the Draft Environmental Assessment. A copy of the Public Hearing Notice and proof of publication in the Daily Inter Lake is included in this APPENDIX. 2Z, News Articles About the Draft EA On September 18, 2002 and September 28, 2002, the Daily Inter Lake published news articles discussing the proposed airport project, indicating that a Draft Environmental Assessment had been prepared, and announcing the time, and date for the public hearing. Copies of these articles taken from. the Dairy Inter Lake's Internet website (www.dailyinterlake.com) can be found in this APPENDIX. 3. Draft EA Availability and Distribution The September 6, 2002 and October 4, 2002 newspaper notices stated that copies of the Draft EA were available for review at the City Clerk's office at the Kalispell Cjty Hall and at the Flathead County Library in Kalispell. The Draft Environmental Assessment was made available for public review at these locations from September 7, 2002 until after October 15, 2002, more than thirty calendar days after the legal notice first appeared in local newspapers. The Sponsor also distributed copies of the Draft EA with a request for comments to the following agencies or persons: • Federal Aviation Administration * Kalispell City Airport Board * City of Kalispell City Council Members Copies of the Draft EA were provided to the legal owners of all properties adjoining Kalispell City Airport that may be directly affected by land acquisition activities for the proposed airport improvements. F1 Ka lisp ell _2LtK A irp ort Final En vironm en ta I Assessment Additionally, notices of the Draft EA's availability were sent to agencies that contributed information used in the development of the document or that have jurisdictional interests in the project. The notice summarized major features of the proposed action, indicated the time and date of the Public Hearing on the EA; stated that agencies could request copies of the environmental document; and solicited comments on the proposed airport improvement project. Notices of the EA's availability were sent to the following agencies and individuals: 0 John Dalberg, Area Manager, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Northwestern Land Office, 2250 highway 93 North, Kalispell, MT 59901-2557 • U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 100 North Park, Suite 320, Helena, MT 59601 ■ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Kalispell Service Center, 30 Lower Valley Road, Kalispell, MT 59901 r-7921 ■ Steve welch, Administrator, Department of Environmental Quality, Permitting and Compliance Division, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620--0901 0 Dan Vincent, Regional Supervisor, Department of Fish,,wildlife & Parks, Region 1, 490 North Meridian Road, Kalispell, MT 59901 No requests for copies of the Draft EA or written comments were received as a result of the agency notifications. 4. Kalispell City Council Work Session The City Council held a work session with the Kalispell City Airport Board and the Sponsor's consulting engineers on September 25, 2002. The work session provided a forum for City Council members to ask questions of the Airport Board and the airport consultant regarding the scope of the proposed improvements at Kalispell City Airport, the process followed during the development of the project, and to discuss the content of the Draft EA. The work session began at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers and concluded about 8:30 p.m. Although the work session was open to the public and was attended by some 10-15 people, Mayor Para Kennedy indicated the format of the meeting did not allow for public comments on the project or the Draft EA. Mayor Kennedy advised those present that a Public Hearing on the project was scheduled for October 7, 2002 during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The Sponsor's consulting engineers provided City Council members with summary of work performed to date on the project and updated the Council on the schedule for completing the EA. The principal items discussed at the work session included potential actions by the City of Kalispell to remedy the hazard to aviation posed by the KGEZ radio towers, the direct and indirect economic benefits of implementing the project, and options available to the City for acquiring or controlling lands needed for the project. 5. Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Assessment A Public hearing was held on Tuesday, October 7, 2002 in Council Chambers of City Hall in F2 Kat 2 ell City ort Final Environmental Assessment Kalispell beginning at 7:00 p.m. The hearing was scheduled as part of the City Council meeting and was held to provide the public with information about the proposed airport project; to discuss the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed airport development; and obtain comments from the public regarding the proposed action. A copy of the City Council Meeting Agenda can be found in this APPENDIX. Approximately 31 people attended the Public Hearing including the representatives of the Kalispell City Airport Board, staff from the City of Kalispell, the Sponsor's consulting engineers, and the public. A sign --in list showing the names of those who attended the Public Hearing is included in this APPENDIX. Fomms were provided for those attending to submit written comments on the Draft EA either at the hearing or by mall prior to October 15, 2002. 6. Public Hearing Transcript with Comments and Responses A complete transcript of the Public Hearing, with responses to substantive comments. on the proposed airport improvement project, follows this page. 7,, Written Comments Received By the Sponsor The Sponsor received three letters by the October 15, 2002, the specified end date for the public review and comment period on the Draft EA. All three comment letters supported the proposed improvements at the Kalispell City Airport. Copies of the letters are included in this APPENDIX. F-3 rxalls ell 2t Ar`r ort Final Environmental Assessment 8. Official Transcript and Responses of the Public Hearing on the Kalispell City Airport Improvement Project PUBLIC HEARING ON THE KALISPELL CITryY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Kalispell, Montana Monday October 7, 2002 --- S: oo p.m. MAYOR KENNEDY: We now are opening up our public hearing. our public hearing is the Kalispell City Airport and the City of Kalispell plan to request federal aid for the future development of the city airport. A draft environmental assessment summarizing the potential environmental effects of the proposed airport improvement project has been prepared by Robert Peccia and Associates and has been available for review since September 7th. This is the time in which the Council will accept any comments on the draft environmental assessment. Anyone wishing to address the Council, please step to the podium., state your name and address for the record. MR. PO : Mayor, members of the Council, my name is Phil Porrini. I'm a civil engineer with Robert Peccia and Associates out of Helena. with me this evening are Dan Norderud, our environmental documents division manager, and Bill Burkland, professional engineer and project engineer on this particular project. Several years ago we were hired by the City of Kalispell. Basically, we had two tasks in front of us. Our mission was one, first to evaluate the best possible airport site RESPONSE F4 Katis ell Et Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMEENT OR STATEMIENT for a general aviation airport for the City of Kalispell which would meet federal standards and second, to take a look at that best possible site and to evaluate all of the environmental issues that surround that site and that proposed action. Our work came at the heels of a Master Plan that was done for the Kalispell City Airport, the conclusion of which was evaluated by the FAA, and they recommended that, number one, a site selection study be done to assure that the current site is the best site and then, number two, to further that by doing an environmental assessment on that. At the conclusion of our site selection study, we did present to you and to the FAA our conclusions and our proposed action, and we were given, basically, the go ahead and the direction to follow up and to proceed into the environmental assessment. Tonight, following a brief summary by both Bill and Dan on the site selection study and the environmental assessment, the public will be given the opportunity to comment. This is part of the public hearing process, and it will become part of the final environmental assessment. When Bill and Dan are done concluding, if I might be able to come back and just draw some final conclusions prior to going into the public comment period. MAYOR. KENNEDY: That would be fine. MR. BURKLCTND: Madam Mayor, City Council, Bill Burkland with Robert Peccia and Associates. we completed a site selection study beginning with these five sites in the valley subjected to an impartial matrix of aeronautical and nonaeronautical concerns. From that we selected a single preferred alternative that moves the runway RESPONSE F-5 Kalispell 2tZ Alr ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE 600 feet to the south and rotates it at the north end about 5.6 degrees clockwise, would widen the runway to 75 feet and increase the distance between the runway and the single taxiway. This option would increase safety spacing and qualify the airport for federal 90-percent airport improvement program assistance. It would also lower the City's long-term costs of maintaining their airport. It affects 18 property owners, five businesses, nine residential units, 23 personal property moves, and will require the removal of radio towers that the FAA has deemed a hazard to air navigation. With that I'll pass the mike over to Dan Norderud. MR. NORDERUD: Thank you, Bill. I wanted to just make a couple of brief remarks, provide a little background information on the environmental assessment, why it's necessary that we do this. First of all, environmental assessments are federally mandated in this case. The documents are required by the FAA to help them determine whether or not a proposed action improving the Kalispell City Airport will have significant environmental impacts or have the potential to cause them. And the EA itself provides the documentation analysis necessary for them to see how -- see the conclusions that were presented in there and to have an opportunity to analyze that before making decisions to spend federal funds and advance this project. What's included in an environmental assessment? Basically, there's a description of the proposed action. That's what's proposed to be done by the city in this case. The purpose and the need is a very critical F-6 fCafis ell 2LtK.Air ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE part of the document. It expresses those problems that exist at the airport and why things need to be done to resolve those. In this case, the future expansion possibilities at the existing airport are limited without acquiring new land. The existing airport also has --- requires significant modifications to bring that into compliance with the FAA's current design and dimensional standards for airports. The alternative section is another key element of the document. That discusses ways to address the identified problems. In this case, we looked at options to reconfigure and expand the airport itself; develop the at a new location. Bill alluded to the site selection study that was done. The use of other alternate nearby airports was also considered. Using other modes of transportation to substitute for aviation activity at the airport was considered. The EA identifies what the sponsor, the City of Kalispell and the airport board, are proposing to do with the use of these federal funds, if they were available. The EA also includes the option of doing nothing. This is something that is always included in environmental documents and provides a basis for comparing and contrasting what you're proposing to do with the option of not advancing any type of project. The part of the EA focuses on what are the existing conditions in the vicinity of the airport and what would be the environmental effects of implementing the improvement project. The consequences section or impact section really looks at the direct impacts, indirect and the cumulative effects of what is being proposed. The EA document that we prepared also includes a determination of significance F-7 Kalil ell gLtZ Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT for a number of environmental considerations. The FAA has provided guidance that says you must address certain aspects of the environment in the document itself and provides us with a threshold level that we can use to analyze whether or not an impact is approaching significance or might be significant. The other portions are basically to document that public involvement has occurred in a coordination with other agencies that may have special interests in this project are documented. What did the EA show us? In a nutshell, there is additional land that is required to move forward with this project. We identified that approximately 72 additional acres of adjoining property must be acquired or otherwise controlled to allow the facility to be developed to meet the FAA standards. Accomplishing this does not come without effects on adjoining businesses and residences. We identified nine potential residential relocations affecting in the neighborhood of 20 people. There were five business relocations identified, and there were also 20 -- more than 20 personal property moves that would be necessary for this. Federal assistance is available to ensure that those businesses and residences displaced by the project are adequately compensated or there are suitable and adequate replacement homesites that are homes available to those people. Our environmental document identified that the KGEZ towers also are ---- pose a hazard to air navigation at the particular site in the city airport and that there must be some way taken to remedy that situation. The EA speaks to various methods that might be accomplished, either through using -- sharing existing broadcast RESPONSE F8 rxct is ell gtZ Air ort final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMIENT towers, using experimental technologies or removal of the towers themselves. The EA recom vended that the removal of the towers was probably the most feasible action, at this point in. time. A couple of other notable impacts that III breeze through fairly quickly. our surface transportation impacts access to the airport would be changed from f1ighway 93, as it exists today, to the west off of Airport Road. There were also air quality considerations to be given to this project. Kalispell, as you may know, is a designated nonattainment area for PM -lo. And documentation was required to --- or analysis documentation coordination with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality was required to show that we weren't -w W this airport project would not contribute to or worsen the PM-1 o situation within the community. Aircraft noise is also another obvious effect. Detailed noise modeling was done as part of our environmental assessment. That included modeling scenarios that involved future fleet mixes that might include jet traffic or some degree of jet traffic at that particular site. It also looked at what changes would happen with the reconfigured airport itself. The conclusion is that while the aircraft noise would be obvious and unavoidable on adjoining properties, the noise levels of concern, those that are above 65 decibels, would be confined to the proposed airport property. Flood plain effects. There is a designated flood plain associated with Ashley Creek that is in the area. While our preliminary work showed that we would be in proximity to that, it's not apparent to us at this point, without doing a detailed survey RESPONSE LLYs ef! i Air o Dina! Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE and a design for the airport, whether or not there would be any effects. If there are, they are one of those things that would have to be involved in the permitting process for flood plains.. On the natural resources side of things, this site is very benign as far as wildlife impacts go. We received clearance from the US Fish and Wildlife Service with respect to -potential impacts on threatened and endangered species. We have -- we also would not be affecting wetlands or directly affecting any surface waters in the vicinity of the airport. A cultural resource survey was done for the property, and there were no significant cultural sites identified. The conclusions that we came to as a result of our work for the EA were that the level of impact would not be significant. I should preface that by saying that none of the thresholds that the FAA has provided us would be approached or exceeded, based on our analysis. The FAA has not yet agreed with those conclusions. That's something that they will have the opportunity to do after public comments on this project are collected and analyzed and responded'to. However, the FAA has reviewed a preliminary version of the document and has given us comments on that, and no indication has been received that they cannot approve this document. What's next after today's hearing on this project? Basically, we are accepting written comments on the EA until next Tuesday, October 15th. As Mayor Kennedy expressed, the document has been available for public review since September 7th. After the comment period is done, we will review all the comments that we have received, address them in an appropriate manner and include them in our F tD Kalis ell fit Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE responses and prepare a final environmental assessment. After all of these activities are completed, and it's still obvious to us that there are no significant impacts associated with this, we will submit the document on behalf of the city to the FAA and request that they make a finding of no significant impact. That will be the last step in the process for environmental compliance that -- environmental documentation, I should say - - that is necessary for this project. And what a FONSI is simply the agency stating that there would be no --- they are making a finding that there would be no significant impact resulting from this project. Once the FONSI is received and notice is made of that to the public, the City and the airport board, if they so choose, can move forward with the project. The EA, if it's approved, remains valid for a three- year time period. But if no actions -- major actions are taken to implement the project, then a re-evaluation of the document is required. I guess, with that, I would turn it back to Phil for some closing remarks, then well accept comments; thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY.- Thank you very much, Dan. MR. PORRIl\II: I'll be brief, since this is my second time up. Up to this point, there have been no obligations, except for the study work that has been done by Robert Pecci a and Associates and previously by Morrison- Maierle --- no obligations towards acquiring federal funding. But should the FONSI be issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, and if the City chooses to move forward, they would stand an F- 1 1 Kalis eii gLtK Air ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE opportunity to be eligible for federal funds. In the Federal Program for Airport Improvements, up to 90 percent of all eligible work is funded by the federal government, and the remaining ten percent needs to be funded through local funds or through state aeronautics funds. To this point, I'm not sure if Bill or Dan had mentioned, but the proposed action that we addressed is roughly 7 million dollars. Meaning that if everything was eligible, roughly $700,000 would be needed to come from the local community or from state aeronautics funds, and a remaining 6 million -plus dollars would come from Federal Aviation Trust Fund monies. It's important to note that the federal dollars are earmarked dollars from the Aviation Trust Fund. They come from ticket taxes that we all pay when we buy airline tickets and also from aviation fuel taxes. The local funding, of course, is money that you're well aware of where it comes from. And also, state aeronautics money is similar to the Federal Aviation Trust Fund money in that it is available through their grant loan program, also corning from aviation fuel taxes. And, finally, the last concluding statement I want to make is that this is your city airport and it is certainly in your hands as to what decisions need to be forthcoming. What we've presented up to this point are the steps and stages that you need to have before you to make good decisions. And also, they are the requirements of the federal government in order to participate in their federal program. So with that, I guess it's going to be open for public comment; not necessarily question and answers, but we would certainly be willing to answer questions probably at a later date than this evening. And if people want to contact myself, Phillip F 12 Ka12 e1! fit Air ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT Porrini, at 447-5000 with Robert Peccia and Associates, or get a hold of Chris Kukulski, and we can arrange yet for another meeting if the public is so inclined, and if you are as well. Thank you very much. MAYOR RENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Porrini. Is there anyone wishing to address the Council with regards to the airport environmental assessment this evening? Mr. Porrini is correct, this will not be a time for questions and answers. It will just be a time to state your comments. Theyll be entered into the record, and then if you do have any questions, you certainly can get a hold of the City of Kalispell. We can give you the address for Robert Peccia and Associates, and they would be more than happy to answer your questions. So with that, please state your name and address for the record. NIR. JELLAR: Peter Jellar, 143 Welf Lane, and I'm at the end of where this airport is supposed to be and probably one of these residents that they're saying that there's not going to be not much of an impact. I worked all my life at pretty low- income jobs around this valley and saved up enough money to buy a house, you know, thinking that I could raise me and my two kids there at this place. Now I got another agency of bureaucracy wanting to close in, you know. And I look at this and I look at --- I found out from my neighbor today because she heard about it on the radio. I ran up to the library to see this draft. Now, where was this draft? why wasn't the draft sent to these people so they could see what possibly might impact their lives? Does the City of Kalispell not think about anybody's lives? From what I heard on this Sunnyview Lane deal and stuff, the RESPONSE The Environmental Assessment identified nine potential residential relocations as a result of the proposed airport improvements. Federal assistance will be available to ensure that those businesses and residences displaced by the project are adequately compensated or there are suitable and adequate replacement homesites that are homes available to those people. As indicated in the public availability notices for the Draft EA, copies of the document were available at the City Library and City Hall. Copies of the Draft EA were sent to the owners of properties adjoining the airport that may be directly impacted by land acquisition for the project. Mr. Jellar's property is not one of the tracts identified for acquisition. F-13 Kal e1! City Air orb Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT City of Kalispell is just absolutely atrocious. They're just trying to take up whatever they can so they can get more tax dollars. I'm very upset with this city. I'm hurt. I got out of the military hoping to come back to a good place, I bragged about it. But you know, Ill tell everybody right now, stay away from this area. It is not worth moving into. It may be pretty, but it will just rip you apart. That's the way I feel about our city now. I was raised here in this valley, bragging about this valley. Now what is this city coming to? I hear something about the United Nations. we're one nation under God. One nation under God. And we are not to be taken up with the United Nations. And I heard this in the very beginning in some pledge or something that the city was. Are we part of the United Nations now? Are we --- are we the U.S.A.? You know, this is an American dream, a house. And these ---- you got an airport that's perfect. Leave it where it's at. why do we have to expand an airport? we have an international airport out there. Now, the other question is, I'm sitting there, been fighting for my sister on the other side of Kalispell on the south end. She is living on the south end on FEghway 93 where the road comes down to a two- lane. Now the State of Montana is wanting to claim eminent domain on her property for something that was done by a citizens' group, a nonprofit organization. Now, there is a law out there that nonprofit organizations cannot influence government. And they are. And if this nonprofit organization has any influence on this, I will come right down to the conclusion on this and I will fight with every last thing I got in RESPONSE These comments are not specific to the proposed airport improvement project. F 14 Xali e11 fit Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT my heart to stop this. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments this evening. Anyone else wishing to speak to the Council? Anyone else? MR. BIS SELL: Good evening. My name's Gilbert Bissell. I reside at 76 Stafford Street. And I'm sure most of you know how I stand on the airport. Before I start on my comments, I'd like to read in a letter here. Mike Strand was not able to attend tonight, but he's asked me to get a letter into the record. And I don't have his address, but it's Strand Aviation, Kalispell City Airport, Highway 93 South, and it reads. "Dear sir; "I have spoken and written dozens of times as a long time proponent of Kalispell City Airport improvement so my position is well documented. .lily advocacy of the city airport goes back to 1964 when I fi rst worked there as a charter and instructor pilot. The facility has served since 1929 with only minimal city involvement capital improvements and maintenance. The very survival of this facility is a testament to its value as a part of the basic infrastructure of Kalispell. "Now is the time to take the steps necessary to trigger federal money for this airport. The funds are available and are in fact largely held in trust for this type of project. Many airports, including our own Glacier International Airport, have tapped into this fund, as have Polson, Ronan, Eureka and hundreds of other airports. These are not general tax dollars but have been generated by aviation fuel and ticket sales. It is time for us to get some of this money back. "If I can be of assistance in RESPONSE The Sponsor acknowledges your comments. A copy of Mike Strand's letter can be found in this APPENDIX. F 15 Kalispell City Ar ort Final Environmental Assessment CoiVIIVIENT OR STATEMENT expediting this project please let me know. " And I'll give this to Theresa, I guess. From my own standpoint, I've been on the airport advisory board for, I don't know, seven or eight years. I know when I started I had more hair and I didn't wear glasses. But it's been a long project, it's been several administrations, and a lot of help from City staff to get as far as we've gotten, a lot of help from Phil Porrini and his staff and Mori son-Maierle before. And we've come to a point now where we feel that the money is there, the project is doable, and we'd like to continue to go forward. One of the things that we probably haven't been doing as an airport advisory board these past years is selling the benefit of the airport. And I think those of us that are involved on a day--to-day basis in that airport know the benefits of it, but the average citizen on the street doesn't. And I think if you look at what goes on at that airport and the benefits to the community and the economic benefit to the community of the airport, I think a lot of people would be surprised if we really did a complete study of the benefits of that airport. I own a business. Everybody knows the Aero Inn on the airport. I get some benefit from the airport but not a whole lot. I mean, I sell some rooms in the summertime to pilots. But I guess nay love of that airport has been my previous life I was an airline pilot and I flew charters quite a bit, so I know what a small airport can do for the community. And I can tell you if I didn't have a business on the airport, I'd still be fighting for the airport. I've said all along that there's three things the City can do with that airport. You can improve it, you can ignore it or you can close it. And probably the worst thing the City can do is ignore it. I would strongly RESPONSE The Sponsor acknowledges your comments. F 16 Ka lis ell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT urge you to go forward. You've got an opportunity now to leverage City money into a ten million dollar project. I think we're crazy to not get the money. The airport — the EA that we've just completed and the Master Plan that we've completed have proven that it is a doable project. Yes, there are some hurdles ahead of us, but I think we've got some answers how to accomplish that. And I know the airport - - a lot of us have a vision for what that airport could look like and what a benefit it could be to the community, and I would just urge this Council to just keep on going forward as you have for the past about ten years that you've been involved; thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY.- Thank you very much, Mr. Bissell. Anyone else wishing to address the Council? MS. REESER: I'm Jacquie Keezer, 545 Second Avenue East. And I have those airplanes buzzing over my house right now, as they are over this building. And I see one of those circles right now flying over my house. And my biggest concern is that this airport will be open to jet planes. And I realize they'll be smaller jets, but I know that I will hear them. They will come over my house. And I can't believe that just the properties that are sitting right by the airport are going to hear that, because they come from way up above and they circle. And I just know that they're going to be over my head, and I can't even bear it. And I think that we shouldn't get into that position, right now, of allowing jets to come in, because the jets are going to get bigger, and then we're going to have to expand the airport again in 20 or 30 years to accommodate those jets. And here we are now building RESPONSE Detailed noise modeling was done as part of the environmental assessment. That included modeling scenarios that involved future fleet mixes that aught include jet traffic or some degree of jet traffic at that particular site. It also looked at what changes would happen with the reconfigured airport itself. The noise modeling determined that while the aircraft noise would be obvious and unavoidable on adjoining properties, the noise levels of concern, those that are above 65 Ldn decibels, would be confined to the proposed airport property. F 17 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT around the airport on three sides, and we're putting more people right in the path of the airplanes. And, you know, quality of life is then most important issue. And with jets going over my head, that is the big issue to me. Thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you, Ms. Keezer. Next? MR. BROWN: My name's Neal Brown. I live at 670 Wolf Creek Drive in Bigfork. I've been involved in aviation most of my life, mostly in the maintenance end. I've been a builder of aircraft -- experimental aircraft, several of them pretty famous. one hangs in the Smithsonian Institution. The pilot of that aircraft, Dick Crutan who flew around the world nonstop refueled in 1996, stops in here once in a while for a visit. And he really likes this airport. It's a special airport. He visits small airports all across the nation and, in fact, around the world. And his comment on this airport is it's really great. He can fly in, find accommodations and not have to wave down some farmer to haul hire in and out of town. It's a real asset. But he had one thing to say, and it's emphatic. Is those towers at the end of that airport have to go. They're a real hazard to aviation. And so I deliver that message on his behalf. I would caution you, however, though, I think they need to go, but that doesn't mean they're a gold mine. You know, as far as I'm concerned, you know, they're value of scrap metal at Pacific Steel. That's not because of what emanates them is the equivalent to what scrap is if you take the S off, but it's because the business is just not a huge money maker. And I think with RESPONSE The KGEZ radio towers located southeast of the airport represent a "hazard to air navigation". As a condition of receiving FAA funding for the proposed airport improvements, the hazard presented by the towers must be eliminated. The Draft EA describes several options for addressing the radio towers including: 1) replacing the towers with shorter towers; 2) relocating the towers; and 3) completely removing the towers. In order for the towers to be removed, the City must purchase the radio facilities from the station owner at an agreeable sales price or at a court -determined settlement price if condemnation was pursued. once the City owned the lease for the tower sites and radio station facilities, the towers could be removed. F- 18 Kali ell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT further investigation, youll find that to be true. And use our tax dollars wisely when you purchase, replace or find a suitable solution for the removal. Thank you very much. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. Next? MR. C;AIRO: Scott Cairo, 1955 Bluestone. I just wanted to tell you that I'm really happy that you're looking at improving this airport. A new pilot myself, I look at the Kalispell City Airport as a big opportunity for me. Living in the South Meadows area, I got the same planes buzzing over my house. However, I made the decision to move there knowing that the airport was there, knowing that I was going to deal with the noise. That's a part of moving near an airport. So many tunes do I hear, being from Minneapolis, people complain about airport noise. If you have a problem with the airport noise, don't move there. It's gonna happen. The airport, right now as it sits, once again, being as a new pilot, the runway does need to be improved. I would really, really like to see it improved just because it's a close, convenient airport for me to. fly out of. It saves me miles and miles of driving up to Glacier, and eventually could be able to hangar our plane out there at the city airport. So I just want to tell you go ahead, if you can, get this done; thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much. Next? MR. RISTINE: My name's Wayne Ristine, 2898 Highway 93 North. I own lot 2G, so I'm one of the 18 property owners RESPONSE The Sponsor acknowledges your comment. The Sponsor acknowledges your comment. A letter from Mr. Ristine is included with this APPENDIX. F- 19 Kalispell Citz Airport Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT that's affected by this project. And I'm here to support the project. And I've supported it since day one; thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Ristine. Next? MR. GOODE: Hi. I'm Brett Goode, and I live at 1639 Highway 2 west. I don't have much to say, but I started flying when I was about eleven years old. Had it not been for the city airport, it probably wouldn't have happened. I'm planning a career in aviation.. Again, had it not been for the airport, most likely I would not be flying today. Glacier's too far, and our airport, as it sits, is not adequate. Flying anywhere in Montana, especially -- I was just in Thompson Falls two weeks ago, and it's unbelievable the difference in airports and the standard of Kalispell City. It needs to be unproved. Just the integrity of the city, I think, depends on it. You can fly anywhere, really, in the state, a city with a couple thousand people has an airport twice the quality of our own. So I really think something needs to be done. And it's a major part of my life. I do feel for some of the people that live there. I can understand that as a concern. But at the same time, the benefit is long outweighing the consequence. So it is a big part of my life, again, and I hope to see it move on as it is. I think the towers are a huge problem. I'll admit myself that being a human, I have made the mistake of being absent-minded, and those towers have played a big part in some of my flights. So I really think that definitely, if all else fails, those towers need to go. And I understand RESPONSE The Sponsor acknowledges your comment. Please see discussion about the radio towers from previous comment of page F-18. F 20 rxcz is ell Cif Air ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR RESPONSE that, you know, maybe somebody doesn't want them to go and they're being a hard nose about it, but I think it's pretty crucial. If it stays the way it is, don't ignore those towers; thanks. TIDE COURT: Thank you very much, Mr. Goode. Next? Anyone else? MR. RICHARDSON: My name is Scott Richardson. I live at 192 Fairway Boulevard in Kalispell, and I have the privilege of being the chairman for the Kalispell airport board. And I'd kind of like to address some of the concerns and, I guess, generalize -- maybe some of this will be redundant to some of the comments previously indicated. The airport in any community is a source for people who are on vacations, on business to arrive quickly, do what they do and leave. we have two airports, obviously, in this area, Glacier Park International Airport and Kalispell City Airport within somewhat close proximity. Glacier Park is designed more towards the commercial large jet liners such as Delta and Northwest. Kalispell City Airport is designed more around general aviation. The advantage to this is, as we talked about, some of these guys learning how to fly. It's a very easy airport to learn how to -- where a person can learn how to fly. There's not that issue of talking with the tower. And trust me, when you're trying to solo for the first time, talking with the tower is a very stressful, scary thing. Kalispell City Airport, a lot of folks have wondered well, why don't we just use Glacier Park International Airport? we've got another airport, a great facility, and it is - - indeed, Glacier Park is an excellent facility. Some of the reasons that Kalispell RESPONSE F21 ixalis ell CitZ Air or t Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE airport is an advantage to the city proper of Kalispell is because it does provide a stress - free destination for pilots coning out of the area. A lot of these folks that own airplanes are relatively well-to-do people, that have money in their pockets to spend on the community. Another reason that the Kalispell City Airport works so well for this particular area of Kalispell, in particular for the pilot community especially, is a lot of times Glacier Park International Airport has fog in the morning and especially in the wintertime. There are a lot of commercial folks, such as Federal Express, such as some of the government officials when the governor comes to town, that utilize our airport. The fog issue at Glacier Park and the fact that this airport is so close to Kalispell are two huge benefits to the city airport. I know there are a lot of folks that utilize this just from our own community who have other offices within the state they need to attend to. In the middle of summer when we have our tourist season, it's easily a 30- minute drive, 30 to 40-minute drive, going out to Glacier Park International Airport. Then, to deal with the tower issue and getting out of that airport adds an extreme amount of time for someone trying to save time. Kalispell City Airport is very close to downtown businesses, and it's a very good airport for someone who's trying to quickly - - Missoula to Kalispell is a 30 to 40--minute flight. Round trip, that's just a little bit over an hour. If you add another 40 minutes both ways to the 30 to 40 minutes both ways, you're adding another hour just in drive time down to Missoula. One of the things that this whole process is attempting to do is, mostly, to increase the safety of this airport. Obviously, F 22 !Calls e!! Cif Air orb Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE the talk of towers, the towers have been designated as a safety of air navigation. In addition, where this airport is located, by moving it south, by turning it, it's going to give us voider taxiways and a much safer airport for general operation. The initial design for this airport --- I made the mistake of not getting my facts and figures. I'm going to ask Gibb, is it an additional hundred feet from where we are now, or Phil? MR. PORRINI: Six hundred feet to the south. MR. RICHARDSON: How long is the runway compared to the way it is? N1R. PORRINI: The same. MR.. RICHARDSON: Okay. what the FAA has required us to do is purchase additional property so we have the availability for future expansion, if we so desire. The original design of this airport is the same length, 3700 feet, as it is now. That is a detriment to folks that are trying to drive -- fly jet planes. We won't have Delta Air Lines coming in and out of here. And it would be very difficult for most jets to land with the existing runway that we have, with the new runway that is proposed going in. What the FAA wants, however, is the ability for us to be able to expand if at such time in the future the City decides that the need for a large runway is necessary, theyll have the ability to expand. If they're going to put 7 million dollars into an airport, they want to make sure it does allow for future expansion at a later date. The completion of this airport --- one thing that's been real neat about this airport project and has been real exciting to me, F-23 Kalisi2ell City Air orf Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT being on the advisory board, is the fact that this airport is a self-sufficient airport, tax wise. It is supported by the users of the airport. And the consensus on the airport board is that we continue to maintain a self- supporting status. The City doesn't put money into this airport. In fact, over the last several years, there's been airport property that has been sold, and the City has received the profits of those sales, the monies from those sales. And when we talk about the money that the City puts back into the airport, really, if you look at the land that's been sold and chipped off from the airport throughout the years, we have more than enough to accommodate the request for the City funding for this particular airport. I don't see any reason why this airport cannot continue to maintain a status of self- sufficiency and not requiring the taxpayers to bear the expense on this. And beyond that, I highly support, personally, this airport, and I thank you for your consideration of this project. MAYOR KENNEDY.- Thank you, Mr. Richardson. Anyone else wishing to address the Council with regards to the environmental assessment for the airport this evening? Anyone else wishing to address the Council? MR. BLAYLOCK: Hello. My name is Keith Blaylock. I live at 535 Creston Hatchery Road. And I'm a member of the Glacier Eagle Soaring Club, and we use the airport for a basis of operation for flying our glider. And I'm not completely sure that we need to have the airport expanded and improved, but if that's what it's going to take to maintain the airport or to keep that airport intact, then that's what I would want to do. RESPONSE The Sponsor acknowledges your comments. F-24 Kalispell!2�tZ Air ort Final Environmental Assessment COMMENT OR STATEMENT RESPONSE Because we use it, you know, at least six months out of the year. And we use it to get access to the soaring in the mountains on the other side of the --- on the west side of the airport. So it's important to us. we've been using the airport for twelve years. And it's a real nice airport, and I think the City needs to keep it. And if you need to do the improvement to get the federal money in to keep the airport, then that's what we're for. That's all I have to say; thank you. MAYOR KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mi. Blaylock. Anyone else wishing to address the Council this evening with regards to the environmental assessment for the airport? Anyone else wishing to address the Council` one last time. Anyone else wishing to address the Council with regards to the environmental assessment for the airport? The public hearing is closed. The Council will not be taking any action with regards to the airport and the environmental assessment this evening. (Proceedings concluded at 8:45 p.m.) F-25 Post Off ice Box 166 Kalispell, Montana 5990 Kalispell City Airport - Highway 93 South - Phone 406-257-76 7 - Fax 406-755-5231 INSTRUCTION - CHARTER - SALES - RENTAL October 5, 2002 Mr. Phil Porrini T4 7 T� • r'7 A • T -tooert -veccia . Associates, inc. P.O. Box 3 653 Helena, Mt. 59604 Dear Sir; Ts r Is,% +� rr.,-, r,ra � i t r�i++�,•� ,� r, �� r, rti � +s �-.-, r, rt f, n r% 1 f,,-, rY '� �1ii N �1 i.F�O-W L ii, i }1 �iGi v ,� 3iJ�Ti`vi1 Cl 1Li YV 1 i i.i ii L '�3.� 1 �3i iii l � Gib Q ilJ i 7 ` -P p Kalispell City Airport improvement so my position is well documented. My advocacy of the city airport goes back to 1964 when I first worked there i zs.ss'fP� s� is trs avtvi* I nt. �i� The fac;1;t11-.'l ei s rc3en7etA s `n cP 020 X7itb nicel y minimal city investment in capital improvements and maintenance. The very survival of this facility is a testament to its value as part of the basic i n rastr� � c t� � re. of Kalispell, Now is the time to take the steps necessary to trigger federal money for this airport. The funds are available and are in fact largely held in trust for this type of project. Many airports including our own. Glacier International Airport have tapped into this fund as have Polson, Ronan, Eureka and hundreds of other airports. These are not general tax dollars but have been generated by aviation fuel and ticket sales. It is time for us to get some of this money back. If I can be of assistance in expediting this project phase let me know. nr W EY E +' OrT o 13 2007 JoF-PFCCVA "'T Skyvr re y yours. e rn October 7, 2002 Subject: Public Hearing: Kalispell city Airport Environmental Assessment To Whom It May concern I am the owner of TR 2G, S20, T28N, R21 W (1.07acres). I am in favor of the proposal to reconfigure and expand the existing airfield. I urge the city council to move forward with this project in a timely manner. Sincerely, Wayn L. istine October 15, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Kalispell, Montana 59901 Al J Fr: Charles J. Manning Kalispell, NIT 5� 1 r y r' Re: Draft Environmental Assessment Kalispell City Airport In reviewing the Draft Environmental Assessment of the proposed improvements at the Kalispell City airport by Robert Peccia & Associates, I concur with their findings on the projected environmental impact. The safety issues, both from the aviation standpoint and from the community adjacent the airport, far outweigh the minimal environmental impact. The City of Kalispell is committed to providing aeronautical transportation to it's gates and I encourage you to male this door as safe as possible. I am very interested in this issue as I am a pilot and earned both my private single -engine -land and glider ratings at Kalispell City. I own property adjacent to the City Airport and live within the city limits. Please accept this letter in support of the improvements to the Kalispell City Airport. Cc: Dan Norgrud Robert Pecci a & Associates P.O. Box 5653 Helena, MT 59604 OCT OERT PECCIA �4 ,T E October 7, 2002 Public HearingAttendance ... ... ... ... 0 . .. .... .... . -T PROJECi,. A1m1143m12 Kalispell, Montana ,AAIR PORTSWALIS P EL\JEnvirnmtXPub-inv\s ign ins heet-doc SHEET of October 7, 2002 Public Hearing Attendance KALISPELL CIT Y A: I POR.T ........ POJECTAlRPOR.T IMPROVEMENT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Kalispell, Montana F:\A1 R PORTSWALIS P E L\Envirn mt\Pu b-inv\sign ins heet.doc SHEET of i' 4 6 .10 October 7, 2002 Public Hearing Attendance KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT PROJECT AIRPORT ImPR0VEMENT AIP 3-30-0043-02 Kalispell, Montana Gal�u �a n� �J'» r;� 9 a. rrf' -rr �Kl� �iv e. �, h AIRPORTS\KALISPEL\]Envirnmt\Pub-inv\signinsheet-doc SHEET Of October 7, 2002 Public Hearing Attendance KALISPfLLCITY AIRP0RT R T OJ:EC., kIRPORT 1N.1PROVE1..i:. N P ... .... . ... I .... .... ... ............ A0M1143mO2 Kalispell, Montana F:XAIRPORTSXKALISPELIEnvirnmt\Pub-inv\signinsheet.doc SHEET of CITY OF KALISPELL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 7, 2002 - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A, AGENDA APPROVAL B. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL All items listed on the Consent Agenda will be accepted by one motion. If a Council member desires to discuss an item separately, the item can be removed from the Consent Agenda by motion. 1. Council Minutes - Regular Meeting September 1.6, 2002 2. Firefighter Confirmation Cory Horsens has successfully completed his one year probationary period with the Kalispell Fire Department and Council confirmation is required. 3. Recognition - Fire Department Promotions Kevin Hadley has been promoted to Lieutenant and Byron Guy has been promoted to Captain. 3. Proclamation - Fire Prevention Week October 6-12 4. Acknowledgment - United Nations International Day of Peace - September 21, 2002 C, STUDENT ISSUES Youth wanting to address the Council on any accomplishment, request or issue are asked to do so at this time. Those addressing the Council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please see the last page of the Agenda for Manner of Addressing the Council. (Comments shall be limited to three minutes) D. HEAR THE PUBLIC Persons wanting to address the Council on any issue, including Agenda items, are asked to do so at this time. Those addressing the Council are requested to give their name and address for the record. Please see the last page of the Agenda for Manner of Addressing the Council. (Comments shall be limited to three minutes) E . PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ,ASSESSMENT - RALISPELL CITY AIRPORT The Kalispell city Airport Board and the city of Kalispell plan to request federal aid for the future development of the City Airport. A Draft Environmental Assessment summarizing the potential environmental effects of the proposed airport improvement project has been prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates and has been available for review since September 7th. This is the time council will accept any comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment. F. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL ACTION 1. Resolution 4742 - Preliminary Plat -- Sunn side Subdivision This is a request for preliminary plat approval of a 6 2- lot residential subdivision located at the south side of Sunnyside Drive and west of Ashley Creek and Denver Avenue. The property contains approximately 10 acres and was annexed into the City on February 4, 2002. 2. ordinance 1437-- Initial Zoning - Willis - 2nd readin Debbie Willis has requested a zoning designation of R-4, Two Family Residential, for approximately one acre of land located on the south side of Sunnys ide Drive and the west side of Denver Avenue. ordinance 1437 passed on first reading September 3rd, however, on September 16th, Council voted to table the second reading until additional information was provided.. 3. Resolution 4743 - Rescind Master Plan Amendment - Wolford Deve 1 o]2men t The City Attorney's office is recommending the Council rescind the Master Plan Amendment for the Glacier Mall until a growth policy is in place. 4. Resolution 4744 - Rescind Master Plan Amendment - West View Estates The City Attorneys office is also recommending the Council rescind the Master Plan Amendment for West View Estates until a growth policy is in place. S. water Connection Re uest - Dan McDowell & Bonnie Buls McDowell and Buls are requesting connection to City water on property located at 1600 8 th Avenue East and postpone annexation until such time as the rest of the Greenacres area is annexed. 6. Resolution 4745 - Sto Si ns - 2nd and 3rd Avenues West at 7th Street Vest Flathead High School and residents on the west side of Kalispell have requested the installation of stop signs at the intersection of 7th Street and 2nd and 3rd Avenues West. 7. Resolution 4746 - Ownershi Transfer of Roads This resolution accepts ownership of certain portions of Willow Glen Drive, woodland Avenue, woodland Park Drive and Kelly Road from Flathead County. 8. Resolution 4747 - Supporting City -of whitefish This resolution supports the whitefish City Council's opposition to any unilateral efforts by Flathead County to alter the Whitefish City ---County Planning Board's existing jurisdiction. 9. Resolution 4748 -- Resolution of Intent - Interim Zoning This resolution calls for a public hearing on October 21, 2002 to consider whether to pass Interim Zoning Regulations. G. MAYOR/COUNCIL/CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS No Action) H . ADJOURNMENT FOR. YOUR INFORMATION HOLIDAY - Monday, October 14, 2002 - Columbus Day Council Work Session -- October 15, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers Next Regular Meeting - October 21, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers Reasonable accommodations will be made to enable individuals with disabilities to attend this meeting. Please notify Theresa White, City Clerk at 758-7756. ADMINISTRATIVE CODE adopted July 1■ 1991 Section 2-20 Manner of Addressing Council a. Each person not a Council member shall address the Council, at the time designated in the agenda or as directed by the Council, by stepping to the podium or microphone, giving that person's name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record, and unless further time is granted by the Council, shall limit the address to the Council to three minutes. b. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member of the Council or Staff. a. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. d . No question shall be asked of individuals except through the Presiding officer. The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page I of 7 .'Iilck Here to mister fvr, your FREE" ilane, #i. - cke -0 Aour_ � �E? WE CAN HELP www'daWntertakeXom MONfANA - - - - - MhOWKC Educators Resource Center SERVING NORTHWEST MONTANA SINCE 1 888 Local Cost of airport expansion could exceed counci*l's commitment By William L. Spence The Daily Inter Lake Kalispell taxpayers may have to come up with more than $1 million to pay for a proposed expansion and realignment of the city airport. A draft environment assessment regarding the project was released last week. The City Council will discuss the findings during a workshop next week, and a public hearing will be held on Oct. 7. This is one of the final steps necessary before the proposal is submitted to the Federal Aviation Administration for approval. The Kalispell City Airport is the second -busiest general aviation facility in Montana, with about 35,000 take -offs and landings each year. Web Edition I Go Back News For Today Attorney Don Verna y ready to move on Law roundup- Whi tefi sh 0 Law roundu Kali spell 0 Law -rvundup- Columbia Falls 0 Law roundup - Alarms Family turns pumpkin patch into an amusement ark 0 Law roundu -- Flathead Count Sheriff 0 Juveniles arrested for bur glary of two crlhnnc 11QP1Pe-tRtnry tnl?mmmnnd=.genrehkdh=news_dh&eoskudata=19-814035-2Z&search- var=Kalisi10/7/02 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 2 of 7 That includes 14,000 operations homized.c p mfrom private aircraft that aren't supplier, ye based here tourists and visitors who, according to a 1993 . . . . . . us report, contribute more than $1.3 f ■ . . . . . . . . mll�on annually to the local economy. However, the 73-year-old facility has essentially been neglected. Other than paying for various studies about what to do with it, the city has offered little support in recent years, prompting several businesses and aircraft owners to relocate to other airfields around the area. The environmental assessment, which was prepared by Robert Peccia & Associates, estimates that total operations at Kalispell could grow to 52,000 by 2018 but only if substantial improvements are made to the facility. "Although the physical setting of the airport is highly favorable, the facility is dated and requires significant design modifications to ensure that it can safely and efficiently accommodate the expected increases in aviation activity," the draft assessment said. Details regarding the proposed improvements, as well as other issues raised in the d raft assessment, include: • Safety and design deficiencies ----- The airport currently has a variety of problems, such as inadequate protection zones at the ends of the runway, an absence of perimeter fencing, and limited apron and hangar space. H t.0 m,gist:er for Your FREE dane ficke WANT T0AQYEff7SE? 'WE CAN HELP riww011yfnterrake.cOm Local ff.,; axi T--, x, . #-LKC Educators Resource center ...ISelectStory.tpl?com a.and=search&db=news.db&egskudata=l9-S14035-22&search-var--Kalis 1017102 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 3 of 7 The biggest problem, though, is that the KG Ez radio towers penetrate the approach space. The towers were declared a hazard to navigation by the FAA in 1999. 0 The new facility --- The proposed improvements are based on a 1999 airport master plan and a 2001 site selection study. They include building a new runway about 900 feet south of the existing runway, and rotating it 5.6 degrees clockwise. Initially, the new runway would be 3,700 feet long, compared with 3,600 feet today. It could eventually be expanded to 4,700 feet, which would allow smaller business jets to use the field. The runway would also be widened, from 00 to 75 feet, and the apron would almost double in size, so that more planes could be based at the airport. Hangar space would increase as well. The new facility would meet the design criteria for a B-11 airport. ■ Land acquisition In order to accommodate the improvements, and to provide adequate protection zones, a total of 72 acres would need to be purchased, mostly at the south end of the property. The new airport would have 149 acres, compared to 77 today. The expansion would involved buying 35 tracts from 18 different property owners. Nine residences, five businesses and 23 other structures -- includina »r, nr•tC+r►t-r tril7�r.rr, r,�r�r--eParrh�rr h-r�Pw� c1hkpnr 11dntn= 9-8 403Jr--22&search-var=Falls 10/7/02 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell,. Montana Page 4 of 7 .o some existing hangars and airport buildings would also need to be relocated. In addition, the KG EZ towers would have to be removed, relocated or replaced by an array of smaller towers. The city is recommending that this be accomplished by purchasing the business, either through negotiation or condemnation. ■ Cost/benefit The estimated cost of the expansion is $6.9 million, which includes $3.04 million for land acquisition, $3.01 million for construction, $500,000 to remove the KG EZ towers, and $305,000 in ancillary improvements. Philip Porrini, who is Peccia & Associates' airport division manager, said the land acquisition costs are the company's best estimate based on similar recent sales. However, he said no formal appraisals have been done, no negotiations have taken place, and the figure doesn't factor in any estimate for legal costs should condemnation proceedings be required. The report is also silent regarding the economic benefit of the expansion. Other than mentioning the capital expenditures directly associated with the construction and land acquisition, the assessment offers no information regarding how much added revenue the city or local businesses would realize as a result of this project. ...ISelectStory.t-Pl?conumand=search&db=news.db&egskudata=19--814035-22&.search-var=balls 10/7/02 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 5 of 7 "Increases in visitor expenditures may indirectly result from the improvements," the document said. As for the option of doing nothing, the assessment made two conflicting comments. It suggested at one point that, without these improvements, "the likelihood of the Kalispell City Airport surviving beyond the next decade appears uncertain" but later concluded that "there are no notable socio-economic impacts associated with the (no - action) alternative." • Funding alternatives The FAA would typically cover 90 percent of the costs associated with the proposed expansion. However, in the case of Kalispell, "there are indications that it's reluctant to participate at its normal rate on the land acquisitions," Porrini said. "It wants to make sure the city is committed to this." Furthermore, the agency won't provide any funding for removing the KG EZ towers, or to relocate any existing airport hangars, or for any environmental cleanup related to the land acquisitions. The assessment doesn't provide a bottom -line cost to city taxpayers, should the council decide to move forward with the expansion. Previous councils have committed $1 million for any airport expansion, but that may not be enough for the current plan. FvPn t i.qinn the is nd nmi j i.qition /Se]e -t'Storv.tnl?command=search&db=news.db&easkudata=l9-S 14035-22&search-var--I atis 10/7/02 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 6 of 7 wi w +.� • s r. �r • . ■ y w a . rr ■ rrw ■ ■ ..n rr� r. � .r...r . �..r • • costs presented in the environmental assessment, the city would have to pay $500,000 for KGEZ, plus an unknown amount to relocate any airport hangars, and $630,000 at a minimum for its 10-percent share of the remaining costs, If the land or tower expenses exceed Peccia's estimate or if the FAA declines to cover its 90- percent share the total cost to Kalispell would be even higher. That burden may not fall entirely onto taxpayers, though; Porrini said other sources of grants and loans are available to help pay for the project. And if the cost does. _exceed $1 million, the council will ' face a difficult choice: According to' the assessment, Kalispell couldn't afford to do anything on its own that would eliminate or even substantially reduce .the safety, and liability concerns present at the existing airport facility. The council workshop on the draft assessment will be held at City Hall on Sept. 25, beginning at 7 p.m. The public is welcome to attend, although public testimony is typically not accepted. A public hearing on the expansion proposal will take place during the regular council meeting on Oct. 7. 09/18/2002 Wednesday Go Back ...ISelect5tory.tpl?command=search&db=news.db&egskudata=19-814035-22&search-var=Katis 10/7/42 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 1 of 4 Click For Forecast Monday October 07, 2002 SERVING NORTHWEST MONTANA Web Edition SINCE 1888 CLick Here to register for Y0U.r FREE Plane ticket WAIff 1 � At�iSE't tedsftowm Lmum- NET 6 1. . - "O F--KC- Educators Resource Center Local Airport expansion on final approach By William L. Spence The Daily Inter Lake After six years and several lengthy studies, a proposed expansion of the Kalispell City Airport could be just months away from qualifying for federal funding. The City Council discussed the issue during a workshop on Wednesday night. Philip Porrini with Robert Peccia & Associates, the city's consultant on the $6.9 million project, walked the council through a recently completed draft environmental assessment. Following a public hearing on Oct. 7, he said, Peccia & Associates will take about a month to complete the final assessment. The Federal Aviation Administration will then evaluate the proposal and determine whether it involves any significant impacts. � Go Back News For Today Attorne on. Vern ay ready to move on 0 Law roun dup-- Wh i tefi sh. Law roundu Kali spell Law roundup - Columbia Falls 0 Law roundua- Alarrns Family turns pumpkin. -patch into an amusement park Law round Flathead Count Sheriff . 0 Juveniles arrested for burglary of two ,Qrhnnk 1-0%i:d P.rt.tnrv_tnl ?cnmman d= search&db= news.db&easkudata=71 - 8 14722-5 5 &search- var--Kali sl 10/7l02 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 2 of 4 ,. If not, the agency will file a Supplier f Significant Impact. Finding o No Sig ca pac That's expected to take another _u 30 days. That finding "doesn't obligate the FAA or the city to do anything," Porrini said. "It's an indication that the project can take place as proposed, and that it's eligible for federal funding." Once the agency issues the finding, he said, a three-year clock begins ticking. During that period, the city must at least begin acquiring the property or easements needed to accommodate the proposed expansion. If it waits longer than that, the environmental assessment will have to be updated. "You have a three-year window of opportunity," Porrini said. "It's your prerogative to wait or to move forward." The new facility would meet the design criteria for a B-II airport, the minimum requirement for federal funding. A total of 72 acres, mostly at the south end of the property, would have to be purchased for the expansion. In some cases, only easements or long -terra leases would be needed. Nine homes, five businesses and 23 other structures also would need to be relocated, including the KGEZ radio towers. "The land acquisition and dealing with the towers are your we . .. O-W . ■ . . 11YIA1Viii' TO Aa3YERPSE? I LWE CAN HIELP J www.ds1jj*1ater18ke.c0W Local 11. a.2RNET.._N'1 EKC Educators Resource Center ...1SelectStory.tpl?command=search&db=news.db&egskudata=71-814722-55&search-var=Falls 1017102 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 3 of 4 ti rst step," Porn n i saia. Previous councils have agreed to spend up to $1 million on the expansion, and the current council remains committed to that position. The money would come from the sale of two lots adjacent to the airport. One is immediately north and one immediately south of the Rosauer's grocery store. The lots were part of the original airport property. They were sold last year for about $1.3 million. "That land was sold with the intent of improving the airport," said councilman Fred Leistiko, who is also on the Airport Advisory Board. "we aren't starting from scratch." Federal funding for the project would come from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program, which typically covers 90 percent of any capital improvement costs, as well as of some maintenance costs, for qualified facilities. "That's why it's so important to get on the list of federally recognized airports," city Manager Chris Kukulski said. "If we aren't recognized, we aren't eligible for that" 90-percent match. Federal participation isn't guaranteed Kalispell would have to compete for the money, along with other airports in the state but it's considered highly likely. "I can't think of another general Pxiiatinn girnnrt of this c17v in thv ••-• 12 .rN. . Itn- - __-_-____ _�__��[_ o_ 31- w__... -11- D_...-...lY. A.,+.,-'71 41 A'711 SS�T�a�rr►�_z�� 10/7/07 The Daily Internet: The Daily Inter Lake Newspaper, Kalispell, Montana Page 4 of 4 L4V 1%A%1V1 1 %-All tJ%J1 L VI &1 01V V1L.Lr 11 1 U 1V state that isn't receiving federal funds," Porrini said. Grants and loans may also be available from the Montana Aeronautics Division to help cover the cost of the expansion. Leistiko said Kallspell's $1 million contribution is a hard cap. If the city can't pay for its share of the project within that budget, he said, then the "fallback position" is to pave the existing runway, add some security fences and go from there. "We would try to do the best we could with the million dollars," he said, Reporter Bill Spence may be reached at 788-4489 or by e- mail at bspence @ dailyinterlake.com 09/28/2002 Saturday Go Back . .... .. . ..... - ./SedectStnrVAD ?command =search&db=news.db&eoskuudata=71.--814722-55&,vearch-var-Kali p, I f717/n? r r1% 616 fir. PUBLI . FW no 41.1 FlAfT�= NvlRvn .rr - L , , sGEs. Ertr. VA (AU F Il P VE ! y4 r$Uar!t` c-tsbtlo1 9(b)(5} of P,Oblfi't;ar -248i" Ide ed 66 mi �, �or'f'�rid� �lrwd�rD® )pnient Act otI98d, -.as amen hsrDTfDiv' �� thi rdeh o ues raid me !ve ('61t �, e Join nn � g dads t lout and;west o teae�: : J ASS �s ' I % 9 �h •t:te" s� ie AdAbs ' . 11th th ig : p fopose �rt��~der�gl�p�rien _Xt •Include;, m-A ulti� R� sn' rr:a %fi'ulif' • 4,700' 7 ve ��ve•fnplil� he ed .taxl►�a ,a Wn yin ' Iropertyr i • : - F '• nstaltlhg .new air. lighting; . d Wds;�i " "A igaltng. the ' av,a= hazard posed by adstl n g :. KQ EZ i.r�edk�• ors; and �;:-; f3evising access and service uadsi STATE OF MONTANA FLATHEAD COUNTY AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION �.' "A Draft' E�i,rori tental ? { CHRIS TY D O TY BEING DULY �� j 1�ssessment'l sum- AND SAYS: THAT SBE IS .. SWORN, DEPOSES f rnarizing the potenttai . environmerrti=effects ,�� r LEGAL CLERK OF THE DAILY INTER LAKE, A gprovenfien#tiara IV' Flu 40F IPW act =hash ` •re It- d d DAILY NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL ._ beery are' } CIRCULATION,P AND PUBLISHED IN =:fort rerrlbw:' 1 r �' n "1� CITY OF KALISPELI.r1 IN THE CO OF • = ter :v t r �_ . , FLATHEAD, STATE OF MONTANA AND THAT a Arre,a �,at= 1 ahead Qaun - racy �� Ave n �alis-• 4 7 No. 6187 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT WAS Y. • : sf � ell,'. Montana sdurin a P D AND PUBLISHED Ii�T � REGULAR normal' warking hours:. AND E ISSUE OF SAID PAPER, AND IN The EA will -be ariailable for review for at toast 3o EACH AND Y. COPY OF ON TBE days followin , the �f#rs ublication df 'this.'no-: r CT. 2002 DATES OF. SEPT. , o ,ce:; Co ies of 'the EA ! _ Fray- be 'r®quested by contactln Ike'Bake _- at 408). 758-7718 or;' "of- - AND TBE RATE CIE-LARGED FOR THE ABOVE - - Phl•' Porrinl Robert Peccla & Assoclatea: at PRINTING DOES NOT EMCEED TBE MINES4UM (#p6) 447-5030. ". _:1:=, : The Clt Kalispell -. 3 GOING RATE CHARGED TO ANY O and the Airport- Board _ have ADVERTISER FOR THE SAME PUBLICATIONI scheduled a Public .Hear#ng to solicit com-, SET IN THE SAME SL'ZE TYPE AND PUBLISHED . meats. vn the , proposed new airport p oct.-.Thb- FOR � SAME NUMBER OF INSERTIONS. Public -Rea" . ad-che;------- vied dapart` off' the CIt . Cburic,l meetlh ' ., ngins Gle/7C %r n,h -At,77 7stiiSlct�' F bar 0! • - - 7,Aamb � 1n Coun cil Cbrscity...��bf ;'Hall. The public hearing:. Subscribed an sworn to before ire ot�� i will be conducted for the' - �_ purpose of. considering _ AD, OCT. 4 2002 • ,. the social, economic;- r 3 and environmental ef- fects of the proposed • r :. alraort development _and . Its consistency with the of pals and planning - ob-.�.Y-7: jectives for this area.: " .. Written comments on f. , : ` Notary _Public for the State of Montana the airport development . . proposal and Draft EA Residingin Ka s ell , must -be sent to Phll . .• � M Coi�ln��i551o11 expires 9/I I/o5 �:Porrinl, P.E:; `Robert .�=-ABsaciatea;�•- Ind , 0-';"•Box• 5-853; -. F Helena, MT 59904 -by =.October 15, 2002, - _./s/Glb Blue-14,_ Chair- . man � i �+ �ICaiispeli.':Clty Airport ► .�_ Kali ell -, E. ... -: September. �. ber .e t'- i - - rPp PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AVAILABILITY KALISPELL CITY AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Pursuant to Section 509(b)(6) of Public Law 97-248, identified as the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1982 and as amended, notice is hereby given that the Kalispell City Airport Board and the City of Kalispell plan to request federal aid for the future development of an improved airport on the existing airport property and adjoining lands to the south and west of the present airport. Kalispell City Airport is generally located west of US Highway 93 South at the southern edge of the City. The activities associated with this proposed airport development project include: 1. Acquiring new land to accommodate an ultimate 4,700' x 75' paved runway; 2. Developing new paved taxiways and an apron area; 3. Fencing of the airport property; 4. Installing new airport lighting and navigational aids; 5. Mitigating the aviation hazard posed by the existing KGEZ radio towers; and 6. Revising access roads and service roads on the new airport property. A Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) summarizing the potential environmental effects of the proposed airport improvement project has been prepared and is available to any person for review. The EA may be viewed at the City Clerk's office at the Kalispell City Hall (312 1st Ave E) and at the Flathead County Library (247 1st Ave E) in Kalispell, Montana during normal working hours. The EA will be available for review for at least 30 days following the first publication of this notice. Copies of the EA may be requested by contacting Mike Baker at (406) 758--7718 or Phil Porrini of Robert Peccia & Associates at (406) 447-5000. The City of Kalispell and the Airport Board have scheduled a Public Hearin; to solicit comments on the proposed new airport project. The Public Hearing is scheduled as part of the City Council meeting beginning at 7:00 PM, October 7, 2002 in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The public hearing will be conducted for the purpose of considering the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed airport development and its consistency with the goals and planning objectives for this area. Written comments on the airport development proposal and Draft EA must be sent to Phil Porrini, P.E., Robert Peccia & Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 5653, Helena, MT 59604 by October 15, 2002. lsl Gib Bissell, Chairman Kalispell City Airport Board Kalispell, Montana Publication dates: September 7, 2002 and October 4, 2002 F:',-URFORT5,.k-kUSFELZnvimmt;Puh-inViHEAR ADV.doc Ka1is elJ Gib Ar"r orl Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX G.n RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 28, 2002 FAA COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA I%alispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment APPENDIX G: RESPONSES TO OCTOBER 28, 2002 FAA COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA Final comments on the Draft EA received from Gary Gates of the FAA. on October 28, 2002 are shown in bold and italicized text followed by RPA's response. Necessary text revisions are highlighted through the use of shading and . Phil ,1 had gotten your voice mail earlier this week and understand the minutes from the public hearing are being compiled. We had the following additional comments regarding the draft FA, that we received September 6, 2002. Please make the following revisions so that we can issue our final determination for the Kalispell City Airportproject, assuming that there are no substantial comments from public hearing relating to environmental concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our comments. INTRODUCTION SECTION OF EA COMMENT: Page (P) IN-] (4th para), use reference to current legislation and law: i.e. Wendell H. Ford A viation Investment and Reform Act for the 21 Century, April 2001 (Air 21) RESPONSE: We left the fourth paragraph as is since it references general provisions related to environmental planning for airport projects. However, we added a new fifth paragraph that reads: The AIRPORTANDAIRWAYIMPROVEMENTACT OF 1982 established the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). In 19947 the AIRPORT AND .AIRWA Y IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1982 was repealed and its provisions were recodified as Title 49 of the United States Code. AiP legislation has been amended several times, most recently with the passage of the WENDALL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM A CT FOR 21 ST CENTURY (AIRµ21) in April 2001. Funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust fund which is supported by user fees, fuel taxes and other similar revenue sources. PART 1.0: PURPOSE AND NEED COMMENT: P 1-5, Do you have any record of approximate number of most demanding aircraft that currently uses the airport, ie Turbo Commander. RESPONSE: The 1999 Airport Master Plan reported a pilot claiming operations to or from the airport with a Falcon 10 (maximum take -off weight 19,300 lbs) and a Turbo Commander (maximum take -off weight 11,000 lbs), although the FBO could not verify this. Based on information obtained from the principal FB O during November 2002, larger aircraft use presently consists of about 100 annual operations by Cessna Caravans and about 70 annual operations by a King Air. The critical aircraft at Kalispell City Airport would be a light twin -engine aircraft. COIVlMENT. Also on this page (P 1-5) reference to AC 15015300-4B (cancelled) should be revised to current AC 15015300-13. RESPONSE: The first sentence of the third full paragraph on the page was modified to state: G-1 ,halispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment Based on forecasted demands of aviation activity over a twenty-year planning horizon, the Master Plan concluded that the projected demands at Kalispell can be adequately met by an _-r %-III,rr-TTii type airport as discussed in the FAA's current Advisory Circular No. sn��%-/ %I;nn �I." . a -�� 15 0/5 300-13 . COMMENT. P I -6, under expansion capabilities- this pars should be clarified that FAA would require control of land to accommodate 95% of the small aircraft fleet as opposed to 100 %O (4, 700' length). RESPONSE: The third sentence of the paragraph under Expansion Capabilities on page 1-6 has been changed to say: ....of the facility. The FAA would require the City to acquire or control enough land to allow for the ultimate construction of a runway capable of accommodating 95% of the small aircraft fleet as a precondition for federal participation in a construction project. This also provides.... COMMENT. Under compliance with design stds, statement regarding that "FAA has been reluctant to admit airports not capable of meeting B-II' , should be revised and clarified as airports that do not meet current design stds. RESPONSE: The referenced statement on page 1--6 has been revised to state: ... and other related airport facilities. The FAA has been reluctant to admit airports that afe fiet-, do not meet current design standards into the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) airports. Kalispell City Airport has ... CC].1VIMENT. P 1-7 bottom sentence, An FAA "dictated" B-II should be replaced with "as required by FAA standards" RESPONSE: The last sentence on page 1-7 was changed to say: ...aircraft (aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds). An FAA diet A B-II object free area should be Soo -feet wide and extend 300-feet beyond each threshold as required by FAA standards. The OFA is. - . COMMENT. P I -11, section 1.4 see previous comment regarding current legislation, i.e. Air 21. RESPONSE: The first paragraph of this section was modified to read: The Sponsor must have an FAA -approved ALP in order to receive financial assistance under the provisions of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) as authorized by Title 49 of the United States Code, as amended. . The proposed actions identified above are being considered for implementation as soon as federal funding assistance can be obtained. PART 2.0: ALTERNATIVES COMMENT.- Section 2.1.11, 2nd pars should be clarified regarding B-II aircraft that occasionally use the airport vs. "critical aircraft. " G-2 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment RESPONSE: The sentence referencing critical aircraft was changed to state: ...from present conditions. The airport would not comply with FAA safety and design standards for the most demanding type of aircraft (B-II) that occasionally use the airport. Obstructions to Part 77 airspace would ... COMMENT. bast para, (P 2-1 ) "Although some facilities?. "with the assistance of funding from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program " Appears this should read "without" assistance. RESPONSE: The referenced sentence was changed to read: ...aviation airport. Although some fa ei-l-ities er conditions at the airport may be improved, it is highly doubtful that the City could fund and implement the type of major airport reconfiguration and facility improvements that are necessary ;:406-Sible with without the funding assistance of from the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. The improvement .. . COMMENT. Section 2.2.2, 5th bullet should be modified to reference Kalispell City as an alternate airport as opposed to "reliever. " Airports are not classified as relievers unless primary airport has reached 60% capacity, which FCA is not. RESPONSE: The referenced bullet item was changed to say: 0 The Kalispell City Airport serves as " r-e ie ra,. an alternate airport for small aircraft activity from GPIA. Small cargo planes currently divert to the Kalispell City Airport when the GPIA is fogged in. Some general aviation ... COMMENT.- Last bullet of this page and section 2.1.5 seem to conflict. RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the paragraph under section 2.1.5 was changed as shown below. Surface transportation modes could be relied upon for travel to and from Kalispell to replace aviation activity. The individuals, institutions, and business interests that presently use the Kalispell City Airport would be required to use ground vehicles, regional bus lines, or rail service for transportation instead of aircraft. ' s COMMENT. General comment, should be some discussion on elimination of traffic on east side of runway in order to minimize runway crossings. RESPONSE: The text of the second paragraph under 2.4.4 was revised as follows: A full-length 35-foot-wide parallel taxiway would be constructed at the required B-II safety spacing from the runway to improve capacity and provide access to hangar developments. Runway crossings would be minimized by replacing the existing parallel taxiways with a single, full-length parallel taxiway constructed along the west side of the new runway and by restricting airport development areas to only on one side of the new runway. G -3 lCalispeJJ City Airport Final Environmental assessment COMMENT: Also AIP funding is limited for business moves to nominal amounts in accordance with the Uniform Act. RESPONSE: A new last sentence was added to the text of the third paragraph under section 2.4.1 that says: ....and apron. An' funding is limited to nominal. amounts for business moves in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. A similar sentence was also added to the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 4-15 and ending at the top of page 4-1 6. COMMENT.- Page 2-9, "Sponsors proposed action " ALP should reflect larger RPZ size (500WOO-xl, 000') for initial development. RPZ size shown is for "exclusively small aircraft" RESPONSE: The Sponsor understood that the FAA requested that land be acquired.or controlled sufficient for large RPZ's and to protect a 10,000-foot Part 77 airspace. However, it was understood that the initial design of the facility would reflect the current and projected critical aircraft - a light twin, requiring a 250'x 450' x 1,000' RPZ, for visual approach. If large RPZ's must be included in the initial development, this can be accommodated during the design and land acquisition phase of the project. Estimates show that about 0.3 acres more land would be needed along the southwest edge of the proposed airport property line to accommodate a large RPZ with the initial development. COMMENT. Section 2.4.4, regarding number of tie -downs- if 80% of aircraft are in hangars, why Ill tiedowns? .Do they have this much itinerant traffic? RESPONSE: The text in section 2.4.4 discussing tie -downs was revised as shown below and will appear as a new third paragraph: Additionally, a new paved apron area would be provided with the proposed action. The initially proposed apron would have an area of about 21,500 square yards and would be equipped with tie -downs for up to 52 112 aircraft. Changes to the number of tie -downs and square yards of apron were also made in Table 2--1. Our projection of 112 tie -downs is consistent with projected tie -down needs made in the 1999 Master Plan. COMMENT.- Section 2.4.5, had REILs ever been discussed as an enhancement for runway end visibility? RESPONSE: REILs have been discussed only as a possible extra safety measure with the provision of a Non -Precision Instrument approach. Co1V1MENT. Table 2-1, regarding apron size and # of tie -downs, don't seem to compute 112 tie downs vs. 9,400 SY for initial development and 46,900 SY for ultimate development, still showing 112 tie downs G-4 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment RESPONSE: Please review the response to the previous comment concerning apron size and the number of tie -downs identified in the Draft EA. PART 3.0: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT COMMENT. Figure 3-2 and text referencing this ALP should be removed as it creates confusion. Why is it included? RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the last two sentences of the second paragraph under section 3.1.3 were changed to read as shown below. The bullet items were retained. ....office (ADO) the feasibility of new development at the current airport site. The 1996 ALP showed the type of aviation facilities appropriate for Kalispell, based on current and forecast aircraft activity. The 1996 ALP identified the following major developments at the airport: The last paragraph under section 3.1.3 on page 3-5 containing the reference to Figure 3-2 was deleted. Figure 3-2 will be deleted to eliminate confusion. The discussion of the ALP was included because this was one of the most recent major planning activities undertaken by the Kalispell City Airport Board following its formation. COMMENT.- Section 3.1.3, last para should be clarified to refer to preferred alternative, not as "B-H airport" but as airport meeting dimensional criteria for ARC B-H, small aircraft, less than 10 passenger seats, with IFR capability of greater than 3l4 mite visibility etc. RESPONSE: The last paragraph under 3.1.3 on page 3-7 was revised as shown below. The Site Selection Study ultimately recommended that future airport development at Kalispell occur at the present airport site. As with the 1999 .plaster Plait Study, shifting the existing runway threshold 600 feet to the south to clear the runway protection zone and rotating the current runway alignment 5.6° clockwise was recommended to the City as the "best" course of action. This site development would ' " meet dimensional criteria for ARC B-II, small aircraft, less than 10 passenger seats, with IFR capability of greater than 3I4 mile visibility and provide expansion potential to B-II standards with Non Precision Instrument (NPI) approaches. COMMENT.- Section 3.4.11, should include discussion on recommendation for due diligence audit also that environmental cleanup is not eligible for AIP funding. RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the following paragraph has been added to the end of section 3.4.11. To accurately assess potential hazardous waste concerns and identify any remediation and cleanup needs, a due diligence audit of properties affected by the proposed airport project must be completed. The audit would ensure the City does not assume the liability for contamination on lands needed for airport improvements. Environmental remediation activities (such as the removal of contaminated soils and the mitigation of leaking underground storage tanks) are activities that are not eligible for Airport Improvement Program funding. C M5 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment PART 4.0: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMENT.- Section 4.2 regarding noise impacts, should be some discussion on potential noise impacts from relocating and establishing hangars and apron area on west side of airport vs. east, ie run-up and taxiing aircraft, particularly on north west end. RESPONSE: The following paragraph will be added to the text in section 4.2. The proposed reconfiguration of the airport would shift some aircraft noise associated with run- up and taxiing activities from the east side to the west side of the airport where a new apron and hangar facilities would be built. The impact of this shift in aircraft -related noise should be minor since most lands to the west of the airport are sparsely developed, occupied by the City wastewater treatment facilities, or developed with commercial or industrial uses that are not particularly noise sensitive. The north end of the new runway would be shifted nearly 600 feet south of the north end of the existing runway and further from residences located along Airport Road and 18th Street West. COMMENT. Page 4-2 first para should be clarified to include noise descriptor as 65 Day - Night average (DNL), symbol Ldn used to denote DNL, not dBA (A -weighted). This mixes two different metrics. RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the following changes have been made in parts 3.0 and 4.0. The following changes were made to the text on page 3-15 to avoid confusing metrics. Airport noise exposure contours are normally presented in terms of Ldn values, in increments of 5 decibels dB 4. . The day -night average noise level, L&, is a single number descriptor that represents the constantly varying sound level during a continuous 24--hour period. The L& includes a 10 decibel dB4 penalty that is added to noises that occur during the nighttime hours between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for people's higher sensitivity to noise at night when the background noise level is typically low. To be consistent with the remainder of the text in this section of Part 4.0, the last sentence of the first partial paragraph on page 4-2 was revised to say: .... airports would be negatively impacted by changes to an airport or its operations. This document determined that residences and schools should not be located within the L" 65 dBA-or greater contour associated with an airport. COMMENT.- Figures 4.1-4.3, difficult to pick out proposed property boundary, which is pertinent in describing off airport noise impacts. Please denote proposed property boundary. RESPONSE: In response to this comment, the proposed property line for the airport was added to Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3. After placing the existing and proposed airport property lines on the drawings with noise contours in Parts 3.0 and Part 4.0, several text changes are required to better describe existing and future noise conditions at the airport. As the text changes below indicate, the area encompassed by the current and future 65 L& G-5 fCalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment contour extends beyond the existing and proposed property lines at a few locations. This is not viewed as a notable noise impact since the affected areas typically include lands in or immediately adjacent to the Ashley Creek floodplain not suited to development or the rear portions of highway commercial lots. The text changes made to the EA are shown below. The last paragraph on page 3-15 was revised to say; FIGURE 3-4 shows the INM calculated noise contours for existing conditions at Kalispell City Airport. The outside contour represents a noise level of 55 L& and the innermost contour is 75 Ldn. The current noise exposure contours show the 65 L& contour as being eenfined te extends beyond the existing airport property along the eastern side of the airport and along the extreme southwestern edge of the property. There are no noise -sensitive land uses like residences located in these areas. The last paragraph on page 4-3 discussing noise impacts associated with the Proposed Action was revised to say: It is typical for the L& 65 contour associated with a general aviation airport to be located on airport property and near to the runway, and the noise contours of the Kalispell City Airport shown on the FIGURES 4-1 and 4-2 indicate that the L& 65 contour for the Proposed Action ,would generally be located within the proposed airport property lines. The INM predicted the Ld,, 65 contour would be within the airport property over the next twenty years with the implementation of this project except for narrow areas along the east and west edges of the proposed property near the southern end of the new runway. These areas include non -developable lands along and in the Ashley Creek foodplain and property at the rear of highway commercial lots. Therefore, adverse noise impacts should not occur (with or without small jet use) on properties in the vicinity of the airport according to the FAA criteria. The proposed action would shift the runway south sufficiently that even with the projected jet traffic, all residences in the runway's approaches remain clear of the La 65 contour. The second paragraph under 4.2.2 on page 4-4 discussing noise impacts associated with the No Action alternative was changed to say. - The predicted noise contours for the No Action Alternative (assuming no small jets would be included in the fleet mix) are shown on FIGURE 4-3. The No Action Alternative was not analyzed with jet traffic because physical constraints at the existing airport generally preclude jet landings. The figure indicates that the L& 65 contour for the No Action Alternative would be . extend beyond the existing airport property at the same locations as predicted under present aviation activity levels, but the area encompassed by the La 65 contour would expand considerably at these locations. Similar to the Proposed Action, the INM predicts the L& 65 contour would exist about 250 feet from each end of the runway and a maximum of some 450 feet from the centerline of the runway. Adverse noise impacts would not be expected on noise -sensitive properties in the vicinity of the airport. COMMENT:. Section 4.7.1, page 4-2, what is proposed timing on new storm water detention for hwy 93 improvements? These plans should be coordinated with city and FAA to ensure that we do not have any conflicts with airport improvements. G -7 Kalispell City Airport final Environmental Assessment RESPONSE: MDT's Draft 2003-2005 Surface Transportation Improvement Program (STEP) shows that the project to reconstruct US Highway 93 in the vicinity of Kalispell City Airport (Ashley Creek - Kalispell Project) is scheduled for implementation sometime during Fiscal Year 2003. This suggests that road reconstruction should begin during 2003 and take about 12 months to complete. The Ashley Creek - Kalispell Project is not on MDT's list of scheduled project lettings through the end of February 2003. Difficulties in acquiring right-of-way for the new highway have delayed the project for MDT. The Sponsor would remain in contact with MDT and continue to coordinate with agency personnel regarding the proposed construction of storm water drainage facilities across airport property. Highway reconstruction plans (or even possibly as -built drawings) for the storm drain line and detention facility should be available to the engineers designing the proposed improvements at Kalispell City Airport. COMMENT.- Appendix B, regarding l -2S-02 conversation with USFS relative to access onto airport; indicates that there may be a potential far taxiway access from USFS onto airport. we would strongly discourage this type of "thru the fence access" Sounds like this is a mute point since USFS indicated they had no need for such access. RESPONSE: The Sponsor will continue to coordinate with the USFS regarding their property if this project advances to land acquisition and design. The FAA's opposition to "through the fence access" from the USFS shop to the airport property will be communicated to the agency and others that might be contemplating such access. Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment FAA Helena ADO Additional Comments on EA for Kalispell City Airport Received November 22, 2002 The following additional comments on the EA were received from the FAA Helena ADO (Gary Gates) on November 22, 2002. Comments from the FAA are shown in bold and italicized text followed by RDA's response. Necessary text revisions are highlighted through the use of shading and We received the final EA for Kalispell City Airport on November 14, 2002, and would like to address the following few remaining items before we issue a final environmental determination (FONSI): C"C]MMENT. Regarding page G-4; 500' x 700' x I, 000' RPZ would be required as part of initial upgrade to facility standards for a B-II facility. The existing use today maybe "exclusively small" aircraft, however we would be constructing the new airport to B-II stds not "exclusively small". Larger RPZ's would need to be included in the initial land acquisition. RESPONSE: FIGURE 2-3 in the Final EA has been modified to show 500' x 700' x 1,000' RPZ's associated with initial and future facility development. Appropriate changes to reflect the incorporation of large RPZ's with the Sponsor's proposed initial development activities were made to Table 2-1. Including the large RPZ's in the initial development will require the acquisition or control of slightly more property (about O.3 acres total) from than initially anticipated. Incorporating large R.PZ's would require slight adjustments to the proposed airport property lines on five tracts (5G, 12+, 12A, 12B, and 12AA) located near the southern end of the proposed runway and on one tract (Airport Addition Block 1, Lot 1) at the north end of the runway. Due to the minor amount of additional land involved and the possibility that other minor boundary adjustments may be needed if this project advances to design, the proposed airport property line shown on FIGURE 2--3 and other several other drawings in the Final EA were not changed. The exact land requirements and location of the future airport property line would be established during the land acquisition stage of this project. COMMENT.-, Also on this page regarding REILs; REILs are a visual approach aid that should be considered irregardless of whether or not they have an instrument approach, particularly for this runway that is located in close proximity to existing ambient lighting. This lighting will flash as a strobe and will have potential impacts to adjacent residences, which can be baffled or consideration given to a particular runway end as opposed to both ends in order to better identify against the back drop of adjacent street lighting etc. Please discuss somewhere in the text. RESPONSE: The following text will be added under section 2.4.5 (Final EA page 2-11) identifying REILs as a possible future improvement to navigational aids at the airport. The Sponsor's proposed action may also include the installation of Runway End Identifier Lights (REILs) at one or both ends of the new runway as a part of the initial or future development activities at the airport. REILs visual approach aids that assist approaching pilots identify the G-9 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment runway at night and are particularly beneficial in areas where runway lights are located in close proximity to a variety of existing ambient lighting associated with adjacent residences and businesses and with street and highway systems. A new second paragraph was also added under section 4.14.1 (Final EA page 4-28) describing the potential lighting effects of REII.,s. The new paragraph reads as follows: As indicated previously, the Sponsor's proposed action may include the installation of runway end identifier lights (REILs) at one or both ends of the new runway. REILs would benefit pilots approaching the facility at night, particularly because the runway would be located in close proximity to ambient lighting associated with a variety of adjacent land uses and highway and street lighting. REELS would help to better identify the runway against the backdrop of existing lighting in the area. REILs typically flash as a strobe and could potentially cause lighting impacts to some adjacent residences. To minimize or avoid such effects, REILs can be baffled or consideration can be given to installing the lighting features at one end of the runway end as opposed to both ends. COMMENT. Page G-S, regarding coordination of hwy 93 improvements. Have these plans been drafted to show location of proposed detention facilities or any other parts of the highway project that could impact the airport? Size, location as well as amount of water impoundment (waterfowl attractant potential) are factors that need to be considered whether or not they will have an impact to the existing airport and proposed airport development. It will be incumbent on the City of Kalispell to ensure that this does not create an incompatible land use issue as this could jeopardize future AIP funding for the airport. The ADO would be available to assist in the review of these plans as they become available. RESPONSE: Appropriate sheets from MDT's preliminary Right-of-way Plans depicting the location the proposed storm drain facilities across lands south of the existing Kalispell City Airport property were obtained and reviewed on November 26, 2002. MDT's drawings indicate that the storm drain outfall line from. Highway 93 will be buried within a 60--foot-wide private easement identified as Tract 7C on FIGURE 2-3 (and others) in the Final EA. The line will continue south and west into Tract 6D before "daylighting" into an outfall ditch leading to Ashley Creek. The end of the storm drain outfall line and future outfall ditch would not be within property proposed for acquisition under this airport development project. The proposed initial runway would be built across a portion of Tract 7C and over MDT's buried storm drain line. It is assumed that future land acquisition for the airport across Tract X would need to perpetuate MDTs easement for the storm drain line and allow for them agency to perform maintenance on the pipe if needed. The Sponsor will continue to coordinate with MDT about the exact location of the buried storm drain line across future airport land if this proposed project advances into design and land acquisition. It is apparent from this new information that MDT no longer plans to construct a storm water detention pond in the vicinity. MDT's Ashley Creek --Kalispell project is not expected to result in any other impacts to the proposed airport development. To reflect new information about MDT's proposed storm drainage facilities, the third full paragraph on page 4-20 of the Final EA was changed to read: The proposed action has the potential to affect a storm drainage facilities being developed by MDT as part of their planned reconstruction of U.S. Highway 93. MDT is currently finalizing G-1 0 Kalispell City Airport Final Environmental Assessment plans for the installation of a new storm drain outfall line across several properties south of the existing airport identified for future acquisition under this proposed project. The storm drain line will be buried and connect to a new outfall ditch leading to Ashley Creek. The western end of the storm drain outfall line and outfall ditch would be located immediately south of the proposed new apron area on land not required for this airport development project. MDT plans to secure easements from existing property owners for the installation of the storm drainage facilities. COMMENT: Otte item that still needs to be addressed is confirmation by USFWS that they concur in the habitat analysis that was done, for threatened and endangered species. (see my comment 5-19-2002) RESPONSE: The USFWS was provided with a copy of the Biological Resources Memorandum for the proposed project on September 6, 2002 and we requested the USFWS concur with the analyses in the memo. The USFWS concurred with the analysis and conclusions regarding threatened and endangered species in a letter dated September 19, 2002. Although this letter is included in Appendix B, the following text will be added to the end of Section 4.10.1 (on page 4-25 of the Final EA: "USFWS concurred with the above assessments of potential effects to threatened and endangered species and their habitats in correspondence dated September 19, 2002. A copy of the USFWS's concurrence letter can be found in APPENDIX B." G-11